Updated (September 2011): Compare the Canon Powershot S100 vs Canon PowerShot G12

Canon Powershot S100 vs Canon PowerShot G12

Winner
Canon Powershot S100

47

Canon PowerShot G12

40

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot S100

Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G12

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Macro focus
Great macro
1.0 cm
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Tunnel
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon Powershot S100.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot G12.

competitors

Canon Powershot S100 Competitors

Canon PowerShot S110

Canon PowerShot S110

Pro digicam

$600

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120

Pro digicam

$562

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot S200

Canon PowerShot S200

Pro digicam

$199

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Overall image quality Better image quality
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon PowerShot G12 Competitors

Canon PowerShot G16

Canon PowerShot G16

Pro digicam

$417 - $499

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot G15

Canon PowerShot G15

Pro digicam

$444

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Canon PowerShot G11

Canon PowerShot G11

Pro digicam

Battery life Much longer battery life
Weight Slightly lighter
Supports 24p No 24p support

discussion

Canon Powershot S100
Powershot S100
Canon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot G12
PowerShot G12
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments