Updated (September 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot S110 vs Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Canon PowerShot S110 vs Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Winner
Canon PowerShot S110

70

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

41

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot S110

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2
Really small
Size
Compact (99×59×27 mm)
High ISO
Light sensitivity
12,800 ISO
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Zoom
Great zoom
20x
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
GPS
Built-in GPS
Great for travel
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/3200 of a second

galleries

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

competitors

Canon PowerShot S110 Competitors

Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120

Pro digicam

$349

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Overall image quality Better image quality
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon Powershot S100

Canon Powershot S100

Pro digicam

$272

GPS Has a GPS
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Touch screen No touch screen
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$398

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Travel zoom

$240

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Travel zoom

$265 - $279

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX240 HS

Canon PowerShot SX240 HS

Travel zoom

$269

Battery life Longer battery life
Weight Slightly lighter
GPS No built-in GPS

discussion

Canon PowerShot S110
PowerShot S110
Canon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
PowerShot SX260 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments