Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

65

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V

49

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.4
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
120 fps
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V

Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
1900 ms startup delay
GPS
Built-in GPS
Great for travel
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
3D
Takes 3D photos
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Boutique

$599 - $698

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Sensor size Much larger sensor
Built-in flash No built-in flash
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$398

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Overall image quality Better image quality
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Travel zoom

$298

Zoom More zoom
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Aperture Much narrower aperture

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V

Travel zoom

$290

Zoom More zoom
Battery life Longer battery life
Macro focus Much worse macro capability
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Travel zoom

$398

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Aperture Narrower aperture
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX9v

Sony Cybershot DSC-HX9v

Travel zoom

$168

Wide angle Slightly better wide angle
Lowest price Cheaper
Macro focus Much worse macro capability

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7
Lumix DMC-LX7
Panasonic

Report a correction
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V
Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments