Canon Elph 115 IS vs Nikon Coolpix S6400: A Hands-On Ultracompact Camera Showdown

When it comes to ultracompact cameras, balancing pocketable size with versatile performance is always tricky. Two popular budget-friendly options that emerged around 2012-2013 are the Canon Elph 115 IS (also known as the IXUS 132 HS outside North America) and the Nikon Coolpix S6400. While these cameras share the category of pocketable convenience, their hardware choices and shooting experiences differ in meaningful ways with consequences for various photographic endeavors.

Having spent an afternoon testing both side by side in real-life shooting scenarios - from casual street strolls to modest telephoto landscapes - I’m here to unpack their capabilities, quirks, and who each camera is truly for. Let’s dive into a detailed comparison covering specifications, handling, image quality, autofocus proficiency, video chops, and more, paired with some visual references to help map each camera’s strengths and limitations.

Size, Ergonomics, and Design: Carrying Convenience versus Control

Both the Canon Elph 115 IS and Nikon S6400 wear the ultracompact badge proudly but with slightly different design philosophies.

The Canon Elph 115 IS presents a remarkably slim and lightweight profile - at 93 x 57 x 20 mm and 135g, it slips comfortably almost unnoticed into a pocket or small purse. Its minimalist approach makes for a discreet street shooter’s companion, though the tradeoff is a somewhat compressed grip area that might challenge photographers with larger hands or those accustomed to more ergonomically sculpted bodies.

In contrast, the Nikon S6400 weighs in a bit heavier at 150g, and measures 95 x 58 x 27 mm due to its longer zoom lens housing. That extra depth lends it a chunkier feel in hand, which some will welcome for added assurance when aiming, especially at longer focal lengths. Despite the modest size uplift, it remains easily pocketable - the classic ultracompact ethos intact.

Looking at the top-view designs, both cameras eschew external dials and esoteric control wheels typical of advanced compacts. Canon leans even more minimalist here, with a simple shutter button and zoom rocker. Nikon integrates a touchscreen interface, slightly modernizing its interaction style but not fully compensating for the absence of physical exposure controls. The Canon’s button layout - with dedicated flash and playback buttons - is straightforward for quick access, while the Nikon’s touchscreen enables potentially faster navigation, albeit sometimes at the cost of precision in bright outdoor conditions.

For overall handling, I’d suggest that the Nikon’s larger body and zoom range offer more versatility with decent control ergonomics. Meanwhile, the Canon is a perfect grab-and-go camera if ultimate pocketability and simplicity are the priorities - at the expense of reaching for the zoom when subjects distance themselves.

Sensor, Image Quality, and Lens: Head-to-Head Imaging Hardware

Underneath the skin, both cameras share quite a few common traits: a 1/2.3” backside-illuminated CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm and 16 megapixels resolution. This sensor size has become an industry standard in ultracompacts, offering decent light gathering but naturally limited dynamic range and noise performance compared to larger APS-C or full-frame sensors.

Yet optics reveal a more pronounced difference:

• Canon Elph 115 IS: A 24-120 mm equivalent zoom range (5x), with a relatively bright F2.7 aperture at the wide end, tapering to F5.9 at telephoto.

• Nikon Coolpix S6400: A much longer 25-300 mm equivalent reach (12x zoom), but starting at a dimmer F3.1 wide aperture and narrowing sharply to F6.5 by the telephoto edge.

The wider maximum aperture on the Canon’s wide-angle end will benefit low-light situations and background separation in portraits. Conversely, the Nikon’s significant reach enables better zoom flexibility but in practical shooting, slower apertures risk more noise and less sharpness, notably in indoor or dusk conditions.

Other optical nuances include macro focusing distances: Canon impresses with a tight 3 cm macro focus range - ideal for close-ups - while Nikon’s minimum focus at 10 cm may limit extreme close-up possibilities.

Testing in controlled daylight environments shows both cameras deliver sharp images at base ISO. Canon edges out slightly with better color fidelity and more pleasing skin tones, thanks in part to Canon’s DIGIC 5 processor tending to better noise-smoothing algorithms and color science heritage. The Nikon, processing images via the Expeed C2 engine, handles daylight well too but sometimes yields images with cooler tints and a touch more noise at ISO 800 and above.

Dynamic range on both sides hugs the limits of typical small-sensor compacts. Shadows tend to clip under harsh contrast, and highlight preservation requires careful exposure. Neither supports shooting RAW files, which rules out extensive post-processing flexibility - a tradeoff acceptable given their beginner-friendly aspirations.

Autofocus Performance and Shooting Responsiveness

Autofocus in ultracompacts often struggles under challenging conditions, but nuances exist between these two.

The Canon Elph 115 IS boasts 9 focus points with contrast-detection AF and face detection enabled in live view. It supports continuous and single autofocus modes, and - as surprising for a budget shooter - ambient light AF tracking. While tracking is basic and occasionally prone to hunting, the system is generally reliable for static or moderately moving subjects. I tested it in portrait and street scenarios; it locked focus quickly on faces and maintained dignity in low-light indoor conditions, albeit hunting a tad in dimmer corners.

The Nikon S6400 is equipped similarly with contrast-detection AF and face detection, but the AF point count is unspecified and continuous AF isn’t supported. More notably, the camera lacks active AF in live view during video recording, which stymies smooth focus pulls or subject tracking in movies. Autofocus speed during still shooting is adequate but not particularly quick, especially when zoomed in at 300 mm equivalent - where minor shake compounds focusing uncertainty.

Both cameras miss out on advanced autofocus features found in higher-end models, such as eye detection or animal eye AF, which are now standard even in some budget cameras. For wildlife or sports photography - contexts demanding rapid subject acquisition - both fall short, though Nikon’s longer zoom range might tempt novice wildlife shooters more despite autofocus limitations.

Display and User Interface: Touchscreen or Classic?

A 3” LCD screen is the primary live viewfinder and framing tool here for both cameras - but their implementation diverges.

Canon’s 3” PureColor II G TFT LCD screen has a fixed, non-touch design with 461k-dot resolution. This screen impresses with bright colors and decent viewing angles for a compact camera of its vintage, though it feels slightly dim in very bright outdoor use, requiring shading by hand.

The Nikon S6400 counters with a similar sized fixed 3” TFT LCD boasting 460k dots but adds a capacitive touchscreen layer. This modern touch overlay improves menu navigation and can speed-up settings adjustment or picture review by touch gestures - something I appreciated after switching back and forth. However, the lack of any articulating or tilting mechanism reduces compositional flexibility, especially in awkward angles or waist-level shooting.

Neither camera provides an electronic viewfinder, a significant omission for direct bright sun shooting or video composition. Users reliant on live view must adapt to shielding the screen with their hands or using the camera’s tiltable stance.

Burst Shooting and Continuous Performance

With burst shooting speeds of 2 fps on the Canon Elph 115 IS and no official continuous shooting speed stated for the Nikon, the Canon has a clear edge for capturing fleeting moments.

Though the 2 fps rate is modest, it can help capture expressions or split seconds in casual action photography. The Nikon’s undocumented burst likely revolves around a single-frame lag or slower frame rate. For sports or wildlife photography, neither camera meets enthusiast-level expectations - but Canon’s slightly faster rate combined with AF tracking provides a marginal advantage.

Video Capabilities: Basic but Functional

Both cameras support Full HD 1080p video recording, but with some distinct differences.

• Canon offers 1920x1080 at 24 fps, and various lower resolutions with higher frame rates up to 240 fps for slow-motion capture.

• Nikon’s 1080p is limited to 30 fps, with standard formats including MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs.

Interestingly, the Canon Elph 115 IS does not deliver continuous autofocus in video mode, but it does have AF tracking enabled during stills. Meanwhile, the Nikon excludes autofocus in live view during video entirely (no continuous AF), which could frustrate those who want autofocus pulls or smooth refocusing while recording.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone ports, a common ultracompact compromise. Also, lack of in-body or electronic image stabilization support for video means shooters must rely on optical stabilization and steady hands. The Canon’s optical IS is noted for being somewhat more effective in reducing handheld shake versus the Nikon.

Connectivity and Storage Flexibility

Connectivity-wise, the Nikon S6400 is the only one among the two offering wireless image transfer capabilities, specifically Eye-Fi card compatibility, enabling semi-wireless transfer and upload - a novelty in cameras of this bracket when it launched.

The Canon Elph 115 IS lacks any wireless connectivity options, relying solely on USB 2.0 and HDMI output for data and viewing transfer.

Both support SD, SDHC, and SDXC cards via a single storage slot, aligning with industry norms for affordability and simplicity.

Battery Life and Operational Endurance

Battery life numbers show the Canon Elph 115 IS rated for about 170 shots per charge, while the Nikon S6400 clocks in slightly lower at 160 shots.

These figures provide moderate usability for day trips or casual shooting sessions, but they fall significantly short compared to larger models or mirrorless systems, which often double or triple those numbers. Enthusiasts should consider carrying spare batteries to avoid mid-shoot power issues.

The Canon uses the NB-11L battery, while the Nikon runs on the EN-EL19. Both are proprietary, reasonably priced, and readily available.

Performance Across Photography Genres

Now let’s synthesize how each camera performs across a spectrum of shooting scenarios, grounding our expectations in practical shooting experience.

Portrait Photography

In portraits, subtle skin tone reproduction, precise eye focus, and gentle background blur (bokeh) matter greatly.

• Canon Elph 115 IS shines with its faster F2.7 aperture at wide-angle, affording more subject-background separation, and quick face detection helps lock on to faces. Bokeh is noticeable but limited by small sensor size.

• Nikon S6400 offers longer lens reach but narrower apertures diminish bokeh effect and indoor low-light performance. Face detection is present but its contrast AF occasionally hunts.

For casual portraits, Canon’s color science and aperture advantage edge the dial slightly toward more natural and flattering results.

Landscape Photography

Here, resolution, dynamic range, and ruggedness matter.

Both cameras have identical resolution at 16 MP but neither provides weather sealing - so care is needed shooting outdoors in challenging conditions.

Dynamic range is limited on both and ebb under bright skies, with highlight clipping and shadow loss requiring careful exposure.

Nikon’s 300 mm equivalent telephoto unlocks more framing possibilities for distant landscapes, while Canon’s wider 24 mm equivalent aids grand sweeping scenery shots.

Wildlife Photography

Fast autofocus, long reach, and burst rates define success.

• Nikon’s 12x zoom at 25-300 mm offers significant bonus reach over Canon’s 5x.

• However, Nikon’s slower and less responsive autofocus along with lack of continuous AF in live view diminishes practicality.

• Canon’s faster continuous shooting and better AF tracking slightly even the scale but fall far short of specialized wildlife cameras.

Sports Photography

Here, frame rate and AF tracking accuracy rule.

Neither camera targets sports shooters, but Canon’s 2 fps burst rate is marginally better.

Both offer center-weighted AF points and basic face tracking, but they lack predictive AF algorithms necessary for fast-moving subjects.

Street Photography

Compactness, flash discretion, and quick AF are assets.

• Canon’s slim profile and simple controls support discreet shooting.

• Nikon’s touchscreen and longer zoom give framing flexibility but add bulk.

• Both cameras perform reasonably in daylight but struggle more at night.

Macro Photography

Macro enthusiasts appreciate close minimum focusing distances and sharpness.

Canon’s 3 cm macro focus is excellent for flower and product close-ups.

Nikon’s 10 cm minimum focusing distance constrains close-up potential.

Optical stabilization aids in handheld macro shots on both, but neither offers focus bracketing or stacking features.

Night and Astrophotography

Long exposures and high ISO performance are vital.

Canon’s shutter speeds down to 15 seconds and ISO up to 3200, coupled with its DIGIC 5 processor noise reduction, make it a modest contender for night shots.

Nikon’s maximum 4-second shutter and ISO 3200 limit its night and astrophotography potential.

Neither supports RAW capture, a handicap for astrophotography post-processing.

Video Applications

Canon’s 1080p at 24 fps can produce cinematic footage, and higher frame rate slow-motion modes add creative options.

Nikon captures at 30 fps 1080p but lacks continuous AF.

Neither camera is suited for serious video work but suffice for casual family or travel videos.

Travel Photography

Portability, battery life, zoom versatility matter.

Canon’s lightweight body, wide-angle lens and longer battery life appeal to minimalist travelers.

Nikon’s longer zoom and touchscreen make it a versatile all-in-one but add weight.

Both require spare batteries for extended trips.

Professional Work

Neither camera supports RAW file capture, external microphones, or robust build quality necessary for professional applications.

Both lack weather sealing and tethering options, limiting their utility as serious working cameras.

Canon Elph 115 IS front Canon Elph 115 IS screen back Nikon S6400 front Nikon S6400 screen back

Build Quality and Reliability

Both Canon and Nikon designed these cameras for consumer ease rather than professional toughness.

No environmental sealing means a cautious approach outdoors - avoid moisture and dust exposure.

Plastic construction keeps weight low but also makes the camera feel less premium.

Buttons and controls hold up well to moderate usage but don’t inspire confidence for intense fieldwork.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Given fixed lenses, no interchangeable lens availability exists.

However, Canon and Nikon both provide mount adapters and broader lens systems in other models.

Choosing these cameras means committing to their built-in optics with no option to upgrade or change lenses.

Price-to-Performance and Value Assessment

When new, the Canon Elph 115 IS retailed around $225; the Nikon S6400 carried a heftier $499 MSRP.

Today, both are available on the used market at varying prices, often overlapping.

Considering specs and performance, Canon offers better value for casual users valuing pocketability and image quality.

Nikon caters to zoom enthusiasts wanting reach and touchscreen interaction, albeit at higher cost and compromises in AF and low-light handling.

Wrapping Up: Which Ultracompact Camera Fits You?

Choosing between Canon Elph 115 IS and Nikon Coolpix S6400 ultimately depends on your priorities.

• For Beginners and Casual Shooters: Canon Elph 115 IS delivers great image quality, easy operation, and excellent compactness. Its better low-light performance and faster aperture better serve portraits and street shooting.

• For Zoom Lovers and Versatility Seekers: Nikon S6400 offers a significant zoom range and touchscreen interface for convenient framing but is slightly more cumbersome. Its camera handles daylight well but struggles in low light and video AF.

• For Travel Photographers who prize lightweight gear, the Canon is easier to carry; Nikon’s zoom might be tempting but weigh the trade-offs carefully.

• For Specialized Photography like wildlife or sports, neither camera truly excels but Nikon’s 12x zoom can make a difference at distance if autofocus demands are moderated.

• For Video Enthusiasts, Canon’s video options and slow motion capabilities give it an edge over Nikon’s functional yet basic video.

Both cameras reflect their age and entry-level positioning. Still, with thoughtful expectations and understanding their limits, they can be rewarding companions for spontaneous photography and quick grabs.

In sum, the Canon Elph 115 IS “do more with less” philosophy meets the Nikon Coolpix S6400’s “reach farther with touchscreen convenience” approach head-on. I recommend hands-on testing for buyers focused on feel and preferences but would generally suggest Canon’s Elph 115 IS for those seeking straightforward image quality and portability, and Nikon’s S6400 for users wanting extra zoom and touchscreen controls, albeit with careful awareness of autofocus and low-light compromises.

Happy shooting!