Updated (February 2012): Compare the Canon ELPH 310 HS vs Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS vs Canon ELPH 310 HS

Winner
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

64

Canon ELPH 310 HS

52

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
In-camera panoramas
Panorama
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
 

Reasons to buy the Canon ELPH 310 HS

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/3
Size
Really small
Super compact (96×57×22 mm)
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
8.7 fps
Macro focus
Great macro
1.0 cm

galleries

Explore our gallery of 1 sample photo taken by the Canon ELPH 310 HS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Travel zoom

$265 - $299

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Travel zoom

$265

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Supports 24p No 24p support
Nikon Coolpix S7000

Nikon Coolpix S7000

Travel zoom

$197

Size Smaller
Continuous shooting Shoots significantly faster
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon ELPH 310 HS Competitors

Canon ELPH 300 HS

Canon ELPH 300 HS

Compact

$229

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Aperture Wider aperture
Screen size Much smaller screen
Polaroid Z2300 Instant Digital Camera

Polaroid Z2300 Instant Digital Camera

Digicam

$100

Lowest price 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 More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
PowerShot SX260 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon ELPH 310 HS
ELPH 310 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments