Canon ELPH 340 HS vs Panasonic FP3: The Ultra-Compact Camera Showdown from a Hands-On Perspective

When you're shopping for a pocket-friendly camera that won't cramp your style or your wallet, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3 inevitably come up on the radar. Both hail from the ultra-compact segment, designed for easy carry and quick snaps. But beyond their similarly petite footprints lie some meaningful differences - and as someone who has tested thousands of cameras over 15 years, I’m here to cut through the specs sheet fog and share unvarnished insights. This is a real-world, practical comparison to help you decide which of these two stands up best to your particular photography needs.

A Tale of Two Minis: Size, Ergonomics, and Design

First impressions matter, and for compact cameras, handling can make or break the experience.

Here’s a side-by-side look at their physical size and ergonomics:

Canon ELPH 340 HS: Canon’s ELPH always nails compactness with a sleek, polished design. At 100 x 58 x 22 mm and 147g, the 340 HS fits snugly in most pockets without feeling obtrusive. The rounded edges and modest grip area make it comfortable to hold for short snapping sessions, though prolonged shooting reveals its minimalistic clubs-for-thumbs approach - don’t expect any vertical grip here.

Panasonic FP3: Slightly shorter and thinner at 99 x 59 x 19 mm, but a tad heavier at 155g, the FP3 feels very much like a stout candy bar - slick surface but with less grip. Both cameras forego any physical viewfinder and rely entirely on LCD previewing, so handling is all about the body-to-hand interface and button placement.

Speaking of which, look at this top view layout to understand button ergonomics and shooting controls:

Canon keeps it simple with dedicated zoom rocker and a cluster of buttons that are easy to locate but not backlit or illuminated - meaning in dim conditions, it’s a feeling game. The Panasonic offers a touchscreen LCD, which offsets the lack of physical controls with a more modern interface, but sometimes, touchscreen responsiveness is a mixed bag, especially for ultra-compact cameras trying to balance speed and precision.

My Take: For quick grab-and-go shooting, Canon edges out slightly due to tactile buttons. Panasonic’s touchscreen support is nifty but can slow you down when you need rapid control changes (e.g., street photography).

The Sensor Scoop: Under the Hood Image Quality

An easy trap with compacts is to judge by megapixels alone; trust me, it’s the sensor tech and processing that make or break the image output.

Canon ELPH 340 HS sports a 16MP 1/2.3" CMOS sensor paired with Canon’s DIGIC 4+ processor. This setup, being more recent (2014), benefits from improved noise reduction and color science compared to previous generations. The sensor area is about 28.07 mm², which is typical for compacts but modest in size.

Panasonic FP3 relies on a 14MP 1/2.3" CCD sensor with the Venus Engine IV processor, dating further back to 2010. CCD sensors historically have good color reproduction but lag CMOS when it comes to speed, dynamic range, and high-ISO noise performance. Interestingly, the FP3 also offers a native ISO range starting at 80 up to 6400, whereas the Canon caps out at 3200 ISO.

Real-World Look at Image Quality

One of my reliable testing methods includes shooting a controlled resolution chart, alongside varied real-world scenes, to assess dynamic range, color fidelity, and noise.

Canon ELPH 340 HS front Canon ELPH 340 HS screen back Panasonic FP3 front Panasonic FP3 screen back

• Color & Skin Tones: The Canon delivers warmer, more natural skin tones with pleasing saturation, essential for portrait enthusiasts. Panasonic’s FP3 images tend to lean cooler, which looks crisp but less “lifelike” on skin tones.

• Dynamic Range: Both cameras struggle with shadows and highlights due to small sensor sizes. However, Canon demonstrates a slight advantage in retaining detail in overexposed regions, probably thanks to improved processing algorithms.

• Noise: At ISO 100–400, both models produce clean images, but push beyond ISO 800 and the FP3’s noise becomes intrusive with smudged detail. Canon holds up better, yielding usable files up to ISO 1600, albeit with some softness.

Pro tip: Always shoot in ample light with these compacts but if you anticipate indoor or low-light conditions frequently, the Canon’s sensor/processing combo is worth the slight bump in price.

Autofocus: Precision vs Speed in the Blink of an Eye

Accurate autofocus is the sine qua non for any camera, more so in fast-paced genres like wildlife, sport, or street photography.

Both cameras employ a contrast-detection AF system, the typical approach in compact cameras, but they differ in execution.

• Canon 340 HS: Utilizes 9 AF points with face detection enabled, making portraits and casual family shots easier, especially when trying to nail eye focus. Continuous AF mode supports tracking movement reasonably well for simple subjects but can struggle with erratic motion.

• Panasonic FP3: Also has 9 AF points, offers multi-area AF, and supports touch AF for quick focus-with-a-tap operation. However, it lacks face detection, which is a significant downer given the camera’s claimed casual/social use case. Continuous AF is absent, so continuous tracking (e.g., running kids) is more challenging.

Testing burst mode and focusing speed:

• Canon’s 4 fps burst is modest but keeps pace with the lagginess of the autofocus system.
• Panasonic can do 5 fps but autofocus is locked on the first frame in continuous mode, so not much help for fast action.

Bottom line: For portraits, casual wildlife, or street shots where faces matter, Canon’s face detection AF plus continuous mode is a functional advantage. Panasonic’s touch AF might appeal if you prefer direct screen focus but be aware it’s not designed for sports or wildlife tracking.

Handling the Frame: LCDs and Viewfinders

Nothing disrupts the shooting flow like a poor screen, especially on cameras without viewfinders.

Here’s the Canon’s 3” 461k-dot TFT fixed screen compared to Panasonic’s 3” 230k-dot touchscreen:

Canon’s higher-resolution screen gives better clarity for framing and menu navigation, though it lacks touchscreen functionality - an increasingly common frustration.

Panasonic’s lower-res screen means grainier previews, but touchscreen support allows quick settings adjustments and touch AF.

Neither camera offers a built-in viewfinder, which affects usability in bright daylight. I often recommend a loupe or at least shooting from the hip when using these compacts outdoors.

Shooting Across Genres: Which Camera Excels Where?

How do these cameras stack up for popular photography genres? I put them through their paces in multiple typical scenarios:

Portraits

• Canon: Thanks to face detection, natural skin tones, and optical image stabilization for steady hand-held shots, it’s the better choice for casual portraits and social photography.
• Panasonic: Lacks face detect and smoother focus tracking but has a decent macro mode for close-ups (though macro focusing starts at 10cm vs Canon’s impressive 1cm). Skin tones are a mixed bag.

Landscapes

• Both cameras share limited sensor size and resolution, but Canon’s better dynamic range and color rendering offer slightly more detailed capture.
• Neither is weather sealed, so tread carefully on outdoor adventures.

Wildlife and Sports

• Neither camera is a prime pick here due to contrast-only autofocus, slow burst rates, and limited focal reach - but the Canon’s longer zoom (25-300 mm vs Panasonic’s 35-140 mm) offers more reach which counts.
• Canon’s 4 fps and face/subject tracking, even if basic, put it ahead.

Street Photography

• Panasonic’s touchscreen lends nimble framing, but low burst frame rate and absence of face detect impede rapid shooting.
• Canon’s better lens versatility and image quality make it optimal for discrete, quality snaps even at the expense of fewer interface bells and whistles.

Macro

• Canon’s 1cm macro focus is phenomenal in this segment, allowing flower, insect, and texture shots with great sharpness.
• Panasonic can only do 10cm minimum focusing distance, limiting usefulness for serious macro work.

Night and Astro

• Both cameras are limited by small sensors and modest maximum ISOs - but Canon’s noise control is slightly better.
• No bulb modes or manual long exposure controls are available, so astrophotography is not a priority here.

Video

• Canon maxes out at 1920x1280p at 30 fps with H.264 encoding, delivering decent video quality for casual purposes.
• Panasonic offers 1280x720p at 30 fps in Motion JPEG, a less efficient format implying larger files and lower quality potential.
• Neither supports external microphones or headphone jacks, and both lack 4K, slow motion, or image stabilization in video mode.

Build Quality and Durability: Can They Take a Beating?

Neither camera offers weather sealing, shockproofing, or waterproofing.

• Both models are made of quality plastic shells common to budget compacts.
• Canon feels slightly more solid in hand and resistant to flex.
• Panasonic’s slimmer profile makes it easier to slide into tight pockets but feels less robust.

Battery life:

• Canon’s NB-11LH battery delivers roughly 190 shots per charge - modest but workable.
• Panasonic doesn’t provide official battery life specs, but practical use suggests comparable endurance.

Storage:

• Both support SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with single slots - standard fare.

Connectivity:

• Canon offers built-in wireless (Wi-Fi) and NFC, which means faster transfer to smartphones - very handy for on-the-go social sharing.
• Panasonic FP3 lacks any wireless features, a huge downside nowadays.

Lens and Zoom: Flexibility in Your Hands

The zoom range is where these compacts differentiate:

• Canon 340 HS: 25-300 mm (12x zoom) with max aperture F3.6-7.0
• Panasonic FP3: 35-140 mm (4x zoom) with F3.5-5.9 aperture

This means Canon’s zoom is significantly longer, letting you shoot distant subjects like wildlife or zoomed portraits with more framing freedom.

From my tests, the Canon lens exhibits some softness at full telephoto and wide-open aperture but overall better versatility.

Putting It All Together: Overall Performance Summary

Here’s a holistic look at how each model scores across important performance factors:

Who Should Buy Which? Tailored Recommendations

Choose the Canon ELPH 340 HS if you:

• Prioritize image quality and color accuracy, especially for portraits and casual wildlife.
• Want a longer zoom range for versatility in everyday shooting.
• Need better low-light performance and face detection.
• Appreciate having Wi-Fi and NFC for easy photo sharing.
• Prefer a camera with more tactile control buttons over touchscreen reliance.
• Are willing to spend slightly more for a more rounded package.

Lean towards the Panasonic FP3 if:

• You want a true bargain compact for daylight street or travel photography.
• Touchscreen interaction is a must-have for you (accepting lower-res preview).
• You mainly capture daytime scenes and don’t require advanced autofocus features.
• Minimalist design and slim body take precedence over zoom reach and low-light prowess.
• You’re on a tighter budget and can compromise on video and connectivity.

Wrapping Up with the Hard Facts

For photographers stepping into ultra-compact cameras, the Canon ELPH 340 HS emerges overall as the stronger performer, especially when you factor in real-world usability, image quality, and connectivity. It suits enthusiasts who crave better zoom, improved autofocus, and reliable performance across a broad spectrum of scenarios. Whether shooting portraits, landscapes, or casual wildlife, Canon’s incremental technological edge shines through.

The Panasonic FP3, while an early-2010 model, still holds value for very budget-conscious buyers who prioritize slimness and touchscreen controls over features. Just temper expectations for noise handling and zoom flexibility, and accept its niche as more of a simple point-and-shoot than a serious photography tool.

Having tested both in various environments, I can say neither camera will replace your DSLR or mirrorless beast, but they’re fine companions for light travel, quick snaps, and as a backup for casual photographers on the go.

Bonus: A Practical Shooting Scenario Comparison

Imagine a day out visiting a botanical garden. You want to snap close-up flowers (hello macro), portraits of your friend, and the occasional bird.

• With Canon, you get to focus down to 1cm for flower details, capture warm skin tones of your friend with face detection, and use the 12x zoom to frame shy birds a bit farther away.
• Panasonic limits your macro shots to 10cm minimum, has no face detect so focusing on people requires finger precision on the touchscreen, and you might miss quick bird movements due to single AF mode.

For a garden stroll, Canon clearly wins here - and that’s the kind of hands-on insight only years behind the viewfinder can reveal.

In sum, your choice hinges on your priorities: If image quality, versatility, and wireless sharing matter more, Canon ELPH 340 HS is the way to go. If ultra-slim design and touchscreen simplicity rule your heart (and your budget), Panasonic FP3 competes well enough. Remember, though, these cameras target casual use. For any kind of serious photographic work, stepping up to larger-sensor mirrorless or DSLR systems is where the real benefits start.

I hope this detailed comparison sheds light on which ultra-compact fits your next adventures better. Happy shooting!

END