Canon ELPH 135 vs Fujifilm XQ2: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Ultracompact Cameras

Choosing an ultracompact camera these days feels like selecting a pocket-sized companion to capture life’s best moments. Both the Canon ELPH 135 and Fujifilm XQ2 fit neatly into that category, but their respective designs, features, and image capabilities cater to quite different sorts of users. Having put both through their paces across portraiture, landscape, wildlife, and video workflows, I’ll share my detailed, experience-grounded take to help you decide which offers better value for your photography goals.

Let’s start by looking at how they actually feel and look in your hands.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Handling

The Canon ELPH 135 is delightfully compact, measuring just 95x54x22 mm and weighing a mere 127g. It feels like a trusty old pocket camera – unobtrusive, light, and easy to slip into a coat pocket or a small bag. The Fujifilm XQ2 is somewhat chunkier and heavier - 100x59x33 mm and 206g - a difference you’ll notice if you’re used to ultra-minimalist shooters. However, the XQ2’s additional heft translates to a more substantial grip and refined button layout, making it more comfortable for longer shooting sessions.

Canon opts for simplicity, with fewer external controls – ideal for casual shooters or those wanting to keep it easy, reducing complexity. Conversely, Fuji’s XQ2 offers a more traditional setup with dedicated dials and buttons that cater well to enthusiasts who want quicker access to aperture, shutter speed, and ISO without diving into menus. Ergonomically, if you prioritize speed and manual control, the XQ2 deserves a nod here.

Sensor and Image Quality: Small But Mighty Differences

You’ll find a fundamental disparity in sensor technology at the heart of these cameras. The Canon ELPH 135 houses a conventional 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor measuring 6.17x4.55mm - standard fare for ultracompacts from that era. It offers 16 megapixels of resolution, which on paper seems abundant, but in reality, this sensor struggles with noise beyond ISO 400 and delivers reasonable, but unremarkable dynamic range.

The Fujifilm XQ2 packs a larger 2/3-inch CMOS X-Trans II sensor (8.8x6.6mm), with a modest 12 megapixels but benefits from Fuji's proprietary color filter array design aimed at improving sharpness and reducing moiré without the need for an optical low-pass filter.

From my experience examining images under controlled lighting and real-world scenarios, the XQ2 consistently produces cleaner images with better color fidelity, more highlight detail, and superior low-light performance. That sensor advantage is key if you want to crop into shots or print larger photos. The Canon’s higher pixel count doesn't compensate for sensor size-related limitations in shadow recovery and noise control.

Working the Interface: Screen and Live View Experience

Both cameras lack viewfinders, so the rear screen is your window for composing and reviewing shots. The Canon features a small 2.7" fixed TFT LCD with a 230k-dot resolution - a humble screen that works but doesn’t impress, especially outdoors under strong light.

The Fujifilm XQ2's 3" fixed TFT LCD boasts a 920k-dot resolution, resulting in a noticeably sharper, crisper view for framing and evaluating exposure and focus in detail.

Trying to nail focus on the Canon’s screen is a struggle in bright environments, something that frustrated me often shooting outdoors. The XQ2’s screen, combined with its faster autofocus system, makes it easier to compose and lock in focus reliably.

Autofocus and Performance: Hunting vs. Precision

The ELPH 135 uses a contrast-detection autofocus system with 9 focus points and face detection. It's slow and occasionally hunts noticeably before acquisition, especially in low-contrast or low-light situations. Continuous shooting is limited to a sluggish 1 fps, effectively ruling it out for any action or fast-moving subjects.

Contrast that with the Fujifilm XQ2’s hybrid autofocus, which includes phase-detection pixels embedded in the sensor. Its AF is significantly faster with accurate tracking ability. The camera supports up to 12 fps continuous shooting, making it a rare ultracompact worth considering for street photography and even some wildlife snaps.

Lens Capabilities and Versatility: Zoom and Aperture

The Canon ELPH 135 comes with a fixed 8x zoom lens equivalent to 28-224mm with an aperture starting at f/3.2 on the wide end, narrowing to f/6.9 at full telephoto. It’s versatile for general snapshots but relatively slow when zoomed in, hampering low-light performance and depth-of-field control.

The Fujifilm XQ2 features a shorter 4x zoom, from 25 to 100mm equivalent but significantly faster optics, with a bright f/1.8 aperture at wide angle, narrowing to f/4.9 at telephoto. This faster glass allows better background separation (bokeh) and improved performance in dimmer conditions.

Together with the superior sensor, this lens really sets the XQ2 apart for portraits and creative work where you want creamy backgrounds and sharper images.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Eye Detection

Portrait enthusiasts care about pleasing skin tones, sharp eyes, and bokeh quality. Both cameras offer face detection, though neither supports sophisticated eye-detection autofocus - a feature you’ll find in higher-end models.

The Canon displays warm but slightly flat skin tones, limited by its CCD sensor and slower lens. Bokeh at 224mm is present but lacks smoothness due to small sensor size and lens speed.

The XQ2, however, delivers more natural, nuanced skin tones, thanks to Fujifilm’s color science and superior sensor. Its wide aperture lens delivers more attractive background blur, allowing subjects to really pop against an out-of-focus backdrop.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

For landscapes, detail and dynamic range are king. The Canon’s 16MP sensor can yield detailed images in bright light but struggles to retain detail in shadow areas and clipped highlights in strong contrast scenes. Its modest dynamic range and noisier high ISO performance limit creative post-processing.

The XQ2’s sensor provides better dynamic range - closer to APS-C sensors of its era - allowing you to recover shadow detail and retain highlight data for a more balanced final image. Its 12MP resolution is adequate for prints and web sharing, with subtle textures maintained across forest or mountain scenes.

While neither camera offers weather sealing, the XQ2’s larger sensor and optics make it the superior choice for serious landscape shooting when needing to capture more tonal nuance.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: Autofocus and Burst Rate

With a 1 fps burst and a slower AF system, the Canon ELPH 135 simply isn’t built for wildlife or sports. Autofocus hunts and misses fast-moving subjects. Telephoto reach is decent at 224mm, but image quality off the small sensor often disappoints when cropping.

The Fujifilm XQ2, with 12 fps continuous shooting and faster hybrid AF, can keep pace with some action - small birds in flight, kids playing, or street athletes in motion. Its 100mm max reaches moderate telephoto distances but paired with excellent tracking AF and image stabilization, results are sharp and usable.

If you plan on shooting dynamic subjects frequently, the XQ2 deserves serious consideration despite its smaller zoom range.

Street and Travel Photography: Discreteness and Portability

Here’s where these two cameras really shine for different audiences.

The Canon ELPH 135 is extremely compact and lightweight, perfect for slipping into a handbag or jacket pocket when you want an unobtrusive shooter. Its simple interface makes it straightforward for grab-and-go snapshots.

The Fujifilm XQ2 is larger but still pocketable, feels more robust, and delivers substantially better image quality and manual controls. While less stealthy than the Canon, for enthusiasts often shooting urban scenes and street portraits, you benefit from its faster AF and customizable exposure modes.

Personally, when I want a “point-and-shoot” I can carry everywhere, the Canon wins for lightness. But for travel, the Fuji balances portability with creative control better.

Macro Photography: Close-Up Performance

Canon’s ELPH 135 boasts an impressive 1cm macro focusing distance, an advantage for capturing tiny details in flowers or insects. However, the slower lens aperture and noisier sensor limit image quality in macro lighting.

Fujifilm’s macro minimum focus is 3cm, not quite as close, but wider aperture and superior image quality yield more pleasing detail and color rendition. Optical image stabilization also helps reduce camera shake during handheld macro shots.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Options

Ultracompacts rarely excel at night photography, but the Fuji XQ2 offers a definite edge. Its max native ISO of 12,800 (versus Canon’s 1600) and better noise control make it more viable for shooting in dim street lighting or candlelight.

The XQ2 supports longer shutter speeds (up to 30 seconds) and manual exposure modes, making it usable for basic star trails or night landscapes. The Canon’s max shutter is limited to 2 seconds, and slower lens apertures compound its difficulty in low light.

Video Capabilities: Specs and Practical Use

Neither camera will satisfy serious videographers, but if casual video is important, here’s what you get:

• Canon ELPH 135 records only HD 720p at 25fps with basic H.264 compression, no external mic input, and no stabilization beyond digital IS.

• Fujifilm XQ2 delivers Full HD 1080p at up to 60fps, optical image stabilization, and HDMI output for external recording or playback.

While the lack of microphones on both hurts audio quality, the Fuji’s sharper, smoother footage and better stabilization offer much more flexible casual video usage.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long Will They Last?

Battery performance is surprisingly close, with the Canon rated around 230 shots per charge and the Fujifilm slightly better at 240. Both use proprietary battery packs - NB-11L for Canon, NP-48 for Fuji - and rely on SD card storage.

Neither camera supports dual slots or fast-charging technologies, so I recommend carrying a spare battery for extended outings.

Connectivity and Extras

The Canon is notably barebones with no wireless connectivity or HDMI ports - streaming or tethering is not an option. USB 2.0 is the extent of its external interfaces.

Fujifilm XQ2 includes built-in Wi-Fi for smartphone pairing and image transfer, plus HDMI output. These features add modern value for workflows involving rapid sharing or external viewing.

Price and Value: What You Get for Your Money

At launch, the Canon ELPH 135 was priced around $120, significantly cheaper than the Fujifilm XQ2 at roughly $300. That $180 difference buys you much better image quality, faster performance, and more creative flexibility with Fuji.

How much extra is justified depends on your photographic ambitions. Casual snapshotters or gift buyers might appreciate the Canon’s simplicity and affordability. Serious enthusiasts or those wanting one pocket camera to cover multiple genres and conditions will appreciate the Fujifilm’s enhanced feature set and image quality.

Canon ELPH 135 front Canon ELPH 135 screen back Fujifilm XQ2 front Fujifilm XQ2 screen back

Overall Performance Scores: Who Comes Out on Top?

Here’s a visual summary of key performance areas, based on rigorous side-by-side testing metrics, including autofocus speed, image quality, handling, and video capabilities.

The Fujifilm XQ2 ranks consistently higher due to significant technical and real-world advantages, particularly in image quality and controllability.

Breaking down performance by photography discipline reveals Fuji’s strength in portraits, low-light, wildlife, and video, while Canon holds minor advantages in compactness and simple point-and-shoot ease.

My Recommendations: Which Should You Buy?

• If you want an ultra-light, simple-to-use pocket camera for everyday snapshots, gifting, or travel where size is paramount, and cost is a concern - choose the Canon ELPH 135. It keeps things straightforward, though image quality and speed are limited.

• If you’re a photography enthusiast seeking creative control, superior image quality, faster autofocus, and better low-light performance in a still portable package - the Fujifilm XQ2 is the smarter investment. It covers a wider range of use cases, including casual sports, street, portrait, and travel photography, plus more flexible video.

• For professionals needing a quick secondary camera, or serious hobbyists wanting a high-quality pocket camera with manual exposure, the Fuji excels.

Closing Thoughts: Compact Cameras in 2024 and Beyond

While both the ELPH 135 and XQ2 are “vintage” by today’s standards - new models have surpassed the feature sets and performance they offer - their core differences still provide useful lessons. Sensor size, lens quality, and responsive controls remain the pillars of camera performance regardless of era.

For anyone intrigued by these models, I strongly recommend hands-on testing (if possible) or examining sample galleries to understand real-world image quality and responsiveness. Your shooting style and priorities must guide the choice - there is no one-size-fits-all ultracompact.

Thank you for reading this detailed comparison. I hope my firsthand experience and technical insights assist you in making the ideal choice for your photographic journey.

Happy shooting!