Samsung NX200 vs Samsung NX100

Winner
Samsung NX200

61

Samsung NX100

45

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX200

Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
12.6 EV
High true resolution
True resolution
20 MP
Really small
Size
Mid size (117×63×36 mm)
Light-weight
Weight
200 g
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX100

Thickness
Thin
1.4"
Screen size
Large screen
3"
Screen type
OLED Screen
Bright and vivid
Live view
Has live view
Preview your photos

galleries

Explore our gallery of 21 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX100.

competitors

Samsung NX200 Competitors

Samsung NX300

Samsung NX300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$689 body only

$650 with 18-55mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Screen size Much larger screen
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life
Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$449 with 15-45mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen
Samsung NX3000

Samsung NX3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$406 body only

$520 with 16-50mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen

Samsung NX100 Competitors

Samsung NX1000

Samsung NX1000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$530 with 20-50mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen
Sony Alpha DSLR-A290

Sony Alpha DSLR-A290

Entry-level DSLR

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Screen size Much smaller screen
Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$479 body only

$299 with 18-55mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Lens availability Much more lenses available
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Samsung NX200
NX200
Samsung

Report a correction
Samsung NX100
NX100
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments