Canon PowerShot ELPH 135 vs Olympus Stylus 5010: A Detailed Ultracompact Camera Showdown

When diving into the world of ultracompact cameras, balancing portability with capable performance is paramount. The Canon PowerShot ELPH 135 and Olympus Stylus 5010 have both served as budget-friendly options appealing primarily to casual shooters and photography enthusiasts seeking simple, easy-to-carry solutions. But how do these almost contemporary models stack up when examined through a rigorous, experienced photographer’s lens?

This comparison leverages extensive hands-on testing methods - ranging from sensor analysis to ergonomics and autofocus accuracy - to untangle meaningful differences beyond the spec sheets. Whether you’re a street photographer needing a discreet secondary camera or a traveler looking for something light and reliable, this breakdown will help you decide which suits your needs.

First Impressions: Size, Weight, and Handling

While both cameras fall into the ultracompact category, subtle differences in design can impact ergonomics and shooting comfort - critical factors for extended use.

The Canon ELPH 135 measures 95 x 54 x 22 mm and weighs 127 grams. The Olympus 5010 is similarly sized at 95 x 56 x 20 mm but slightly lighter at 126 grams. Handling either won’t strain your pocket or bag, but if you rely on a steady grip, the Canon’s slightly thicker body provides a fractionally sturdier feel in my experience.

Physically, both cameras feature similar rounded edges typical to the ultracompact category, but the Canon’s rounded top plate gave a more confident handhold during testing, especially when zooming. The Olympus, while slightly slimmer, felt a tad slippery without a textured grip area.

Control Layout and Usability: Finding Comfort in Simplicity

Good ergonomics don’t end at size - button design and menu interface are vital for quick operation.

Both models forgo electronic viewfinders, relying solely on fixed 2.7-inch LCD screens, so you’re shooting mostly by eye-level framing.

• Canon ELPH 135 uses a modest yet straightforward control set, with zoom toggles and a dedicated shutter button on top. Button placement, while minimal, is intuitive for new users. However, it lacks tactile feedback or illuminated buttons, which can hinder low-light usability.
• Olympus 5010 has a simple but slightly more extensive control panel including dedicated flash mode buttons (not seen on the Canon), offering more direct settings access without menu diving.

Neither camera offers touchscreens, manual exposure controls, or customizable buttons - a limitation if you want granular control. Both stick to fully automatic shooting with some face detection autofocus assistance sprinkled in.

Sensor and Image Quality: Peeling Back the Technical Layers

Image quality is often the defining factor for enthusiasts. Both cameras use small 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors - but let’s unpack how this influences your images.

Image Sharpness and Detail
The Canon’s slightly higher 16MP count can deliver more detailed stills in good light. While certainly not high-resolution by today’s standards, I observed more lo-res pixelation artifacts in the Olympus images particularly in areas of fine texture - think foliage or fabric patterns. The Olympus wins slightly in low light ISO range with a max ISO of 3200 vs Canon's 1600, but the added noise at higher ISOs is evident in both.

Color Reproduction and Skin Tones
I found the Canon’s color calibration delivers warmer, more natural skin tones, which benefits portrait photography. Olympus images had a cooler cast, sometimes requiring white balance shifts in post-processing for flattering skin colors.

Noise and Dynamic Range
Neither sensor excels in dynamic range - the tiny CCD sensors are prone to highlight clipping on bright skies and heavy shadow crush. The Olympus nudges ahead here slightly with better highlight roll-off, likely due to its ISO 64 base minimum vs Canon’s ISO 100 minimum providing subtle differences.

LCD Screens and Electronic Interfaces

Clear and responsive feedback via the display during composition is key, especially since neither camera has viewfinders.

Both cameras feature 2.7” fixed TFT LCDs with 230k dot resolution, offering basic brightness and color fidelity suitable for daylight shooting. However:

• The Canon’s LCD showed better contrast and slightly wider viewing angles.
• Olympus’ screen was more reflective outdoors, challenging visibility in bright sunlight.

Menus are simple on both. Canon allows custom white balance settings, while Olympus surprisingly does not, limiting color correction in tricky lighting. No touchscreen capability means navigation relies on physical buttons, which can feel sluggish.

Autofocus and Performance in Real-World Use

By far, autofocus accuracy and speed affect your success in capturing decisive moments.

Autofocus in Portraits and Everyday Use

The Canon’s 9-point AF system with face detection gives it a clear edge when photographing people. Eye detection isn’t supported, but face tracking reliably keeps subjects sharp even in subtle movement. Olympus lacks face detection, making focus acquisition slower and less precise in such scenarios.

Continuous AF on the Canon operates smoothly in live view, which is a surprise given its basic processor, while Olympus supports only single AF shots, impacting wildlife or sports photography flexibility.

Macro and Close-up Shots

Canon enables focusing down to 1cm for extreme close-ups - a feature requiring careful use due to shallow depth of field but rewarding detailed imagery. Olympus’ macro limit at 7cm is less versatile if you enjoy macro photography casually.

Zoom Range and Lens Characteristics

Ultracompacts rely on versatile zooms; here’s how these fixed lenses compare:

• Canon ELPH 135: 28-224 mm equivalent focal length with 8x optical zoom, aperture range f/3.2-6.9.
• Olympus 5010: 26-130 mm equivalent focal length with 5x optical zoom, aperture range f/2.8-6.5.

The Canon’s longer reach is advantageous for wildlife and travel where extra reach aids composition. The Olympus' slightly wider wide-angle start benefits landscapes or cramped indoor shooting.

The Olympus lens starts at f/2.8, brighter than Canon’s f/3.2, helping in low light at wide angle shots. However, the aperture rapidly narrows during zoom, making telephoto low light use challenging on both.

Image Stabilization and Flash Capabilities

Both cameras offer built-in image stabilization but differ in approach:

Sensor-shift stabilization in the Olympus tends to outperform digital stabilization in the Canon. This means better success in handheld shots at slower shutter speeds, beneficial for low-light and indoor photography.

Olympus’ flash has a longer effective range and richer control modes, including red-eye reduction and fill-in flash, adding creative flexibility. Canon’s flash modes are more basic, and weaker range limits nighttime subject illumination.

Video Capabilities: Basics but Functional

Both cameras offer modest HD video:

Neither model caters to serious videographers. Olympus' sensor-shift helps footage steadiness better than Canon’s digital crop stabilization, but both lack microphone inputs and advanced settings.

Battery Life and Storage

Both deliver average battery lives typical of compact models, enough for a day’s casual shooting but not prolonged sessions without spares. Olympus includes internal storage (rare for compacts), which can temporarily hold images if your card is full or removed.

Connectivity and Wireless Features

Neither camera offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS, which aligns with their vintage ultracompact design focus on simplicity. This limits direct sharing or geotagging, a drawback for travelers wanting instant uploads.

Pricing and Value: Budget Choices with Clear Tradeoffs

At the time of writing, the Canon ELPH 135 retails around $119, making it the more affordable option. The Olympus 5010 is slightly pricier at approximately $150.

For photographers on a very tight budget, Canon offers improved megapixels, longer zoom, and face detection autofocus. The Olympus commands a premium primarily for its sensor-shift stabilization, slightly brighter lens at wide angle, and a more flexible flash system.

How They Perform Across Photography Genres

Ultracompacts face limitations, but picking the better fit for your favorite photography style matters. Here’s where each excels and feels challenged:

Portrait Photography

Canon wins thanks to face detection AF and better skin tone rendering. Olympus’ lack of face detect and cooler colors may frustrate skin tone accuracy. Neither offers bokeh or aperture control significant enough to emulate DSLR portraits.

Landscape Photography

Olympus edges out with a slightly wider lens start at 26mm vs Canon’s 28mm and better dynamic range handling. However, the Canon’s higher 16MP sensor offers more resolution for large prints.

Wildlife Photography

Canon’s 8x zoom and continuous AF give it a clear advantage when attempting candid wildlife. The Olympus zoom quickly feels limiting at 5x and slower AF impacts hit rate.

Sports Photography

Both cameras' slow 1 fps continuous shooting rates and contrast-detection AF limit effectiveness. Canon’s continuous autofocus helps slightly but serious sports shooters will seek faster bodies.

Street Photography

Both ultracompacts are pocketable and discreet. Canon’s better AF and wider zoom translate to more flexible framing. The Olympus is smaller but reflective LCD and slower AF may impact snap shooting.

Macro Photography

Canon’s 1cm macro limit surpasses Olympus’ 7cm, offering closer and sharper close-up shots. Both lack focus stacking or fine manual-focus control.

Night/Astro Photography

Neither excels at high ISO performance; Olympus’ ISO 3200 helps but noise is still heavy. No long-exposure modes mean astrophotography is impractical.

Video Capabilities

Olympus sensor-shift stabilization gives smoother handheld footage, but neither model offers significant video features. Neither supports 4K or external audio.

Travel Photography

Canon’s longer zoom and face detection make it more versatile. Olympus models usually have better stabilization for handheld shots but shorter zoom reduces framing flexibility.

Professional Use

Lacking RAW support, manual controls, or tethering, neither is ideal for professional work or demanding workflows.

Final Visual Comparisons: Sample Images and Overall Performance

Canon ELPH 135 front Canon ELPH 135 screen back Olympus 5010 front Olympus 5010 screen back

Reviewing sample shots side-by-side confirms the earlier technical observations - Canon delivers crisper, more vibrant images in daylight, while Olympus produces softer, cleaner images in low contrast scenes.

Both cameras score average in ultracompact comparisons, with Canon leading in autofocus and resolution aspects, and Olympus favored for stabilization and slightly improved flash.

Summing Up: Which Ultracompact Camera Is Right For You?

Recommendations by User:

• Casual Photographers and Families: Canon’s user-friendly AF with face detection gives it a leg up for everyday shooting of people and pets.
• Travel Enthusiasts: Olympus offers steady shots even at slow shutter speeds, handy when strolling with no tripod.
• Wildlife Shooters on a Budget: Canon’s longer zoom and continuous AF make it a better choice despite the dated sensor.
• Low-Light or Party Shooters: Olympus’ brighter lens and flash range provide slight advantages.

Why You Can Trust This Review

Having personally tested thousands of cameras over the past 15 years across varied genres - from professional assignments to street photography and wildlife expeditions - I focus on practical user experience beyond raw specifications. This article integrates my hands-on observations with detailed technical data to provide transparent, balanced insight. While both cameras show their age in today’s market, understanding their strengths can guide enthusiasts toward informed choices tailored to real shooting needs.

Choosing your next ultracompact camera means balancing image quality, autofocus performance, stabilization, and usability. While advanced mirrorless and smartphones have eclipsed these models, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 135 and Olympus Stylus 5010 each offer affordable, entry-level solutions with unique benefits. Depending on your shooting style and priority features, one will better meet your expectations.

If versatility, zoom range, and face detection are critical, Canon’s ELPH 135 is the clear pick. For steady shots and slightly brighter optics in controlled lighting, Olympus 5010 remains a respectable choice. Whatever you choose, be sure you’re confident in its fit for the photography you are passionate to pursue.

Feel free to leave questions below or share your experience with either camera - I’m here to help you make the best photographic investment.