Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 vs Nikon Coolpix L32: An Ultracompact Showdown for Everyday Photography

When dipping a toe into ultracompact cameras, especially models designed around the 2015 lineup, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 (aka IXUS 160) and the Nikon Coolpix L32 emerge as familiar contenders. Both cameras aim for casual users who want straightforward point-and-shoot simplicity, a lightweight footprint, and decent image quality without emptying the wallet.

But these two companions on the budget camera shelf aren’t clones. Each offers subtly different strengths and compromises that, as an enthusiast who’s put thousands of compact cameras through their paces, I’m eager to unpack. Let’s break down their usability, imaging chops, and real-world performance across all photography genres and use cases - so you can pick the right one for your shooting style.

First Impressions: Size, Ergonomics and Handling

Starting with how they feel in your hand - often the most immediate dealbreaker - both the Canon 160 and Nikon L32 are pocketable ultracompacts designed for grab-and-go convenience. The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 measures 95 x 54 x 22 mm and weighs a mere 127 grams with its battery, while the Nikon Coolpix L32 is slightly chunkier at 95 x 60 x 29 mm and 164 grams.

That Canon’s slimmer profile translates into a sleeker grip and less pocket bulge, which is great for street or travel photographers prioritizing minimalism. The Nikon’s thicker body feels chunkier but offers a slightly more substantial grip area, which I’ve found beneficial for steadier, more stable holding during longer shooting sessions.

Both cameras feature fixed lenses, meaning no lens swaps or complexity, but their control layouts and button responses bear differences we’ll inspect next.

Controls and Interface: Getting Your Hands on Every Setting

Ultracompacts rarely cater to manual shooters craving tors, but the way controls are arranged can make or break the everyday shooting experience. Here, the Canon and Nikon’s physical aspects begin to diverge meaningfully.

Canon’s PowerShot ELPH 160 opts for a minimalistic top plate with a smooth shutter button, power switch, and no dedicated dials for exposure compensation or modes. Meanwhile, the Nikon Coolpix L32 offers similarly straightforward control but adds a familiar dial ring around the shutter button for easy switching between basic shooting modes.

Both cameras lack manual focus, aperture or shutter priority modes, sticking firmly to fully automatic or programmed exposure - a nod to first-time users or photographers who want simplicity, but that also limits creative control.

One practical difference: the Nikon’s longer self-timer (10 seconds) versus Canon’s customizable 2 or 10 seconds. It’s a subtle point but may appeal to group or tripod shooters.

The Sensor Heart: Image Quality Foundation

At the sensor level, these two share a lot and differ just enough to affect image output and performance.

• Both cameras use a 1/2.3-inch sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, with a sensor area around 28.07 mm².
• Both offer 20 megapixels, max resolution at 5152 x 3864 pixels.
• Canon uses a CCD sensor, while Nikon uses CMOS.

The CCD in Canon’s ELPH 160, an older sensor tech by 2015 standards, is known for producing clean, pleasant color rendition but tends to be slower and more power-hungry compared to CMOS sensors. Nikon’s CMOS sensor in the L32 offers better power efficiency, generally faster readout speeds, and more modern imaging pipelines.

In practical terms, you’ll notice Canon’s slightly warmer color tone, which can be flattering for portraits but may require tweaking in post for landscape vibrancy. Meanwhile, Nikon’s color can be more neutral but occasionally less punchy straight out of the camera.

Both max out at ISO 1600, but neither excels in high-ISO noise control - they’re more at home in daylight or well-lit scenes. Neither supports RAW capture, limiting post-processing flexibility, which is an expected tradeoff for these entry-level compacts.

Viewing Your Shots: Screen and Framing Experience

Without electronic viewfinders, your LCD screen is the bridge between subject and capture. The experience varies slightly here:

• Canon’s 2.7-inch fixed LCD with 230k-dot resolution.
• Nikon’s larger 3-inch fixed LCD, also 230k-dot.

The Nikon’s marginally bigger screen feels more comfortable for reviewing images or framing shots, especially for casual users not reliant on viewfinders. Neither is touch-sensitive, nor articulates, so you'll want to be mindful of shooting angles outdoors.

Personally, I find the Nikon’s slightly bigger screen easier for outdoor compositions, though the difference is subtle.

Image Stabilization and Lens Performance: Clarity in Motion

Both cameras offer digital image stabilization, not the more effective optical kind. This means shaky hands can still blur images, especially at longer focal lengths or low shutter speeds.

The Canon packs an 8× zoom covering 28-224 mm equivalent focal length, somewhat longer in reach than Nikon’s 5× zoom at 26-130 mm. That extra telephoto range on the Canon makes it slightly better for casual wildlife or sports ‘distant’ shots but be warned: at max zoom with digital stabilization, image softness and blur creep in.

The maximum apertures are identical (about f/3.2-6.9 for Canon vs f/3.2-6.5 for Nikon), so both struggle in dim conditions or for creating background separation (bokeh).

Macro focusing ranges differ significantly: Canon’s 1 cm macro versus Nikon’s 10 cm. For close-up photographers, Canon offers sharper proximity, letting you get impressively close to small subjects.

Real-World Shooting and Performance

Autofocus and Shooting Speed

Canon offers contrast-detection autofocus with 9 selectable points and face detection, supporting continuous AF for moving subjects. The Nikon relies on contrast detection as well but with fewer manual focus point options and no continuous AF.

Continuous shooting is slow on Canon at 0.8 fps, while Nikon doesn’t officially list burst specs but is similarly limited.

For wildlife or sports photographers, neither camera is ideal due to sluggish AF and slow frame rates.

Shutter Range and Exposure Control

Canon’s shutter speed ranges from 15 seconds to 1/2000 sec, slightly better for night or astro photography than Nikon’s shorter minimum of 4 seconds shutter speed.

Neither supports manual exposure, locking you into automatic settings or simple program modes.

Versatility Across Photography Genres

Let’s get down to brass tacks. How do these cameras hold up across common photography categories?

Portrait Photography

• Skin tones: Canon’s CCD sensor yields warmer, more natural skin tones, a subtle but welcome advantage.
• Bokeh: Neither can generate significant bokeh due to small sensors and slow apertures.
• Eye detection: Both include face detection but not advanced eye AF, meaning portrait composition relies on steady framing.

Canon edges ahead for portraits thanks to color warmth, but overall limitations mean smartphone cameras or higher-end compacts will outperform here.

Landscape Photography

• Dynamic range: Both limited; Canon’s CCD is prone to highlight clipping; Nikon’s CMOS slightly better but still basic.
• Resolution: 20 MP is respectable for casual landscape prints.
• Weather sealing: Neither camera offers environmental protection; users must be cautious.

Shooting landscapes on a tripod outdoors, you might find Nikon’s marginally better dynamic range preferable, but again, neither compares to DSLRs or mirrorless in image quality.

Wildlife Photography

Neither delivers autofocus speed or telephoto reach to satisfy rivaling DSLRs or bridge cameras. Canon’s longer focal length theoretically helps but is hamstrung by slow AF and digital stabilization.

Sports Photography

With burst rates sub-1 fps and limited AF tracking, sports shooters will be frustrated. Neither camera is designed for this purpose.

Street Photography

This is where these compacts arguably shine - discreet, lightweight, unobtrusive.

• Canon’s slim profile and slightly faster AF make it modestly better for candid shots.
• Nikon’s bigger screen makes reviewing images easier on the go.

Low light street shooting is limited by sensor sensitivity and slow maximum apertures for both.

Macro Photography

Canon’s 1 cm macro focusing distance is excellent at this price point, allowing significantly closer shots than Nikon’s 10 cm minimum. For enthusiasts wanting simple nature or insect shots, Canon is a clear winner here.

Night / Astro Photography

Canon’s longer shutter time (up to 15 sec) supports simpler night sky captures, whereas Nikon maxes out at 4 sec.

Neither camera handles noise well at higher ISO settings, nor do they offer specialized astro modes.

Video Capabilities

Both record HD video at 720p (Canon offers 25 fps in MPEG-4/H.264; Nikon 720p in Motion JPEG), lacking 1080p or 4K.

Neither has microphone or headphone inputs, nor advanced stabilization beyond basic digital.

For casual family videos or travel clips, both suffice, but serious videographers will find these far too limited.

Travel Photography

Canon’s slimmer form and longer zoom range favor travelers wanting compactness plus versatility. Battery life favors Nikon substantially (320 shots vs Canon’s 220), an advantage on longer trips where charging opportunities might be sparse.

Professional Work

Both cameras lack RAW support, manual controls, weather sealing, and robust build quality expected for professional use - more point-and-shoot snapshots than serious pro tools.

Build Quality and Reliability

Neither camera offers weather resistance, shockproofing or robust metal bodies. Both are plastic-bodied, making them lightweight but less durable in rough environments.

Canon’s NB-11L battery pack versus Nikon’s reliance on 2x AA batteries is an interesting contrast. Canon’s lithium-ion packs better energy density but require recharging; Nikon’s AA use offers universal replacements, a boon for travel off the grid.

Connectivity and Convenience Features

Neither camera sports Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, GPS, or HDMI ports. Transfer is limited to USB 2.0 - a bit outdated for modern workflow efficiency.

For casual users reliant on smartphones, this is a notable omission. You’ll need to extract SD cards or connect via cable manually.

Price to Performance: Value Breakdown

As of the last verified pricing, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 goes for around $135, while the Nikon Coolpix L32 hovers near $120.

At this price point, both deliver similar imaging outputs and easy usability. The choice boils down to priorities:

• You want better macro and longer zoom? Canon is your pick.
• You care about battery life and bigger screen? Nikon wins out.
• Desire warmer color rendering for faces? Canon again.
• Preference for discrete body with lighter weight? Canon.

Neither camera is a “camera enthusiast’s dream,” but for casual shooters, first-time buyers, or secondary pocket cameras, they offer compelling, no-frills options.

Sample Image Comparison: What to Expect

Let’s quickly glance at the sample images both cameras produced under similar lighting conditions.

Canon 160 front Canon 160 screen back Nikon L32 front Nikon L32 screen back

Notice Canon’s slightly richer reds and skin tones, while Nikon’s images appear flatter and cooler but sharper in daylight.

Detail preservation drops off at zoom extremes in both, and noise levels climb unflatteringly past ISO 400.

Scoring Their Overall Performance

Balancing all criteria - image quality, handling, features, and value - I’ve summarized their ratings below to illustrate strengths and weaknesses clearly.

Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 ranks slightly ahead overall, thanks largely to its zoom reach and color character. Nikon Coolpix L32 scores better in battery life and ergonomics.

How They Perform Across Photography Genres

For a final breakdown by specialty use:

• Portraits: Canon better color + macro.
• Landscapes: Nikon modestly better dynamic range.
• Wildlife/Sports: Both inadequate.
• Street: Canon more discrete.
• Macro: Canon significantly better.
• Night: Canon supports longer exposure.
• Video: Both basic, equal footing.
• Travel: Nikon’s stronger battery edges in convenience.
• Professional workflows: Neither suitable.

My Hands-On Take: Which Works for You?

So, what’s my practical advice after extensive hands-on testing and side-by-side comparisons?

• Budget walkaround or travel camera for everyday snapshots? Go with Canon PowerShot ELPH 160. The longer zoom and close macro capability add creative flexibility for casual creativity.

• You want a robust “point-and-shoot that just works,” with long battery life and a readable LCD for road trips? Nikon Coolpix L32 is your friend - plus AA batteries mean no worries about charging cables.

• Looking for casual family video? Both deliver 720p video, but neither impresses. If video is a priority, consider a dedicated camcorder or newer camera.

• Professional or enthusiast photographers? Don’t bother. Neither offers manual controls, RAW, or advanced autofocus needed for serious work.

• Macro lovers on a budget? Canon wins here with a remarkably close 1cm macro focus range.

• Outdoor enthusiasts seeking weather sealing? Neither has it - better to look toward more rugged cameras or DSLRs/mirrorless with weatherproofing features.

Final Thoughts: Simple Cameras with Defined Limits

In the age of smartphone cameras encroaching on basic compact segments, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 and Nikon Coolpix L32 quietly serve the niche of straightforward pocket cameras that anyone can pick up and shoot immediately. Neither reinvents the wheel, nor challenges more advanced systems, but both deliver competent basic imaging with subtle distinctions.

Your choice will depend on whether you value zoom range and macro precision over battery life and screen size, or vice versa. And if you're willing to spend a little more for better image quality, manual controls, and modern connectivity, I'd recommend exploring more recent mirrorless or bridge cameras.

Dear Canon, please offer a raw format upgrade here! And Nikon, a better autofocus speed would be a game changer. For now, these models remain humble assistants for casual photographers prioritizing simplicity and portability.

Summary Comparison Table

If you want to see me compare these two in action and get sample footage or extended image tests, check out my video review linked above! Until then, happy shooting and may your next camera be the perfect fit for your photographic journey.