Canon PowerShot SX510 HS vs Canon PowerShot SX210 IS

Winner
Canon PowerShot SX510 HS

34

Canon PowerShot SX210 IS

30

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS

High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
Great macro
Macro focus
0.0 cm
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX210 IS

Size
Really small
Compact (106×59×32 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.3"
Weight
Light-weight
220 g
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/3200 of a second

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX210 IS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX510 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX410 IS

Canon PowerShot SX410 IS

Super zoom

$179

Zoom More zoom
Fastest shutter speed Much faster max shutter speed
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX520 HS

Canon PowerShot SX520 HS

Super zoom

$159

Zoom More zoom
Focus points Slightly more focus points
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX530 HS

Canon PowerShot SX530 HS

Super zoom

$229 - $249

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Autofocus Faster autofocus
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon PowerShot SX210 IS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Travel zoom

$187 - $199

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Aperture Significantly narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Travel zoom

$228 - $299

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Aperture Slightly narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot SX220 HS

Canon PowerShot SX220 HS

Travel zoom

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Supports 24p Supports 24p

discussion

Canon PowerShot SX510 HS
PowerShot SX510 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX210 IS
PowerShot SX210 IS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments