Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 vs Nikon Coolpix S1200pj: A Detailed Showdown of Two Ultracompacts

In the ever-evolving world of digital cameras, ultracompacts have always held a particular charm - pocket-friendly, fuss-free, and ever-ready companions for impulsive snaps or travel’s fleeting moments. Today, we peel back the layers of two such contenders: the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 (a.k.a. IXUS 160) launched in early 2015, and the Nikon Coolpix S1200pj from 2011. At first glance, they’re both petite powerhouses with fixed lenses and similar sensor setups, but it’s the nuances and real-world quirks that separate enduring keepsakes from soon-forgotten gadgets.

Having tested both extensively in field conditions - from leafy parks to bustling streets and impromptu family gatherings - I’ll walk you through their lineage, guts, and handling. All the while, I’ll keep an eye on practical results: image quality, autofocus speed, ergonomics, and more, to help you decide which suits your photographic mood and budget.

Let’s dive in.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Build Quality

When pulling these little cameras out, size and feel make a huge difference - because ultracompact gear is all about convenience without forsaking control comfort. The Canon ELPH 160 is a classic approachable coin, measuring a svelte 95x54x22 mm and weighing merely 127 grams with battery and card - lighter than a chocolate bar. Nikon’s S1200pj is slightly chunkier at 107x64x23 mm and 186 grams, so you’ll feel its presence in a jacket pocket or handbag.

The Canon flaunts a modest, rounded design with a mostly plastic shell but reassuring assembly. It slips comfortably into my palm, with controls easily reachable by thumb. The Nikon’s chunk gives a little more grip - in theory, a more secure hold - and adds heft that feels more substantial though pocket-friendliness diminishes somewhat.

A glance from the top highlights the Canon’s straightforward, minimal controls, favoring simplicity for novices. The Nikon S1200pj, on the other hand, presents a somewhat busier top-plate with its dedicated projector module (a quirky selling point), which influences its size and weight.

Neither model sports environmental sealing, understandably, given their entry-level ultracompact focus and price brackets - so don’t expect ruggedness. Meanwhile, both use plastic-bodied shells, which hold up well under casual use but won’t be your hiking-challenge companion.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Let’s sling open the hood and talk sensors, because that’s where image quality roots.

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor measuring 6.17x4.55 mm, a standard staple for ultracompacts in this era, with an effective sensor area around 28 sq mm. How do they differ? The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 boasts a higher megapixel count - 20 MP - compared to Nikon’s 14 MP. That sounds like a big win for Canon, right? Not so fast.

In practice, sensor size and pixel density mean Canon’s sensor crams more pixels into the same space, resulting in smaller individual pixel wells, which typically leads to higher noise at low-light and a loss of dynamic range compared to sensors with fewer, larger pixels (all else equal). Nikon’s more modest 14 MP spread provides bigger pixels, potentially better for low-light performance and cleaner images.

So how does this pan out?

• Sharpness and Detail: On a sunny afternoon, the Canon’s images have a slight edge in raw detail due to its higher resolution, beneficial for print sizes beyond 8x10 inches or serious cropping.

• Noise and Dynamic Range: The Nikon, however, handles shadows and noise better, retaining cleaner details in darker areas and midtones, especially at higher ISO settings (up to ISO 1600 native, expandable to 6400). Canon restricts max ISO to 1600 with no expanded options.

• Color Rendition: Both cameras output fairly neutral color profiles with a hint of contrasty punch straight out of camera. Canon’s DIGIC 4+ processor somewhat smooths the images, reducing noise, but at a cost of softness. Nikon’s colors appear a bit more vibrant but varied depending on lighting.

In summary, Canon leans toward resolution-first output, Nikon toward cleaner, punchier results in dirtier lighting.

The Lens and Zoom: Range and Optical Quality

Zoom versatility matters a lot if you want a one-camera-does-it-all. Canon PowerShot ELPH 160’s fixed lens offers an 8x zoom range equivalent to 28-224 mm, starting with a moderately bright F3.2 aperture widening to F6.9 at full telephoto. Nikon counters with a 5x zoom from 28-140 mm, aperture from F3.9-5.8.

So, Canon boasts longer reach (224 mm vs 140 mm) but closes aperture sooner, which can mean challenges with slower shutter speeds in low light at full zoom. Nikon’s shorter zoom is brighter when fully extended but loses tally by limiting reach.

In terms of optical sharpness and distortion - measured through my workshop testing - both deliver typical ultracompact expectations: soft corners at full wide and telephoto, with some barrel distortion on the wide end. The Canon’s longer reach zoom softens more noticeably at max telephoto, which reflects its higher zoom factor. Nikon’s shorter zoom maintains better edge clarity throughout the range.

Where macro is concerned, Canon impresses with a 1cm minimum focusing distance - extremely close, ideal for tight flower or detail shots. Nikon sets a 3 cm minimum, respectable but not remarkable. Canon’s digital stabilization helps mitigate handshake, but a true optical system would be preferred here (Nikon’s optical IS helps more broadly).

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: How Fast Can They Think?

For many ultracompacts, autofocus is a make-or-break feature - and sadly, neither camera thrills.

Canon’s PowerShot ELPH 160 uses a contrast-detection AF system with 9 focus points, face detection included. It offers continuous AF option. The AF speed is serviceable for casual snaps - slight hunting in dim or low-contrast scenes, but consistent lock indoors and outside daylight. Face detection helps maintain focus on people but struggles tracking moving subjects.

In comparison, Nikon’s S1200pj uses a similar 9-point contrast-detect system but omits face detection. It struggles more noticeably with moving subjects and in low contrast, sometimes failing to lock swiftly, leading to missed moments. Continuous AF mode is absent here, which limits its utility in dynamic scenes.

Both cameras offer a continuous burst shooting rate - roughly 0.8 frames per second, which is quite slow by modern standards. So forget action or sports photography with these; they’re built for moment snapshots, not rapid-fire sequence shots.

LCD Screen and User Interface: How Easy Are They to Use?

Looking at LCD screens - the photographer’s immediate window to composition and settings - Nikon edges ahead.

Canon’s fixed 2.7-inch screen offers a modest 230k-dot resolution, which feels dated and grainy, especially in bright sunlight. No touchscreen, so you’re navigating menus with physical buttons.

The Nikon sports a 3-inch display with crisp 460k dots, showing images much more clearly. Moreover, it includes touchscreen functionality, easing menu navigation and focus point selection, creating a better user experience overall.

Menus in both models are straightforward but limited in customization, which is appropriate given their entry-level market positions. Just know that Canon offers a few more manual options like custom white balance, which Nikon forgoes. Neither camera offers manual exposure modes or RAW shooting, limiting creative control.

Video Capabilities: Modest Tools for Casual Recording

If video recording is on your radar, here’s what these ultracompacts bring.

Both record 720p HD video:

• Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 shoots 1280x720 at 25 fps with H.264 compression.

• Nikon S1200pj also shoots 720p but at 30 fps, again H.264.

Despite similar specs, Nikon’s video quality shines a little more thanks to slightly better image processing, resulting in smoother motion and less noise under low light.

Neither camera offers external mic inputs or headphone jacks, so audio is basic and baked in via the internal mic. Steady video is helped by Canon’s digital image stabilization and Nikon’s optical stabilization, the latter offering superior real-world results free of cropping.

No 4K or frame-rate advances here - these cameras were introduced when HD was the standard. Thus, they serve casual family videos or travel diaries well enough but fall short for serious video creators.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Considerations for Day Trips

Battery life is crucial in compact cameras where replacement batteries aren’t always plentiful or affordable.

Canon’s ELPH 160 uses the NB-11L battery, rated for about 220 shots per charge under CIPA standards - a bit leaner than average. In my testing, heavy use of the LCD and flash cuts that time short, so packing an extra battery for day trips feels prudent.

Nikon’s S1200pj uses the EN-EL12 battery, with manufacturer ratings generally in the 250-300 shots range, though exact CIPA values were unavailable. Anecdotally, I found Nikon’s battery lasted a bit longer under similar usage, likely owing to more power-efficient components and a slightly larger battery capacity.

Both cameras accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards. Nikon’s S1200pj even features a small internal memory buffer that guards against accidental shots without a card, a convenience not matched by Canon.

Connectivity and Extras: What’s Missing?

Neither camera sports Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS - no surprises for their release eras and market position. USB 2.0 connectivity is standard for file transfer, with no HDMI ports, so tethered viewing to modern TVs requires adapters.

Canon’s ELPH 160 offers a self-timer (2 or 10 seconds) and manual white balance customization, giving some control flair.

Nikon’s quirky standout remains its built-in projector - yes, a tiny pico projector housing that can beam your images onto a surface for quick sharing. Novel, yes, but only usable in dim environments and with an external power source connected. I suspect the novelty won’t sway most buyers, but it adds character.

Versatility Across Photography Genres

Now, let’s unpack how these cameras fare across popular photography styles - my favorite test to reveal their real strengths and weaknesses:

Portraits

Canon’s higher resolution helps capture fine facial details, but the small sensor and fixed aperture limit shallow depth-of-field effects. Face detection autofocus is present, easing composition of people, though bokeh is naturally limited by the lens design.

Nikon lacks face detection, so focus falls on manual aiming. Its better low-light performance reduces noise in indoor portraits.

Landscapes

Both cameras have limitations for serious landscape photography due to small sensors and narrow dynamic range. Canon’s 20 MP sensor offers more pixels for large prints, while Nikon’s cleaner shadows help in tricky lighting.

Neither features weather sealing or ruggedness, so caution is necessary outdoors.

Wildlife and Sports

Forget wildlife or sports action here: slow autofocus, mediocre burst rates, and limited zoom ranges hamper success.

Street Photography

Compactness favors street shooting, and here Canon’s lighter weight and smaller size edges it ahead for pure discretion, while Nikon’s better LCD aids quick framing.

Both struggle in low-light due to sensor size and noise.

Macro

Canon’s 1cm minimum focus distance is an asset here, producing detailed close-ups. Nikon’s 3cm distance is still usable but less impressive.

Night and Astro

Small sensors and modest max ISO give both poor low-light performance compared to modern mirrorless or DSLRs. Expect grainy astro shots and limited long-exposure flexibility.

Travel

Canon’s slim dimensions and light weight make it a solid travel companion, ideal for days when you want just a simple point-and-shoot.

Nikon’s slightly bigger size sacrifices pocketability for a better screen and higher ISO flexibility, beneficial in varied lighting during exploration.

Professional Use

Neither camera meets professional criteria with lack of RAW support, limited controls, and minimal build robustness.

Overall Performance Scores and Genre Breakdown

Here’s a concise summary of overall and genre-specific scores based on accumulated lab testing, field use, and image quality analysis.

Breaking down by genres:

• Canon dominates in macro, resolution-dependent portraits, and travel convenience.

• Nikon scores better in video, low light, and color vibrance.

Final Verdict: Which Ultracompact Fits Your Needs?

Both cameras are relics in 2024 but still offer unique traits. My advice, based on extensive hands-on use and technical consideration:

• Choose Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 if:

  • You want the smallest, lightest option that fits in any pocket.

  • Resolution and macro photography are priorities.

  • Your budget is tight (~$135 entry-level price).

  • You want straightforward, no-fuss shooting with occasional creative manual white balance.

• Choose Nikon Coolpix S1200pj if:

  • You value a larger LCD with touchscreen for more intuitive framing.

  • You plan to record casual HD videos with a steadier image.

  • You want slightly better low-light performance and cleaner images.

  • The internal projector novelty is appealing (but don’t count on it often).

  • You don’t mind paying a premium price (~$499), which feels steep given its age.

A Nod to Alternatives and Closing Thoughts

Poking around the market today, there are many modern ultracompacts that eclipse these two in autofocus, sensor quality, and video - for example, Canon’s newer PowerShot G9 X Mark II, Sony RX100 series, or the Panasonic Lumix LX10, all with larger sensors and faster AF systems.

Still, for collectors, casual shooters, or budget pickers hunting for a reliable, pocket-friendly companion, either the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 or Nikon Coolpix S1200pj can do respectable service. Just adjust expectations accordingly - these aren’t meant for professionals or demanding enthusiasts.

Sample Images: Seeing is Believing

To round off this detailed comparison, feast your eyes on real test shots from both cameras, taken in comparable conditions around town and outdoors. Take note of detail likeness, color, noise, and exposure tendencies.

Canon 160 front Canon 160 screen back Nikon S1200pj front Nikon S1200pj screen back

In the end, these cameras remind me of why the ultracompact category once reigned supreme: a balance of simplicity, portability, and decent quality for everyday moments. While smartphone cameras now swallow much of this territory, dedicated ultracompacts still sneak into pockets when you want optical zoom and a tactile shutter press.

Hopefully, this deep dive arms you with enough insight - and maybe a pinch of nostalgia - to make your choice.

Happy shooting!