Updated (January 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS vs Fujifilm FinePix XP50

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS vs Fujifilm FinePix XP50

Winner
Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

52

Fujifilm FinePix XP50

35

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"
Really small
Size
Super compact (93×57×20 mm)
 

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm FinePix XP50

HDR
In-camera HDR
Combines multiple exposures
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
Waterproof
Waterproof
Great at the beach
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light

galleries

Explore our gallery of 8 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS.
Explore our gallery of 13 sample photos taken by the Fujifilm FinePix XP50.

competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 160

Canon PowerShot ELPH 160

Travel zoom

$99

Battery life Longer battery life
Zoom Slightly more zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS

Travel zoom

$114 - $119

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

Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS

Travel zoom

$158 - $159

GPS Has a GPS
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Fujifilm FinePix XP50 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix S33

Nikon Coolpix S33

Waterproof

$99 - $107

Aperture Wider aperture
Continuous shooting Shoots faster
Wide angle Worse wide angle
Fujifilm XP90

Fujifilm XP90

Waterproof

$179 - $200

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen size Much larger screen
Size Larger
Fujifilm FinePix XP60

Fujifilm FinePix XP60

Waterproof

$155

3D Takes 3D photos
Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
Battery life Shorter battery life

discussion

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS
PowerShot ELPH 110 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Fujifilm FinePix XP50
FinePix XP50
Fujifilm

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments