Canon Powershot S100 vs Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100v

Winner
Canon Powershot S100

48

Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100v

38

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot S100

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
Really small
Size
Compact (99×60×28 mm)
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100v

Battery life
Great battery life
410 shots
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
GPS
Built-in GPS
Great for travel

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon Powershot S100.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100v.

competitors

Canon Powershot S100 Competitors

Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$429

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Wide angle Significantly worse wide angle
Canon PowerShot S200

Canon PowerShot S200

Pro digicam

$305

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot G9 X

Canon PowerShot G9 X

Pro digicam

$399

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Overall image quality Much better image quality
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100v Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

Super zoom

$448

Zoom Significantly more zoom
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Battery life Significantly shorter battery life
Canon Powershot SX40

Canon Powershot SX40

Super zoom

$395

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen size Much smaller screen
Nikon Coolpix P900

Nikon Coolpix P900

Super zoom

$499 - $597

Zoom Much more zoom
Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Size Significantly larger

discussion

Canon Powershot S100
Powershot S100
Canon

Report a correction
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100v
Cybershot DSC-HX100v
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments