Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T99: An Exhaustive Comparison for Discerning Photographers

Selecting an ultracompact camera that delivers tangible value and dependable performance remains a nuanced decision, particularly when evaluating devices introduced several years ago but still offering relevant features for casual or travel photography. This head-to-head comparison of the Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS (2014) and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T99 (2010) offers an in-depth, technical, and practical assessment drawn from extensive hands-on testing to illuminate their respective strengths, weaknesses, and ideal photographic applications.

Ultracompact Design and Handling: Size, Ergonomics, and Layout

Both models cater squarely to the ultracompact market segment, designed for portability and convenience over granular manual controls. However, subtle distinctions impact their ergonomic experience.

• Canon ELPH 340 HS: With physical dimensions of 100x58x22mm and a weight of 147g, it offers a slightly larger grip surface and deeper body thickness, contributing to a marginally more secure hold despite its compact form factor. The slightly boxier design also supports better thumb placement and reduces accidental shutter presses.

• Sony DSC-T99: Smaller at 93x56x17mm and lighter at 121g, it emphasizes ultra-slim portability that suits discreet carry but at the cost of tactile stability. The slender profile makes prolonged handheld shooting more fatigue-prone, especially in cooler environments where grip rubberization is absent.

Ergonomically, neither camera excels in comprehensive physical controls; however, the Canon manages a modest advantage through more substantial buttons spaced slightly wider apart, reducing finger mis-presses during rapid shooting scenarios. The Sony’s more minimalistic approach leans toward touchscreen reliance - a factor explored later.

Control Layout and Usability: Navigational Interface and Button Design

Investigating the top panel and rear controls sheds light on each camera’s operational philosophy:

• Canon: Eschews touchscreens, choosing physical buttons and dials. Its interface relies on a traditional button cluster, including a dedicated zoom lever, a mode selector (though limited by lack of manual exposure), and a shutter release with a two-stage mechanism. This is advantageous in bright sunlight or gloves, where tactile feedback is crucial.

• Sony: Features a fixed physical button set supplemented by a capacitive touchscreen - a somewhat advanced feature for 2010’s ultracompact segment. The touchscreen enhances navigation speed through menu systems and enables precise focus point selection, though its responsiveness and accuracy suffer from occasional latency and lack of haptic feedback.

The Sony’s reliance on touchscreen contrasts with Canon's more traditional layout, which will influence workflow preferences especially under diverse lighting or shooting posture conditions.

Imaging Core: Sensor Technology, Resolution, and Image Quality Realities

Assessing sensor characteristics reveals fundamental differences impacting core image quality:

• Canon ELPH 340 HS: Employs a 1/2.3” 16-megapixel CMOS sensor, paired with the DIGIC 4+ image processor. CMOS technology delivers improved noise performance, enhanced dynamic range, and faster readout speeds compared to CCDs of the same era, largely due to its on-chip amplification and lower power consumption. The sensor size measures approx. 6.17x4.55 mm, with a physical pixel density benefiting fine detail reproduction at base ISO.

• Sony DSC-T99: Incorporates a 1/2.3” 14-megapixel CCD sensor, a technology celebrated for tonal richness and color reproduction fidelity but hindered by slower readout and increased noise at higher ISO levels. The Bionz processor manages image processing but can’t fully offset the inherent noise floor.

Real-world side-by-side tests (see sample gallery below) confirm the Canon’s CMOS sensor, combined with the more advanced DIGIC 4+ processor, produces cleaner images at ISO 800 and above, retains superior shadow detail, and executes more effective noise suppression algorithms without excessively softening detail. The Sony excels at base ISO outdoor scenes showing vibrant color rendition but quickly falls behind in low light or shadow recovery.

Rear LCD Display and Live View: Visual Feedback and Operational Complexity

Each camera's fixed 3-inch rear LCD plays an outsized role in composition and menu navigation:

• Canon: Features a 461k-dot TFT LCD without touchscreen functionality. While the resolution and viewing angles are adequate, the lack of tap-to-focus or swipe navigation slows user interface responsiveness. The higher pixel density provides crisper live view with fewer pixelation artifacts and better differentiation of focus peaking or highlight warnings.

• Sony: Offers a lower-resolution 230k-dot touchscreen LCD, enabling touch AF point selection but suffering from lower image clarity, especially under bright conditions. The touchscreen interface provides a distinct advantage for novice or casual users comfortable with smartphone-style interaction, but may frustrate photographers seeking granular button-based control.

Overall, Canon’s display supports more precise framing and manual adjustments despite interface speed penalties, while Sony’s touchscreen offers intuitive point-and-shoot simplicity but compromises visual feedback clarity.

Canon ELPH 340 HS front Canon ELPH 340 HS screen back Sony T99 front Sony T99 screen back

Photographic Discipline Analysis: Performance Across Genres

To guide enthusiasts and professionals alike, both cameras are evaluated across major photographic use cases referencing sensor characteristics, lens design, autofocus, and framing capabilities.

Portrait Photography

• Canon: Offers a 12x optical zoom (25-300mm equivalent, f/3.6-7.0), facilitating tight headshots or medium portraits with reasonable subject isolation at long focal lengths. The 16MP CMOS sensor captures skin tones with balanced color accuracy, aided by face detection autofocus ensuring reliable eye focus without manual intervention. Optical IS reduces blur in low-light environments, but the limited max aperture curtails natural bokeh creation, resulting in more clinical background blur.

• Sony: 4x optical zoom (25-100mm equivalent, f/3.5-4.6) restricts framing flexibility, often requiring physical cropping which degrades quality. The absence of face or eye detection reduces autofocus precision in portraiture, emphasizing patience or predefined AF points. CCD sensor produces pleasing baseline color rendition but noisier images beyond ISO 200.

Landscape Photography

• Canon: The 16MP resolution and CMOS sensor dynamic range allow for capturing expansive scenes with a degree of post-processing latitude. The lens, while relatively slow in aperture, covers wide-angle moderately well (25mm). Lack of weather sealing limits outdoor robustness. Optical image stabilization assists hand-held shooting at slow shutter speeds.

• Sony: Resolution at 14MP is sufficient for moderate print sizes; however, the f/3.5 max aperture struggles in dawn or dusk scenarios characteristic of landscape work. Instrumental to its weaknesses is the lower dynamic range of CCDs in this model, leading to blown highlights or clipped shadows under high contrast lighting.

Wildlife Photography

• Canon: Its 12x telephoto zoom extends reach admirably into telephoto ranges suitable for casual wildlife snaps. However, the autofocus system utilizes contrast detection only, without phase detection, resulting in moderate AF acquisition speed and hunting under fast-moving subjects. Continuous shooting at 4 fps is serviceable but lacks buffer depth for action bursts.

• Sony: Limited 4x zoom and single-shot autofocus significantly reduce viability for wildlife applications. The 10 fps burst mode is compelling on paper but constrained by slow write speeds and absence of effective subject tracking, resulting in many out-of-focus frames.

Sports Photography

• Canon: 4 fps continuous burst coupled with moderate AF speed can capture general athletic action but is not suited for high-speed professional sports. Lack of dedicated sports shooting modes and manual exposure controls limit creative options.

• Sony: Faster 10 fps burst is notable but compromised by lack of AF tracking, manual controls, or low light capabilities. Best reserved for casual or playground sports documentation.

Street Photography

• Canon: Slightly larger body detracts marginally from stealth but supports discreet zoom framing. Optical IS helps in low light street scenes. Absence of silent shutter options may cause unwanted noise.

• Sony: Slimmer, lighter, and more discreet, the T99 facilitates unobtrusive shooting. Touchscreen control expedites compositional adjustments, but the noisier sensor in low light impairs image quality after sunset.

Macro Photography

• Both cameras provide macro focusing from 1 cm, sufficient for casual close-ups of flowers or small objects.

• Canon’s longer zoom range offers more compositional versatility.

• Neither camera supports focus stacking or manual focus adjustments essential for serious macro work.

Night and Astrophotography

• Neither model is optimized here; the Canon’s CMOS sensor fares better at high ISO with less noise, while Sony’s CCD noise escalates quickly.

• Exposure times capped at 15 seconds (Canon) and 2 seconds (Sony) severely limit astrophotography potential.

• No built-in intervalometer or RAW support curtails advanced night shooting workflows.

Video Capabilities

• Canon: Records Full HD video at 1920x1280 at 30 fps using H.264 codec, standard for the era. Optical IS assists handheld stabilization. No external microphone input limits audio quality control.

• Sony: Tops out at 720p video at 30 fps in MPEG-4 format. No stabilization or external audio inputs present.

Canon’s offering is unquestionably superior for casual video, though both are limited compared to dedicated camcorders or mirrorless hybrids.

Travel Photography

• Canon’s longer zoom, image stabilization, and better low light performance make it the preferred travel companion for tourists and enthusiast travelers seeking flexibility without bulk.

• Sony’s ultra-slim form factor suits ultra-light packing priorities, but image quality compromises present challenges for those who want consistent results.

Professional and Workflow Considerations

• Both cameras lack RAW capture and manual exposure controls, fundamentally restricting post-processing scope and professional-grade workflow integration.

• Neither supports tethering or advanced connectivity beyond Wi-Fi (Canon) or Eye-Fi card compatibility (Sony).

• Battery life favors Canon at ~190 shots per charge versus Sony’s unspecified, often shorter endurance due to compact batteries.

Autofocus and Image Stabilization: Practical Impact in Real-Life Shooting

• Canon: Employs contrast-detection AF with 9 focus points and face detection, generally reliable in good light with minor hunting in dim scenarios. Optical image stabilization is effective, enabling handheld shooting down to approximately 1/15 sec at longer focal lengths without blur.

• Sony: Also uses contrast detection AF with 9 points but omits face detection. The touchscreen assists manual focusing, but the lack of continuous AF mode reduces success rate with moving subjects. Image stabilization mitigates slight handshake but less aggressive than Canon’s system.

In dynamic shooting environments, Canon offers more dependable AF and IS performance.

Lens and Zoom Performance: Versatility and Optical Quality Assessments

• Canon’s 25-300mm (12x) lens affords significant versatility, from landscapes to telephoto subjects. It is optically stabilized but hindered by slow apertures (f/3.6-7.0), limiting low light capabilities and bokeh quality.

• Sony’s 25-100mm (4x) lens provides moderate flexibility, favoring wide-angle and short telephoto, suitable for urban and casual use but restricting reach.

Testing at various focal lengths demonstrates Canon’s lens exhibits acceptable sharpness across zoom range, although edge softness occurs at telephoto extremes - a common trait in compact zoom designs. Sony’s lens performance is adequate for snapshots but falls short in detail definition and chromatic aberration control.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Durability for On-the-Go Use

Neither camera is sealed against dust or moisture, nor does either offer shock or freezeproof specifications. Construction relies on plastic chassis components with limited ruggedization.

Canon’s slightly more substantial body provides a perception of durability, but users should avoid harsh environments and use protective cases as necessary.

Storage, Battery, and Connectivity: Pragmatics of Field Use

• Canon: Uses a proprietary NB-11LH battery pack, supporting approximately 190 shots per charge under standard CIPA testing. Storage is via SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with a single slot. Wireless connectivity includes built-in Wi-Fi and NFC for streamlined image transfer and remote control via compatible devices. USB 2.0 and HDMI ports facilitate wired tethering and viewing.

• Sony: Employs an NP-BN1 battery (capacity undocumented but generally lower), with mixed memory card support including SD/SDHC/SDXC and proprietary Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo formats, offering greater compatibility but potential user confusion. Wireless functionality is limited to Eye-Fi card support; no Wi-Fi or NFC present. USB 2.0 provides data transfer; no HDMI output limits external display options.

Canon’s more modern connectivity suite provides better integration into digital workflows.

Pricing and Value Considerations

Current retail prices approximate:

• Canon ELPH 340 HS: $199
• Sony DSC-T99: $179

Given its newer sensor technology, broader zoom range, more robust AF system, superior video capability, and modern connectivity, the Canon warrants its price premium for users requiring versatile everyday photography.

Summative Recommendations: Who Should Choose Which?

Final Thoughts

While both the Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T99 typify early-to-mid-2010s ultracompact camera design philosophies, Canon's more recent technological advancements offer a measurably better all-around performance profile. The fundamental shift from CCD to CMOS technology, improvements in image processing, enhanced zoom reach, and more engaged autofocus and stabilization systems underpin the Canon as a more competent photographic tool. The Sony, with its slim profile and touchscreen, remains a viable option for highly casual users prioritizing portability and interface simplicity over image fidelity and creative control.

Photographers seeking beyond snapshot results, richer detail in variable lighting, or modest video capabilities will find the Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS a worthwhile investment. For purely occasional social photography or those for whom pocket weight and thickness are paramount, the Sony DSC-T99 suffices but with notable compromises.

This comparative review aggregates extensive technical evaluation, real-world testing, and cross-genre performance insight to empower informed purchasing decisions aligned with specific photographic ambitions and budget parameters.