Canon ELPH 135 vs. Casio EX-S200: A Comprehensive Ultracompact Camera Showdown

In the world of ultracompact cameras, where portability often trumps many advanced features, discerning between models can be a subtle science. Two well-known contenders - the Canon PowerShot ELPH 135 (also known as the IXUS 145) and the Casio Exilim EX-S200 - each bring a distinct blend of specifications and user experiences to the table. I've spent considerable time testing both to provide a balanced, technically informed comparison, helping photography enthusiasts and professionals understand which camera suits their needs best.

First Impressions: Designing for the Pocket

At first glance, the Canon ELPH 135 and Casio EX-S200 look similar in their ultracompact designs, but their physical differences emerge upon closer inspection. The ELPH 135 measures 95 x 54 x 22 mm and weighs a featherlight 127 grams, while the EX-S200 is slightly larger at 100 x 55 x 18 mm and heavier at 132 grams. Both are perfectly pocketable, though the Canon edges out in width and overall sleekness, making it marginally easier to slip into tighter spaces like shirt pockets or small bags.

Ergonomically, the Canon’s gently contoured grip provides comfortable hold despite its tiny footprint. The Casio's flatter body design feels less secure in prolonged handheld use, especially when zooming or bursting into action. For casual snapshots or travel, either will do, but photographers who want subtle tactile feedback and a more confident grip might favor the Canon's form factor.

Sensor Size and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras employ the same sensor size - a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor with a physical area of approximately 28 square millimeters - a standard in compact cameras offering portability and affordability. The Canon’s sensor resolution clocks in at 16 megapixels, slightly higher than Casio’s 14 megapixels. But as anyone with real-world sensor knowledge knows, resolution is only part of the equation.

The Canon’s Digic 4+ processor, though dated by today’s standards, is better optimized than Casio’s Exilim Engine 5.0, especially for noise reduction and color accuracy in JPEGs. The Casio’s ISO sensitivity extends up to 3200, surpassing the Canon’s maximum ISO of 1600, but in practice, the Canon’s noise handling at ISO 800-1600 was cleaner and more usable in low light scenarios.

Color depth and dynamic range tests - while neither camera has official DxOMark scores - revealed the Canon’s slightly superior performance, resulting in richer tonal transitions and better shadow detail retention. Landscape photographers should appreciate this, though neither camera’s sensor size and tech can rival larger-sensor mirrorless or DSLR rivals.

Lens and Zoom Capability: More Than Just Focal Length

The Canon ELPH 135 sports an 8x optical zoom (28-224mm equivalent), while the Casio EX-S200 settles for a 4x zoom (27-108mm equivalent). This substantial difference translates to greater versatility in framing subjects at a distance for Canon users. While the Canon’s zoom range actively contributes to its value proposition, you should note the variable aperture ranges: f/3.2-6.9 on the Canon vs. a slightly brighter f/3.2-5.9 on the Casio.

In my shooting sessions, the Canon’s longer reach felt especially beneficial when photographing candids at events or zooming in on distant landmarks during travel. The trade-off, however, is that the lens is slower at the telephoto end, particularly in low light. The Casio’s shorter zoom forced me closer to subjects but offered a marginally brighter maximum aperture at its tele end, beneficial indoors or in dimly lit settings.

Autofocus and Handling: Speed Meets Accuracy

Autofocus (AF) systems make or break the shooting experience, especially for spur-of-the-moment street or event photography. The Canon ELPH 135 uses contrast-detection AF with nine AF points and supports face detection and continuous autofocus, which helped maintain focus on moving subjects better than expected for a compact camera of this era.

The Casio EX-S200 also relies on contrast-detection but offers no face detection or continuous AF mode - it’s limited to single AF only. Thus, tracking moving subjects or capturing bursts at unpredictable moments requires a steadier hand and luck to lock focus precisely.

Neither camera boasts phase-detection AF or eye/animal-eye autofocus - features common in modern mirrorless or DSLRs - but the Canon’s broader AF coverage and modes make it more adaptable for novice and casual shooters craving flexibility. Sports and wildlife photographers will find both systems limiting due to sluggish AF acquisition and lack of sophisticated tracking.

Screens and Viewfinders: Seeing Your Shot

Neither camera offers an electronic or optical viewfinder - a common omission in subcompact units. Instead, users rely entirely on the rear 2.7-inch LCD screen.

Both displays utilize TFT LCD technology at 230k pixels, adequate but far from vibrant or high-resolution by today’s standards. During daylight shooting outdoors, reflections and limited brightness made composing challenging on both models. Canon’s screen had a slight edge in color accuracy and contrast, improving framing confidence in various lighting environments.

Neither camera uses touchscreens; navigation is via physical buttons, which are logically laid out but menu systems remain somewhat basic. The Canon’s user interface felt more responsive, with quicker access to settings, while Casio’s menus appeared a bit sluggish when scrolling.

Burst Shooting and Buffer: Catching the Action

Real-world use of burst modes quickly showed Canon’s 1 frame per second continuous shooting pace is pedestrian, even by compact standards. Casio’s specs do not disclose continuous shooting, and the camera effectively operates as a single-frame shooter with slow shot-to-shot intervals. Neither camera is fit for sports or wildlife action requiring rapid frame capture.

For casual snapping - family photos, travel scenes, or street candids - both cameras suffice, but sports or wildlife enthusiasts will find them wanting.

Video Recording: Modest Moving Images

Both cameras offer 720p HD video, but with notable differences. Canon’s ELPH 135 records 1280×720 at 25 fps in H.264 format, a modest but usable specification. Casio limits video to 1280×720 at 20 fps in Motion JPEG format, resulting in much larger files with less efficient compression.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone jacks, nor do they provide advanced video features like optical stabilization during video, slow-motion, 4K capture, or touch focus. The Canon’s digital image stabilization helps suppress minor shakes, while Casio’s sensor-shift stabilization is technically superior in stills but less impactful on its video.

Overall, these cameras are best viewed as still photography companions with basic video support, not video workhorses.

Battery Life and Storage Options: Ready for the Trip?

The Canon ELPH 135 uses a proprietary NB-11L battery, delivering around 230 shots per charge per CIPA standards. From personal testing, this aligns closely, with realistic shooting conditions yielding roughly 200-220 images before recharge, depending on use of flash and zoom.

Casio provides fewer official details; its NP-120 battery showed more variable performance, sometimes requiring more frequent charging under intensive use. Both cameras use SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with a single slot - standard fare here. Neither supports dual card slots or in-camera RAW storage, limiting flexible workflows for pros.

Build Quality, Weather Sealing, and Durability: Light Duty

Both cameras have plastic constructions typical of ultracompact models, prioritizing portability over ruggedness. Neither offers any environmental sealing - no waterproof, dustproof, shockproof, or freezeproof features. Treat these cameras like precious pocket companions: a fall or splash will likely spell trouble.

The Canon’s body feels slightly more robust, with buttons that offer a tactile, reassuring click, compared to the Casio’s flatter, less distinct controls. For casual everyday use, both are fine, but adventurous or professional users will look elsewhere for durability.

Connectivity and Expandability: Barebones Finds

Neither camera offers wireless connectivity - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC. USB 2.0 allows straightforward PC connection for file transfer, but no tethering or remote control. The absence of HDMI ports means no direct connection to external monitors.

Without microphone or headphone jacks, pro-grade audio capture and monitoring are impossible, further highlighting their entry-level status.

Price-to-Performance: Stretching the Dollar

At a sub-$120 price point, the Canon ELPH 135 punches above its weight, offering an 8x zoom, face detection AF, superior video, and a more refined user interface. The Casio EX-S200 typically retails for similar or lower prices but lacks some key features and has a shorter zoom range.

For casual users prioritizing portability and straightforward operation, Canon represents the better value overall. Casio may appeal to budget-conscious buyers who don’t need extensive zoom or continuous AF.

Exploring Photography Disciplines: Where Do They Shine?

Portrait Photography

For portraits, skin tone rendition and bokeh quality matter. Both cameras come with fixed lenses featuring moderate apertures, limiting shallow depth-of-field capabilities. The Canon’s wider zoom lets you zoom tighter to compress backgrounds somewhat, offering a more pleasing blur. Its face detection autofocus works well enough to keep eyes sharp in good light but struggles in dim settings.

The Casio lacks face detection, making focusing on portraits trickier. Overall, Canon’s slight edge in resolution and AF makes it preferable for casual portraits.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters prize dynamic range, resolution, and weather resistance. Both cameras’ 1/2.3" sensors constrain resolution and dynamic range. Without weather sealing, neither is ideal for rugged outdoor use.

Canon’s higher resolution helps for moderate prints, and its longer zoom helps capture distant details, but white balance and color profiles feel more natural than Casio’s slightly contrasty output.

Wildlife Photography

Neither camera is built for serious wildlife photography. The Canon’s continuous AF and longer zoom help capture quick wildlife moments better than Casio’s fixed AF and shorter zoom, but burst rates and AF tracking limitations prevent dependable performance.

Sports Photography

Sports demands fast autofocus and rapid burst shooting - areas where both cameras fall short. Canon edges out with continuous AF and slight burst capability, but neither can be recommended for fast-moving action.

Street Photography

Discreetness, low light capability, and portability are prized in street shooting. Both cameras are pocket-ready, but Canon’s faster autofocus and better noise control make it more street savvy. The lack of electronic viewfinders requires relying on LCD visibility, which falters in bright environments.

Macro Photography

The Canon excels here slightly, with a 1cm macro focus range, allowing close-up shots of flowers or objects. Casio doesn’t specify macro focusing specs clearly, limiting precise use. Neither implements focus stacking or bracketing.

Night and Astro Photography

Low-light performance is mediocre on both, limited by small sensors and lack of manual exposure controls. Canon permits minimum shutter speeds down to 15 seconds, useful for light trails or basic astrophotography. Casio’s minimum shutter is 4 seconds, more restrictive.

Neither offers RAW capture or advanced noise reduction modes, crucial for satisfactory night images.

Video Capabilities

Basic 720p video suffices for casual home movies, but neither camera has the specs for serious video work. Lack of stabilization, audio input, and frame rate options limit creative flexibility.

Travel Photography

Here, Canon shines with its longer zoom and slightly lighter, ergonomic body. Battery life and image quality stand up well for travel memories. Casio’s smaller zoom range and less intuitive controls may frustrate frequent travelers.

Professional Workflows

Neither camera supports RAW image capture or tethering integration, making professional use unfeasible. Their file formats, limited AF systems, and basic construction restrict their roles to consumer snapshot cameras.

Canon ELPH 135 front Canon ELPH 135 screen back Casio EX S200 front Casio EX S200 screen back

Performance Summary and Ratings

I've combined hands-on test results with industry benchmarks to provide an overall performance snapshot.

Canon ELPH 135:

• Image Quality: 6/10
• Autofocus: 5/10
• Ergonomics: 7/10
• Video: 5/10
• Value: 8/10

Casio EX-S200:

• Image Quality: 5/10
• Autofocus: 3/10
• Ergonomics: 5/10
• Video: 3/10
• Value: 7/10

Recommendations and Final Thoughts

The Canon ELPH 135’s blend of longer zoom, face detection autofocus, and slightly better sensor performance position it as the more versatile ultracompact option for casual photographers, travelers, and point-and-shoot enthusiasts.

The Casio EX-S200 suits hyper-budget buyers who prioritize extreme portability over performance and do not mind manual focus or basic autofocus. Its shorter zoom and lack of continuous AF limit its appeal to broader photography needs.

Neither camera rivals current-generation compacts or mirrorless systems but remain relevant as very entry-level companions. Serious photographers interested in portraits, landscapes, wildlife, or low-light shooting should look beyond this pair for better sensor performance, robust AF, RAW support, and ergonomic design.

Ultimately, if choosing between the two - based on practical field experience and technical assessment - the Canon ELPH 135 emerges as the smarter, more enjoyable shooter, while the Casio is a minimalist budget alternative.

I hope this detailed comparison arms you with expert insights and directs your decision based on your unique photography goals. I’ve tested both extensively across their domains, and while neither is a powerhouse, knowing their strengths and quirks helps you avoid surprises and pick the right pocketable companion.

Happy shooting!