Canon PowerShot ELPH 520 HS vs Canon ELPH 300 HS

Tie
Canon ELPH 520 HS

53

Canon ELPH 300 HS

51

Tie

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot ELPH 520 HS

Large screen
Screen size
3"
Really small
Size
Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
Thin
Thickness
0.7"
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
 

Reasons to buy the Canon ELPH 300 HS

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/2.7
Wide angle
Wide angle lens
24 mm
Size
Really small
Super compact (92×56×20 mm)
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 23 sample photos taken by the Canon ELPH 300 HS.
Explore our gallery of 23 sample photos taken by the Canon ELPH 520 HS.

competitors

Canon ELPH 520 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS

Travel zoom

$159

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Aperture Wider aperture
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon ELPH 530 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 530 HS

Ultra compact

$214

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Thickness Slightly thicker
Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS

Travel zoom

$119 - $130

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
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

$209

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS

Travel zoom

$188 - $199

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Compact

$264

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Continuous shooting Shoots slightly slower

discussion

Canon ELPH 520 HS
PowerShot ELPH 520 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon ELPH 300 HS
ELPH 300 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments