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

65

Fujifilm FinePix XP50

43

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
Large screen
Screen size
3"
Really small
Size
Super compact (93×57×20 mm)
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm FinePix XP50

Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 30fps
Waterproof
Waterproof
Great at the beach
Size
Really small
Compact (99×68×26 mm)
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 180

Canon PowerShot ELPH 180

Travel zoom

$99 - $109

Battery life Longer battery life
Zoom Slightly more zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W710

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W710

Compact

$90

Battery life Longer battery life
Weight Lighter
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$649

Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Fujifilm FinePix XP50 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix S30

Nikon Coolpix S30

Waterproof

$110

Aperture Wider aperture
Battery life Longer battery life
Movie format Lower resolution movies
Olympus Stylus Tough-3000

Olympus Stylus Tough-3000

Waterproof

$400

Aperture Wider aperture
Size Smaller
Movie format Lower resolution movies
Nikon Coolpix S33

Nikon Coolpix S33

Waterproof

$138

Aperture Wider aperture
Continuous shooting Shoots faster
Movie format Lower resolution movies

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