Updated (January 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS vs Canon ELPH 300 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS vs Canon ELPH 300 HS

Tie
Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

53

Canon ELPH 300 HS

51

Tie

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2.7
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
 

Reasons to buy the Canon ELPH 300 HS

Size
Really small
Super compact (92×56×20 mm)
Thickness
Thin
0.8"
Aperture
Wide aperture
f/2.7
Wide angle
Wide angle lens
24 mm

galleries

Explore our gallery of 8 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS.
Explore our gallery of 23 sample photos taken by the Canon ELPH 300 HS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS Competitors

Olympus Stylus Tough TG-870

Olympus Stylus Tough TG-870

Waterproof

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon ELPH 100 HS

Canon ELPH 100 HS

Compact

$160

Continuous shooting Shoots slightly faster
Lowest price Cheaper
Wide angle Significantly worse wide angle
Nikon Coolpix S7000

Nikon Coolpix S7000

Travel zoom

$230

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Continuous shooting Shoots faster
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon ELPH 300 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Travel zoom

$199

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS

Travel zoom

$149

Zoom Slightly more zoom
Lowest price Cheaper
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon ELPH 310 HS

Canon ELPH 310 HS

Travel zoom

$225

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Wide angle Significantly worse wide angle

discussion

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS
PowerShot ELPH 110 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon ELPH 300 HS
ELPH 300 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments