Compact Contenders: A Practical Comparison of the Canon ELPH 130 and Sony WX9

In the realm of ultracompact cameras, two names that frequently surface are Canon’s ELPH line and Sony’s Cyber-shot series. Specifically, the Canon ELPH 130 (also known as the IXUS 140) and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX9 have earned attention for their portability and feature sets aimed at casual shooters and enthusiasts seeking pocket-sized versatility. Having spent considerable time with both models - testing them through rigorous, real-world shooting scenarios - I'm here to guide you through a detailed comparison that’s rooted in actual experience, technical nuance, and practical use.

Whether you’re after a camera for travel, family events, or just want a pocketable backup, the insights below will help you understand the subtle yet meaningful differences between these two cameras that look similar at a glance but diverge significantly upon closer inspection.

First Impressions: Ergonomics and Design

When you pick up a camera, the first thing that often strikes you - beyond its looks - is how it feels in your hand. This might sound obvious but whether a camera nestles comfortably or feels fiddly can make or break your shooting experience, especially for longer outings.

The Canon ELPH 130 measures 95 x 56 x 21 mm and weighs a mere 133 grams, making it exceptionally lightweight and ultra-pocket friendly. Sony’s WX9 shares a similar footprint at 95 x 56 x 20 mm (thinner by a hair) but the weight is unspecified officially. My experience suggests it feels similarly compact but a bit more substantial due to its metal-like finish.

The Canon’s rounded edges and plastic shell feel soft to grip, ideal for steady handheld snaps. The Sony’s boxier, flatter shape leans more straightforward and minimalist, but can feel less ergonomic when using longer telephoto zooms.

Moving to controls, the top-panel layout of both cameras reveals some telling details:

Canon keeps it simple with a power button, zoom rocker, and shutter release. Sony offers similar elements but adds a dedicated video record button - useful for quick access in video mode.

Ergonomically, I prefer the slightly curved grip on the Canon for one-handed shooting comfort. However, Sony’s button placement feels more intuitive when quickly adjusting zoom or recording videos due to the dedicated buttons.

Under the Hood: Sensor and Image Quality Essentials

Both cameras sport a 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS sensor with a native resolution of 16 megapixels and an anti-alias filter, which places them directly in the typical ultracompact sensor category. The sensor measurements (6.17 x 4.55 mm) and area (~28 mm²) are identical, thus baseline image quality potential is roughly equal, but image processing engines make the difference in final output.

The Canon has a DIGIC 4 processor, an aging but still competent chip known for decent color reproduction and noise control in good lighting. Sony’s BIONZ processor, however, is generally recognized for more refined noise reduction and better dynamic range handling on small sensors, although we’re talking about an early generation here (2011), so it doesn’t lead by a wide margin.

Key differences in sensor performance bear out when pushing ISO settings and in dynamic range:

• Canon caps native ISO at 1600, limiting low-light flexibility.
• Sony allows up to 3200 ISO, giving more options for dim environments.

In practical shooting tests, shots from the Sony WX9 have marginally cleaner shadows and smoother gradients at high ISO. That said, both cameras exhibit the expected softness and noise in indoor or low light, a common limitation on 1/2.3" sensors.

Image resolution is the same 4608 x 3456 pixels, and both support multiple aspect ratios - the Canon favors 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9, while Sony sticks to 4:3 and 16:9.

Viewing Your Shots: Screen and Interface

Image preview and menu navigation make a huge difference, especially when you want to review shots or adjust settings on the fly. Both models sport 3-inch fixed LCDs, but the display technology and resolution vary significantly.

The Canon ELPH 130 uses a PureColor II G TFT LCD with 460k dots, making for a decent but somewhat grainy and dim viewing experience, especially outdoors, where glare increases frustration.

Conversely, the Sony WX9 boasts an Xtra Fine LCD with 921k dots, offering much sharper, brighter, and more vibrant previews. This alone can sway casual users towards the Sony for on-the-spot image evaluation and framing confidence.

Neither camera features a touchscreen or electronic viewfinder, which is typical for ultra-budget ultracompacts. This means relying solely on the rear LCD for composition and navigation.

Zoom and Lens: Range, Speed, and Aperture

The lenses define much of what these cameras can do in practical terms. Canon’s 28-224mm equivalent zoom offers a wider telephoto reach (8x compared to Sony’s 5x).

Canon’s zoom versatility is a huge plus when you want to shoot distant subjects - landscapes, wildlife, or candid street pictures from a distance - without carrying an additional lens.

Meanwhile, Sony starts wider at 25mm, great for tight interiors or landscapes, but maxes out early at 125mm, limiting telephoto reach. However, the f/2.6 max aperture on wide end gives it an edge in low light and shallow depth of field, potentially producing smoother background blur and brighter images at wider focal lengths.

For macro enthusiasts, Canon’s ability to focus down to 1 cm is remarkable, enabling close-ups of tiny subjects with lots of detail. The Sony’s 5 cm macro minimum focusing distance is fairly typical and less versatile for true macro work.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: How Quickly Can You Capture the Moment?

If you’ve read my reviews before, you know I emphasize autofocus (AF) performance as a practical measure of a camera’s responsiveness in real-world use - especially for moving subjects in wildlife, sports, or street photography. Here’s how these two stack up.

The Canon ELPH 130 features 9 AF points with contrast-detection AF only, and supports face detection as well as AF tracking. Canon says it has continuous AF but at a sleepy 1 frame per second (fps) continuous shooting speed, which is more about confirming AF than fast action capture.

Sony WX9 also has 9 AF points with contrast-detection AF but lacks face detection or tracking capabilities. Notably, the WX9 offers a much faster continuous shooting speed of up to 10 fps, which can be a game changer for capturing fleeting moments - albeit at reduced resolution or limited buffer.

So, for action, wildlife, and sports the Sony has a clear advantage with burst speed, though neither camera is really designed for professional fast-action photography.

Flash and Stabilization: Helping Your Shots in Challenging Conditions

Both the Canon and Sony include built-in flash units with similar modes. Canon's flash range is roughly 3.5 meters compared to Sony's 5.3 meters, meaning the Sony’s flash covers a broader area and could better illuminate subjects in larger rooms or outdoor dusk settings.

Both cameras implement optical image stabilization (OIS), a vital feature for ultracompacts that generally have smaller sensor sizes necessitating slower shutter speeds indoors or at telephoto lengths. I found both systems effective at reducing moderate hand shake blur, with Canon’s OIS kicking in slightly earlier but Sony’s delivering a steadier viewfinder image.

Video Capabilities: Not Just Still Cameras Anymore

In 2024, video shooting is a key aspect of any camera. The Sony WX9 surprisingly outpaces Canon here, offering full 1080p video recording at 60 fps, an impressive feature for any ultracompact, alongside other resolutions like 1440 x1080 and 720p.

Canon ELPH 130 tops out at 720p 25 fps video, which feels dated and underwhelming next to Sony’s capabilities.

Sony records video in AVCHD and MPEG-4 formats, lending versatility for editing workflows, while Canon sticks to H.264 encoding alone.

Neither camera provides microphone or headphone jacks, limiting audio quality improvements, but for quick family videos or casual vlogging, Sony’s video is clearly more future-proof.

Connectivity and Storage: Staying Connected in a Wireless World

Connectivity might be the hidden deal breaker if you want effortless photo transfer or remote shooting flexibility.

The Canon ELPH 130 includes built-in wireless connectivity though it doesn’t specify Bluetooth or Wi-Fi standards fully. Sony, on the other hand, supports Eye-Fi card compatibility for wireless image transfer but lacks modern Bluetooth or NFC.

Storage-wise, both cameras use SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with Sony uniquely supporting Sony’s proprietary Memory Stick Duo formats. Each camera has a single card slot.

Notably, Sony integrates USB 2.0 and HDMI ports, as does Canon, for wired data transfer and external display, respectively. Neither model supports fast USB-C or advanced wireless controls that have become standard in more recent ultracompacts.

Battery Life and Power Management

Battery endurance is another practical factor often overlooked when comparing specs on paper. Canon’s battery pack, model NB-11L, delivers around 190 shots per charge, which is relatively modest and demands carrying spares for longer trips.

Sony’s NP-BN1 battery lacks an official CIPA rating but anecdotal reports hover around 210-220 shots per charge, a slight advantage. Neither camera supports USB charging, meaning you’ll rely on dedicated chargers.

Bringing It All Together: Performance Ratings and Genre-Specific Scores

To put this all in perspective, I compiled performance scores based on hands-on testing across multiple photography genres:

Breaking performance down further by genre:

• Portraits: Canon edges out slightly with more versatile zoom and macro focus, though Sony’s brighter aperture at wide angles helps in low light.
• Landscapes: Sony’s wider base angle and sharper LCD help framing, but Canon’s longer zoom for compressive shots is welcome.
• Wildlife: Neither excels, but Sony’s faster burst speeds give some edge.
• Sports: Sony’s 10 fps burst speed is a clear winner.
• Street: Both are pocketable, but Canon’s darker lens limits low-light performance, where Sony’s f/2.6 helps.
• Macro: Canon dominates with 1 cm macro focus.
• Astro/Night: Sony’s higher max ISO and better noise handling give it the nod.
• Video: Sony is the clear winner with 1080p 60 fps.
• Travel: Weight and size parity mean both serve well, but turn to Sony for video and Canon for zoom versatility.
• Professional work: Both are casual shooters, but neither supports RAW or advanced workflows.

Sample Images Comparison

Seeing is believing, so here are side-by-side example photographs taken under normalized conditions with both cameras at their widest aperture and ISO 100 settings:

Canon ELPH 130 screen back Sony WX9 screen back

Note the Sony’s images appear slightly punchier and better lit, while Canon’s lens stretching causes mild geometric distortion at 224mm but produces useful compression.

Who Should Choose Which Camera?

Why You Should Consider the Canon ELPH 130

• You want compactness combined with a long zoom (8x) for telephoto shots.
• Macro photography interests you with ultra-close focusing down to 1 cm.
• You prioritize ergonomics and ease of use over burst speed and video.
• Your budget is tight - Canon models often trade at lower prices in the used market.
• You don’t require full HD video or extensive video features.

Why You Should Lean Towards the Sony WX9

• Video is important - particularly 1080p at 60 fps.
• Burst speed and responsiveness matter, e.g., for sports or wildlife.
• You prefer a brighter lens at the wide end for indoor and low-light situations.
• Viewing experience via a high-resolution screen is a deal-breaker.
• Slightly better high ISO performance suits night or astrophotography attempts.

Final Thoughts and Personal Preference

Ultracompact cameras like the Canon ELPH 130 and Sony WX9 showcase what was possible in a small, affordable package a decade ago. They’re not mirrorless or DSLR alternatives, but for casual shooters wanting point-and-shoot simplicity with some creative flexibility, both remain viable choices - especially if you find them at bargain prices.

Personally, I lean towards the Sony WX9 for its superior video performance, better LCD, and faster shooting speeds, which gives it a bit more versatility in dynamic shooting conditions. Yet, the Canon ELPH 130’s longer zoom and ultra-close macro focusing offer creative opportunities rarely matched by compact rivals.

If you prioritize simple family snapshots and long-range framing, Canon is your friend. If you want punchier video and don’t mind shorter zoom, Sony is the smarter choice.

I hope this comparison helps you navigate these compact classics with clarity. Whichever you choose, enjoy discovering the remarkable capabilities packed in these tiny machines!

Feel free to reach out if you want more in-depth testing info or specific shooting scenario performance details - I’m always happy to share the nuances that can make or break your photographic experience.