Compact Contenders: Canon ELPH 300 HS vs Panasonic Lumix FP3 – A Hands-On Comparative Review

As someone who has spent the better part of 15 years evaluating cameras ranging from high-end DSLRs to pocket-sized compacts, I’m always fascinated by how manufacturers try to squeeze the best possible functionality into the smallest packages. Today, I’m diving deep into two ultracompact cameras launched around the 2010-2011 timeframe - the Canon ELPH 300 HS (also known as IXUS 220 HS) and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3 (FP3). While both position themselves squarely for on-the-go photography enthusiasts seeking portability, they differ significantly in feature sets, sensor tech, and overall user experience.

This article is designed to give you a meticulous, practical, and experience-driven comparison to help determine which camera suits your photographic style and needs best. From sensor performance and autofocus to ergonomics and video capabilities, I reflect on personal testing and visual samples to assess these two pocket cameras beyond just the specifications. Let’s unpack what each brings to the table.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Ergonomics

When it comes to ultracompacts, physical size and handling shape your experience profoundly, especially for street or travel photography where discretion and quick access matter.

Right off the bat, the Canon ELPH 300 HS surprises with its sleek, slightly thicker build, measuring 92 x 56 x 20mm and weighing only 141 grams. The Panasonic FP3 is just a bit taller and wider at 99 x 59 x 19mm and a tad heavier at 155 grams. Though subtle differences, the Canon’s sharper and more rounded edges make it feel more pocketable and comfortable during extended one-handed use.

The FP3’s slimmer profile is attractive, but the flatter grip compromises tactile feedback - you feel like you’re holding a flat card rather than a camera. For quick snaps in dynamic environments, the Canon’s slightly chunkier grip offers more confidence. Neither camera features weather sealing or ruggedized bodywork, which is no surprise at this entry-level ultracompact category - be cautious shooting outdoors in adverse conditions.

Controls and Interface: Intuitive or Minimal?

Ease of access to controls often defines user satisfaction more than raw specs for casual and enthusiast photographers alike.

Here, the ELPH 300 HS takes a conventional approach with clearly demarcated zoom lever and shutter, accompanied by a few buttons for flash, mode, and playback. The physical button layout is clean but not extensive - no manual control dials or exposure compensation here. I appreciate the Canon’s straightforwardness when shooting on the fly, but those seeking creative control may feel constrained.

Conversely, the Panasonic FP3 introduces a touchscreen interface alongside physical buttons, a novel addition in its time. The 3-inch touch display enables fast menu navigation and AF point selection with good responsiveness. However, the touchscreen doesn’t support swiping gestures fluently, so some menus feel clunky. Combined with limited physical controls, novice users might find the FP3 slightly less intuitive during fast shooting situations.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Delving under the hood reveals two different sensor technologies. The Canon ELPH 300 HS employs a 12MP BSI-CMOS sensor, known for its improved light-gathering efficiency and better low-light performance in compact cameras. The Panasonic FP3, on the other hand, uses a 14MP CCD sensor, which traditionally delivers excellent color fidelity but can suffer in higher ISO settings.

Both cameras house a 1/2.3" sensor; however, the Canon’s BSI-CMOS sensor has a slight edge in dynamic range and noise control, especially above ISO 400. In my side-by-side testing, images from the ELPH 300 HS showed richer tonal gradations and less chroma noise in dim interiors and evening street scenes. The FP3’s CCD sensor delivered vibrant colors at base ISOs but quickly introduced grain past ISO 400, limiting its use in low light unless supplemented by flash.

The Canon max ISO tops out at 3200, with ISO 100 as the baseline, whereas the Panasonic offers a wider range from ISO 80 up to 6400. Despite the higher ISO ceiling, Panasonic images lose sharpness and tonal range rapidly when cranking sensitivity. For static daytime shots and well-lit scenarios, both cameras produce pleasing 12-14MP JPEGs, but the Canon’s sensor is more flexible when light dims.

LCD Screens: Viewing and Composing Your Shots

Since both cameras omit electronic viewfinders, their LCD simplicity and quality are important for framing and reviewing photos.

The Panasonic’s 3-inch screen offers a few more inches of real estate than Canon’s 2.7-inch panel, and supports touch input - valuable for AF point selection and quick menu toggling. However, both offer only 230k-dot resolution, which in today’s terms feels low and limits critical zooming in for focus checks.

The Canon's screen is fixed and non-touch, but the display’s color reproduction felt slightly warmer and more natural during my daylight shoots. Fingerprint smudging on the Panasonic’s touch display tended to reduce visibility in strong sunlight, a notable downside when working outdoors.

Autofocus Systems and Speed: Don’t Miss the Moment

Though neither camera targets professional sports photography, evaluating their AF speed and accuracy is essential for spontaneous picture-taking.

The Canon ELPH 300 HS utilizes a 9-point contrast detection AF system with face detection, enabling continuous autofocus tracking. Face detection registration is surprisingly effective in varying lighting, especially useful for portraits and casual social shooting.

The Panasonic FP3 also features 9 contrast detection focus points with touch AF support but lacks face detection. Its AF is generally slower to acquire focus, especially in dim conditions or on moving subjects. During my hands-on shooting sessions, I found the Canon’s AF noticeably quicker and more reliable for tracking faces and moderately moving subjects. The FP3 works adequately for static scenes but frustrated me with frequent initial hunting.

Zoom Lenses and Apertures: Versatility Limitation or Strength?

Ultracompacts inevitably compromise on aperture and focal length range. The Canon offers a 24-120mm equivalent (5x zoom) f/2.7-5.9 lens, delivering a bright wider-angle starting point, which is excellent for landscapes or indoor group shots.

The Panasonic FP3 sports a 35-140mm equivalent (4x zoom) f/3.5-5.9 lens - more telephoto reach but less width on the wide end. For travel and street photography, the Canon’s wider field of view is an advantage, capturing more context without stepping back. However, the Panasonic’s longer zoom can be handy for distant subjects, though only if the slower aperture at telephoto doesn’t hamper shutter speed.

Neither camera offers optical zoom stabilization beyond built-in lens-shift optical image stabilization, but the Canon’s combination of a brighter aperture and steadier AF tends to yield sharper images across the zoom range during my practical tests.

Burst Shooting and Performance: Action Ready?

Burst or continuous shooting speed matters to those who want to capture fleeting moments such as kids playing or casual wildlife sightings. The Canon handles 3 fps continuous shooting, modest but steady for casual use. The Panasonic edges slightly faster at 5 fps but sacrifices AF tracking and focus confidence during continuous shots, as it only supports single AF and pauses focus adjustments after the first frame.

In real-world shooting, this makes the Canon preferable for subjects in motion that require ongoing tracking, despite its slower burst rate. Neither camera includes a buffer depth for extended bursts, so expect short bursts only.

Built-in Flash and Low Light Capabilities

Both cameras include pop-up flashes with similar modes – Auto, On, Off, Red-eye Reduction, and Slow Sync. The Panasonic flash has a slightly longer range at 4.9 meters versus Canon’s 3.5 meters.

In practical terms, the Canon’s higher ISO sensitivity combined with a quicker lens aperture at wide angle gives it an edge in low light shooting without flash. I found myself relying less on the flash when using the Canon indoors or dusk scenes. On the Panasonic, the flash was often necessary to avoid blurry or grainy results.

Video Features: Basic or Beyond?

Video integration in compact cameras about a decade ago was more supplementary than standalone. Here, the Canon offers Full HD 1080p at 24 fps and HD 720p at 30 fps along with additional slow-motion modes (up to 240 fps at lower resolutions). Its H.264 codec yields decent compression quality for sharing clips.

The Panasonic is limited to HD 720p at 30 fps and uses Motion JPEG codec, which produces larger files and often lower compression efficiency. There is no Full HD support or extended framerate range.

Neither has microphone or headphone jacks, which almost entirely excludes professional video shooters. For casual video, I found Canon’s implementation more versatile and higher fidelity in real-world use.

Battery Life and Storage: Endurance in the Field

Battery specifications show the Canon ELPH 300 HS powered by an NB-4L battery promising around 220 shots per charge, while Panasonic FP3 details are not officially specified but roughly comparable.

In my extended fieldwork, the Canon consistently delivered the expected shot count under mixed usage, including video. The Panasonic felt less reliable for heavy use days, requiring more frequent charging given the touchscreen consumes additional power.

Both cameras accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with a single card slot - standard fare in ultracompacts - which makes memory card selection straightforward.

Connectivity and Extras: Modern Conveniences?

Neither camera offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC, understandable given their release years but a notable disadvantage today when instant sharing or remote control is desired.

Canon’s inclusion of HDMI output is a modest plus for playback on larger screens, while Panasonic lacks HDMI but supports USB 2.0 on both. Wireless connectivity is absent entirely, so users must rely on memory cards or cable transfers.

Putting It All Together: Genre-Specific Performance

To better guide your purchase, I’m summarizing pros and cons in relevant photography disciplines based on direct testing experience.

• Portraits: Canon’s face detection AF, wider aperture, and warmer color tone mean more flattering skin rendition and smooth bokeh, despite the fixed lens limitation. Panasonic lacks face detection and favors sharper but less natural tones.

• Landscape: Canon’s wider 24mm equivalent focal length captures expansive vistas better. Both have similar sensor sizes, but Canon’s dynamic range marginally outperforms FP3 for shadow detail.

• Wildlife: Modest zoom in both cameras limits serious wildlife work, but Panasonic’s 140mm equivalent is helpful for distant subjects, albeit with slower AF and shutter speeds.

• Sports: Neither models are sports-oriented, but the Canon’s better continuous AF and steady shooting make it marginally better suited for casual action shots.

• Street: Canon’s better ergonomics, wider lens, face detection, and faster AF make it more user-friendly for quick street captures.

• Macro: Canon’s close focus to 3cm beats Panasonic’s 10cm, enabling more detailed close-ups.

• Night/Astro: Canon’s BSI sensor and wider aperture provide cleaner images at high ISO; Panasonic’s higher ISO ceiling is offset by more noise and noisier sensor.

• Video: Canon’s 1080p video beats Panasonic’s 720p and codec limitations, making it better for casual movie makers.

• Travel: Canon’s compact size, versatility, and battery endurance make it a better all-round travel companion.

• Professional Work: Neither is truly aimed at professional workflows - no RAW support or ruggedness - but Canon’s better image quality gives casual pros more usable material.

Canon ELPH 300 HS front Canon ELPH 300 HS screen back Panasonic FP3 front Panasonic FP3 screen back

Looking at side-by-side daylight landscapes, portraits, and low light shots illustrates how Canon’s images feel richer and cleaner in darker tones, with smoother bokeh and slightly more punch. Panasonic outputs bright, crisp JPEGs in daylight, but with less forgiving noise and less vibrant punch under low-light conditions.

Final Scores and Verdict

Distilling extensive hands-on tests, image comparisons, and use case scenarios into a balanced rating:

• Canon ELPH 300 HS: 7.8/10
• Panasonic FP3: 6.5/10

Canon scores higher thanks to more modern sensor tech, better AF, more versatile lens, fewer compromises in low light, and superior video specs.

Who Should Consider the Canon ELPH 300 HS?

If you prioritize image quality, flexible shooting situations (from wide landscapes to close macros), video capability, and user-friendly controls in a truly pocketable ultracompact, the Canon ELPH 300 HS is the better choice. It’s ideal for enthusiastic travelers, casual portraits, and everyday street photography. The lack of RAW and manual exposure modes holds it back from professional shoots but for its class, it covers all essential bases well.

Who Might Consider the Panasonic FP3?

If you find yourself favoring a slightly slimmer form and longer telephoto reach for casual snapshots and basic family photos, and you are comfortable with touchscreen navigation, the FP3 offers good value. It struggles more in low light and lacks video versatility but could serve as a simple point-and-shoot for less demanding users on a tight budget.

Wrapping Up: Practical Takeaways from Real Use

Sifting through specs is useful, but nothing replaces actual shooting to understand camera strengths and limits. Over months of diverse shooting - urban and rural scenes, people, night settings, and casual video recording - I found the Canon ELPH 300 HS an all-around stronger performer with wider potential to satisfy most enthusiast needs without adding bulk or complexity.

Its sensor technology, autofocus sophistication, brighter wide-angle lens, and HD video set it a notch above the Panasonic FP3, which still maintains appeal in its slim design and longer zoom but demands compromises in shutter speed, focusing, and low-light usability.

For the photography enthusiast eager to ditch smartphones for a real camera that fits into a pocket but doesn’t feel like a toy, I recommend the Canon ELPH 300 HS as the superior balance of portability, image quality, and shooting flexibility.

Thank you for reading this detailed comparative review. If you want to discuss more specific shooting scenarios or technical questions about using either camera, I welcome your comments below - sharing real-world insights helps all photographers make smarter gear choices.

Safe shooting and happy clicking!