As well as being compared against other ultra compacts and travel zooms, the Canon ELPH 520 HS is also often compared to mirrorless, pro digicams, compacts and digicams. The Canon ELPH 520 HS's top rivals come from Canon (such as the PowerShot SD200 and the ELPH 100 HS) and Nikon (such as the Coolpix S9300 and the 1 S1)

compared toUltra compact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Canon ELPH 520 HS compared to other ultra compact competitors include: it has a much wider wide angle lens (28 mm vs 33 mm), has a significantly larger screen (3" vs 2"), has a slightly higher resolution screen (461k dots vs 230k dots), has better image stabilization (lens vs none) and takes slightly higher resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 5 MP).

However, on average it doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs tunnel).

Canon PowerShot SD200

Placeholder
7 years older
$453

Significant advantages of the SD200 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the SD200 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

common strengths of the SD200 and ELPH 520 HS

  • None found

Canon PowerShot ELPH 530 HS

Canon ELPH 530 HS
similar age
$280

Significant advantages of the ELPH 530 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the ELPH 530 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

common strengths of the ELPH 530 HS and ELPH 520 HS

  • None found

Canon PowerShot SD780 IS

Canon PowerShot SD780 IS
2 years older

Significant advantages of the SD780 IS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the SD780 IS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

common strengths of the SD780 IS and ELPH 520 HS

  • None found

Canon PowerShot SD400

Placeholder
6 years older

Significant advantages of the SD400 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the SD400 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

common strengths of the SD400 and ELPH 520 HS

  • None found

compared toTravel zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Canon ELPH 520 HS compared to other travel zoom competitors include: it is significantly smaller (ultra compact (87×54×19 mm) vs compact (109×62×31 mm)), has better image stabilization (lens vs sensor shift), has a CMOS-family sensor (CMOS vs CCD), is thinner (0.7" vs 1.2") and is slightly lighter (155 g vs 188 g).

However, on average it has a significantly narrower wide angle lens (28 mm vs 25 mm), doesn't have a built-in GPS, has a slightly shorter battery life (190 shots vs 300 shots) and is older (january 2012 vs january 2014).

Nikon Coolpix S9300

Nikon Coolpix S9300
similar age

Significant advantages of the S9300 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has a GPS
  • Significantly better wide angle: 25 mm vs 28 mm
  • Significantly higher resolution screen: 921k dots vs 461k dots

Significant disadvantages of the S9300 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much larger: Compact (109×62×31 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Much thicker: 1.2" vs 0.7"
  • Heavier: 215 g vs 155 g

common strengths of the S9300 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Fairly small: Compact (109×62×31 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.2" vs 0.7"
  • Very light: 215 g vs 155 g

Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS
2 years newer

Significant advantages of the 340 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly better wide angle: 25 mm vs 28 mm

Significant disadvantages of the 340 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the 340 HS and ELPH 520 HS

  • Very small: Compact (100×58×22 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.7"
  • Very light: 147 g vs 155 g

Samsung WB150F

Samsung WB150F
similar age

Significant advantages of the WB150F (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly better wide angle: 24 mm vs 28 mm

Significant disadvantages of the WB150F (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Larger: Compact (107×60×23 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the WB150F and ELPH 520 HS

  • Very small: Compact (107×60×23 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.7"
  • Very light: 188 g vs 155 g

Olympus VH-510

Olympus VH-510
similar age

Significant advantages of the VH-510 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly better wide angle: 25 mm vs 28 mm

Significant disadvantages of the VH-510 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • No built-in flash
  • Significantly larger: Compact (100×65×26 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Worse image stabilization:
    1. Sensor shift
    vs
    1. Lens

common strengths of the VH-510 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Very small: Compact (100×65×26 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 1" vs 0.7"
  • Very light: 190 g vs 155 g

Canon PowerShot ELPH 160

Canon PowerShot ELPH 160
3 years newer
$134

Significant advantages of the ELPH 160 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the ELPH 160 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Worse image stabilization:
    1. Digital
    vs
    1. Lens
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the ELPH 160 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Very small: Super compact (95×54×22 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.7"
  • Very light: 127 g vs 155 g

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50
3 years newer
$279

Significant advantages of the DMC-ZS50 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly better wide angle: 24 mm vs 28 mm
  • Significantly more zoom: 30x vs 12x
  • Significantly higher resolution screen: 1,040k dots vs 461k dots

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-ZS50 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much larger: Compact (111×65×34 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Much thicker: 1.3" vs 0.7"
  • Significantly heavier: 243 g vs 155 g

common strengths of the DMC-ZS50 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Fairly small: Compact (111×65×34 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.3" vs 0.7"
  • Light weight: 243 g vs 155 g

compared toMirrorless interchangeable-lens competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Canon ELPH 520 HS compared to mirrorless interchangeable-lens competitors include: it has image stabilization (lens vs none), records movies in 24p, is thinner (0.7" vs 1.3"), is slightly lighter (155 g vs 298 g) and has a built-in flash.

However, on average it records higher quality movies (1080p @ 24fps vs 1080p @ 60fps), has a significantly lower resolution screen (461k dots vs 1,040k dots), records less high-speed movies (240 fps vs 1,200 fps), takes slightly lower resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 17.9 MP) and doesn't have a touch screen.

Canon EOS M

Canon EOS M
6 months newer
$469 - $629 (body only)
$649 - $749 15-45mm lens

Significant advantages of the EOS M (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much higher resolution screen: 1,040k dots vs 461k dots
  • Has a touch screen
  • Has interchangeable lenses

Significant disadvantages of the EOS M (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Doesn't record high-speed movies: None vs 240 fps
  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Lens
  • No built-in flash

common strengths of the EOS M and ELPH 520 HS

  • Fairly small: Compact (109×66×32 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.3" vs 0.7"
  • Light weight: 298 g vs 155 g

Nikon 1 S1

Nikon 1 S1
1 year newer
$129 11-2mm lens

Significant advantages of the S1 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has interchangeable lenses
  • Faster autofocus: Phase detection vs Contrast detection

Significant disadvantages of the S1 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • No 24p support

common strengths of the S1 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Extremely high speed movies: 1,200 fps vs 240 fps
  • Fairly small: Compact (102×61×30 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.2" vs 0.7"

compared toPro digicam competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Canon ELPH 520 HS compared to pro digicam competitors include: it is significantly smaller (ultra compact (87×54×19 mm) vs compact (102×58×36 mm)), is thinner (0.7" vs 1.4"), is slightly lighter (155 g vs 198 g), is slightly less expensive ($237.88 vs $439.00) and has a faster max shutter speed (1/4000 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second).

However, on average it has a slightly smaller sensor (1/2.3" 6.17x4.55mm vs 1" 13.2x8.8mm), has a significantly narrower aperture (f/3.4 vs f/1.8), has a slightly narrower wide angle lens (28 mm vs 24 mm), has a slightly lower resolution screen (461k dots vs 1,229k dots) and takes slightly lower resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 20 MP).

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100
4 months newer
$403 - $448

Significant advantages of the DSC-RX100 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much larger sensor: 1" 13.2x8.8mm vs 1/2.3" 6.17x4.55mm
  • Much wider aperture: f/1.8 vs f/3.4
  • Much higher resolution screen: 1,229k dots vs 461k dots

Significant disadvantages of the DSC-RX100 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much larger: Compact (102×58×36 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Much thicker: 1.4" vs 0.7"
  • Heavier: 213 g vs 155 g

common strengths of the DSC-RX100 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Light weight: 213 g vs 155 g
  • Inexpensive: $403.11 vs $237.88

Canon PowerShot S110

Canon PowerShot S110
8 months newer
$439

Significant advantages of the S110 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly wider aperture: f/2 vs f/3.4
  • Significantly better wide angle: 24 mm vs 28 mm
  • Better maximum light sensitivity: 12,800 ISO vs 3,200 ISO

Significant disadvantages of the S110 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly larger: Compact (99×59×27 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Significantly thicker: 1.1" vs 0.7"
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the S110 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Fairly small: Compact (99×59×27 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.1" vs 0.7"
  • Light weight: 198 g vs 155 g

Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS

Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS
1 year older

Significant advantages of the SD4000 IS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly wider aperture: f/2 vs f/3.4

Significant disadvantages of the SD4000 IS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly slower max shutter speed: 1/2500 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the SD4000 IS and ELPH 520 HS

  • Very small: Super compact (100×54×23 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.7"
  • Light weight: 175 g vs 155 g

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Canon ELPH 520 HS compared to compact competitors include: it has a slightly higher resolution screen (461k dots vs 230k dots), has better image stabilization (lens vs none), has a CMOS-family sensor (CMOS vs CCD), has a slightly longer battery life (190 shots vs 170 shots) and is newer (january 2012 vs february 2010).

However, on average it has a slightly narrower aperture (f/3.4 vs f/2.7) and slightly shorter exposures (15 seconds vs 60 seconds).

Canon ELPH 100 HS

Canon ELPH 100 HS
1 year older

Significant advantages of the 100 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the 100 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/1500 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the 100 HS and ELPH 520 HS

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Very small: Super compact (93×56×20 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Larger than average screens: 3" vs 3"

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS
similar age
$299

Significant advantages of the ELPH 110 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly better wide angle: 24 mm vs 28 mm

Significant disadvantages of the ELPH 110 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the ELPH 110 HS and ELPH 520 HS

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Very small: Super compact (93×57×20 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Larger than average screens: 3" vs 3"

Canon ELPH 320 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 320 HS
similar age
$299

Significant advantages of the 320 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Significantly better wide angle: 24 mm vs 28 mm
  • Has a touch screen

Significant disadvantages of the 320 HS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the 320 HS and ELPH 520 HS

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Fairly small: Super compact (94×57×21 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Larger than average screens: 3.2" vs 3"

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH1
2 years older

Significant advantages of the DMC-FH1 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much longer exposures: 60 seconds vs 15 seconds

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FH1 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/1600 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the DMC-FH1 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Fairly small: Super compact (98×55×23 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens

Canon PowerShot SD450

Placeholder
6 years older

Significant advantages of the SD450 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has a viewfinder: Tunnel vs None

Significant disadvantages of the SD450 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Lens
  • Much worse wide angle: 35 mm vs 28 mm
  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS

common strengths of the SD450 and ELPH 520 HS

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Very small: Super compact (86×54×22 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.7"

Canon PowerShot SD1300 IS

Canon PowerShot SD1300 IS
1 year older
$250

Significant advantages of the SD1300 IS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the SD1300 IS (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/1500 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the SD1300 IS and ELPH 520 HS

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Fairly small: Super compact (91×56×22 mm) vs Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens

compared toDigicam competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Canon ELPH 520 HS compared to digicam competitors include: it has a much wider wide angle lens (28 mm vs 42 mm), has a much larger screen (3" vs 1.8"), has a slightly higher resolution screen (461k dots vs 230k dots), has better image stabilization (lens vs none) and takes slightly higher resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 0.3 MP).

Samsung ES75

Samsung ES75
1 year older

Significant advantages of the ES75 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the ES75 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Worse image stabilization:
    1. Digital
    vs
    1. Lens
  • Lower resolution screen: 230k dots vs 461k dots

common strengths of the ES75 and ELPH 520 HS

  • None found

Canon PowerShot 350

Canon PowerShot 350
14 years older

Significant advantages of the PowerShot 350 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the PowerShot 350 (vs the ELPH 520 HS)

  • Much worse wide angle: 42 mm vs 28 mm
  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Lens
  • Much smaller screen: 1.8" vs 3"

common strengths of the PowerShot 350 and ELPH 520 HS

  • None found