Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82) vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)

72

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

68

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
1,040k dots
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
20 mm
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Battery life
Great battery life
400 shots
Wide angle
Wide angle lens
20 mm
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82) Competitors

Nikon Coolpix B700

Nikon Coolpix B700

Super zoom

$339 - $450

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Size Smaller
Wide angle Much worse wide angle
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

Super zoom

$398

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
GPS Has a GPS
Wide angle Much worse wide angle
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Super zoom

$474 - $498

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Wide angle Much worse wide angle

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix B500

Nikon Coolpix B500

Super zoom

$219 - $257

Battery life Much longer battery life
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Wide angle Significantly worse wide angle
Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Super zoom

$338 - $449

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Aperture Narrower aperture
Nikon Coolpix P900

Nikon Coolpix P900

Super zoom

$479 - $597

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Zoom More zoom
Wide angle Much worse wide angle

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)
Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)
Panasonic

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70
Lumix DMC-FZ70
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments