Canon ELPH 190 IS vs Olympus Stylus 5010: The Ultimate Ultracompact Showdown for Budget Photographers

Every so often I get asked: “What’s the best pocket-friendly compact camera that doesn’t feel like a toy but won’t break the bank?” Today, we're diving deep into two contenders from the ultracompact category - the Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS (introduced in 2016) and the Olympus Stylus 5010 (released back in 2010). While these point-and-shoots may not be your go-to for professional work, they each hold appeal for casual shooters, travelers seeking small cameras, or content creators on a budget.

I’ve logged hands-on test hours with both models alongside industry benchmarks, factoring sensor tech, autofocus systems, ergonomics, and photo quality to help you cut through marketing fluff and figure out which suits your needs better. Let's take a stroll through their similarities, differences, and whether either deserves a spot in your kit.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Design

Compact cameras promise convenience, but how they feel in the hand during prolonged use can make or break usability. The Canon ELPH 190 IS and Olympus 5010 both rank as ultracompacts, but subtle design decisions create distinct user experiences.

As you can see, both models are pocketable, but the ELPH 190 IS is slightly thicker (24 mm vs. 20 mm thickness) and marginally heavier (138 g vs. 126 g). To the average cheapskate tech lover, that might not seem like much, but in real-world usage, the Canon’s beefier grip and slightly chunkier dimensions lend more confidence for one-handed operation. It’s less likely to wiggle around your fingers while shooting on the go.

Conversely, Olympus trims down the depth, fitting a tad more discreetly in a jacket pocket - ideal for street photographers wary of looking like they’re hauling clubs for thumbs. The smooth exterior of the Olympus also oozes minimalism, but that benefits slip-resistance less than the Canon’s texturized grip.

Both cameras weigh roughly the same, meaning neither demands a second shoulder strap, though I prefer the Canon’s slightly more substantial feel, which helps when timing burst shots or holding steady for macro snaps.

Control Layout and Interface: Buttons, Dials, and Menus

A camera’s physical controls affect how intuitively you can change settings - especially if you want to shoot smarter, faster.

Looking top-down, the Canon ELPH 190 IS adopts a conventional ultracompact setup with minimal buttons: power, shutter release, zoom toggle, and a mode dial tucked under the shutter button collar. It’s basic but logical - no clubs-for-thumb confusion, just straightforward point-and-shooting with modest manual overrides.

The Olympus 5010, meanwhile, trumps the Canon with a slightly more defined mode dial, including modes tailored toward playback and effects, which might appeal to the casual creative crowd. However, Olympus’s menu navigation is somewhat less clear, hampered by fewer physical buttons and a slightly slower processor, leading to sluggish response times during setting adjustments - annoying during spontaneous street snaps.

Both cameras lack touchscreen capability, which is not surprising for their class and release dates but means navigating menus can feel a bit old school. The non-selfie friendly nature (no flip screens or selfie timers) means these cameras are squarely aimed at traditional photography rather than vlogging or selfie content creation.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

This is where the nuance emerges because despite similar sensor sizes (both sport 1/2.3” CCD sensors), the Canon and Olympus diverge in resolution, processing power, and ISO performance.

• Canon ELPH 190 IS:
  • 20MP resolution
  • DIGIC 4+ processor
  • Max native ISO 1600
  • Fixed 4:3 aspect ratio
• Olympus 5010:
  • 14MP resolution
  • TruePic III processor
  • Max native ISO 3200
  • Supports 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios

The Canon’s higher megapixel count promises finer details at normal viewing sizes, which is a boon for landscape photography where resolution counts. However, in practice, the older CCD sensor struggles in dynamic range and low-light conditions, with noise becoming an issue at ISO 800 and above.

Olympus’s lower resolution sensor yields images with less pixel count but interestingly edges out in high-ISO performance, pushing up to ISO 3200. This wider ISO range means the 5010 can eke out usable images in dim environments where the Canon’s ceiling of ISO 1600 gets noisy fast.

I tested both side-by-side in varying conditions, and for landscapes or daylight portraits, the Canon edged ahead with crisp image detail. For nighttime or indoor snapshots without flash, Olympus held more consistently cleaner images - though both cameras fall short compared to modern mirrorless or advanced compacts.

The LCD Displays: Checking Your Shots on the Fly

A 2.7-inch screen with 230k dots is standard fare here, but let’s see how these two differ in usability and image review capabilities.

Neither camera features a touchscreen or articulating panel, meaning limited flexibility for creative compositions. The Canon’s display exhibits slightly warmer color rendering, aiding skin-tone judgments during portraits. The Olympus display tends toward cooler hues, which occasionally throws off true-to-life previews.

Both displays become tough to see under bright sunlight, but the Canon’s screen has a stronger anti-reflective coating, making it comparatively easier to confirm focus and composition outdoors.

If you're the kind who relies heavily on live view framing, neither camera will compete with modern screens. However, for ultracompacts at their price points, these displays fulfill the essential need of quick review, albeit with limited finesse.

Autofocus and Shooting Responsiveness: Catching the Moment

Despite being simple point-and-shoots, autofocus (AF) systems vary in speed and accuracy, affecting your ability to capture decisive moments.

• Canon ELPH 190 IS:

  • Contrast-detection AF with face detection
  • AF continuous, single, and selective modes
  • Burst shooting speed: ~0.8 fps

• Olympus 5010:

  • Contrast-detection AF with tracking capabilities
  • Single AF only
  • Burst shooting speed: ~1.0 fps

I noticed the Olympus autofocus slower to lock focus in low contrast scenes but delightfully consistent in steady lighting, helped by its multi-point AF area coverage. The Canon's face detection works reliably for portraits but struggles in tracking moving subjects - the 0.8 frames per second burst rate won't please sports or wildlife shooters needing fast action capture.

None of these cameras will replace a DSLR or mirrorless for fast-moving subjects but for casual family photos or travel snaps, both suffice with a slight edge to the Olympus for framing moving objects due to its superior tracking AF.

Lens and Zoom Capabilities: Versatility in a Pocket

The lenses define what kinds of shots you can comfortably take without swapping glass - fixed zooms are both blessing and limitation.

• Canon ELPH 190 IS:

  • 10x optical zoom (24-240mm equivalent)
  • Max aperture f/3.0 at wide, f/6.9 at tele
  • Macro focus as close as 1 cm

• Olympus 5010:

  • 5x optical zoom (26-130mm equivalent)
  • Max aperture f/2.8 at wide, f/6.5 at tele
  • Macro focus down to 7 cm

Canon’s extended zoom range offers greater framing flexibility from wide-angle landscapes to telephoto portraits and casual wildlife (think birds at a distance). Its surprisingly tight macro reach (1 cm) is sturdy for close-ups, allowing creative shots with blurred backgrounds - pretty impressive for a sub-$160 camera.

Olympus stays more conservative with a 5x zoom, meaning less reach for distant subjects but starts with a slightly brighter f/2.8 aperture at the wide end, which helps in low-light wide-angle shots. Its macro is less aggressive but still functional for flowers and tabletop shots.

For travel photography that demands versatility in a pocket-sized rig, the Canon nudges ahead with superior zoom, while Olympus slightly favors low-light wide shots without extra gear.

Stabilization and Flash: Steady Shots When It Counts

Image stabilization is vital in ultracompacts to combat handshake, especially at long zooms or in dim conditions.

• Canon ELPH 190 IS: Optical Image Stabilization (OIS)
• Olympus 5010: Sensor-shift image stabilization

Both stabilization methods effectively reduce blur, but sensor-shift on the Olympus helps across all focal lengths uniformly, while Canon’s OIS performs best when zoomed. This means Olympus users can expect steadier shots at standard focal lengths, useful for indoor or handheld macro photography.

Flash power differs slightly too - Olympus’s built-in flash reliably illuminates subjects up to 4.7 meters versus Canon’s 4 meters, with the Olympus offering red-eye reduction and fill-in modes, a plus for portrait shooters.

Video Capabilities: Should You Go Beyond Stills?

Neither camera wows on video, typical for entry-level ultracompacts of their era.

• Canon: 720p HD at 25fps, MPEG-4/H.264 codec
• Olympus: 720p HD at 30fps, Motion JPEG codec

The Olympus offers slightly smoother frame rates but at the cost of bulky MJPEG files, making footage less convenient for editing and requiring more storage. Neither has microphone ports or 4K video, so budgets must adjust expectations away from professional videography.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long Can You Shoot?

Power and storage on ultracompacts matter, especially if you’re traveling or on the go.

• Canon ELPH 190 IS:

  • NB-11LH battery
  • Approx. 190 shots per charge
  • SD/SDHC/SDXC card support

• Olympus 5010:

  • Li-50B battery
  • Battery life not officially rated (estimated ~220-250 shots)
  • SC/SDHC card support + internal storage

The Olympus has a slight edge in battery stamina, easing worry on longer shoots, plus internal storage as a bonus if you forget your card. Canon’s support for SDXC means compatibility with newer higher capacity cards, future-proofing storage up to a degree.

Real-World Use Cases: Who Is Each Camera For?

Neither camera thrills professionals hunting flawless RAW files or ultra-high dynamic range images, but within ultracompacts, each carves out a niche.

Canon ELPH 190 IS front Canon ELPH 190 IS screen back Olympus 5010 front Olympus 5010 screen back

Portrait Photography

• Canon’s higher resolution and face detection make skin tones and eye focus more natural.
• Olympus lacks face detection but has steadier stabilization for handheld close-ups.

Landscape

• Canon’s 20MP sensor delivers sharper, larger prints, but Olympus’s higher ISO range aids dusk/dawn snaps.

Wildlife and Sports

• Neither camera is ideal due to slow burst rates and limited zoom (Olympus) or slower AF (Canon). Canon’s longer zoom helps but slow shooting speeds hamper action capture.

Street Photography

• Olympus’s smaller size and faster burst frame “feel” favor quick candid capture; Canon less discrete but more zoom flexibility.

Macro

• Canon excels with near-1 cm focusing; Olympus’s stabilization adds steadiness for macro.

Night / Astro

• Olympus can push ISO 3200 with cleaner noise, but neither does well for serious astro work.

Video

• Basic HD video on both, Olympus slightly smoother but neither suited for creative video.

Travel

• Canon’s zoom range and better ergonomics make it preferable for varied shooting; Olympus wins in battery life and stealth.

Professional Work

• Neither supports RAW files or advanced exposure modes; these cameras are entry-level fun, not workhorses.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance

Neither camera offers weather sealing or rugged builds, so avoid harsh conditions or rely on protective cases. Both have plastic bodies with limited shock resilience - ideal for everyday casual shooting but not wilderness expeditions or harsh field work.

Connectivity and Extras

• Canon boasts built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, allowing wireless transfers to smartphones - big win for social media junkies.
• Olympus offers no wireless connectivity but has HDMI output for direct playback on TVs.

USB 2.0 transfer speeds are identical and slow by modern standards, but do the job for casual users.

Value Analysis: What Do You Get for Your Money?

At around $159 (Canon ELPH 190 IS) and $150 (Olympus 5010) new (or less on the used market), both deliver respectable value for entry-level ultracompacts.

Canon scores highly on resolution, zoom range, and wireless features, while Olympus pulls ahead on stabilization, ISO range, burst rate, and battery life.

The real winner depends on priorities:

• Want longer zoom and wireless sharing? Canon ELPH 190 IS.
• Prioritize low-light shooting and steadier handling? Olympus Stylus 5010.

Pros and Cons at a Glance

Final Thoughts: Which Ultraportable Compact Suits You?

If I were gifting a pocket camera to a travel blogger looking to capture diverse scenes - from sprawling mountain vistas to close-up flower details - Canon ELPH 190 IS would be my choice. Its higher resolution, longer zoom, and wireless connectivity match the demands of photo storytelling in mixed lighting conditions. Yes, its low-light ISO limitations are frustrating, but the vast zoom compensates admirably.

For the more budget-conscious shooter wanting a reliable grab-and-go for candid street snaps, late-evening interiors, and sharper bursts, the Olympus Stylus 5010 shines surprisingly well despite its age, especially considering the sensor-shift stabilization and extended ISO range. It’s also a slightly better companion for macro enthusiasts due to steadier hands.

Neither is a professional-grade tool, but for what they cost, these ultracompacts punch above expectations for casual enthusiasts who want decent photo quality without fuss. My recommendation: match your priorities - zoom vs. low-light performance and connectivity - then pick your pocket-friendly winner.

I hope this comprehensive comparative guide helps you make your next camera choice easier - whether you’re capturing sunsets, snapping street moments, or just documenting memories with zero fuss. If you want more hands-on reviews or have questions about other cameras, drop me a line!

Happy shooting!

End of Article