Canon Elph 115 IS vs Nikon L820

Canon Elph 115 IS vs Nikon Coolpix L820: A Real-World Ultra-Compact and Bridge Camera Face-Off

As someone who has evaluated thousands of cameras personally over the last 15 years, I relish opportunities to compare cameras that look very different on paper yet compete in similar real-life shooting scenarios. Today, I’m putting the 2013-era Canon Elph 115 IS - a true ultra-compact point-and-shoot - head-to-head with the Nikon Coolpix L820, a bridge-style small sensor superzoom. Both launched in the same year and target budget-conscious users seeking versatile travel and everyday cameras.

I spent weeks shooting with both in varied conditions to gauge their real strengths and limitations beyond datasheets. This comparison dives deep into how these two cameras truly perform across multiple genres like portrait, landscape, wildlife, video, and more. Alongside technical analysis, I’ll share experiential insights from my testing workflow and explain which camera suits which type of photographer best.

First Impressions: Handling and Ergonomics Matter

The first tactile encounter reveals fundamental differences. The Canon Elph 115 IS is quintessential ultra-compact at 93x57x20mm and weighs a mere 135g. It's about the size of a deck of cards, slipping seamlessly into jackets or even larger pockets - ideal for those prioritizing absolute portability.

The Nikon L820 is a different beast: large, robust, and SLR-like at 111x76x85mm with a weight near 470g. Its size allows for a more substantial grip area, physical controls, and a long zoom barrel. I found the L820 felt far more confident to hold steadily for telephoto shots, but the Canon’s miniature form invites spontaneous “grab-and-go” shooting where a large camera would be cumbersome.

This size disparity also influences balance and ergonomics in different hands - slim in pockets vs. confident handling with a dedicated grip.

Control Layout and User Interface: Simplicity vs. Functionality

Neither camera features an electronic viewfinder - a compromise common in this class - but both have fixed rear LCDs. The Canon’s clean button layout is minimalist and straightforward, making it excellent for absolute beginners. However, lack of manual focus options and limited physical controls can frustrate enthusiasts wanting more direct control.

The Nikon L820, despite lacking dedicated exposure mode dials, benefits from a more extensive button array and toggle controls providing faster access to zoom, flash, ISO, and scene modes. It doesn’t offer full manual exposure but gives a slightly more functional interface suitable for users evolving beyond point-and-shoot casuals.

Sensor and Image Quality: Same Size, Different Execution

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3” BSI-CMOS sensor with 16MP resolution - quite standard for compact cameras of their era. However, subtle sensor size and processing engine differences influence real image outcomes. The Canon DIGIC 5 processor tends to favor cleaner images with better signal-to-noise management at higher ISO, despite the Canon’s slower lens aperture range.

In my detailed studio tests and natural light shoots, the Canon consistently delivered richer colors with more accurate skin tone reproduction - crucial for portrait work. The Nikon’s images appeared slightly flat in color and sometimes struggled with haze in wide-angle landscape shots despite its much longer zoom.

Dynamic range is limited on both, a given with such small sensors, but the Canon’s slight edge was evident in retaining shadow details, while the Nikon’s images more often required post-processing lift. Neither camera shoots RAW, naturally restricting maximum editing latitude.

LCD Screen and Live View: Clarity and Usability

The Nikon's 3-inch screen boasts a resolution of 921k dots - double the Canon’s 461k dots - rendering a sharper and more pleasing live view image. This high-res display advantage aids composition and reviewing images with confidence, especially in bright outdoor conditions.

Canon’s PureColor II G TFT LCD, while sufficient for casual framing and playback, suffers in bright light and offers less tactile feedback with its fixed, non-touch design. Neither camera offers touchscreen capabilities, so navigating menus on both felt somewhat dated compared to modern standards.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Portraiture evaluation is where the Canon Elph 115 IS really shines despite its small sensor. Its lens aperture at the wide end (f/2.7) allows relatively better subject isolation with a softer background than the Nikon L820’s f/3.0 aperture.

Autofocus on the Canon includes 9 contrast-detection points with face detection and decent eye detection, enabling fast and reliable focusing on human subjects - important to my shoots of casual portraits and street candids.

The Nikon’s autofocus is markedly slower and less precise - it lacks face detection entirely. This can be frustrating when photographing moving subjects. Moreover, its long zoom and narrower aperture limit naturalistic bokeh effects, producing flatter backgrounds.

Overall, the Canon’s superior skin tone rendering and faster, smarter AF make it my pick for portrait-focused photographers on a budget.

Landscape Photography: Resolution, Dynamic Range, and Weather Resistance

Landscape shooters often demand large resolution and broad dynamic range for expansive detail and tonal gradation. Both cameras share 16MP sensors, but the Nikon’s longer zoom end (675mm equiv.) opens possibilities for distant subjects.

However, their tiny 1/2.3" sensors restrict dynamic range severely compared to APS-C or full-frame cameras, revealing noise and clipping in shadows or highlights.

Neither camera sports weather sealing, rendering them vulnerable to elements for prolonged outdoor use. Landscapes with careful exposure management yield passable results, but pushing shadows or highlights invites noisy artifacts.

I preferred the Canon’s slightly better shadow retention in overcast conditions, while the Nikon’s longer zoom allowed composition flexibility but introduced more handheld shake at telephoto, blending to reduced sharpness.

Wildlife Photography: Autofocus and Burst Performance

Wildlife shooting demands rapid autofocus tracking and continuous burst modes to capture fleeting moments. Here, the Nikon L820’s higher continuous shooting rate of 8fps dwarfs the Canon’s leisurely 2fps burst speed. That 8fps burst is a substantial advantage when tracking erratic bird flight or small mammals.

Unfortunately, the Nikon’s AF system lacks face detection or live view autofocus, relying on slower sweep focusing. The Canon’s contrast detection autofocus with 9 points and face detection operates significantly faster and more accurately in daylight but suffers once action speeds up.

Neither camera has meaningful animal-eye autofocus, a feature rare outside professional models. Plus, the Canon’s shorter zoom (120mm max) limits wildlife reach.

If you prioritize reach and frame rate over autofocus sophistication, Nikon hands down suits casual wildlife observation better. For affordable quick-focus portraits of pets or stationary subjects, Canon wins.

Sports Photography: Tracking and Low Light

Sports shooters demand precise autofocus tracking in variable lighting and fast shutter speeds. Neither of these cameras excels here - in fact, both struggle.

Canon’s max shutter speed caps at 1/2000s, Nikon slightly better at 1/4000s, but neither supports manual shutter priority modes or continuous autofocus tracking suitable for complex sports scenes.

Further complicating sports shooting, both cameras max out at ISO 3200 and their small sensors produce noticeable noise above ISO 800 in practice, limiting low light usability.

The Nikon’s faster burst (8fps) can help capture moments, but poor AF tracking leaves many frames out of focus.

The takeaway: Both cameras are poor fits for serious sports photography but as budget casualers, Nikon may capture more frames per burst.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

Street photographers value compactness, discretion, and responsiveness. Canon Elph 115 IS’s ultra-compact size and quiet operation win hands down here. Its low weight reduces fatigue during long urban walks, and it slips easily in a coat pocket for instant readiness.

The Nikon L820’s larger body and noisy zoom barrel feel obtrusive and call more attention, unwanted for subtle street candids.

Canon’s quick autofocus and face detection aid in snapping expressive human moments, while the Nikon’s sluggish AF and noisy zoom can get in the way.

If street shooting is your main interest, Canon’s small form factor and speedy AF create more serendipitous photo opportunities.

Macro Photography: Close-up Capability and Stabilization

Close focusing distances and image stabilization are vital for macro work. Canon Elph 115 IS boasts a minimum macro focus of 3 cm - a respectable figure allowing me to capture flowers and texture details with decent magnification.

The Nikon does not specify minimum macro distance and lacks effective image stabilization - a big deal since its long zoom can amplify camera shake when focusing close.

Canon’s optical image stabilization proved key to avoid blur in close handheld shots.

For occasional macro enthusiasts, Canon provides easier control and sturdier results.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Control

Shooting in near-darkness pushes small sensor compacts hard. Canon’s max ISO of 3200 and DIGIC 5 processor handle low-light better than Nikon’s less advanced processing, producing cleaner night shots with less chroma noise.

Neither camera includes long exposure modes beyond 15 seconds (Canon) or 4 seconds (Nikon), limiting astrophotography options.

Canon did better in my night cityscapes, preserving detail without excessive grain, while Nikon’s brighter sensor aperture was neutralized by noisier output.

The Canon Elph 115 IS is the marginally better tool for night photographers needing a lightweight, entry-level camera.

Video Capabilities: HD Recording and Stabilization

Both cameras shoot 1080p Full HD video, but Canon’s DIGIC 5 processor enables 24fps and a range of lower resolutions with slow-motion options (up to 240 fps at 320x240). Nikon sticks to 1080p at an unspecified frame rate.

Neither supports microphone or headphone inputs, limiting audio control.

Canon includes optical image stabilization that greatly improves handheld video quality, a feature Nikon surprisingly lacks.

When it comes to casual video, the Canon offers more flexibility and smoother footage with in-body stabilization - a significant advantage for vloggers or family moments.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Life

On trips, camera versatility, battery endurance, and size are critical. Nikon’s massive 30x zoom range embraces an all-in-one solution, covering ultra-wide to extreme telephoto, reducing lens swapping or need for multiple bodies.

Canon’s shorter 5x zoom limits framing flexibility but compensates with compactness and pocketability - not insignificant for travelers juggling luggage.

Battery life contrasts sharply - Canon’s NB-11L battery offers about 170 shots per charge, barely sustaining a day’s shooting. Nikon’s 4x AA batteries yielded roughly 320 shots, easier to top up with spares on the go despite carrying more weight.

Storage-wise, both rely on SD cards and offer only one slot.

For travelers prioritizing reach and endurance over minimalism, Nikon’s L820 is the more practical companion.

Professional Workflow and Reliability

Neither camera targets professional users. Both lack RAW support, manual exposure, and rugged construction - a serious downside for workflows that depend on flexible post-processing or challenging environments.

Canon’s fixed-lens, no manual focus, and limited control suite make it a simple point-and-shoot. Nikon’s robust zoom and modest interface improve versatility but not enough to compete with entry-level DSLRs or mirrorless options.

Reliability is decent for casual shooting, but neither model is sealed against dust or moisture.

Connectivity and Storage

Neither camera offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS connectivity. Both include HDMI and USB 2.0 ports (Canon lacks HDMI output in some regions) but no advanced wireless transfer.

This lack of modern connectivity means photos must be offloaded via cables or card readers - a minor but noteworthy inconvenience in today’s wireless age.

Price-to-Performance: Budget Cameras from 2013 Holding Up?

At the time of writing, the Canon Elph 115 IS retails around $225, while the Nikon L820 is slightly less expensive near $192.

Given their age, these cameras represent budget solutions for hobbyists wanting easy operation rather than advanced capabilities.

Canon’s superior image quality and portability justify the modest price premium. Nikon’s extensive zoom and battery life make it an appealing economical superzoom despite middling image quality.

Canon Elph 115 IS front Canon Elph 115 IS screen back Nikon L820 front Nikon L820 screen back

Examining sample images from my tests, it’s clear Canon better captures natural skin gradations and performs well for casual portraits, while Nikon’s reach catches distant subjects but sometimes sacrifices clarity.

Performance Ratings Summary

In an aggregated performance overview based on image quality, autofocus, ergonomics, video, and versatility, the Canon Elph 115 IS scores higher overall for general day-to-day shooting and casual portraiture.

For wildlife and sports, Nikon’s superior burst rate and zoom edge the Canon. The reverse is true for street and portrait photography, where Canon’s agility and image output excel.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Having tested these cameras extensively, here are my distilled recommendations:

• Casual Photographers, Street Shooters, and Travelers Prioritizing Portability:
  The Canon Elph 115 IS is superb. Its lightweight, pocketable design, smarter autofocus with face detection, better skin tone reproduction, and video stabilization deliver a more enjoyable, less frustrating experience. Ideal for those who want easy point-and-shoot operation without fuss.

• Budget Wildlife and Superzoom Fans:
  The Nikon Coolpix L820 offers an unbeatable zoom range and faster burst shooting at a fraction of the price. It suits those who want to capture distant subjects without carrying multiple lenses or who prize versatility over ultimate image quality or size.

• Portrait and Low-Light Enthusiasts:
  Canon’s lens aperture and processor provide cleaner images and better subject isolation. Nikon’s lack of face detection and slower AF undermine portrait attempts.

• Video Hobbyists:
  Canon’s optical stabilization and flexible frame rate video options make it a clear winner.

• Sports and Action Shooters on a Shoestring:
  Neither is ideal, but Nikon’s 8fps burst beats Canon’s 2fps, though AF sluggishness remains a caveat.

• Macro Explorers:
  Canon’s close focus distance and stabilization make it better for detailed close-ups.

One needs to accept that these are entry-level cameras with inherent compromises in image quality and features compared to modern mirrorless or DSLR models. If budget permits, upgrading to a contemporary camera will immensely broaden creative possibilities.

My Testing Methodology Recap:
I conducted extensive real-world trials, shooting handheld in variable lighting, mimicking typical user scenarios: portraits indoors and outdoors, wildlife from a nature reserve, fast-moving street subjects, low-light nightscapes, and casual travel journaling. Image files were examined on calibrated monitors, with ISO noise, sharpness, color accuracy, and autofocus responsiveness meticulously evaluated.

By integrating technical data with practical usage, I aim to provide you, the reader, with trustworthy insights that go beyond specs to how these cameras perform where it truly counts.

If you want me to test any other budget camera or need advice on modern alternatives, feel free to ask!

I hope this detailed comparison clarifies which camera suits your photography style and budget best. Happy shooting!