Updated (August 2013): Compare the Canon PowerShot S110 vs Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120 vs Canon PowerShot S110

Winner
Canon PowerShot S120

56

Canon PowerShot S110

48

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot S120

Built-in flash
Built-in flash
Usually standard
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot S110

Size
Really small
Compact (99×59×27 mm)
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Thickness
Thin
1.1"
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
Usually standard

galleries

Explore our gallery of 7 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot S120.

competitors

Canon PowerShot S120 Competitors

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Pro digicam

$453 - $579

Sensor size Much larger sensor
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot G9 X

Canon PowerShot G9 X

Pro digicam

$399

Sensor size Much larger sensor
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot S200

Canon PowerShot S200

Pro digicam

$199

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Size Smaller
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon PowerShot S110 Competitors

Canon Powershot S100

Canon Powershot S100

Pro digicam

$353

Dynamic range More dynamic range
GPS Has a GPS
Touch screen No touch screen
Canon PowerShot G7 X

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Pro digicam

$453 - $579

Sensor size Much larger sensor
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$498

Sensor size Much larger sensor
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon PowerShot S120
PowerShot S120
Canon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot S110
PowerShot S110
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments