Canon ELPH 310 HS vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Budget Ultracompacts

When it comes to ultracompact cameras, often the discussion boils down to how much bang you can get for your buck while willingly accepting some size and feature compromises. The Canon ELPH 310 HS (known as the IXUS 230 HS in other regions) and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 both hail from around 2011 - a time when ultracompacts aimed to pack a decent punch in a pocketable form without breaking the bank. I’ve spent plenty of time testing these two budget champs side-by-side, pushing their limits across multiple photography disciplines, and weighing their real-world value for modern users.

In this detailed, practical comparison, I’ll break down how these two cameras stack up - from sensor tech and autofocus to ergonomics, image quality, and video. Whether you’re a casual snapper, aspiring hobbyist, or a professional hunting for an emergency backup, this hands-on evaluation will help you decide which ultracompact suits your needs. And yes, I've thrown in some candid critiques alongside the clearer strengths, because fairness and usefulness are paramount here.

Let’s dive in.

First Impressions: Size and Handling in the Pocket

They’re both dinky, but not all pocket-sized cameras are created equal when it comes to handling and convenience.

Physically, the Canon ELPH 310 HS measures 96 x 57 x 22 mm and weighs 140g; the Sony W560 is slightly smaller and lighter at 94 x 56 x 19 mm and 110g. The size difference is subtle but noticeable in hand. The Canon feels marginally chunkier - still compact, but with a bit more grip area. The Sony slides even more readily into tight pockets, but its reduced thickness can make it feel a touch fragile.

In practical use, I found the ELPH 310 HS more comfortable for extended shooting sessions, thanks to a modestly beefier body that offers better purchase. The W560 sacrifices some heft for extra portability, which might be ideal for those who prioritize minimalism over grip stability.

If you have larger hands or prefer a camera that “fits” better without clutching, the Canon wins here. The Sony caters to ultra-light packers who want to forget their camera is there until the moment it counts.

Ergonomics & Control Layout: Clarity Meets Simplicity

Pocket cameras rarely have extensive controls, but what’s there must work without confusion or finger gymnastics.

The Canon ELPH 310 HS features a simple top plate with a smooth shutter button and a zoom rocker that feels tactile and responsive - even if a bit cramped. Its 3-inch PureColor II G LCD is bright and richly detailed, aiding framing and reviewing (more on screens later). Its intuitive minimalism is a blessing for weekenders or novices not wanting to dig into menus.

Sony’s W560 has a similar minimal layout but lacks the Canon’s well-damped buttons. The zoom rocker requires a lighter touch to avoid overshooting your desired framing. Also, the shutter button stamina is flirtatious; after a day’s shooting, it can feel less reassuring. This reflects in continuous shooting performance (more on that later).

On both, you don’t get customizable dials or clubs for thumbs, but the Canon’s button feel and placement edge out the Sony in usability for quick snaps.

Sensor Technologies and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

At the core is where these ultracompacts diverge more substantially.

The Canon 310 HS sports a 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS sensor with 12MP resolution, while the Sony W560 sports a 1/2.3" CCD sensor with 14MP. On paper, more megapixels seem like a win for Sony, but sensor technology is king here - BSI-CMOS sensors capture more light and handle noise much better than older CCD designs, especially under low-light.

Using industry-standard ISO tests and my own image quality assessments, the Canon’s CMOS sensor delivers cleaner images at higher ISOs, smoother gradations, and noticeably better dynamic range. The Sony’s CCD sensor, while sharp at base ISO, struggles to maintain detail and color fidelity at anything above ISO 200. Noise becomes a real issue past that point.

The Canon also has an anti-aliasing filter, which reduces moiré patterns but can slightly soften micro-detail (tackled well in Canon’s DIGIC processor smoothing). The Sony, lacking advanced processing, can show more aliasing in fine textures.

If your practical shooting includes anything beyond bright daylight, or if you value usable ISO flexibility, Canon is the clear winner. Sony might appeal if you’re shooting primarily in bright environments and want slightly higher resolution for large prints, but the IQ tradeoff is substantial.

LCD Screen and Interface: Your Visual Window to the Shot

Viewing your shot as you compose is a non-negotiable. Here, brightness, resolution, and color accuracy matter.

Canon fits the ELPH 310 HS with a crisp 3-inch PureColor II G TFT LCD offering 461k dots. Contrast and sharpness are notably superior to the Sony W560’s Clear Photo LCD, which has a lower resolution at 230k dots. The Canon’s screen maintains better visibility in outdoor conditions, reducing the frustrating glare that plagues the Sony.

Interface-wise, Canon’s menu system is streamlined and logically organized with quick access to custom white balance and face detection toggles. Sony’s menus feel a bit dated and more nested without direct shortcut buttons.

For those who frequently compose via live view (common for these cameras), the Canon’s display comfort is a boon - less squinting and second-guessing. Sony’s screen, while serviceable, can leave you wishing for a better viewfinder or higher-resolution display.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Catching the Moment

In ultracompacts, autofocus (AF) speed and accuracy can make or break the shooting experience even more than outer specs.

The Canon ELPH 310 HS employs contrast-detection AF with nine focus points, face detection, and continuous AF tracking. These features provide a more assured lock, especially for portraits or moving subjects at close to moderate distances.

The Sony W560 also uses contrast-detection AF but lacks face detection and continuous AF modes, limiting its adaptability in dynamic shooting conditions.

Continuous shooting speed tells a similar story: the Canon shoots at 3 frames per second (fps) continuously, while Sony tops out at a leisurely 1 fps.

For street or wildlife shooters trying to capture fleeting expressions or action, Canon clearly bests Sony. The Canon’s AF responsiveness and respectable burst rate make holding onto tricky moments easier and less frustrating.

Lens and Zoom Range: Versatility Within Limits

Since both have fixed zoom lenses, their optical ranges greatly influence practical output.

• Canon ELPH 310 HS: 28-224mm equivalent (8x zoom), aperture f/3.0-5.9
• Sony W560: 26-104mm equivalent (4x zoom), aperture f/2.7-5.7

The Canon’s longer zoom range provides much more flexibility, traversing from wide-angle snapshots to some telephoto reach - useful for casual wildlife, sports, or travel shots. Its lens is a bit slower, especially at the telephoto end, meaning you might hit noise issues in lower light faster without stabilization (which Canon includes).

Sony's lens has a slightly brighter maximum aperture at the wide end (f/2.7 vs. f/3.0), meaning better low-light wide-angle shots and potential for shallower depth of field backgrounds (at least theoretically). But the shorter zoom limits framing options, and the aperture narrows quickly going tele.

For a one-camera solution, Canon’s broader zoom range is more useful and less restricting.

Image Stabilization, Macro Capabilities, and Close-up Work

Both cameras feature optical image stabilization, a necessary feature for helping avoid blurred shots when using slower shutter speeds and zoomed-in focal lengths. Canon’s IS is generally more effective from my tests - handheld shots at 1/30s and telephoto survived more cleanly than Sony’s.

On the macro side:

• Canon’s minimum focus distance: 1 cm (!)
• Sony’s minimum focus distance: 5 cm

That’s a big deal if you enjoy detailed close-ups or macro shooting. Being able to get within a centimeter opens up fun creative possibilities of flowers, textures, or candid food shots. Sony’s 5 cm is decent but less immersive.

Battery Life and Storage Convenience: Keeping the Camera Ready

Being ultracompact means compromises in battery size, and each camera makes different choices here.

• Canon ELPH 310 HS: Uses NB-4L rechargeable battery, rated for ~210 shots per charge.
• Sony W560: Uses NP-BN1 battery, official rating not listed but generally similar efficiency.

The Canon’s ~210 shot count is on the lower side compared to many modern compacts but typical of the era. You’ll want an extra battery for day-long shooting.

The Sony benefits from supporting a broader array of storage formats, including Memory Stick Duo/Pro as well as SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, while Canon sticks to SD/SDHC/SDXC only. This may matter if you already have a stash of Sony Memory Sticks around or don’t want to invest in new cards.

Video Functionality: Basics for Casual Creators

Neither camera is a video powerhouse, but let’s cover what’s possible.

• Canon: Full HD 1080p at 24fps, plus 720p at 30fps and slow motion clips (up to 240fps at lower resolutions). H.264 codec.
• Sony: 720p HD recording at 30fps, with MPEG-4 format only.

Canon holds a clear advantage for video aficionados wanting better resolution and a bit of slow-motion creativity. Remember though, no microphone or headphone jacks on either; sound quality will be basic.

Also, Canon has superior image stabilization benefits during video recording, smoothing handheld footage better than Sony.

Specialty Photography Disciplines: What Can These Budget Pocket Rockets Do?

I put both through the wringer - portraiture, landscapes, wildlife, and beyond - to test strengths and weaknesses in realistic scenarios.

Portrait Photography

• Canon: Face detection works well, keeping skin tones natural with good color fidelity. The 28mm wide end doesn’t distort faces aggressively, and its bokeh rendition at widest aperture is pleasantly smooth despite small sensor size.
• Sony: Lacks face detection, and its slightly wider lens at 26mm can cause mild distortion in close framing. Skin tones skew cooler, and backgrounds are more cluttered due to smaller aperture and sensor technology.

Winner: Canon for portraits.

Landscape Photography

Both cameras have the same sensor size, but Canon’s lower noise and better dynamic range give it an edge in landscape shots, especially in scenes with varied shadow/highlight detail.

Neither has weather sealing, so use caution outdoors in adverse conditions.

Resolution-wise, Sony’s higher megapixels can deliver slightly larger prints, but the Canon’s ISP compensates better for sharpness and exposure blending.

Winner: Canon for landscape versatility.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

With longer zoom, faster continuous shooting, and better AF tracking, the Canon 310 HS is naturally better suited for casual wildlife and sports shooting.

Sony’s slower 1 fps burst and lack of continuous AF make catching quick action frustrating.

Winner: Canon hands down.

Street Photography

Sony’s lighter, thinner body could be an advantage for those desiring subtlety and portability. However, slower AF and less flexible zoom limit candid capture effectiveness.

Canon’s quick AF and zoom flexibility make it the better "all-around" street shooter, if a bit more conspicuous.

Winner: Tie (Sony for size; Canon for shooting speed).

Macro Photography

Canon’s impressive 1 cm macro focusing and effective stabilization capacity firmly place it ahead for close-up enthusiasts.

Sony’s 5 cm minimum is respectable but less exciting.

Winner: Canon.

Night and Astro Photography

Due to Canon’s BSI-CMOS sensor and better high ISO management, it is more capable of night shots and casual astro photography, minimizing noise at ISO 800 and beyond.

Sony’s CCD sensor becomes noisy and mushy at high ISO, limiting low-light work.

Neither camera has bulb mode or interval shooting, so limitations exist.

Winner: Canon.

Video Creators

Canon’s superior video specs and stabilization make it the more suitable choice for amateur movie-making.

Sony’s video is serviceable but basic.

Winner: Canon.

Travel Photography

Sony’s featherweight and small profile make it ultra-easy to carry all day. But Canon balances size with better versatility thanks to zoom range and image quality.

For travel photographers needing a pocket camera they can rely on for varied scenarios, Canon’s options are more solid.

Winner: Canon overall, with Sony as a runner-up for minimalists.

Professional Backup Work

Both cameras do not shoot RAW and thus have limited workflow flexibility. Neither offers environmental sealing, professional autofocus systems, or advanced exposure controls.

They’re best suited as casual travel or secondary gear.

Build Quality and Durability: Can These Cameras Take a Beating?

Neither offers weather or dust sealing - or any shock resistance. Their lightweight plastic bodies are prone to surface scratches but are reasonably robust for casual daily use.

If rough handling or harsh environments are your norm, neither is a go-to; invest in a rugged camera or protective case.

Connectivity & Wireless Features: Staying Current (or Not)

Canonical note: Canon ELPH 310 HS comes with no wireless connectivity. Sony W560 supports Eye-Fi wireless card connectivity, letting you transfer photos to compatible devices wirelessly. However, Eye-Fi cards are now discontinued and limited in compatibility with new devices.

Bluetooth and NFC are absent from both, as expected for 2011-era compacts.

Both have USB 2.0 and HDMI mini ports for wired image transfer and playback.

Putting it All Together: Performance Scores at a Glance

Here’s a quick visual summary of overall and genre-specific performance based on my tests and established benchmarking criteria.

These graphics illustrate Canon’s consistent edge across shooting disciplines, especially in autofocus, image quality, and video. Sony maintains a niche in portability and certain basic outdoor settings but is outpaced more often than not.

Sample Images to Visualize the Difference

I captured standardized test scenes in good and low light for both cameras. Examine sharpness, color, noise, and bokeh in this side-by-side gallery.

The Canon images clearly show superior detail retention, cleaner noise profiles, and more pleasing color rendition. Sony’s shots tend to look softer and noisier, particularly in dimmer environments.

The Price-to-Performance Equation: Value for Money

At launch, the Canon ELPH 310 HS was priced around $400, while the Sony W560 came in at a budget $140.

Today, both are discontinued but may be available used at budget prices. For someone on a strict budget or entering ultracompact photography, the Sony’s low price is attractive but comes with significant compromises.

If you can stretch to a Canon 310 HS (or equivalent Canon ELPH model), it delivers more versatile performance, image quality, and shooting confidence - justifying the extra investment.

Who Should Choose What? Matching Cameras to Photographers

Choose the Canon ELPH 310 HS if:

• You want better image quality, especially in low light
• You need a longer zoom range (28-224mm) for travel, wildlife, or sports
• You value faster autofocus and continuous shooting
• You plan to shoot portraits and landscapes with better color fidelity
• You’re willing to carry a slightly bigger camera for improved handling
• Video capability is a bonus, not just a novelty

Choose the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 if:

• Portability is your absolute priority (tiny, light, easy to stash)
• Your shooting is mostly bright, casual daylight scenarios
• Budget is tight and you want a very affordable camera for snapshots
• You need Memory Stick compatibility from existing accessories
• You’re okay with tradeoffs in AF, speed, and image quality
• Wireless Eye-Fi transfers (if you can find one) are a nice-to-have

Final Verdict: The Canon 310 HS is the Better All-Rounder – But the Sony Scores on Stealth and Price

In my experience pushing these cameras to their limits, the Canon ELPH 310 HS emerges as the more capable, versatile, and satisfying ultracompact camera - especially for users who want to explore multiple photography genres without constant frustration.

Its advancements in sensor technology, autofocus speed, zoom flexibility, and video capability stand out strongly in real-world use. Yes, it’s a little thicker and pricier, but compromises in these areas paid dividends in photo quality and ease of use.

Meanwhile, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 remains a lightweight, uncomplicated chariot for daily snaps and casual travel, especially for those who prioritize minimal gear weight and cost.

If you’re a cheapskate looking strictly for snapshots in good light, Sony’ll do. But if you want a confident shooter in more conditions - a camera that won’t hold you back creatively or technically - the Canon is well worth your consideration.

Got questions or want to hear more about particular shooting scenarios with these cameras? Drop me a line and I’ll share more insights from my test sessions!

• Your camera-savvy pal with club-like experience in all things gear.