Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 vs Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)

Winner
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

73

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)

54

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.8
Great image quality
Overall image quality
66.0
High resolution screen
Screen resolution
1,229k dots
Really small
Size
Compact (102×58×36 mm)
 

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

Zoom
Great zoom
60x
Wide angle
Wide angle lens
20 mm
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100.

competitors

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Travel zoom

$448

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Wide angle Better wide angle
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$367 - $379 with 16-50mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Pro digicam

$698

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Dynamic range Less dynamic range

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

discussion

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100
Cybershot DSC-RX100
Sony

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)
Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments