Updated (January 2012): Compare the Canon ELPH 100 HS vs Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS vs Canon ELPH 100 HS

Winner
Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

52

Canon ELPH 100 HS

49

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2.7
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
Large screen
Screen size
3"
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Canon ELPH 100 HS

Screen size
Large screen
3"
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon ELPH 100 HS.
Explore our gallery of 8 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS Competitors

Canon ELPH 300 HS

Canon ELPH 300 HS

Compact

$250

Continuous shooting Shoots faster
Size Slightly smaller
Screen size Much smaller screen
Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Travel zoom

$199

Zoom More zoom
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS

Travel zoom

$159

GPS Has a GPS
Battery life Significantly longer battery life
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon ELPH 100 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 180

Canon PowerShot ELPH 180

Travel zoom

$109

Zoom Slightly more zoom
Weight Slightly lighter
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Travel zoom

$199

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon ELPH 300 HS

Canon ELPH 300 HS

Compact

$250

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Aperture Slightly wider aperture
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS
PowerShot ELPH 110 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon ELPH 100 HS
ELPH 100 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments