Updated (September 2011): Compare the Canon IXUS 220 HS vs Canon Powershot S100

Canon Powershot S100 vs Canon IXUS 220 HS

Winner
Canon Powershot S100

60

Canon IXUS 220 HS

53

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot S100

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2
Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
Really small
Size
Compact (99×60×28 mm)
 

Reasons to buy the Canon IXUS 220 HS

Size
Really small
Super compact (92×56×20 mm)
Thickness
Thin
0.8"
Weight
Light-weight
141 g
Wide angle
Wide angle lens
24 mm

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon IXUS 220 HS.
Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon Powershot S100.

competitors

Canon Powershot S100 Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Travel zoom

$229

Zoom Much more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$435 - $448

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
True resolution Much higher true resolution
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Travel zoom

$448

Zoom Much more zoom
Battery life Much longer battery life
Aperture Much narrower aperture

Canon IXUS 220 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS

Travel zoom

$149

Zoom Slightly more zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS

Travel zoom

$199

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX220

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX220

Travel zoom

$198 - $218

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon Powershot S100
Powershot S100
Canon

Report a correction
Canon IXUS 220 HS
IXUS 220 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments