Canon ELPH 510 HS vs Nikon Coolpix S620: Compact Camera Showdown for Enthusiasts on a Budget

When you’re hunting for a compact camera that balances portability and zoom reach without breaking the bank, the Canon ELPH 510 HS and the Nikon Coolpix S620 often surface as contenders - both appealing to entry-level users or casual shooters who appreciate simplicity. Having extensively tested both models in real-world conditions over the years, I’m here to break down their capabilities across all major photography types, technical aspects, handling quirks, and value for money. If you want to understand how these two petite powerhouses stack up for your photography needs in 2024, carry on reading.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Build Quality

Physically, both cameras target the “point-and-shoot” compact market, favoring ultra-portability. The Canon ELPH 510 HS measures 99x59x22 mm and weighs 206g, slightly larger and heavier than the Nikon S620’s 90x53x23 mm footprint and 120g weight. The difference isn’t drastic but noticeable in hand: The Canon feels a bit more substantial and sturdy, which instills some confidence when shooting outdoors, but the Nikon excels if you need the ultimate pocket snack camera. Neither camera offers weather sealing or ruggedized features - both deserve gentle handling.

Ergonomically, I found the Canon’s grip molds marginally better to clubs for thumbs like mine, offering adequate purchase thanks to rounded edges. The Nikon feels a bit glossier and slippery in comparison, demanding a more mindful grip. Both cameras forego dedicated manual control rings or dials; in essence, they’re about convenience, not customization.

Control layout leans heavily toward simplicity. The Canon’s top plate hosts clearly identifiable zoom rockers, shutter buttons, and a video record trigger, all with solid tactile feedback, while the Nikon’s buttons are slightly smaller and less distinct, which might frustrate users with larger hands or those shooting quickly. No touchscreen on the Nikon, but the Canon’s 3.2-inch PureColor II TFT LCD responds well to finger taps - which I’ll dive into shortly.

Sensors and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras sport 1/2.3-inch sensors, the classical small-sensor format found in most supersed compact class devices. Sensor dimensions are almost identical: Canon’s 6.17 × 4.55 mm vs Nikon’s 6.08 × 4.56 mm, housing 12-megapixel resolutions each. These aren’t high-res beasts, but resolutions around 12MP still print reasonably well in 8x10 or handle web resolutions gracefully.

Canon opts for a BSI-CMOS sensor known for better light-gathering at higher ISOs and improved dynamic range compared to traditional CCDs. Nikon sticks to a CCD sensor, the older tech that generally struggles more under low light but tends to produce pleasant color gradations in daylight.

Real-world testing confirms this: The Canon delivers cleaner images in dim conditions, with less noise creeping in at ISO 800 and 1600, whereas the Nikon’s images quickly degrade past ISO 400. Dynamic range differences are subtle but favor the Canon, allowing better preservation of highlights and shadows, which is particularly evident in landscape shots.

Neither camera offers RAW support, so you’re limited to JPEGs in both cases - a major constraint for enthusiasts wanting to push edits hard. Keep that in mind if post-processing flexibility is mission-critical.

Screen and Viewfinder Usability

Neither the Canon nor the Nikon cameras have optical or electronic viewfinders, so you’re entirely dependent on their LCD screens - a common trait in compact cameras but worth noting given outdoor visibility challenges.

Canon’s 3.2-inch fixed PureColor II TFT LCD boasts 461k dots, outclassing the Nikon’s smaller 2.7-inch 230k dot display by a good margin. In practice, the Canon screen presents a much clearer and brighter preview, which really helps with focus confirmation and checking exposure on the fly - especially in bright sunlight.

The Nikon’s older LCD feels dimmer and lower-res, which hampers your ability to judge critical sharpness or subtle exposure nuances. Plus, the Nikon lacks touchscreen capabilities, so all menu navigation, focus area selection, and playback browsing rely on mechanical buttons. The Canon’s touchscreen, while basic, speeds up workflow and lets you tap to focus - a notable advantage for quick grabs.

Lens and Zoom Reach: Versatility or Specialization?

Zoom ranges define much of both cameras’ appeal:

• Canon ELPH 510 HS offers an aggressive 12x optical zoom from 28-336mm (35mm equivalent), stepping from a moderately wide angle to an adaptable telephoto reach capable for distant subjects like wildlife glimpses or event coverage.
• Nikon Coolpix S620 brings 4x zoom at 28-112mm, with a somewhat brighter aperture (f/2.7-5.8) on the wide end but limited telephoto scope.

This difference alone tilts the scale heavily in Canon’s favor for users craving versatility in framing subjects without swapping lenses (which you can’t do anyway). Canon’s longer zoom lets you capture distant landscapes or candid street shots deftly, albeit with gradually softer corners and slower apertures at max zoom.

The Canon’s lens is also equipped with optical image stabilization, just like the Nikon. Both do a decent job compensating for hand shake, but Canon’s tends to operate more smoothly and effectively at long focal lengths - critical when shooting at 300mm+ handheld.

Autofocus Systems: Speed and Accuracy in Real Shooting

Autofocus defines success or frustration for many users, especially in genres like wildlife, sports, or street. Here, both cameras keep it modest.

The Canon employs contrast-detection AF with face detection and continuous AF options, plus touch-to-focus. This translates to reasonably quick acquisitions on well-lit and contrasted scenes, though hunting can occur in low-light or low-contrast situations. The face detection works well for casual portraits and groups.

The Nikon relies on contrast-detection AF but lacks face detection entirely. Its single AF mode means you must center your subject and recompose, increasing miss chances in dynamic scenes. Continuous AF not being available also limits tracking subjects on the move.

From experience testing similar lineups, Canon’s AF system is the more confident performer, though neither camera is a speed demon. Burst shooting maxes out at 3fps for Canon and just 1fps for Nikon, which strongly restricts action capture.

Performance Across Photography Disciplines

Now, let’s examine how each camera fares across popular genres photographers care about, based on hands-on use results.

Portrait Photography

For portraits, skin tone accuracy, bokeh quality, and eye detection matter. The Canon’s deeper zoom and face detection aid nicely in framing and focusing on subjects, yielding pleasing skin tone reproduction. Its F3.4 aperture at wide angle is decent but not spectacular for background blur, especially since the small sensor limits shallow depth of field.

The Nikon’s wider aperture at f/2.7 helps a bit in dimmer settings but flatters skin tones less consistently. Lacking face detection means focusing is a bit more manual - subject to miss-focus frustration.

Portrait winner: Canon ELPH 510 HS

Landscape Photography

Landscapes demand dynamic range, resolution, and lens sharpness over long focal distances. Canon’s slightly better dynamic range and longer lens open creative framing options. Low ISO precision is comparable, and both struggle to capture complex shadows due to sensor size. Nikon’s brighter lens helps in dusk scenes but with limited zoom tightness.

Neither has weather sealing or a robust build to withstand rugged conditions.

Landscape winner: Canon ELPH 510 HS, due to sensor and zoom advantages

Wildlife Photography

Wildlife needs fast AF, high burst rates, long telephoto reach. The Canon’s 12x zoom and 3fps burst put it closer to usable, though not professional-level performance. Face and AF tracking assist but struggle on fast erratic subjects. Nikon simply can’t compete here with its limited zoom and poor AF responsiveness.

Wildlife winner: Canon ELPH 510 HS

Sports Photography

Given both low burst speeds and simple AF, neither camera suits demanding sports photography. Canon’s 3fps (still sluggish) could suffice for casual play or slower-paced events, Nikon’s single frame rate is a non-starter.

Sports winner: slightly Canon, but both are underwhelming

Street Photography

Street shooters prize discretion, speed, and low-light ability. The Nikon’s smaller size and weight benefit portability, but the Canon’s better low-light ISO handling and quick AF arguably offer better overall utility. Touchscreen focus is a plus for quick taps on passing subjects.

Street winner: Canon ELPH 510 HS

Macro Photography

Macro depends on minimum focusing distance and precision. Canon’s claimed 1cm macro range beats Nikon’s 2cm, letting you get extremely close to small subjects. Image stabilization also helps reduce blur at close focus distances.

Macro winner: Canon ELPH 510 HS

Night / Astrophotography

With no RAW support, limited sensor size, and capped ISO ceilings, neither camera excels here. The Canon’s BSI-CMOS sensor and max ISO 3200 allow usable night shots with higher noise, while Nikon max ISO 6400 seems moot due to image degradation and lack of noise reduction.

Both lack bulb exposures or timer controls optimized for astro.

Night winner: Canon ELPH 510 HS by a small margin

Video Shooting

Canon supports Full HD 1080p at 24 fps, while Nikon maxes out at 640x480 VGA resolution. Canon’s video quality and format (H.264) are far superior for contemporary demands, though neither camera supports external microphones or 4k.

Canon’s optical stabilization helps in-camera shake during handheld video, a plus for casual movie moments.

Video winner: Canon ELPH 510 HS

Travel Photography

The Nikon’s small stature and light weight make it a minimalist traveler’s dream. But Canon’s significantly better zoom range, sharper LCD, and enhanced image quality justify the added bulk for anyone wanting a do-it-all travel companion.

Battery life is comparable: Both use proprietary small-capacity batteries (NB-9L for Canon, EN-EL12 for Nikon), limiting hours of shooting per charge but easily swap or carry spares.

Travel winner: depends - choose Nikon for ultimate compactness, Canon for versatility

Professional Work

Neither camera will suit professional assignments requiring RAW files, substantial dynamic range, or rugged durability. Both cameras fundamentally cater to casual shooters and beginners.

Technical Deep Dive: Connectivity, Storage, and Power

Connectivity-wise, Canon edges out slightly with Eye-Fi support for wireless image transfer and HDMI out, whereas Nikon lacks wireless options and HDMI. Both cameras have USB 2.0 ports for tethered transfers. No modern wireless standards like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC are present in either.

Storage is SD/SDHC/SDXC compatible on Canon and SD/SDHC plus an internal memory slot on Nikon. Battery types differ - NB-9L on Canon and EN-EL12 on Nikon - with neither boasting remarkable endurance based on official specs or user reports. Expect to recharge frequently or carry backups.

Price and Value: Budget Buyers Rejoice

The Nikon S620 often drops under $50 used or new old stock, suited for cheapskates experimenting with casual photography basics. The Canon ELPH 510 HS, while pricier around $200, offers palpable gains in zoom reach, image quality, autofocus, and video capability - features that matter for photography enthusiasts wanting an affordable everyday camera.

Let's consult an overall performance visualization:

And dive into genre-specific scores:

Summing Up the Strengths and Weaknesses

What I Recommend Based on Your Needs

If you value portability above all and want a barebones camera at rock-bottom prices for simple snapshots around the house or quick travel shots, the Nikon S620 is a decent entry point. Its size and weight suit suppliers with ultra-lightweight bags or those toting multiple gadgets.

In contrast, anyone looking for a more flexible tool that handles varied shooting conditions from portraits to landscapes and casual wildlife should lean toward the Canon ELPH 510 HS. The zoom advantage alone justifies the price hike for most enthusiasts who want to grow with their camera without immediately upgrading.

Neither will replace mirrorless or DSLR cameras with their richer feature sets, interchangeable lenses, or professional results, but both deliver approachable, user-friendly experiences.

Final Thoughts from a Hands-On Perspective

Testing these cameras extensively, I appreciate the Canon ELPH 510 HS as the smarter everyday companion in the compact superzoom category circa its era. Its sensor and lens combo simply captures better images more consistently, with intuitive touch controls and useful video specs.

The Nikon Coolpix S620, while fading in relevance with its old-school sensor and shallow feature set, caters admirably to the absolute beginner or the occasional photographer who just needs a trusty pocket shooter for casual family snaps.

Both cameras come with the inevitable limitations of their class - tiny sensors, weak ISO performance, slow autofocus relative to modern standards - but that’s par for the course unless you climb up the price and spec ladder.

Hopefully, my analysis empowers you to make a savvy, informed choice aligned with your photography style and budget. If you want to squeeze the last bit of value or find an upgrade path from these models, stepping into mirrorless territory next would be a logical progression.

Happy shooting!

Canon ELPH 510 HS front Canon ELPH 510 HS screen back Nikon S620 front Nikon S620 screen back