Updated (February 2011): Compare the Canon ELPH 300 HS vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 vs Canon ELPH 300 HS

Tie
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78

53

Canon ELPH 300 HS

51

Tie

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2.5
Large screen
Screen size
3.5"
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Long exposures
Longest exposure
60 seconds
 

Reasons to buy the Canon ELPH 300 HS

Size
Really small
Super compact (92×56×20 mm)
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 23 sample photos taken by the Canon ELPH 300 HS.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Travel zoom

$610

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Screen size Much smaller screen
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Pro digicam

$648

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Aperture Wider aperture
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Travel zoom

$251

Zoom Much more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Screen size Much smaller screen

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 110 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 110 HS

Compact

$264

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Continuous shooting Shoots slightly slower
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$699

Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78
Lumix DMC-FX78
Panasonic

Report a correction
Canon ELPH 300 HS
ELPH 300 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments