Canon 160 vs Casio EX-Z2000

Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 vs. Casio Exilim EX-Z2000: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Compact Cameras

When it comes to the world of ultracompact cameras, convenience and portability often come at the cost of performance. Still, these pocket-sized wonders can serve as trusty companions for casual shooting, travel, and everyday snapshots. Today, I’m placing two intriguing ultracompact options head-to-head: the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 (also known as the IXUS 160) announced in 2015, and the slightly older Casio Exilim EX-Z2000 from 2010. Both boast distinct design philosophies and varying feature sets that could appeal differently depending on your photography style and needs.

Having extensively tested both models in my studio and on location, I’m excited to share a detailed, firsthand comparison touching on everything from ergonomics and sensor performance to autofocus and real-world image quality. Let’s dive in by exploring their physical presence.

Compactness and Ergonomics: Size Matters in Your Hand

Portability is a keystone for ultracompacts. The Canon 160 and Casio EX-Z2000 both impress with their slender builds but differ slightly in handling comfort and control layout. The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 measures a diminutive 95 x 54 x 22 mm, tipping the scales at a lightweight 127 grams. The Casio EX-Z2000 is a touch larger at 99 x 58 x 17 mm and weighs 152 grams.

In practical terms, the Canon’s tighter dimensions make it extremely pocketable, fitting effortlessly into a jacket pocket or small purse. The Casio’s slightly wider grip and longer barrel accommodate a bit more hand space, which translates to a more secure hold, especially for users with larger hands or when shooting extended sessions.

Top-mounted shutter and zoom controls on both cameras are simple but responsive. The Canon’s plastic body feels modest yet well-built for its class, while the Casio’s slightly chunkier frame exudes a sturdier impression, aided by its subtly textured rear and front grip pads. Neither camera offers dedicated manual control dials, which reflects their entry-level pedigree, but here the ergonomics start to diverge.

I especially appreciated the Casio’s 3-inch rear LCD with much higher resolution (461k dots) compared to Canon’s smaller 2.7-inch, 230k-dot screen. This makes image review and composing in bright light easier on the EX-Z2000. However, both lack touchscreen functionality, so navigation relies on button presses - a little old-school but familiar.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Core of Shooting Satisfaction

At first glance, both cameras employ 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors, a standard staple in compact cameras from their respective eras. The Canon captures images at 20 megapixels, quite a jump over the Casio’s 14MP sensor. That said, megapixels aren’t the sole arbiters of image quality; pixel size, sensor efficiency, and processing engines play critical roles.

The Canon’s CCD unit, coupled with the DIGIC 4+ processor, delivers decent detail and color accuracy for its class, especially under well-lit conditions. However, pushing ISO beyond 400 quickly introduces noise, and the sensor’s limited dynamic range means highlights can clip easily in high-contrast scenes. The Canon’s maximum ISO is capped at 1600 - useable but noisy in real-world low light.

The Casio, although older, compensates with a wider native ISO range (64-3200), allowing somewhat more flexibility in dimmer environments. Its sensor resolves fewer megapixels but yields marginally smoother noise performance at higher ISO thanks to larger pixel size. However, Casio relies on a slower processor, so image rendering takes longer, and dynamic range remains limited.

In practical use, when shooting landscapes or portraits outdoors, I found the Canon’s higher resolution enabled more cropping freedom and finer detail. Yet, in shaded or indoor situations, the Casio’s better ISO floor provided cleaner images, despite a slight trade-off in resolution.

Control Layout and User Interface: Managing Your Shots

For photographers who rely on quick adjustments, control placement and user interface can make or break the shooting experience. I closely examined the top control schemes and dials.

The Canon ELPH 160 offers a minimalistic top plate with a prominent shutter release and zoom rocker. Its power button sits adjacent, easy to access but not prone to accidental presses. While it has no physical mode dial (no PASM or manual exposure modes), the camera’s menu system enables tweaking settings like white balance and ISO, but exposure compensation is absent.

The Casio EX-Z2000 lacks dedicated exposure controls as well, focusing squarely on full-auto with some scene modes accessible via menus. Its zoom control and shutter button are comfortably placed, but the overall layout demands more menu diving.

Both cameras feature classic fixed lenses without interchangeable options, but the Canon provides a longer telephoto reach (28-224mm equivalent, 8x optical zoom) compared to Casio’s 26-130mm (5x zoom). This difference is notable for users seeking more reach for candid or wildlife-themed shots on the go.

Autofocus and Shooting Responsiveness: Capturing the Moment

Autofocus quality can often spell success or failure for quick, decisive shooting. The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 employs contrast-detection autofocus with 9 focus points including face detection, along with continuous AF during video. This allows the camera to reasonably lock onto subjects within the center region.

The Casio EX-Z2000, by comparison, lacks face detection and has only a single central AF point, requiring more manual framing precision. While it features manual focus control - a rarity in ultracompacts - that option is somewhat constrained and fiddly to operate without focus peaking or magnification aids.

In controlled tests, the Canon showed faster and more accurate lock times, especially tracking faces or subjects in motion, which lends itself better to casual portraiture and street scenarios. Burst shooting on the Canon is painfully slow, maxing around 0.8 fps, and the Casio does not list continuous shooting specs, indicating a similar or poorer rapid-fire capability.

For wildlife or sports, neither camera is suited due to sluggish focusing and frame rates, but the Canon’s more advanced AF system gives it a slight upper hand in seizing fleeting moments.

Display, Viewfinder, and Interface: Composing and Reviewing Images

As noted earlier, the Casio sports a larger, more detailed 3-inch LCD than Canon’s 2.7-inch screen. The latter’s display has lower resolution and is less bright, which affects outdoor visibility, especially on sunny days.

Neither camera features an electronic viewfinder, common among budget ultracompacts, which restricts composing to the LCD alone. For photographers who often shoot in bright light, this can be frustrating, but a simple hood or screen protector can help.

Navigation through menus on both devices is serviceable but basic. The Canon’s fixed screen means tilt or swivel options are unavailable, limiting framing flexibility for selfies or low/high angle shots. Casio similarly foregoes screen articulation.

Image Samples and Real-World Testing: What Do They Produce?

After capturing dozens of test shots across varying lighting and scenes, I compiled sample images from both cameras to showcase their output characteristics.

Canon 160 front Canon 160 screen back Casio EX Z2000 front Casio EX Z2000 screen back

Portraits on the Canon showed pleasing skin tones with slight warmth and smooth background separation thanks to its modest f/3.2 maximum aperture at wide-angle. Still, at telephoto, the narrow aperture and small sensor limited bokeh quality and subject isolation.

The Casio portraits appeared cooler in tone with less vibrancy, and lack of face detection occasionally resulted in less sharp focus. Close-up macro attempts were better on the Canon, capable of focusing down to 1 cm, delivering fine detail and texture - a boon for flower or food photography.

Landscape shots benefited from the Canon’s higher resolution, rendering more detailed textures in foliage and architecture. However, dynamic range clipping was more severe, sacrificing some shadow and highlight nuances. Night scenes were challenging for both, with notable noise and motion blur at max ISO settings or slower shutter speeds.

Video Capabilities: Not Designed for Filmmakers

Neither camera targets videographers despite offering basic recording modes. The Canon supports 720p HD video at 25 fps encoded in MPEG-4 H.264, while the Casio maxes out at 720p 30 fps but uses an older Motion JPEG format.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone jacks, limiting sound quality and monitoring. Image stabilization on the Canon is digital, potentially introducing artifacts in video, while the Casio’s sensor-shift stabilization delivers better steady recordings.

Overall, video here is best viewed as an occasional functional add-on rather than a core feature.

Battery Life and Storage: Ready When You Are?

The Canon uses the NB-11L battery rated for approximately 220 shots per charge per CIPA standards, which is modest by today’s expectations but typical for ultracompacts. The Casio’s NP-110 battery life lacks explicit figures, but I found it slightly less enduring in my tests, due partly to its larger screen and earlier technology.

Both cameras take SD/SDHC cards and have a single card slot. Casio also features a small internal memory, which can temporarily hold a handful of images - convenient in a pinch.

Wireless Features and Connectivity: Modern Convenience Missing

Connectivity-wise, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 offers no wireless capabilities - no Wi-Fi, NFC, or Bluetooth. File transfers require USB 2.0 tethering to a computer.

The Casio EX-Z2000 does have “Eye-Fi Connected” capability, supporting compatible Eye-Fi SD cards for wireless transfers, an interesting feature for its time but now obsolete given Eye-Fi’s discontinued services.

Neither camera provides HDMI ports; video output and image transfers rely entirely on USB.

Durability and Build: Everyday Useability

Neither the Canon nor the Casio includes environmental sealing. Both are basic consumer compacts with no dustproofing, waterproofing, or shock resistance. For daily casual use, they hold up well, but adventurous photographers should not rely on them in harsh conditions.

Who Should Choose Which? Recommendations Based on Photography Needs

To distill my testing and assessment into actionable advice:

• For Beginners and Casual Shooters: The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 is a remarkable pocket camera combining ultra-slim form with an 8x zoom and solid image quality in good light. Its face detection and continuous AF make simple portraits and street snapshots easy. Battery life and screen size are sufficient for day trips. Ideal for travelers seeking a no-fuss point-and-shoot.

• For Those Who Value Control and Slightly Better ISO Performance: The Casio EX-Z2000’s manual focus option and higher ISO ceiling appeal to users willing to experiment beyond full automation. Its bigger, high-res screen helps framing and reviewing but be prepared for lower resolution and slower shot-to-shot times. Suitable for casual photographers interested in macro and indoor shooting.

• Not Recommended For: Serious wildlife, sports, or night/astro photography due to limited autofocus tracking speed, low frame rates, and poor high ISO noise control on both. Also, professional workflows requiring RAW files or advanced connectivity fall outside these models’ reach.

Comprehensive Genre Analysis: Strengths and Weaknesses Across Photography Disciplines

Considering broader photographic categories, here’s where each camera lands:

• Portraits: Canon leads with face detection and smoother skin tone rendering; Casio lags without face AF.
• Landscape: Canon’s higher resolution wins, though Casio’s cleaner ISO might help in some shadows.
• Wildlife: Neither excels, but Canon’s longer zoom somewhat benefits casual birding.
• Sports: Both lack fast autofocus and high FPS shooting - best to avoid.
• Street: Canon’s compact size and AF ease offer a slight advantage for stealthy shooting.
• Macro: Canon’s 1cm close-focus distance excels here.
• Night/Astro: Limited ISO and sensor size mean both struggle - better gear recommended.
• Video: Neither is ideal; Casio’s stabilization is better for casual clips.
• Travel: Canon’s lightweight and zoom range make it highly portable; Casio’s larger screen helps composition.
• Professional Work: Neither supports RAW or advanced file handling; small sensor limits image quality.

Final Performance Scores and Value Proposition

To wrap up my hands-on evaluation, here is a synthesized scoring overview based on my testing parameters and real-world experience:

The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 scores slightly higher overall thanks to its improved autofocus, higher resolution, better zoom, and more intuitive usability. It presents exceptional value for under $150, making it a top choice for budget-conscious buyers seeking simple snapshot capabilities.

The Casio EX-Z2000, while dated, is interesting for enthusiasts who appreciate manual focus and higher ISO flexibility, but its various limitations and lack of modern features diminish its appeal today.

Conclusion: Which Compact Camera Earns Your Pocket?

Having put both the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 and Casio Exilim EX-Z2000 through their paces, my recommendation favors the Canon for the majority of users due to its combination of better autofocus, longer zoom, and overall shooting ease. It shines brightest in well-lit environments and casual portrait, travel, and everyday shooting.

The Casio feels more like a niche alternative with its manual focus and enhanced screen, potentially interesting for hobbyists interested in trying hands-on control, but it falls short in speed and sensor resolution.

Choosing an ultracompact is always about trade-offs, but the Canon ELPH 160 strikes a commendable balance that I have enjoyed testing extensively. Whether you want a lightweight backup camera or a straightforward daily shooter, this model deserves a close look.

If professional image quality, RAW capture, or advanced video features matter, it’s time to consider stepping up to mirrorless or DSLR systems. But for pure convenience with respectable image quality in an ultracompact package, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 remains a solid, trustworthy companion.

I hope this detailed comparison has clarified how these two cameras perform in the real world, helping you make an informed choice. If you have specific shooting needs or want to share your own experience, feel welcome to reach out - I’m passionate about helping photographers find gear that inspires creativity.

Happy shooting!