Compact Showdown: Canon IXUS 165 vs Nikon Coolpix S01 – Which Ultracompact Suits You Best?

When it comes to ultracompact cameras, sheer convenience often takes center stage. These tiny point-and-shoots promise easy pocketability without the fuss of interchangeable lenses or steep learning curves. But therein lies the challenge - how much can you actually expect from sensors barely bigger than a fingernail, tiny lenses with limited zoom, and minimal controls?

Today, I’m diving into a detailed face-off between two intriguing models from Canon and Nikon, both boasting compactness and simplicity, but aimed at slightly different audiences and priorities:

• Canon IXUS 165 (2015 release) – a more traditional ultracompact with longer zoom and optical image stabilization.
• Nikon Coolpix S01 (2013 model) – arguably one of the smallest cameras ever, trading zoom range for extreme portability and a touch screen.

Throughout this article, I’ll break down their physical attributes, image-taking prowess, usability, and overall value. Drawing on my own hands-on testing with hundreds of cameras, including real-world scenarios across genres, I’ll equip you with solid insights to help decide which way to go.

Let’s start by looking at the elephant (or rather, the compact) in the room - their size and ergonomics.

Size Matters: Tiny Titans Go Head-to-Head

If compactness is your holy grail, these cameras certainly deliver, but there’s a clear difference in how they approach it.

The Nikon Coolpix S01 is mind-bogglingly small - 77×52×17 mm and weighing just under 100 grams. This is a true pocket rocket, slipping into even the skinniest jeans or a shirt pocket without notice. Its minimal footprint comes with the cost of comfort - handling it demands a delicate touch, and the tiny exterior leaves little room for physical buttons.

The Canon IXUS 165, on the other hand, is larger but still very palm-friendly - 95×54×22 mm and about 128 grams. It’s still pocketable, but with a more substantial grip and enough space to house an 8x zoom lens (versus Nikon’s more limited 3x). For me, the Canon strikes a better balance between portability and ergonomics, especially when shooting for extended periods or in dynamic situations requiring quick access to controls.

If you value ultra-minimalism and can live with fewer manual options, Nikon steals points here. But if you prefer handling comfort without sacrificing too much pocket space, Canon’s design feels more assured.

Design and Control Layout: Ease vs Simplicity

Ergonomics extend beyond size; control interface plays a big role in your shooting experience.

Canon’s top plate reveals a clearly defined shutter release, zoom rocker, and power button - all tactile, easy to reach, and distinct. A mode dial is absent (unsurprisingly, given the ultracompact category), but the essentials are logically laid out for instant operation. The single control dial and buttons enable minimal fiddling, perfect for snapshots or quick creative bursts.

Conversely, Nikon’s design is sparse to the point of minimalism. A tiny shutter button is the primary control on the top, with the rest of the interface managed through a touchscreen on the back - something the Canon lacks. If you prefer physical buttons and dials over tapping small on-screen icons, Canon wins here hands down.

However, Nikon benefits from its touchscreen by enabling gesture controls and quick menu access, an unusual feature in the ultracompact realm at its price point. If you’re accustomed to smartphone-style navigation and want that flexibility, this is noteworthy.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Of course, no matter the size and controls, image quality is where cameras prove their worth.

Both cameras rely on relatively small 1/2.3” CCD sensors, but their distinctions are important.

• Canon IXUS 165: 20 megapixels, with the sensor measuring 6.17x4.55 mm (28.07 mm² area).
• Nikon Coolpix S01: 10 megapixels on an even smaller sensor, 4.96x3.72 mm (18.45 mm² area).

In terms of raw resolution, the Canon effectively doubles the pixel count, which can mean higher detail if noise is controlled. CCD sensors tend to deliver pleasing color rendition - particularly good for skin tones - but face challenges with noise at higher ISO settings.

Canon’s larger sensor area combined with 20MP results in smaller pixel size, which can influence low-light performance negatively without sophisticated noise reduction. Nikon’s lower pixel count may actually benefit noise control but at the expense of resolution.

Real-world testing reveals Canon images offer more detailed textures and fine detail, especially in good light. However, Canon’s sensor and DIGIC 4+ processing show moderate noise starting at ISO 400, worsening beyond ISO 800, limiting low-light usability to some extent.

Nikon’s images from its CCD and Expeed C2 processor tend to be softer overall with less fine detail, but smooth noise suppression leads to cleaner output at ISO 400 and 800, albeit at lower resolution. This makes Nikon’s output more forgiving in poor lighting if resolution isn’t paramount.

The LCD Screen and User Interface: Making the Shot

Given the minimal viewfinder options (both cameras lack optical or electronic viewfinders), LCD performance is crucial.

The Canon IXUS 165 sports a 2.7-inch fixed LCD with 230k dots - standard but not dazzling. The screen is reasonably bright under indoor lighting but can struggle in direct sunlight.

By contrast, the Nikon Coolpix S01 uses a 2.5-inch touchscreen with the same 230k resolution, but with an anti-reflective coating that improves outdoor visibility.

The touchscreen interface on the Nikon is a double-edged sword: it allows intuitive focus point selection and menu navigation but feels cramped on such a small panel, which can be frustrating for users with larger fingers. The Canon’s interface is button-based, simpler, less flexible but arguably more predictable.

In overall usability, I prefer the clarity and consistent response of Canon’s physical buttons, especially in active shooting scenarios where you can’t afford to fumble.

Zoom Range and Lens Capabilities: Stretching Your Framing

Ultracompacts live and die by their zoom lenses, and here’s where the cameras diverge sharply.

• Canon IXUS 165 offers an 8x optical zoom covering 28-224mm equivalent focal length. This range is impressively versatile for such a small camera, accommodating wide landscapes, portraits, and moderate telephoto wildlife shots. The max aperture ranges from f/3.2 at wide-angle to f/6.9 at telephoto, which is adequate but not fast.

• Nikon Coolpix S01 has only a 3x optical zoom, 29-87mm equivalent, more akin to a mild moderate zoom that limits framing flexibility, especially for distant subjects. Max aperture varies from f/3.3 to f/5.9, slightly brighter at the telephoto end than Canon.

If zoom reach matters, Canon wins hands down. Nikon’s approach prioritizes compactness over range, targeting casual users focused on snapshots or selfies rather than detailed framing control.

Autofocus Systems: Precision and Speed

Single-shot autofocus (AF) speed and accuracy matter across photography genres. Here, both cameras rely on contrast-detection AF and lack phase-detection pixels.

Canon IXUS 165 offers 9 focus points and some face detection, improving usability for portraits. Its AF is generally reliable in good light but slows noticeably in dim conditions. I found continuous AF available but limited in responsiveness; tracking moving subjects is challenging at best.

Nikon Coolpix S01 has unspecified AF points, no face detection, and contrast AF only. It suffers in low light and can hunt for focus even outdoors with lower contrast scenes. Continuous AF is not supported; tracking moving subjects is an unrealistic expectation here.

In practice, Canon’s autofocus is more precise and forgiving. The Nikon is better suited for static subjects or casual snapshots.

Shooting Modes and Exposure Control: How Much Manual is Enough?

Neither camera offers manual exposure modes - no shutter priority, aperture priority, or manual control is available. This is expected given their ultracompact positioning.

The Canon IXUS 165 does, however, provide customization of white balance and Exposure Compensation is notably absent in both cameras. Also present are Auto, Program, and scene modes designed for novices.

Nikon’s more basic system lacks white balance customization but offers WB bracketing - a hands-on way to guarantee accurate colors by capturing multiple images.

Neither camera supports RAW shooting, limiting post-processing flexibility. So if you’re a RAW enthusiast seeking creative latitude, both cameras will disappoint.

Burst Shooting and Video Capabilities: Capturing Motion

The Canon IXUS 165 shoots continuous frames at around 0.8 fps, underwhelming for anything beyond casual snapshots.

Nikon does not specify continuous shooting speeds, likely very limited given hardware constraints.

Video-wise, both shoot up to 720p HD but at slightly different frame rates - Canon at 25 fps and Nikon at 30 fps. The Canon uses MPEG-4/H.264 formats with no microphone or headphone inputs. Nikon’s video specs are similar but more limited in codec details.

Neither camera includes image stabilization in video mode for Nikon, while Canon offers optical image stabilization (OIS) for both stills and video - meaning smoother clips with less shake, a significant advantage.

If video is a casual add-on rather than a core feature, both serve basic needs, though Canon’s stabilization and zoom gives it an edge for more flexible recording.

Battery Life and Storage: Power and Memory Management

The Canon IXUS 165 uses a removable NB-11L battery rated at approximately 220 shots per charge by CIPA standards - typical for its class.

Nikon’s S01 employs a built-in battery with about 190 shots per charge. This built-in approach reduces hassle but complicates charging logistics - no quick battery swaps or carry spare batteries.

Both cameras use SD cards for storage, but Nikon lacks a card slot - it comes with fixed internal memory only, a major constraint if you shoot frequently or want to store many images. Canon supports SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, allowing storage expansion.

This discrepancy strongly impacts practical shooting - Canon’s greater storage flexibility and modest battery life make it better suited for travel and longer sessions.

Durability and Weather Resistance: Ready for the Elements?

Neither camera offers official weather sealing, dustproofing, shockproofing, or freezeproof ratings.

Given their plastic bodies and entry-level designs, I advise treating these cameras carefully - avoid extreme weather or rough handling.

If you plan outdoor adventures or harsh environments regularly, neither is ideal. In this segment, one might choose based on who simply fits better in your carry system rather than ruggedness.

Real-World Versatility Across Photography Genres

Now, let’s discuss practical performance in popular photography styles. Keep in mind these cameras are not designed as robust all-rounders but for convenience and ease.

Portrait Photography

Canon’s face detection and higher resolution sensor yield better skin tone rendition and detail capture. Its 8x zoom helps framing tighter portraits without physical proximity. Though you won’t get creamy bokeh due to small sensor and narrow lens apertures, Canon slightly outperforms Nikon in facial recognition for sharp focus.

Nikon’s lack of face detection and lower resolution limit portrait work. Its shorter zoom means less flexibility, and macro focusing starts at a longer 5cm versus Canon’s 1cm - Canon wins hands down here.

Landscape Photography

Canon’s higher resolution sensor and wider zoom range translate to more detailed compositions, especially wide-angle shots at 28mm equivalent. However, lack of RAW and modest sensor size cap dynamic range and shadow recovery.

Nikon’s narrower zoom and lower resolution limit creative framing and pixel-peeping detail. Still, its anti-reflective screen coating helps in bright outdoor conditions.

Neither camera features weather sealing, so shoot landscapes cautiously in damp environments.

Wildlife Photography

Both cameras struggle with autofocus speed and burst rates, making fast wildlife capture difficult.

Canon’s 8x zoom is a bit more helpful for moderate telephoto needs, but autofocus hunting under low light undermines tracking speed. Nikon’s 3x zoom is too limited to reach distant subjects in wildlife contexts.

Neither camera is suitable for serious wildlife photographers but Canon again offers a more versatile package for casual usage.

Sports Photography

With continuous shooting under 1 fps on Canon and no real burst mode on Nikon, both fail to keep pace with fast action.

Autofocus tracking is absent or rudimentary, resulting in missed shots of moving subjects.

Sports photography should look elsewhere, such as mirrorless or DSLR models with better AF and frame rates.

Street Photography

Nikon’s ultra-compact body and silent shutter options make it less intrusive for street shooting. Its touchscreen enables quick menu access, while Canon’s physical controls are a bit more deliberate.

However, both cameras have limited low-light performance (max ISO 1600 with substantial noise) and lack fast autofocus, restricting candid shot opportunities.

If discretion is your number one priority and ultimate pocketability matters, Nikon may appeal.

Macro Photography

Canon’s 1cm macro focusing beats Nikon’s 5cm minimum distance, enabling closer shoots of flowers and small objects.

Optical image stabilization on Canon assists focus stability at close range. Nikon’s lack of stabilization and limited macro range reduce its utility here.

Night and Astro Photography

Small sensors, limited ISO ceilings, and absence of manual exposure modes mean neither excels at night or astrophotography.

Canon’s max shutter speed of 15s is adequate for some creativity, but noise is restrictive.

Nikon’s shutter speed ranges from 1-2000 but lacks advanced night modes or bulb.

For dedicated low light work, more specialized cameras are recommended.

Video Capabilities

Canon’s 720p video at 25fps with OIS provides usable casual clips with smoothness. Nikon’s similar 720p video lacks stabilization, making footage more jittery.

Neither supports 4K or advanced audio options. Use external microphones or cameras for professional video.

Travel Photography

Canon’s balance of responsive controls, wider zoom, and removable battery make it a better travel companion for those wanting more flexibility.

Nikon’s tiny size and touchscreen provide extreme portability for quick snapshots but leave you wanting more in mixed scenarios.

Professional Work

Both cameras fall short of professional standards due to no RAW support, limited controls, small sensors, and modest image quality.

They may serve as backup cameras or casual "carry-everywhere" models but do not replace advanced gear.

Canon IXUS 165 front Nikon S01 front Nikon S01 screen back

Take a look at sample images - Canon delivers richer detail and color fidelity, particularly noticeable in fine textures and shadows. Nikon’s output is softer, smoother, and less versatile for cropping or serious editing.

Price and Value for Money

When these cameras launched, the Nikon S01 carried a price tag around $170, while the Canon IXUS 165 was positioned more affordably (prices varied regionally; often found cheaper as a value compact).

Both are now discontinued, entering the used market at low cost. Price-to-feature-wise, Canon offers more bang for the buck, especially with its stronger zoom, stabilization, and ergonomic advantages.

Final Verdict: Which Ultracompact Fits Your Needs?

Summing up the strengths and compromises, here are my clear recommendations:

• Choose Canon IXUS 165 if you want:

  • Balanced zoom range (8x) for versatile framing
  • Optical image stabilization to combat shake
  • Better overall image resolution and detail
  • Physical controls for reliable handling
  • Expandable storage and removable battery
  • Occasional macro shooting or travel snapshots

• Choose Nikon Coolpix S01 if you want:

  • Unmatched pocket portability and minimal footprint
  • Touchscreen interface for casual quick shooting
  • Smooth noise in lower-resolution images for casual social sharing
  • Prioritize extreme compactness over zoom or manual options

Neither camera suits professional or demanding enthusiast use, but for casual shooters or those needing super compact backup cams, each has its niche.

Closing Thoughts

Having tested thousands of cameras across diverse use cases, I appreciate the effort to pack usable features into such tiny packages. The Canon IXUS 165 provides a sensible balance of zoom, image quality, and handling for ultracompacts, making it the generally superior option here.

The Nikon S01 is a bold exercise in miniaturization focused on style and simplicity, but compromises heavily on zoom, control, and storage.

Whichever you pick, temper your expectations accordingly. These cameras won’t replace dedicated DSLRs or mirrorless systems - they shine as convenient, fun cameras when you want something that just works, fits anywhere, and never intimidates.

If you found this comparison helpful and want to see side-by-side real-world shooting tests or in-depth video analyses, feel free to check out my extended reviews and sample galleries linked throughout. Until next time, happy shooting!