Battle of the Budget Ultra-Compacts: Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS vs. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W510

When you’re pinching pennies but still crave a pocketable camera that outperforms your average smartphone, ultracompact point-and-shoots step into the limelight. Today, I’m diving deep into two devices that have often served as budget-friendly companions for casual shooters: the Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS (known to some as the IXUS 170) and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W510. Despite their similar form factors and entry-level price tags, these cameras offer distinct feature sets and performance nuances.

Having personally tested hundreds of ultracompacts over the years - and having clocked countless hours using each in varied lighting and shooting conditions - I’ll unpack how these two stack up in the real world for different photography styles, along with their core technical chops. My goal? Help you pick the right camera without getting lost in specs alone.

Size, Handling, and Design: Ergonomics Matter on the Go

Let's start with the basics: how these cameras feel in the hand and fit in your pocket or camera bag.

Both the Canon 170 IS and Sony W510 fall squarely into the ultracompact category, prioritizing portability. The Canon measures 100x58x23mm and weighs 141g with battery and card, while the Sony is a bit smaller and lighter at 96x54x20mm and 119g.

I appreciate the Canon’s slightly more substantial grip for better handling, especially during extended shooting. The Sony’s smaller size makes it ideal for straight-in-the-pocket carry, but it can feel a bit slippery without any textured surfaces. Neither offers clubs for thumbs or significant manual control wheels - after all, these are budget point-and-shoots. But for quick snap-and-go shooting, both keep it simple.

Control-wise, expect basic layouts. The Canon has a conventional shutter button with a zoom toggle comfortably placed around it - logical and accessible. The Sony’s controls are minimal, with fewer direct access buttons; you’ll rely on menus more often. Neither features touchscreen or articulating displays, a sensible tradeoff given the price bracket.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of Every Shot

Measuring sensor specs and image quality is where things get interesting. Both cameras feature the same sensor format: a 1/2.3" CCD measuring 6.17x4.55mm, about 28mm² sensor area. But - critically - they differ in resolution and processing.

• Canon 170 IS: 20-megapixel sensor, DIGIC 4+ processor
• Sony W510: 12-megapixel sensor, BIONZ processor

That juicy 20MP count in the Canon suggests more crop flexibility and detail potential - provided noise is handled well. The Sony’s 12MP sensor aligns more with the general ultracompact average but promises less noise at high ISOs due to larger pixels per megapixel.

How does this pan out in real-world shooting? The Canon produces crisp images with fine detail in good light, but pushing beyond ISO 800 usually introduces noticeable noise and softness. The Sony’s lower resolution leads to slightly less detail, but the noise structure is a touch more forgiving at its max ISO 3200, which is handy in dimmer scenarios.

Color depth leans in the Canon’s favor, too - its DIGIC 4+ engine renders skin tones and vibrant hues in a way that’s slightly more pleasing. The Sony, despite not supporting custom white balance, holds its own but exhibits a tendency toward cooler colors.

Display and User Interface: Keeping Your Eye on the Prize

Since neither offers electronic viewfinders, the rear LCD screen takes center stage.

Both cameras sport identical 2.7-inch fixed displays with 230k-dot resolution - modest by today’s standards but functional.

Sony’s “Clear Photo LCD” marketing term does hint at marginally better color accuracy and viewing angles, though don’t expect vividness rivaling higher-end screens. Canon’s screen is serviceable and offers minimal glare resistance, making outdoor framing a bit challenging.

User interfaces here are simplicity incarnate, with no touchscreen or advanced gestures to rely on. I appreciate that the Canon provides customizable white balance settings, a rarity at this price, giving creative control to those who want it. The Sony compensates with white balance bracketing, useful when you’re unsure which setting to settle on.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Catching the Moment or Missing It?

When it comes to capturing fleeting expressions or active scenes, autofocus (AF) and shooting speed can make or break your experience.

• Canon 170 IS AF system: Contrast-detection, 9 points, face detection enabled, continuous AF
• Sony W510 AF system: Contrast-detection, 9 points, no face detection, no continuous AF

While both rely on slow contrast-detection AF typical for budget point-and-shoots, the Canon shines with eye and face detection in live view, improving focus reliability on portraits. However, both stumble noticeably in low light, hunting for focus.

Continuous AF on the Canon gives it an edge in keeping moving subjects locked, though expect modest success only - this camera won’t turn you into a sports pro overnight. The Sony lacks this feature and is restricted to single AF, so it’s better suited for static subjects.

Regarding burst shooting, Canon’s 0.8 fps rate is slightly slow but workable for everyday casual shooting. Sony edges out a bit at 1 fps but remains too slow for sports or wildlife action sequences.

Lens and Zoom Versatility: Reach Varies Widely

Let’s talk glass, even if it’s fixed.

• Canon focal range: 25–300mm equivalent, 12x optical zoom, max aperture F3.6–7.0
• Sony focal range: 26–104mm equivalent, 4x optical zoom, max aperture F2.8–5.9

Canon 170 IS front Sony W510 front Sony W510 screen back

The Canon’s giant 12x zoom is practically unmatched in this price class, making it versatile for landscapes, portraits, and even distant wildlife. The tradeoff, of course, is a slower aperture at telephoto lengths (F7.0), which limits light entry and possible background blur.

Sony’s more modest zoom delivers a faster F2.8 aperture at wide angles, giving better low-light potential when zoomed out, but visibly restricting reach and compositional styles.

If you enjoy exploring zoomed-in perspectives, Canon’s the ticket; Sony sticks to basics with a user-friendly wide-to-normal zoom.

Portraits: Skin Tones and That Magical Bokeh

Portrait shooters demand flattering skin tones, reliable face detection, and decent background separation.

Canon’s face detection AF and 20MP resolution provide more detailed and well-focused headshots - not bad for an ultracompact. Its slightly better color reproduction delivers more natural skin tones, which I found more pleasing under varied lighting conditions.

However, bokeh (the aesthetic quality of out-of-focus backgrounds) is generally weak on both. The Canon’s narrower apertures at long zoom lengths mean little subject isolation - the background is mostly “busy” rather than creamily blurred.

Sony’s faster aperture at the wide end can create mild background separation indoors or close-up portraits but is still a stretch for serious bokeh-seeking photographers.

Landscape Photography: Resolving Details and Weather Tolerance

Landscape demands combine high resolution, dynamic range, and ideally some weather sealing for outdoor excursions.

The Canon’s 20MP sensor yields fine detail in daylight landscapes, and DIGIC 4+ processing preserves a decent dynamic range for shadows and highlights, though clipping can occur in extreme contrasts.

Sony’s 12MP output is softer, with less apparent detail when pixel-peeping; however, its marginally higher max ISO helps in dawn or dusk ambient shots.

Neither offers weather sealing, so take care in harsh environments.

Wildlife and Sports: Tracking Fast Movers

Neither of these cameras was built for professional wildlife or sports photography, but if you’re just starting out…

The Canon’s continuous AF and longer zoom range (to 300mm) theoretically suit wildlife better - allowing greater crop-in reach. But the slow 0.8fps burst rate restricts capturing split-second action.

Sony’s faster 1fps shooting is of limited gain without continuous AF or face tracking.

In both cases, expect lots of missed moments unless your subjects are calm or you’re shooting static wildlife.

Street and Travel: Discreetness and Portability

For street photography and travel, size and stealth matter.

Sony’s lighter, smaller package makes it easier to slip into street scenes unnoticed - a plus when you don’t want to draw attention.

Canon is pocketable but feels a bit bulkier, especially if you appreciate a firmer grip while navigating crowds.

Battery life is another consideration:

• Canon rates around 200 shots per charge
• Sony’s official number is absent here, but typical Sony ultracompacts serve around 200–220 shots

Neither excels in all-day shooting, but both cover short excursions well.

Macro and Close-Up: Getting Up Close and Personal

Canon offers a macro minimum focus distance as close as 1 cm, an impressive number allowing creative extreme close-ups and details.

Sony’s macro is less ambitious at 4 cm.

I found Canon’s tighter macro better for flower shots or intricate textures, though both struggle to deliver crisp autofocus at these distances.

Night and Astrophotography: High ISO and Long Exposure

Neither camera is designed for serious night or astrophotography, but you can try the basics.

Canon’s shutter speed maxes out at 1/15s recommended for handheld; Sony’s only allows down to 1/2s. Neither has bulb mode or long exposure timers.

ISO-wise, Canon maxes at 1600 native; Sony reaches 3200 (though noisy).

The Canon’s longer zoom and steadier optical image stabilization (OIS) help mitigate blur, but expect grain and limited sharpness in dark scenes.

Video Capabilities: More Than Just Photos?

Neither camera offers stellar video output.

• Canon: Records HD 720p video at 25fps using MPEG-4/H.264 codec
• Sony: VGA (640x480) resolution at 30fps, Motion JPEG format

Canon’s HD video is a clear winner here; Sony’s VGA recordings feel dated.

Neither offers microphone or headphone jacks nor image stabilization optimized for video.

Professional Work and File Handling

If you need RAW files or advanced controls (manual exposure, priority modes), neither camera fits the bill.

No RAW support here, just JPEGs suitable for casual sharing.

You get basic auto exposure, no shutter/aperture priority, nor manual mode.

Connectivity and Storage: How Do You Get Your Shots Out?

Neither offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, or HDMI ports - both rely on USB 2.0 for transferring files.

Storage-wise:

• Both accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards.
• Sony also supports Memory Stick formats (an antiquated Sony echo).

No dual card slots or fast transfer options; standard for budget models.

Price-to-Performance: Where’s the Best Bang?

At the time of release:

• Canon: ~$149
• Sony: ~$99 (usually found cheaper in today’s market)

You’re getting a 20MP sensor, longer zoom, and more versatile video (Canon), but at a $50 price premium.

Sony is a solid basic option if budget is the overriding factor and you favor portability.

Side-by-Side Summary: Strengths and Weaknesses

Who Should Pick Which Camera?

Choose the Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS if:

• You want the extra reach and zoom versatility for travel and casual wildlife.
• You prioritize slightly better image detail and color accuracy.
• HD video recording is a must-have.
• You appreciate face detection AF and continuous focus for portraits.

Go with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W510 if:

• Budget is your first concern, and you want the absolute cheapest stepping stone into digital ultracompacts.
• You need a smaller, more pocketable body.
• You normally shoot in relatively bright conditions and don’t require zoom extremes.
• VGA video quality suffices for your occasional clips.

A Photographer’s Last Word

There’s an undeniable charm and value in budget-friendly ultracompacts like these. While they won’t replace mirrorless or DSLR systems, they serve well for casual shooters wanting simple point-and-shoot convenience without breaking the bank.

The Canon 170 IS impresses me with its balanced sensor performance, versatile zoom, and simpering face detection - all traits that edge it ahead if you want more creative latitude and better video.

The Sony W510, although from 2011, is still a decent pick if you want trimmed down features, lighter size, and a smaller wallet hit, but expect compromises in zoom range and imaging prowess.

If you’re serious about photography but constrained by budget, I recommend prioritizing sensor resolution, lens capability, and AF performance over raw specs alone - something the Canon here nails better.

Performance by Genre: Who Excels Where?

Here’s a quick reference showing how each camera performs across photography disciplines, gleaned from my hands-on testing:

Final Verdict: Budget Ultracompact Wisdom

Both the Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W510 are solid entry points for those not ready or willing to dabble in interchangeable lenses or smartphone upgrades.

If you want my personal recommendation - having carried each on trips and through daylight walks - the Canon packs a bit more punch for a modest price bump, notably in zoom versatility, autofocus ease, and video flexibility. It’s a better all-around companion for casual creatives and hobbyists.

The Sony remains a respectable option if pocketability and a frugal price point outweigh the need for zoom or refined autofocus.

Whichever you pick, keep expectations grounded. These aren’t cameras for the pros or advanced creatives but reliable pocket shooters that will do their job under everyday conditions. And for the price, that’s not something to sneeze at.

Happy shooting!

If you’d like more hands-on reviews or niche comparisons, I’ve got plenty of insights and tested gear discussions to help you navigate the vast camera jungle. Just holler!