Canon PowerShot ELPH 300 HS
Canon PowerShot ELPH 300 HS
1
Hey! You should know that Canon has released a newer version of this product: the Canon PowerShot ELPH 310 HS.
Canon PowerShot ELPH 300 HS
| Fetching our Best Offer… |
B+
We've given the ELPH 300 HS a grade of B+.
User comments
This product is ranked
| 8th | of 19 | in $150 - $200 |
| 8th | of 19 | in Ultra Compact Digital Cameras |
| 33rd | of 44 | in Canon Digital Cameras |
| 37th | of 50 | in 11 & 12 MP |
| 43rd | of 66 | in 10-12 Megapixels Digital Cameras |
Editor's Review
Canon's ELPH 300 HS ultra-compact looks like a heck of a pocket camera. On the outside, it looks a lot like one of last year's ELPH models (formerly known as the SD series), but on the inside, it's a big leap forward. It's built around Canon's HS system -- a backside illuminated CMOS sensor and the Digic 4 processor -- which up until now was found only in higher-end Canon compacts. In real-world terms, that means it should be adept at shooting in all settings (yes, including low light), should have short shot-to-shot times, and will shoot a full 1080p HD video. This looks like a great ultra-compact.
Store Ratings and Offer Details for the
Canon PowerShot ELPH 300 HS
| Store Rating | Store Name | Price | Visit Store |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | |||
|
|||
Specifications
- 12.1 megapixels
- CMOS sensor
- 5x optical zoom
- 24mm wide-angle
- Optical image stabilization
- 2.7-inch LCD
- 1080p HD video, 24fps
- Digic 4 processor
- Captures to SD/SDHC/SDXC media cards
- Rechargeable lithium-ion battery
- Release Date: Mar 07, 2011
Canon PowerShot ELPH 300 HS Comments & Questions (write your own!)
good tones (rob bell — 10/25/2012)
I bought this camera after much research for my wife. Alot in a small package. Skin tones are good and on the warm side. I shoot with a D5100 DSLR and am impressed with the results from the little Canon. The delete menu could be better, other than that it's great.
reply to this comment
Tanya T (10/24/2012)
Is this a good camera for taking self Portriats of faces? Im looking for a camera that's good for that and edits the faces nicely and isn't harsh looking on the skin of the pictures. :)
reply to this comment
Chris Weigl (10/24/2012)
Skin harshness will really be decided by the softness of light on your face rather than the camera. For self-portraits I'd take a look at the Samsung PL170, which has a screen on the front so you can see yourself, or the Smasung MV900f, which has a screen that flips vertically.
reply to this comment
Elph 300 vs 100 (Marti — 12/01/2011)
This week both Canon Elph 300 and 100 are selling for the same price at 129. The S100 has a larger screen but shorter zoom. Which camera is better?
reply to this comment
Canon E. 300 vs. Panasonic FH25R (Sara — 09/29/2011)
I am interested in the Canon Elph 300 for the quality of the pictures but my husband says that we can get the same quality or better with the cheaper Panasonic FMC-FH25R. any advice, what am I giving up by getting the Panasonic. The HD video on the Canon is not a big deal to us.
reply to this comment
video time (Sharon — 08/24/2011)
I called Canon and talked to a representative about the video. Yes, she verified that there is a 10 minute time limit on continuous video. You have to press the record button again to continue after 10 minutes. She said that this was common for compact cameras.
reply to this comment
10-minute video shooting limit & bigger file size (Flavio — 08/05/2011)
Hi. I just read an Amazon review about this camera that says that there is a 10-minute limit for continuous video. Additionally, the video file size gets very big. Is it true ?
reply to this comment
Jessica (07/14/2011)
I am trying to decide between the Canon ELPH 300 HS and the Canon SX 130 IS. The size of the camera does not matter to me or the type of battery. I take most pictures of kids activities, vacation scenery, and indoor recitals/concerts. What do you suggest?
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (07/14/2011)
The ELPH 300 is a quicker camera, certainly better for kids' action shots and getting pictures of indoor events. The SX130's zoom would come in handy in those instances, and it'd still get pretty good pictures, but the ELPH 300 is going to be more reliable. Sit as close to the front as you can -- 5x zoom isn't bad, either.
Might be outside your budget, but I'll suggest the SX230 -- best of both worlds. Same speed and picture quality as the ELPH 300, but with an even longer zoom than the SX130.
reply to this comment
Might be outside your budget, but I'll suggest the SX230 -- best of both worlds. Same speed and picture quality as the ELPH 300, but with an even longer zoom than the SX130.
Jessica (07/15/2011)
Thanks for the suggestion, I will consider that one as well. Can you please compare the Nikon Coolpics L120 to the ones we are discussing? Thanks!
reply to this comment
Dave (07/02/2011)
The ELPH 300 can optical zoom while shooting video also. The ELPH 100 can not do this. This is a valuable feature that ads to that extra $50 in price.
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (07/05/2011)
Ah yes, good point. Not sure if that's worth $50 for a lot of folks, but it is there for those who care.
reply to this comment
Tawnya (06/25/2011)
I am one of the people trying to decide between the Canon 100 HS and Canon 300 HS. I noticed the 100 HS was graded at A and ranked 1st often when comparing cameras. The 300 HS received an A- grade and didn't rank as well. I did not notice any major difference between them that would explain the difference. Do you know why the 300 HS doesn't rank as well as the 100 HS?
Thanks!
reply to this comment
Thanks!
Liam McCabe (06/27/2011)
Yes, the 300 HS costs $50 extra, but the only advantages are an extra bit of zoom (5x vs 4x) and a smaller body. It is still a very good camera, just not quite as good of a value as the 100 because of the price.
reply to this comment
ELPH 300 vs 500 (ccarlson — 06/18/2011)
Hi, I am trying to decide between the Canon ELPH 300 and the ELPH 500. I want to use the camera mainly for taking indoor portraits and maybe some video. I really want to be able to take good low lighting shots and I want a camera that focuses on the subject and blurs in the background. From the sample images, the ELPH 500 seems to do that, but does the ELPH 300 do the same thing?
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (06/20/2011)
It would be harder for the ELPH 300 to do that. There are many, many factors that play into the shallow depth of field effect (sharp foreground blurry background), but the main one here is the camera's maximum aperture. A wider aperture allows for a shallow depth of field. The ELPH 500's f/2.0 max aperture is much brighter than the ELPH 300's f/2.8. It's possible with the ELPH 300, but harder to pull off.
reply to this comment
Thank you! (Ricki — 04/20/2011)
Thank you Liam!
For some reason AFTER I wrote my second (repeat) query, my first one appeared. Strange. But no need to respond to second one. We're gonna get the 300 or 100. I'm sold! (Though I like thin and light and unchunky, so it might just be worth it to me to have it so easily slide into my pocket. (Just not into a thief's hand!!)
Is there really no other difference between 300 and 100 but the weight and size?
THANKS!
Ricki
Thanks!!!
reply to this comment
For some reason AFTER I wrote my second (repeat) query, my first one appeared. Strange. But no need to respond to second one. We're gonna get the 300 or 100. I'm sold! (Though I like thin and light and unchunky, so it might just be worth it to me to have it so easily slide into my pocket. (Just not into a thief's hand!!)
Is there really no other difference between 300 and 100 but the weight and size?
THANKS!
Ricki
Thanks!!!
Liam McCabe (04/20/2011)
Yeah sometimes that happens with the responses, some cacheing issue some folks' browsers have.
Anyhow, the 100 and 300 are very, very similar overall, with a few small differences aside from the size.
The 300 has a more versatile lens -- it starts at 24mm instead of 28mm, which the 100 starts at. That basically means the 300 has a wider field of view than the 100, so holding the two cameras side by side looking at the same scene, the 300 will "see" significantly more of the same scene because of its lens. The 300 also has a longer zoom factor (5x compared to 4x). And its lens is very slightly brighter than the 100's -- f/2.7 instead of f/2.8 -- so in theory that should make shooting in poor lighting very slightly easier, but I doubt you'd notice much of a difference in the real world.
Aside from that, the 100 actually has a larger LCD than the 300 -- a 3-inch screen rather than 2.7.
And just to be clear -- both cameras are quite small by anyone's standards, but the 300 happens to be even smaller.
Hope this helps, and good luck -- come back and write a user review after you've bought one.
reply to this comment
Anyhow, the 100 and 300 are very, very similar overall, with a few small differences aside from the size.
The 300 has a more versatile lens -- it starts at 24mm instead of 28mm, which the 100 starts at. That basically means the 300 has a wider field of view than the 100, so holding the two cameras side by side looking at the same scene, the 300 will "see" significantly more of the same scene because of its lens. The 300 also has a longer zoom factor (5x compared to 4x). And its lens is very slightly brighter than the 100's -- f/2.7 instead of f/2.8 -- so in theory that should make shooting in poor lighting very slightly easier, but I doubt you'd notice much of a difference in the real world.
Aside from that, the 100 actually has a larger LCD than the 300 -- a 3-inch screen rather than 2.7.
And just to be clear -- both cameras are quite small by anyone's standards, but the 300 happens to be even smaller.
Hope this helps, and good luck -- come back and write a user review after you've bought one.
mega pixels down from the SD1400? (Ricki — 04/17/2011)
Hi,
We had a Canon ELPH SD1400. Loved it. It was stolen in Mexico. Trying to decide whether to get the same or see if there's something better. The ELPH 300 looks great, but has 12.1 megapixels vs. the 1400's 14.1 megapixels. Why did it go down? What is the actual difference in 12.1 vs 14.1 for kid shots, kid beauty shots, kid action shots, family shots, vacation shots?
I did find the shutter speed of the 1400 at times annoyingly slow. But we did get many gorgeous pictures.
Which camera would you recommend for a mom who is picture crazy but needs an easy one-step point and shoot? With quality of picture being paramount. Followed closely by capability of taking action-moving-wild kid activity pictures?
Thank you.
- Ricki
reply to this comment
We had a Canon ELPH SD1400. Loved it. It was stolen in Mexico. Trying to decide whether to get the same or see if there's something better. The ELPH 300 looks great, but has 12.1 megapixels vs. the 1400's 14.1 megapixels. Why did it go down? What is the actual difference in 12.1 vs 14.1 for kid shots, kid beauty shots, kid action shots, family shots, vacation shots?
I did find the shutter speed of the 1400 at times annoyingly slow. But we did get many gorgeous pictures.
Which camera would you recommend for a mom who is picture crazy but needs an easy one-step point and shoot? With quality of picture being paramount. Followed closely by capability of taking action-moving-wild kid activity pictures?
Thank you.
- Ricki
Liam McCabe (04/18/2011)
Hi Ricki: The ELPH 300 is the direct replacement for the SD1400 (sorry to hear it was stolen by the way) -- you'd immediately be familiar with the controls and in-hand feel, so it seems like a good choice for you. It's funny that you found the SD1400 to be slow -- last year's Canon SD series were all quite fast by my recollection.
Regarding megapixels: It's a big, fat myth that more megapixels means better pictures. Just Google "megapixel myth" and you'll find hundreds of helpful articles explaining why more megapixels are not better, and in many cases actually worse.
Unless you're printing poster-sized prints of your pictures, you never needed 14.1 megapixels to begin with. But it looks good on spec sheets, so manufacturers tend to increase it year after year with little benefit to camera users. 8 or 10 megapixels is all you really need in a compact camera, but you don't really have a choice -- you can only buy what the camera companies sell, and they're selling cameras with overly large megapixel counts.
So with that in mind, I think it's a good thing that Canon scaled back the megapixel count on the ELPH 300. They use a different type of sensor in it, which allows for even faster performance/autofocus, better action and low-light shots, and full HD (1080p) videos. I think the ELPH 300 would be great choice for you because you'd already be familiar with the layout, but you'd do equally as well with the Canon ELPH 100 -- same idea, just a little bit chunkier so it costs $50 less. In my opinion, it's the best affordable point and shoot this year.
reply to this comment
Regarding megapixels: It's a big, fat myth that more megapixels means better pictures. Just Google "megapixel myth" and you'll find hundreds of helpful articles explaining why more megapixels are not better, and in many cases actually worse.
Unless you're printing poster-sized prints of your pictures, you never needed 14.1 megapixels to begin with. But it looks good on spec sheets, so manufacturers tend to increase it year after year with little benefit to camera users. 8 or 10 megapixels is all you really need in a compact camera, but you don't really have a choice -- you can only buy what the camera companies sell, and they're selling cameras with overly large megapixel counts.
So with that in mind, I think it's a good thing that Canon scaled back the megapixel count on the ELPH 300. They use a different type of sensor in it, which allows for even faster performance/autofocus, better action and low-light shots, and full HD (1080p) videos. I think the ELPH 300 would be great choice for you because you'd already be familiar with the layout, but you'd do equally as well with the Canon ELPH 100 -- same idea, just a little bit chunkier so it costs $50 less. In my opinion, it's the best affordable point and shoot this year.
Nick (04/03/2011)
Great camera, love it.
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (04/04/2011)
Awesome -- how is the low-light quality? Supposed to be very good for the price.
reply to this comment
Follow-Up (Trish — 03/30/2011)
Thanks Lia and Nigel for your help! After comparing the 4 choices I had vs many other cameras lol the Canon 300 HS looks like the best one for me even though I'll be missing the zoom ):. I was considering buying 2 cameras but I don't know if that's worth it at this point. I'm going to go into a store to try it out!
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (03/30/2011)
Cool, I think you'll be happy with that one, come back and let us know how it works out for you.
reply to this comment
Jessica (04/01/2011)
I just bought the Elph 300HS on 3/25/2011. The picture quality in low light settings is amazing (pictures came out looking like they were taken during daylight (they were taken outside at 7:30 in the dark) and the 1080HD video quality is truely magnificent.
* Now for the drawback- When transfering video to the computer the quality is not as good and very choppy when compared to being played through the TV hook up or playback on the camera its self. It is possible to upload to youtube in which the quality remains very good but it took me over 2hrs. to upload 5 min. of video. So now unless I ONLY ever want to play my videos back through the TV from the memory card and continue to just buy new memory cards all the time, this camera has become less then ideal for me. Which is a shame cause I really had high hopes for this camera.
**I have been told that the video playback quality could be a problem due to the age of my computer but seeing as I don't plan on buying a new computer just to be compatible with this camera usage I have determined this is not going to be the camera for me.
So in retrospect if your running on a Windows XP system or earlier this may not be the camera for you.
reply to this comment
* Now for the drawback- When transfering video to the computer the quality is not as good and very choppy when compared to being played through the TV hook up or playback on the camera its self. It is possible to upload to youtube in which the quality remains very good but it took me over 2hrs. to upload 5 min. of video. So now unless I ONLY ever want to play my videos back through the TV from the memory card and continue to just buy new memory cards all the time, this camera has become less then ideal for me. Which is a shame cause I really had high hopes for this camera.
**I have been told that the video playback quality could be a problem due to the age of my computer but seeing as I don't plan on buying a new computer just to be compatible with this camera usage I have determined this is not going to be the camera for me.
So in retrospect if your running on a Windows XP system or earlier this may not be the camera for you.
Video playback (Jack of NZ — 04/03/2011)
Hi, video playback is not operating system dependent; that is using Win XP or Win 7 etc. makes no difference. As this is h.264 video, a very modern standard, best playback can be had by using decent software. Simply use the latest graphics drivers available for your hardware and I would have to recomment VLC for video playback. Also note that at 1080p the framerate is only 24 fps. At 720p and lower the framerate is 30 fps, which is noticeably smoother. Personally I find 720p, especially considering i'm recording on a compact camera, to be more than adequate. Just my 2cents.
reply to this comment
Digital Camera Search (Trish — 03/27/2011)
Hi...When are you going to review this camera? I've been searching for a digital camera for months and can't decide! I want it to be compact, to take good pics day/night, video, a decent optical zoom bc I go to concerts and sporting events and dont always sit in the front....well basically something that can do it all. After doing research ang giving up plenty of times I'm looking at this Canon 300HS, Panasonic ZS5 (some say picture quality is not good) and Sony TX7 or TX9....Any suggestions? And please post this review soon. It looks like a winner even though it's missing Panorama and the Upload Feature to Facebook and Youtube ):
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (03/28/2011)
We're working on a review of its little brother (the ELPH 100) right now -- much of what we say about that camera should apply to the ELPH 300 as well. Not sure if we'll review this specific model, since the ELPH 100 is so similar in many respects (the main difference is that it's slightly larger than the ELPH 300.
I've already discovered that the ELPH 100 HS is very quick, and takes quite good shots at higher ISO settings, which means it's solid in low-light shooting -- much better than your average $200 camera. I haven't spent much time looking at overall image quality so I'm not sure if it will run into any of the overall "softness" issues that the Canon SD4500 ran into (it used a similar sensor).
The ZS5 is a great camera too -- it's been out for a year, so there are a ton more reviews, and there will always be somebody who doesn't like the picture quality. The ZS5 in my opinion has the most consistently solid image quality in the travel zoom class right now. It isn't quite as quick as the new ELPHs and it's "only" 720p video. But the huge zoom is great.
We never got a chance to review the TX7, hopefully we'll get a TX9 (it's the new version of the TX7). They both use similar sensors to what you get in the new ELPHs, not sure how they compete head-to-head. The Sony TX series usually gets criticized for being too expensive for what you get.
Basically, I can't pick for you, but try to buy from somewhere with a liberal return policy (Target has a 90-day open-box policy I know off the top of my head, I'm sure other big box retailers are similar). Go in, try out whichever one you think you'll like the most. If you don't end up liking it, swap it for another one. The way product cycles work, you could keep putting off buying a camera forever basically, knowing the next big thing is coming in 2-6 months. I'd personally choose between the ELPH 300 and ZS5, but just pull the trigger and pick one, see if you like it.
reply to this comment
I've already discovered that the ELPH 100 HS is very quick, and takes quite good shots at higher ISO settings, which means it's solid in low-light shooting -- much better than your average $200 camera. I haven't spent much time looking at overall image quality so I'm not sure if it will run into any of the overall "softness" issues that the Canon SD4500 ran into (it used a similar sensor).
The ZS5 is a great camera too -- it's been out for a year, so there are a ton more reviews, and there will always be somebody who doesn't like the picture quality. The ZS5 in my opinion has the most consistently solid image quality in the travel zoom class right now. It isn't quite as quick as the new ELPHs and it's "only" 720p video. But the huge zoom is great.
We never got a chance to review the TX7, hopefully we'll get a TX9 (it's the new version of the TX7). They both use similar sensors to what you get in the new ELPHs, not sure how they compete head-to-head. The Sony TX series usually gets criticized for being too expensive for what you get.
Basically, I can't pick for you, but try to buy from somewhere with a liberal return policy (Target has a 90-day open-box policy I know off the top of my head, I'm sure other big box retailers are similar). Go in, try out whichever one you think you'll like the most. If you don't end up liking it, swap it for another one. The way product cycles work, you could keep putting off buying a camera forever basically, knowing the next big thing is coming in 2-6 months. I'd personally choose between the ELPH 300 and ZS5, but just pull the trigger and pick one, see if you like it.
New camera choice (Nigel Winterbottom — 03/29/2011)
Like Trish, I am waiting for reviews on some of the new ultracompact cameras. So far I am interested in choosing between the Sony TX100V, Sony WX9 and Canon Elph 300. Reading specifications and capabilities, the Sony TX100V looks to be the best of this stunning new batch of cameras. Although it is higher priced than the other two cameras, it has fantastic specifications and I hear from the preliminary CES reviews that it shoots stunning 1080P video.
Trish might also be interested in considering the new Canon SX220 HS as although it it is pysically larger than the 300HS it does have a 14x optical zoom.
reply to this comment
Trish might also be interested in considering the new Canon SX220 HS as although it it is pysically larger than the 300HS it does have a 14x optical zoom.
Liam McCabe (03/30/2011)
I think all three of your choices will probably be pretty solid, though the TX100V is really, really expensive. It definitely has all of the features you could ask for in an ultracompact, but I don't think that the image quality will be any better or worse than the Elph 300 or WX9 -- similar sensors in all three of them.
Video could well end up being better than the others, since it records at a native 60fps (I believe the other two top out at 30fps), though perhaps the zeal from CES had as much to do with viewing the videos on the OLED screen on the back. I saw it at CES as well, and it's a mighty fine looking camera.
Also, in regards to the SX220 (we have the SX230 here in North America -- they didn't release the GPS-free SX220 here), I have found very, very mixed results with CMOS-based cameras that have long zooms. CMOS sensors are great when they get enough light, but when they don't, it seems that they get messier than CCD sensors. So the issue with long zooms in small cameras is that they usually have a narrower maximum aperture, so they can't let as much light in, and the overall picture quality suffers -- especially as you zoom further. High ISO shots on average are better, but low ISO can come out quite messy. I haven't found this to be as much of a problem on more standard-zoom compacts or even extended zooms, since they usually have a max aperture of f/2.8 or better.
reply to this comment
Video could well end up being better than the others, since it records at a native 60fps (I believe the other two top out at 30fps), though perhaps the zeal from CES had as much to do with viewing the videos on the OLED screen on the back. I saw it at CES as well, and it's a mighty fine looking camera.
Also, in regards to the SX220 (we have the SX230 here in North America -- they didn't release the GPS-free SX220 here), I have found very, very mixed results with CMOS-based cameras that have long zooms. CMOS sensors are great when they get enough light, but when they don't, it seems that they get messier than CCD sensors. So the issue with long zooms in small cameras is that they usually have a narrower maximum aperture, so they can't let as much light in, and the overall picture quality suffers -- especially as you zoom further. High ISO shots on average are better, but low ISO can come out quite messy. I haven't found this to be as much of a problem on more standard-zoom compacts or even extended zooms, since they usually have a max aperture of f/2.8 or better.
