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

50

Canon ELPH 310 HS

40

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/3200 of a second
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Canon ELPH 310 HS

Size
Really small
Super compact (96×57×22 mm)
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
8.7 fps
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 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Travel zoom

$310 - $379

Zoom Much 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

$315

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Lowest price Cheaper
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Travel zoom

$198 - $229

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Size Smaller
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 Cheaper
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon ELPH 300 HS

Canon ELPH 300 HS

Compact

$322

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Aperture Wider aperture
Screen size Much smaller screen
Canon PowerShot ELPH 320 HS

Canon ELPH 320 HS

Compact

$175

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Continuous shooting Shoots significantly slower

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