Updated (September 2011): Compare the Canon Powershot S100 vs Casio Exilim EX-FH100

Canon Powershot S100 vs Casio Exilim EX-FH100

Winner
Canon Powershot S100

55

Casio Exilim EX-FH100

37

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot S100

Really small
Size
Compact (99×60×28 mm)
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
9.6 fps
Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
 

Reasons to buy the Casio Exilim EX-FH100

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
1,000 fps
Size
Really small
Compact (104×60×28 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.1"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon Powershot S100.
Explore our gallery of 3 sample photos taken by the Casio Exilim EX-FH100.

competitors

Canon Powershot S100 Competitors

Canon PowerShot S110

Canon PowerShot S110

Pro digicam

$332

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
GPS No built-in GPS
Canon PowerShot G7 X

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Pro digicam

$528 - $649

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Touch screen Has a touch screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120

Pro digicam

$576

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

Casio Exilim EX-FH100 Competitors

Samsung NX Mini

Samsung NX Mini

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$191 body only

$399 with 9-27mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
True resolution Much higher true resolution
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000

Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000

Travel zoom

$296

Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Size Significantly larger
Casio Exilim EX-ZR100

Casio Exilim ZR100

Travel zoom

$220

Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Size Slightly larger

discussion

Canon Powershot S100
Powershot S100
Canon

Report a correction
Casio Exilim EX-FH100
Exilim EX-FH100
Casio

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments