Updated (August 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot SX160 IS vs Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS vs Canon PowerShot SX160 IS

Winner
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

50

Canon PowerShot SX160 IS

37

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX160 IS

Battery life
Great battery life
380 shots
Macro focus
Great macro
1.0 cm

galleries

Explore our gallery of 47 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX160 IS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Travel zoom

$310 - $379

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
GPS No built-in GPS
Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Travel zoom

$315

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Travel zoom

$198 - $229

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Battery life Longer battery life
GPS No built-in GPS

Canon PowerShot SX160 IS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX170 IS

Canon PowerShot SX170 IS

Travel zoom

$200

Weight Slightly lighter
Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Battery life Shorter battery life
Nikon Coolpix S7000

Nikon Coolpix S7000

Travel zoom

$139 - $227

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Battery life Much shorter battery life
Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Travel zoom

$279

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Battery life Shorter battery life

discussion

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
PowerShot SX260 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX160 IS
PowerShot SX160 IS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments