Updated (January 2012): Compare the Canon IXUS 220 HS vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8 vs Canon IXUS 220 HS

Tie
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8

51

Canon IXUS 220 HS

50

Tie

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2.5
High ISO
Light sensitivity
6,400 ISO
In-camera panoramas
Panorama
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
Great battery life
Battery life
260 shots
 

Reasons to buy the Canon IXUS 220 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
Aperture
Wide aperture
f/2.7

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon IXUS 220 HS.
Explore our gallery of 1 sample photo taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH6

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH6

Compact

$140

Battery life Longer battery life
Lowest price Cheaper
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix FS50

Panasonic Lumix FS50

Ultra compact

$143

Size Slightly smaller
Longest exposure Much longer exposures
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1

Pro digicam

$488

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
3D Takes 3D photos
Wide angle Much worse wide angle

Canon IXUS 220 HS Competitors

Canon IXUS 125 HS

Canon PowerShot IXUS 125 HS

Compact

$205 - $430

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Continuous shooting Shoots slower
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 IXUS 350 HS

Canon PowerShot IXUS 350 HS

Travel zoom

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

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8
Lumix DMC-FH8
Panasonic

Report a correction
Canon IXUS 220 HS
IXUS 220 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments