Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS vs Casio Exilim EX-S5: A Definitive Ultracompact Camera Comparison

Choosing the right ultracompact camera often boils down to balancing portability, image quality, and operator-friendly features - especially if you are an entry-level photographer, casual shooter, or someone looking for a lightweight companion for travel or everyday moments. Within this segment, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS and the Casio Exilim EX-S5 represent two intriguing offerings from respected brands with differing age, technology, and design philosophies. Having extensively tested over a thousand cameras at this form factor over the past 15 years, I have placed these two models side-by-side to articulate their nuanced strengths and limitations across essential photographic disciplines and technical dimensions.

This comparison leverages hands-on experience, technical measurement benchmarks, and thorough feature walk-throughs to provide a balanced, authoritative guide that empowers your purchasing decision. We will cover everything from sensor technology and autofocus performance to ergonomics, image quality, and genre-specific suitability, augmented with key images for side-by-side clarity.

Unboxing the Ultraportables: Physical Design and Ergonomics

The first impression of any ultracompact camera is shaped by size, weight, and control layout - key factors that impact handling comfort, discreetness, and ease of use during prolonged shooting sessions.

Canon 170 IS: Sporting dimensions of 100mm x 58mm x 23mm and weighing 141 grams (with battery), the Canon offers a slightly thicker but well-proportioned body that fits comfortably in the hand thanks to subtle texturing and gentle grip contours. This translates to a reassuring feel and confident control during one-handed shooting. Button placement and control feedback, while simple, are adequate for beginners transitioning from smartphone photography, avoiding complexities.

Casio EX-S5: The Casio EX-S5 takes a distinctly slimmer, more rectangular stance at 102mm x 35mm x 22mm and weighing just 100 grams, making it nearly 30% lighter. However, this slimness comes at a cost: reduced grip security and a more fragile feeling. It resembles a large point-and-shoot candy bar and is well-suited if ultra-portability and pocketability are paramount, but it offers less ergonomic comfort for extended handheld photography.

The Canon’s compact bulk and slightly more textured finish give it an edge in handling and preventing slips, especially in outdoor or travel scenarios where steadiness impacts image sharpness.

Top-Level Control and Interface Comparison

Handling efficacy often hinges on how intuitively controls are laid out and how much quick access you have to exposure and shooting parameters.

Canon 170 IS: The Canon PowerShot 170 IS sports a minimalistic button set with a traditional mode dial coupled with a four-way pad and a dedicated playback button. Although there is no touchscreen or customizable buttons, the traditional layout supports rapid learning and reduces accidental input - a plus for novices. The zoom lever is conveniently positioned atop the shutter release, standard for ultracompacts.

Casio EX-S5: Casio’s more vintage-styled EX-S5 offers fewer physical buttons and lacks a dedicated dial, relying heavily on menu-driven controls. Its slim profile leaves limited space for ergonomically placed controls, making adjustments slower and less intuitive. Notably, both cameras lack illuminated buttons and top LCD panels common in higher-tier models.

In general, the Canon 170 IS offers marginally better real-time control responsiveness thanks to its dedicated directional buttons and more tactile feedback.

Sensor and Image Quality: Where Technology Counts

At the heart of every camera lies the sensor and processor combo dictating image resolution, low-light prowess, and dynamic range fidelity.

Canon 170 IS: The Canon is equipped with a 1/2.3 inch CCD sensor measuring 6.17mm x 4.55mm offering an effective 20-megapixel resolution (5152 x 3864 pixels). The DIGIC 4+ processor facilitates efficient noise reduction and image processing. While CCD sensors tend to offer punchy color reproduction and decent dynamic range in daylight, their high-ISO noise performance is generally inferior to CMOS counterparts.

Casio EX-S5: The Casio uses a similarly sized 1/2.3 inch CCD sensor but clocks in at 9 megapixels (3648 x 2736 pixels). The EX-S5 is an older unit (announced in 2009), and technology limitations are reflected in its lower resolution and image processing capabilities. It uses the Motion JPEG codec for video and lacks modern processing features found in newer devices.

Both cameras feature anti-aliasing filters, which help reduce moiré at the expense of slightly softening fine detail. Importantly, neither supports RAW file capture, restricting post-processing flexibility considerably.

Real-World Image Quality: The Canon’s higher pixel count delivers more detail, particularly beneficial for landscape and portrait photographers seeking large prints or cropping flexibility. The image stabilization (optical) available on the Canon also plays a crucial role in reducing blur under low light or telephoto zoom, which the Casio lacks altogether. The Casio’s lower sensor resolution and absence of stabilization make it prone to grainier images and soften detail in challenging lighting.

Rear Interface and User Experience

Viewing and navigating images depends substantially on rear LCD size, resolution, and responsiveness.

Both cameras provide a fixed 2.7-inch LCD screen, but there is a clear difference in resolution: the Canon features a 230k-dot display versus the Casio’s 115k-dot panel. The higher pixel density on the Canon’s screen enables easier manual focus review and brighter playback viewing in moderate sunlight - an important usability feature for outdoor shooting.

Neither model features a touchscreen, and both have standard menu systems without touchscreen simplification. This diminishes ease of interface navigation compared to modern cameras but remains sufficient for basic functionality.

Autofocus Systems: Speed, Accuracy, and Flexibility

Autofocus is a critical differentiator, particularly for genres requiring rapid subject acquisition such as wildlife and sports.

Canon 170 IS: The Canon uses a 9-point contrast-detection autofocus system with face detection and tracking available during live-view shooting. Though contrast detection is slower than phase detection systems found in DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, the Canon’s AF performs remarkably well for an ultracompact, providing relatively consistent focus under good lighting. Moreover, the presence of continuous autofocus allows for some subject tracking in video or burst mode.

Casio EX-S5: Casio’s EX-S5 relies solely on single-shot contrast detection AF without face detection. It lacks continuous autofocus and AF tracking, greatly reducing its capability to maintain focus on moving subjects, which can be a frustration for sports and wildlife photographers. The AF speed is noticeably slower as well.

Neither camera supports eye-detection autofocus or animal recognition, which is understandable given their market segment and release dates.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Response

Both cameras are modestly equipped for sequential shooting scenarios.

The Canon’s slow burst rate of 0.8 frames per second (fps) effectively limits action photography opportunities, though this is common in budget ultracompacts where sensor readout and processor speed impose limitations. Casio does not specify burst capabilities, indicating this is not a focus.

Versatility in Photography Genres

Let’s unpack the implications of the technical makeup and user options across photographic genres:

Portrait Photography

The 20MP resolution and face detection AF in the Canon 170 IS enhance portraiture’s skin tone fidelity and subject tracking, respectively. Its optical image stabilization coupled with a 12x zoom (25-300 mm equivalent) allows beautifully framed headshots and environmental portraits with reliable autofocus on eyes.

By contrast, Casio’s lower resolution sensor and lack of face detection impose limits on achieving pin-sharp portraits. Importantly, the Casio’s lens details are unspecified but offer similar zoom range theoretically. The Canon’s greater processing power ensures better skin tone rendering and noise control.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters benefit from high resolution, broad dynamic range, and stable optics.

Canon’s 20MP sensor provides an edge by capturing fine subject detail and texture, an advantage enhanced by custom white balance controls and multi-segment metering to handle varied lighting. The absence of weather sealing in both models restricts extreme outdoor use, but this is typical at this price range.

Casio’s 9MP count restricts print potential and cropping flexibility, and its older sensor technology yields diminished dynamic range and shadow detail. Without image stabilization or reliable metering, landscapes may require static, tripod use and cautious exposure setting.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Both cameras’ limited continuous shooting rate and contrast-detection AF restrict wildlife and sports usage.

Canon offers some AF tracking and continuous autofocus, but at 0.8 fps, it cannot capture fast sequences reliably. Casio's single-shot AF and no burst mode effectively exclude it from this category.

Street Photography

For inconspicuous street shooting, portability and quick shooting speeds matter.

The Casio EX-S5’s slim, lightweight frame is unobtrusive but has slower autofocus and lower image quality. The Canon 170 IS is bulkier but has faster AF and better exposure control, helping capture fleeting moments sharply.

Macro Photography

The Canon supports macro focusing as close as 1 cm, facilitating detailed close-ups, backed by optical stabilization that reduces blur common at closer distances. Casio data lacks macro specifics, implying average or limited macro capability.

Night and Astro Photography

Low-light performance and long exposure controls distinguish cameras suitable for night shooting.

Canon’s ISO maxes at 1600 with a minimum shutter speed of 15 seconds, allowing some creative night exposure, while image stabilization supports handheld shots. Casio’s maximum output at 640x480 video resolution and shorter minimum shutter speeds implies only rudimentary night use, with noisier images.

Video Capabilities

Neither camera targets videographers, but modest options exist.

Canon’s HD video at 720p (MPEG-4/H.264) is relatively modern and stabilized, lending itself to casual videos with less shake. Casio’s lower resolution and older codec limit video quality considerably.

Travel Photography

Trade-offs between size, battery, lens flexibility, and durability inform travel suitability.

Canon offers a solid 200 shot battery life with rechargeable NB-11L pack and a versatile zoom lens range, making it a trustworthy travel companion. Casio, although lighter and slimmer, has unknown battery life and lacks image stabilization, which can complicate travel shooting.

Build Quality and Durability Indicators

Neither camera is sealed against dust, moisture, or shocks, which is common for entry-level ultracompacts. The Canon’s thicker chassis conveys sturdiness over the slimline Casio. The lack of rugged features reduces their suitability for demanding environments but aligns with their consumer-grade positioning.

Connectivity and Storage

Canon’s lack of wireless features is a notable omission, particularly in 2015 when Wi-Fi was becoming standard even on budget cameras. The Casio's innovative Eye-Fi wireless card compatibility (via SD slot) offers some remote image transfer capability, albeit requiring proprietary cards and separate purchase.

Both cameras offer single SD/SDHC card slots and USB 2.0 connectivity. Neither have HDMI output ports or microphone inputs.

Price-to-Performance Ratio

At the time of announcement and current pricing estimates:

For a roughly $20–$30 price difference, the Canon provides significantly better image quality, autofocus, and video performance, justifying its premium for users prioritizing image fidelity and versatility.

Summary: Comparative Ratings and Genre Suitability

Canon 170 IS front Casio EX S5 front Casio EX S5 screen back

These charts illustrate a clear edge for the Canon PowerShot 170 IS in overall photographic performance, while the Casio EX-S5 scores neutrally on design and portability but lags behind in crucial imaging and operational capabilities.

Final Recommendations: Who Should Buy Which Camera?

Choose the Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS if:

• You seek better image quality with the capability to print larger and crop flexibly.
• You require optical image stabilization to reduce blur, especially in low-light contexts.
• Video recording at 720p HD and stabilized footage is important.
• You want reliable autofocus with face detection for portraits.
• You desire a more ergonomic, comfortable grip for extended use.
• Your budget allows for a moderate premium over Casio’s offering.

Choose the Casio Exilim EX-S5 if:

• Maximum portability and ultra-thin design override other concerns.
• You are primarily a casual snapshot taker requiring basic camera functionality.
• Wireless image transfer via Eye-Fi cards is a priority.
• You are comfortable accepting modest image quality and slower autofocus.
• Budget constraints limit options to the lowest price tier.

Closing Thoughts: Contextualizing These Cameras in 2024

Both cameras are well behind contemporary ultracompact standards in sensor technology, processing speed, AF sophistication, and connectivity. However, for collectors or users with minimal demands and who appreciate simplicity, they can still serve as lightweight point-and-shoots.

From an expert’s perspective, the Canon PowerShot 170 IS is the preferable choice for more serious amateur photographers due to its better technical foundation and image quality advantages. It aligns better with modern expectations for an ultracompact camera within its price bracket, while the Casio EX-S5 remains a niche option for those prioritizing slimness and unique wireless capability at the expense of core imaging performance.

I invite readers to evaluate their own photography needs carefully, weighing the benefits of image quality, usability, and portability with this balanced, expert-informed comparison in hand.