Compact Champions: A Hands-On Comparison of the Canon ELPH 350 HS vs. Sony TX200V

In the crowded world of ultraportable cameras, distinguishing the truly capable from the merely convenient is a task I’ve refined over the last 15 years of snapping and scrutinizing. Today, we’re diving into a face-off between two classic compact contenders: the Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS (aka Canon IXUS 275 HS) and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX200V.

Both hail from a generation that emphasized pocketability without surrendering all image quality and controls. But how do these two stack up in real-world performance? I’ve put them through their paces across diverse photographic disciplines - from landscape vistas to street sneaks, casual zooms to macro marvels - drawing on hands-on experience as well as technical dissections.

So grab your favorite lens cap, and let’s peel back layers involving sensor tech, ergonomics, autofocus, video chops, and more. Hopefully, by the end, you’ll know which one earns a spot in your camera bag - or whether neither quite cuts it in today’s smartphone-saturated scene.

Just How Small? Size and Handling with These Pocket Rockets

Size matters when talking ultraportables, and as someone who often carries multiple cameras with lenses dangling, ergonomics can easily make or break usability.

Here is a handy snapshot to frame this physically:

At first glance, the Sony TX200V feels like a slightly slimmer marvel: 96 x 58 x 16 mm vs. Canon’s 100 x 58 x 23 mm. That’s a millimeters game on the width and height, but the Canon adds heft with a deeper body - 23 mm thick compared to Sony’s slender 16 mm. Weight-wise, Sony edges lighter at 129 g to Canon’s 147 g.

The TX200V’s very shallow profile makes it slip effortlessly into slimmer pockets – great for street and travel photography where you want discreet gear. However, the Canon’s chunkier build offers a bit more room for fingers, which some users, myself included, find reassuring for grip stability, especially during longer shoots.

On controls, Canon sticks to no-nonsense buttons, but more on that shortly when we compare top layouts in detail.

Surface-Level Control: Button and Dial Layouts Up Top

If you’ve ever wrestled with tiny camera controls before, you know how critical it is that buttons are easy to find without hunting - especially on small bodies.

The Canon ELPH 350 HS embraces simplicity: a few well-placed buttons and a straightforward mode dial do the job without overwhelming novice users. There’s no dedicated manual focus dial - unsurprising for this class - but you get live view framing, exposure compensation absent (a bit limiting), and easy access to flash control.

Sony’s TX200V, meanwhile, fits more into a “slick touchscreen” camp, sporting a touchscreen LCD (more on screen quality below). The top has fewer physical buttons, so operating relies heavily on the screen interface - which can speed things up or slow you down depending on your preference. Zoom lever, shutter button, power switch are the basics here.

In a nutshell: If you prefer tactile feedback and easy one-touch adjustments on the fly, Canon scores points. If you enjoy diving into menus and setting options via touchscreen, Sony comes front and center.

Peeking Into the Heart: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

Then comes the crucial bit - what kind of images can these cameras produce? The sensor reigns supreme in the image quality hierarchy, and both these digitals sports a 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm. While a tiny sensor compared to mirrorless or DSLR systems, they’re standards in the ultracompact category.

Canon’s ELPH 350 HS packs a 20-megapixel resolution, while Sony’s TX200V offers 18 megapixels. Those numbers are close enough, but raw megapixels don’t tell the whole story. The Canon uses the DIGIC 4+ processor, whereas the Sony boasts a BIONZ image processor, well-known for efficient noise handling.

Sony’s ISO range is notably broader, maxing out at ISO 12,800 (though native top ISO is 12800, not boosted), contrasting Canon’s more modest maximum ISO 3200. The practical upshot? Sony lifts low-light capability, allowing cleaner images in dimmer situations.

Color depth, dynamic range, and noise characteristics weren’t tested by DxO here, but based on my experience testing similar sensors and processors, the Sony’s older but more mature BIONZ pipeline tends to produce punchier colors and better noise control at elevated ISOs in this sensor size class.

Canon’s 20MP sensor, in daylight and good lighting, yields fine, detailed images with smooth gradients. However, Canon’s narrower aperture on the telephoto end (F7.0 vs. Sony’s F4.8) restricts light gathering and sharpness at zoom extremes.

In practice: For daylight and casual shooting, both deliver respectable files for 4x6 or 5x7 prints. For low-light environments, Sony’s wider aperture on the short zoom and higher ISO headroom have an edge.

The Window to Your World: LCD Screens and User Interface

A clear, responsive display crucially shapes your shooting flow - whether framing, menu navigation, or image review.

Sony’s TX200V dazzles with a 3.3-inch, 1,230,000-dot XtraFine TruBlack OLED display with touchscreen support. This is one of the better displays for cameras of its time, offering excellent contrast and color rendition. The touchscreen facilitates quick menu selections, focus point adjustments, and smart zoom.

Canon ELPH 350 HS scales it back with a 3-inch fixed display and a modest 461,000-dot resolution. No touchscreen here, so you’re navigating buttons and dials exclusively. It’s sufficient, but colors are noticeably less vivid and contrast lower compared to Sony.

I found the Sony’s display indispensable for reviewing subtle focus details and shooting in bright scenes. Conversely, the reduced brightness and resolution of the Canon screen make outdoor viewing trickier.

Still, touchscreens can be a double-edged sword - too sensitive or laggy touches happen, affecting fast action work - and Sony sometimes showed sluggishness switching modes.

Picture Perfect? Autofocus and Shooting Modes

Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty of how well these cameras lock focus - arguably the make-or-break for capturing fleeting moments.

Both rely on contrast-detection autofocus with 9 focus points and feature face detection. Canon’s ELPH offers single and continuous AF modes, but no tracking AF - so keeping a moving subject sharp is challenging. Sony provides single AF and even has tracking autofocus and selective AF modes, a bit rare in this compact class.

In practice, the Canon hunts more noticeably in low contrast or dim conditions; its continuous AF is pleasantly steady but slow. Sony’s TX200V autofocus felt snappier and more confident, particularly with moving subjects, thanks to tracking and touch-to-focus usability.

Burst shooting: Canon shoots at a pedestrian 2.5 frames per second, versus Sony’s brisk 10 fps continuous shooting. For a casual shooter, Sony’s speed opens up more opportunities to capture sports or wildlife action.

However, neither camera sports manual exposure modes or aperture/shutter priority, limiting creative control - something enthusiasts will find frustrating. Exposure compensation is absent on Canon and unavailable on Sony too, but the latter does support custom white balance and some bracketing options.

As a rule, autofocus speed and tracking here put the Sony a tiny step ahead for dynamic shooting situations.

Lens Reach and Macro Capabilities: How Far and How Close?

Both cameras feature fixed zoom lenses - no lens swaps here, but the zoom range and macro focus limit define their versatility.

Canon’s 12x zoom covers 25–300 mm equivalent with maximum apertures of F3.6 to F7.0 - good reach into telephoto. The macro focus range is impressively close at 1 cm, allowing detailed shots of tiny subjects like insects or flowers.

Sony’s zoom range is a modest 28–140 mm equivalent (5x zoom) with somewhat better apertures of F3.5 to F4.8 - so less reach but more light gathering at the tele end. Macro mode focuses reliably down to 3 cm, suitable for most close-ups but not as intimate as Canon.

For wildlife or telephoto needs, the Canon zoom opens more creative framing options. On the flip side, Sony’s generally brighter lens makes zoomed shots sharper and less prone to shake (boosted by Optical Stabilization).

Macro fans would lean toward Canon’s ability to get closer yet retain sharp detail, but stabilization here can impact handholding success.

Steady As She Goes: Image Stabilization and Shutter Range

Both models rely on optical image stabilization, critical for handheld shooting at longer focal lengths or low shutter speeds.

Canon’s stabilizer is somewhat rudimentary but effective, helping avoid blur at telephoto and macro distances. Sony employs a similar system with increased sensor-shift precision.

Shutter speed range differs: Canon spans 15 to 1/2000 sec, while Sony offers a broader 2 to 1/1600 sec. Both lack electronic shutter modes or silent shooting options, reflecting their era and price tier.

Slow shutter availability at 15 seconds on Canon could assist night or astro enthusiasts dabbling in long exposures, whereas Sony’s shortest slow speed at 2 seconds offers less versatility there.

Still or Moving Images? Video Recording Capabilities

While these two cameras primarily focus on stills, video functions are noteworthy given increasing demand for hybrid shooters.

Canon ELPH 350 HS supports Full HD 1080p at 30 fps encoded in H.264, alongside 720p and VGA options - all standard fare. No microphone input or headphone jack, so audio quality depends on internal mics.

Sony TX200V also shoots 1920 x 1080 Full HD but at a class-leading 60 fps, offering smoother motion capture. It supports MPEG-4 and AVCHD formats, appealing to users wanting better compression efficiency or editing flexibility.

Sony lacks microphone or headphone ports as well, but the smoother 60p footage lends itself better to action or slow-motion scenes.

Neither camera features 4K recording or advanced video stabilization options, so serious videographers would likely look elsewhere.

Built to Last? Weather Resistance and Durability

Most ultraportables aim for convenience over toughness; still, build quality factors into long-term satisfaction.

Sony surprisingly claims environmental sealing, an uncommon feature for its class. This doesn’t mean waterproof or fully rugged, but some dust and moisture resistance, which could be a boon in challenging weather conditions.

Canon ELPH 350 HS has no such sealing. Both lack waterproofing or shockproofing, so careful handling is required.

Storage, Battery, and Connectivity - Are You Plugged In?

Storage-wise, Canon happily embraces universal SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, a big win for compatibility and availability. Sony, more idiosyncratically, requires Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo/Pro-HG Duo cards - a format dwindling in availability and more niche.

Battery life claims hover around 250 shots (Canon) and 220 shots (Sony). Realistically, expect lower with screen usage and flash - still, these numbers are typical for compact cameras and better than many smartphones.

Connectivity is where the Canon shows more modernity with built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, allowing easy sharing via mobile devices. Sony has no wireless features but does incorporate built-in GPS, useful for travel photographers geotagging their pictures automatically.

USB on both is USB 2.0, and HDMI ports enable quick output to a TV or monitor.

The Final Tally: Overall and Genre-Specific Performances

Aggregating my experience with technical specifications, shooting tests, and handling, here’s a comparative summary including real-world use across genres:

Canon ELPH 350 HS front Canon ELPH 350 HS screen back Sony TX200V front Sony TX200V screen back

• Portrait Photography: Sony’s face detection and touch autofocus excel for quick, accurate focusing on eyes and faces. Canon’s closer macro focusing helps in detail-oriented portraits but struggles with background blur (bokeh) due to narrower apertures.

• Landscape Photography: Both deliver respectable resolution, though Sony’s higher ISO gives it an edge shooting in dimmer conditions. Canon’s longer zoom less relevant here.

• Wildlife: Canon’s extra telephoto reach (12x vs. 5x) primes it for distant subjects, but Sony’s faster AF and 10fps burst rate assist in capturing fleeting wildlife moments.

• Sports: Sony’s superior burst frame rate and tracking AF make it the better choice when action speeds ramp up, despite limited exposure controls.

• Street: Sony wins for subtlety and portability with its slimness and discreet touchscreen. Canon is chunkier and noisier.

• Macro: Canon leads with an impressively close 1cm focus ability. Sony’s 3cm minimum focus distance is adequate but less versatile for extreme close-ups.

• Night/Astro: Canon’s longer max slow shutter suits long exposures, but higher noise limits quality. Sony’s higher ISO range aids handheld night shots.

• Video: For casual video, Sony’s 1080p/60fps and AVCHD support are better than Canon’s 30fps H.264. Neither aimed at pros.

• Travel: Sony’s GPS, slimness, and OLED touch display make it more adaptable. Canon’s Wi-Fi is convenient for quick sharing.

• Professional Use: Neither camera offers RAW or advanced manual controls, keeping them out of professional workflows.

Who Should Buy Which?

The Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS represents a consumer-focused compact with longer zoom and simple controls designed for everyday snapshots, occasional wildlife shots, and macro enthusiasts. Its Wi-Fi and closer macro focus make it attractive for casual users wanting some creative freedom within a small package.

The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX200V, despite being an older model, brings refined ergonomics, faster burst rates, richer video options, superior screen, and environmental sealing. It suits street photographers, travelers desiring GPS tagging, and users who appreciate touchscreen interfaces and quicker autofocus systems - even at a higher price point.

Final Thoughts: Pocket-Sized Portability With Nuance

Both cameras carry the hallmark virtues - and limitations - of ultraportables built in the early 2010s. They lack RAW support and manual exposure controls, meaning they’re no substitutes for enthusiast or professional mirrorless and DSLRs. Yet, as quick grab-and-go tools, they offer straightforward paths to well-exposed images.

Personally, I’d recommend the Sony TX200V for users craving a sharper, faster experience with better video and hands-on touchscreen controls. Its price is steeper but justified by performance gains and feature polish.

The Canon ELPH 350 HS claims favor with photographers wanting solid zoom range and macro abilities at a budget price, focusing on simplicity and Wi-Fi sharing.

If you value versatility, powerful zoom, and simple mating of form and function, Canon is your pick. If you prioritize speed, ergonomics, and a brighter, crisper viewfinder experience, Sony deserves your attention.

Bottom line: The camera world has (thankfully!) moved on with smaller sensors but improved image pipelines and controls. Still, if you’re after ultraportables with distinct personalities, this duel illustrates why even humble compacts can shine - if matched wisely to your shooting style.

Happy shooting!