Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82) vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

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

76

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

72

Runner-up

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

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

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
1.39x
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V.

competitors

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

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Super zoom

$488 - $498

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Zoom Much less zoom
Nikon Coolpix B700

Nikon Coolpix B700

Super zoom

$349 - $447

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Size Smaller
Wide angle Worse wide angle
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Super zoom

$350

Battery life Longer battery life
Longest exposure Slightly longer exposures
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Super zoom

$379 - $591

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Nikon Coolpix B700

Nikon Coolpix B700

Super zoom

$349 - $447

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Zoom More zoom
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Super zoom

$350 - $449

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Zoom Significantly more zoom
Supports 24p No 24p support

discussion

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

Report a correction
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V
Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments