Updated (September 2011): Compare the Canon ELPH 310 HS vs Canon Powershot S100

Canon Powershot S100 vs Canon ELPH 310 HS

Winner
Canon Powershot S100

56

Canon ELPH 310 HS

48

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot S100

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
9.6 fps
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
 

Reasons to buy the Canon ELPH 310 HS

Size
Really small
Super compact (96×57×22 mm)
Macro focus
Great macro
1.0 cm
Thickness
Thin
0.9"
Weight
Light-weight
140 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 1 sample photo taken by the Canon ELPH 310 HS.
Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon Powershot S100.

competitors

Canon Powershot S100 Competitors

Canon PowerShot S110

Canon PowerShot S110

Pro digicam

$499

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
GPS No built-in GPS
Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120

Pro digicam

$449 - $565

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot S200

Canon PowerShot S200

Pro digicam

$199

Overall image quality Better image quality
Aperture Wider aperture
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon ELPH 310 HS Competitors

Polaroid Z2300 Instant Digital Camera

Polaroid Z2300 Instant Digital Camera

Digicam

$100

Lowest price Significantly cheaper
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS

Travel zoom

$119

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Zoom Slightly more zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Travel zoom

$187 - $199

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon Powershot S100
Powershot S100
Canon

Report a correction
Canon ELPH 310 HS
ELPH 310 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments