Canon PowerShot SX230 HS vs Canon PowerShot ELPH 520 HS

Winner
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS

49

Canon ELPH 520 HS

42

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX230 HS

Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/3200 of a second
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot ELPH 520 HS

Size
Really small
Ultra compact (87×54×19 mm)
Thickness
Thin
0.7"
Weight
Light-weight
155 g
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/4000 of a second

galleries

Explore our gallery of 23 sample photos taken by the Canon ELPH 520 HS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX230 HS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX220 HS

Canon PowerShot SX220 HS

Travel zoom

$359 - $393

GPS No built-in GPS
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Travel zoom

$198 - $229

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Travel zoom

$279

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon ELPH 520 HS Competitors

Canon ELPH 530 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 530 HS

Ultra compact

$220

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Thickness Slightly thicker
Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Travel zoom

$279

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Zoom Significantly more zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
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

discussion

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS
PowerShot SX230 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon ELPH 520 HS
PowerShot ELPH 520 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments