Updated (May 2013): Compare the Samsung NX2000 vs Samsung NX210

Samsung NX2000 vs Samsung NX210

Winner
Samsung NX2000

100

Samsung NX210

82

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX2000

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
908 ISO
Large screen
Screen size
3.7"
High resolution screen
Screen resolution
1,152k dots
High ISO
Light sensitivity
25,600 ISO
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX210

Screen type
OLED Screen
Bright and vivid
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Thickness
Thin
1.5"
Weight
Light-weight
222 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX2000.

competitors

Samsung NX2000 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Super zoom

$497 - $617

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Screen size Much smaller screen
Samsung NX300

Samsung NX300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$554 body only

$730 with 20-50mm lens

Screen type Has an OLED screen
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen size Much smaller screen
Samsung NX3000

Samsung NX3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$446 body only

$599 with 16-50mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen size Much smaller screen

Samsung NX210 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$152 - $171

Battery life Much longer battery life
Built-in flash Built-in flash
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen
Samsung NX300

Samsung NX300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$554 body only

$730 with 20-50mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Screen size Much larger screen
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Nikon 1 V1

Nikon 1 V1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$495 body only

$580 with 10-30mm lens

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
Overall image quality Much worse image quality

discussion

Samsung NX2000
NX2000
Samsung

Report a correction
Samsung NX210
NX210
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments