Canon PowerShot ELPH 135 vs Nikon Coolpix S3100: A Hands-On Ultracompact Camera Comparison for Budget-Conscious Photographers

Choosing an ultracompact camera in today’s smartphone-dominated world can feel like a lost cause. Yet, for those who want something truly pocketable with better zoom and dedicated photography controls, models like Canon’s PowerShot ELPH 135 and Nikon’s Coolpix S3100 remain contenders - especially if you’re on a tight budget or shopping second-hand today.

I’ve put both these cameras through their paces extensively, employing real-world shooting scenarios across portrait, landscape, and travel photography to dissect their strengths and shortcomings. I’ll share practical insights you won’t find in specs sheets alone, tapping into years of camera testing and fieldwork with ultracompact gear. Whether you’re a casual snapper or shooting enthusiasts looking for an affordable backup, this in-depth comparison will help you find the best fit.

Let’s dive in.

Design, Size, and Handling: The Feel of Compact Convenience

A camera this small has to earn its keep with excellent ergonomics or fall flat in usability. The Canon ELPH 135 and Nikon S3100 sport typical clamshell ultracompact designs, but subtle differences affect how they feel in clutch moments.

Canon ELPH 135:
With dimensions of 95 x 54 x 22 mm and a weight of 127g, the ELPH 135 sits comfortably in most palm sizes. Its slightly blocky profile offers a reassuring grip, aided by a modest thumb rest on the back. Controls are limited, but positioned logically, with straightforward mode and zoom toggles. The camera feels steady enough for casual one-handed shooting but can be a bit fiddly for those with large fingers.

Nikon S3100:
Just a hair smaller (94 x 58 x 18 mm) and a bit lighter at 118g, the Nikon feels sleek and slender in hand. Its narrower depth might appeal to true pocket shooters. However, the tradeoff is a slightly less secure grip - particularly noticeable when extending the zoom lens. The button layout is somewhat cramped, which might frustrate anyone used to bigger clubs for thumbs.

Verdict on Handling:
If comfort and secure one-handed shooting matter most, Canon’s slightly chunkier ergonomics win out. The Nikon edges the Canon in terms of absolute portability but at the cost of grip confidence.

Sensor, Image Quality, and Processing: What’s Really Under the Hood?

Raw specs only tell part of the story. Both cameras use tiny 1/2.3 inch CCD sensors with modest megapixels (Canon: 16MP; Nikon: 14MP), but image processing and sensor tech nuances play roles in everyday pictures.

Canon ELPH 135:
Using Canon’s Digic 4+ processor, this camera delivers respectable image sharpness in good light. The 16MP sensor resolution produces detailed 4608 x 3456 JPEGs, which upscale decently for small prints or social sharing. However, noise creeps in quickly above ISO 800, and highlight retention is average, which affects photos with strong contrasts like landscapes at golden hour.

The ELPH's optical stabilisation is digital, which - while better than nothing - struggles to tame shake at telephoto focal lengths.

Nikon S3100:
The Nikon’s Expeed C2 processor paired with a 14MP sensor captures solid detail at its 4320 x 3240 max resolution. It is marginally more sensitive with ISO extending to 3200, though you really don’t want to push past 800 ISO here either due to pronounced noise and softness. It lacks any form of image stabilisation, which impacts handheld shots, especially at longer zooms or slower shutter speeds.

Dynamic range is comparable to the Canon, although the Nikon struggles slightly more in high-contrast scenes.

Real-World Image Quality:
Both cameras deliver crisp photos in daylight but falter indoors or in dim scenes. The Canon’s slight resolution edge and digital stabilization translate into marginally crisper telephoto shots. Colors tend to be a touch warmer on the Nikon, which may please some skin tones but can oversaturate landscapes.

LCD Screen and User Interface: Peeking Through the Viewfinder of Convenience

Neither model sports an electronic viewfinder, making the rear LCD crucial for composing shots. Both have a similar 2.7-inch, 230k-dot TFT screen, so brightness and resolution won’t wow - but usability matters.

The Canon provides a clear, slightly warmer screen which handles daylight better but feels cramped for detailed focus review. The Nikon’s screen displays a cooler color balance that sometimes throws off exposure impressions during playback.

Neither camera offers a touchscreen or articulating display - standard fare in cameras at this price point - but menus are simple. Icons are large enough to grasp quickly, with minimal submenus.

Autofocus and Performance: How Quick and Accurate Are These Pocket Snappers?

Focusing is a make-or-break feature in ultracompacts, given the lack of manual focus. Both cameras rely exclusively on contrast-detection autofocus with nine AF points and basic face detection.

Canon ELPH 135:
Offers continuous AF and single AF with reliable center weighting. It has rudimentary face detection, which performs adequately in stable lighting but can struggle under low light or against textured backgrounds. Autofocus speed is leisurely - expect about a second to lock focus in ideal conditions, and longer if subject contrast is low.

Nikon S3100:
Surprisingly, it lacks continuous AF and only offers single AF with face detection. Autofocus is average but occasionally hunts noticeably. The lack of continuous AF may disappoint anyone desiring smoother focus transitions in video or moving subjects.

Neither camera supports eye detection or subject tracking beyond basic face focus.

Burst Rate:
One frame per second continuous shooting on both cameras means sports or wildlife action sequences are not their forte.

Lens Capabilities: Zoom Ranges and Aperture Notes

Ultracompacts rely heavily on their built-in lenses, so focal range and aperture are vital.

• Canon ELPH 135: 28-224 mm equivalent, 8x zoom; max aperture f/3.2 to f/6.9
• Nikon S3100: 26-130 mm equivalent, 5x zoom; max aperture f/3.2 to f/6.5

The Canon’s longer zoom range gives greater reach for distant subjects, wildlife, or tight portraits. The tradeoff is a smaller maximum aperture at telephoto, which means less low-light capability and more pronounced image softening at the long end. The Nikon’s shorter zoom but slightly wider aperture at telephoto supports a bit more light intake but limits framing flexibility.

Flash, Stabilization, and Exposure Controls

Flash:
Canon’s built-in flash reaches 3 meters, Nikon’s 4.5 meters. Nikon also offers a red-eye reduction mode, which Canon does not. Both flash units are basic but effective for occasional fill or dark indoor shooting.

Stabilization:
Canon’s digital image stabilization is better than nothing but not comparable to optical or sensor-shift systems. Nikon doesn’t feature image stabilization, so longer focal lengths and slow shutter speeds will produce more blur, especially when shooting handheld.

Exposure:
Neither camera offers manual controls, shutter priority, nor aperture priority modes, limiting creative exposure adjustment. Both provide custom white balance and basic exposure compensation is unofficially absent.

Video Recording: Modest but Sufficient for Casual Use

Both cameras max out at 720p HD video, around 25-30fps. Canon’s videos use H.264 compression, resulting in better file quality and compression efficiency compared to Nikon’s Motion JPEG format, which leads to larger files at the cost of quality.

Neither camera supports external microphone input - so onboard audio quality is modest. No image stabilization during video recording is a notable omission, causing hand shake to be visible on footage.

Battery and Storage: Staying Powered and Ready

Canon’s NB-11L battery claims approximately 230 shots per charge; Nikon’s EN-EL19 about 220. Both fall short of DSLR battery longevity but are typical for ultracompact cameras.

Storage slots support SD, SDHC, and SDXC cards one slot each.

Real-World Photography Performance Breakdown by Genre

Let’s break down how these cameras stack up when tested across real photographic disciplines:

Canon ELPH 135 front Canon ELPH 135 screen back Nikon S3100 front Nikon S3100 screen back

Portrait Photography

Both cameras offer basic face detection AF, no eye detection.

• Canon: Warmer skin tones, better zoom control for tight framing, but slower AF can frustrate candid shots. Digital stabilization helps reduce blur on slow shutter shots.
• Nikon: More saturated colors pleasing for portraits, but inferior AF speed and no stabilization tip behavior toward blurred photos indoors or dim lighting.

Landscape Photography

Dynamic range and sharpness become critical.

• Canon: Slightly higher resolution and effective image processing produce more detailed landscapes. Stabilization and longer zoom allow framing distant details better.
• Nikon: Images can look a bit soft and muddled in shadows. Shorter zoom limits framing flexibility.

Wildlife Photography

Neither camera excels but reach and AF speed matter.

• Canon: Longer 8x zoom is useful, but slow AF and low burst rate hinder capturing fast subjects.
• Nikon: Shorter zoom and slower AF reduce wildlife chances further. No stabilization worsens blur risks.

Sports Photography

Not recommended on either.

• Slow burst rates and AF limit capturing action.

Street Photography

Discretion, portability, and quick response key.

• Both cameras are compact and discreet, but slow AF on both slightly hinders quick candids.

Macro Photography

• Canon: 1cm macro focusing offers good close-up detail.
• Nikon: Macro range begins around 10cm, limiting intimate close-ups.

Low Light and Night/Astro Photography

• Both have limited high-ISO performance (max ISO 1600 Canon, 3200 Nikon), but noise and softness degrade quality rapidly. Neither supports long exposures beyond basic limits.

Travel Photography

• Canon: Offers more versatile zoom and better stabilization for varied scenes.
• Nikon: Slightly lighter but less flexible, less forgiving.

Professional Work and Workflow Integration

• Neither offers RAW capture or tethering capabilities, limiting pro workflow integration.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance

Neither model features weather sealing or ruggedized protection, so this pair demands careful handling outdoors.

Connectivity and Extras

No Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or HDMI ports on either camera - typical of the budget ultracompact class. USB 2.0 is the only data connection.

Pricing and Value: Stretching Your Camera Dollar

• Canon PowerShot ELPH 135 retails around $120
• Nikon Coolpix S3100 retails approximately $140

The Nikon carries only a slight price premium, but the Canon arguably provides better bang for your buck with extra zoom reach, digital stabilization, and higher sensor resolution.

Summary: Which Ultracompact Camera Suits Your Needs?

Final Recommendations Based on Use Cases

• For Casual Everyday Use & Travel:
  I lean toward the Canon ELPH 135 for its longer zoom, image stabilization, and slightly better image quality. It’s a solid, budget-friendly pocket camera that gets the job done, from landscapes to portraits, with fewer frustrations.

• For Users Prioritizing Weight and Size Above All:
  If you really need the slimmest, lightest camera possible and don’t mind sacrificing zoom reach or stabilization, the Nikon S3100 could suffice - especially as an ultra-budget option for straightforward snapshots.

• For Enthusiasts Wanting Manual Controls or Professional Features:
  Neither will satisfy well-versed photographers. Neither camera offers RAW capture, manual exposure, or advanced video features, so stepping up to an entry-level mirrorless or DSLR is advisable.

Closing Thoughts from the Field

Having carried both these compact shooters on multiple day trips and shoots, my key takeaways are simple: ultracompacts like these are incredibly convenient but come with a raft of compromises. The Canon PowerShot ELPH 135 edges out for most with its zoom versatility and image stability, which translated to more keepsakes and less missed shots in my tests. The Nikon Coolpix S3100, while lighter, requires steadier hands and well-lit scenes to make the most of it.

For cheapskates on a shoestring budget, either can be a delightful pocket companion, but steer expectations away from professional or highly creative work. These are everyday “carry-everywhere” cameras more than serious imaging tools. And if you want magic in low light or fluid video, it’s time to consider more advanced models.

I hope this comparison helps you make a savvy pick tailored to your shooting style and wallet. Happy clicking!

[All real-world testing performed with in-the-field shooting sessions, transferring RAW-equivalent JPEGs and stress testing autofocus and stabilization across varied conditions.]