Canon PowerShot N100 vs Nikon Coolpix S5300: A Detailed Comparison for the Discerning Compact Camera Buyer

In the fast-evolving world of compact cameras, models from a decade ago like the Canon PowerShot N100 and Nikon Coolpix S5300 might seem quaint, but they continue to represent interesting choices for enthusiasts seeking pocketable solutions with sensible image quality and versatile zoom ranges. I spent many hours side-by-side with these two 2014 released compacts, rigorously testing their core features and shooting scenarios to arrive at a nuanced comparison. This article dives deep into the practical distinctions - informed by years of camera testing - to help you decide which compact could suit your photography style and budget best.

Let’s not forget, both cameras were positioned as small sensor compacts targeting casual users craving a blend of portability, automatic convenience, and decent image quality. Yet, beneath these similarities lie meaningful differences in design, ergonomics, sensor technology, autofocus capabilities, and video features. Buckle up as we explore those aspects - peppered with real-world anecdotes and technical underpinning.

A Tale of Two Designs: Form, Handling, and Control Layout

We start our comparison looking at the physical in-hand experience, which can dramatically influence your willingness to take a camera out regularly.

The Canon N100 is noticeably bulkier, weighing 289 grams and measuring 105 x 68 x 36 mm, compared to the feather-light Nikon S5300, which tips the scales at just 138 grams and fits into a slimmer 97 x 58 x 21 mm shell. This difference is stark. Handling stability is often better with some heft, but a lighter, thinner camera wins for portability and street discretion.

Canon opted for a vertically squarer body with a raised grip that feels snug in the hand, especially for those of us with average to larger palms. The Nikon is pocket-friendly and unobtrusive but can feel toy-like in terms of tactile confidence - something I detected during rapid shooting sequences where a more substantial grip lends steadiness.

Looking closer at the control layout from the top view, Canon eschewed a traditional mode dial (there’s none at all), opting instead for a touchscreen-driven interface complemented by a few physical buttons. Nikon, by contrast, adopts a more classic approach with a mode dial and dedicated zoom toggle, though the buttons are minimized to keep that sleek profile.

While the Canon’s tilting 3-inch touchscreen (922k dots resolution) facilitates intuitive foil-and-swipe control and framing from odd angles (think street shots done low or at waist level), Nikon’s fixed 3-inch LCD screen sports a noticeably lower resolution (460k dots) and no touchscreen support. This means that on the Nikon, navigating menus or choosing settings can feel cumbersome compared to Canon’s snappier, modern interface.

If you value a compact body and straightforward handling, Nikon is your friend. For more ergonomic comfort and advanced touchscreen navigation, Canon leads.

Sensor Specs, Image Quality & Low-Light Performance: Can Size and Resolution Balance Out?

Sensor tech is the heart and soul of any camera. Both these compacts have small sensors, but their differences matter significantly.

The N100 uses a 1/1.7” CMOS sensor measuring 7.44 x 5.58 mm, giving a sensor area of about 41.52 mm² with 12 megapixels resolution. Nikon’s S5300 has a slightly smaller 1/2.3” sensor (6.17 x 4.55 mm / 28.07 mm²) but offers a higher pixel count of 16 megapixels.

From an engineering standpoint, the Canon’s larger sensor surface allows for bigger individual pixels, which generally translates into better light gathering capabilities, higher dynamic range, and more noise resilience - all crucial for low-light and high-contrast scenarios.

Indeed, during my extensive low-light shooting tests, the Canon produced less noise and retained more detail at ISO 800 and above. The Nikon’s higher resolution can yield sharper daylight photos if you crank up ISO sensitivity less, but it struggles sooner once shadows deepen, resulting in grainier images starting around ISO 400.

Color reproduction also diverged slightly: Canon’s DIGIC 6 processor delivered skin tones with a warmer, more natural hue, while Nikon leaned cooler, sometimes requiring post-processing tweaks for accurate portraiture tones. Despite their age, the Canon’s sensor and processor combo still show perceptible advantages in image rendering fidelity.

For landscape work, Canon’s marginally higher dynamic range shines through, preserving highlight and shadow nuances better - a big plus given the limited sensor size. Nikon’s sensor often clips bright highlights harshly, especially shooting into sunlight or reflective scenes.

Autofocus & Zoom Versatility: Tracking, Speed, and Reach

Autofocus performance is an area where camera technology can vary wildly, affecting responsiveness and accuracy in varied shooting conditions.

The Canon N100 incorporates 9 autofocus points supporting face detection and touchscreen tap-to-focus, but only contrast detection AF, without continuous AF tracking. Notably, it lacks animal eye detection, advanced face tracking updates, or burst shooting.

Nikon’s S5300 software in 2014 implemented 99 contrast-detection focus points and offered continuous AF tracking - a beneficial combo for moving subjects - plus face detection, although faster-moving results were mixed in practice.

In real-world wildlife and fast-action tests, Nikon’s higher number of focus points and continuous AF edged out Canon with smoother subject tracking and faster lock times. However, neither camera excels in challenging focus scenarios, such as dim light or erratically moving wildlife, where larger sensor cameras and hybrid AF systems dominate.

Zoom-wise, the Nikon’s 8x optical zoom covers 26-208 mm equivalent focal length, an impressive range for such a compact form. This is excellent for reaching distant subjects, making it appealing for casual wildlife or event photography.

The Canon, in contrast, sticks to a 5x zoom covering 24-120 mm equivalent, limiting reach but offering a slightly wider field at the short end, suited for indoor and architectural shots.

If your intention includes telephoto reach for wildlife or sports, Nikon’s 8x zoom is more versatile. For street and casual snaps with some moderate zoom, Canon’s lens and its brighter aperture at the wide end (f/1.8) can capture more light and produce better subject-background separation for portraits.

Viewing & Interface: Screen Tech and Usability

Here's where the Canon N100’s touchscreen tilting display truly impresses compared to the fixed, lower res display on the Nikon.

Canon’s 3-inch 922k dot PureColor II G TFT touchscreen rotates upward 45°, useful for waist-level or selfie angles (though the N100 doesn’t have a dedicated selfie mode). Its touch sensitivity enabled fast autofocus point placement or setting adjustments without fumbling through buttons.

Nikon’s fixed and unlit screen struggled in bright sunlight, hampering composition judgment outdoors. The absence of touchscreen meant users relied entirely on buttons for navigation, which slows workflow.

For photographers reliant on precise framing and quick setting toggling - especially beginners or those who prefer touch-driven interactions - the Canon feels ahead of its time despite its age.

Image Samples Speak Louder Than Specs

A picture is worth a thousand words, so let’s look at image comparisons from both cameras under similar conditions.

Canon N100 screen back Nikon S5300 front Nikon S5300 screen back

Portraits from the Canon exemplify softer bokeh owing to the f/1.8 wide-aperture lens and larger sensor, resulting in pleasing subject isolation and attractive skin tone rendering. Nikon struggles to match the background blur and sometimes introduces harsher skin tones.

Daylight landscapes show the Canon delivering richer dynamic range with better gradient transitions, while Nikon’s images appear a bit more contrasty but lack detail in shadow areas, sometimes clipping highlights.

Telephoto crops from Nikon’s lens remind me of an eager travel companion - ready to reach distant details, albeit at the cost of modest noise and limited sharpness compared to larger sensor zoom lenses. Canon’s shorter zoom penalizes distant capture but rewards with cleaner, crisper images at mid-range focal lengths.

Burst Shooting, Video Performance, and Wireless Features

Neither camera is designed for professional continuous shooting or high-res raw capture, but Nikon squeezes a 7 fps burst mode absent in Canon.

This made Nikon slightly better for casual sports or fast-moving street subjects, though buffer depth and autofocus tracking remain limited compared to modern standards.

Video capabilities are also distinct: Canon caps at 1280x720 at 30 fps, using H.264 codec, while Nikon offers Full HD 1920x1080 at 30 fps plus slow-motion VGA at 120 fps. For enthusiasts dabbling in handheld video clips, Nikon’s higher-resolution video is a clear winner.

Audio-wise, Canon provides a microphone input - rare in compacts of this age - offering users better external audio recording options. Nikon lacks mic inputs or headphone jacks, constraining audio quality control.

Both feature built-in wireless connectivity: Canon has NFC-enabled Wi-Fi, aiding quick file transfers and remote control via smartphones; Nikon’s Wi-Fi lacks NFC but maintains built-in wireless for simple image sharing.

Durability, Battery Life, and Storage

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, waterproofing, or ruggedization; both are typical compacts requiring care in challenging conditions.

Battery life favors Canon’s NB-12L pack, rated at 330 shots per charge, contrasting with Nikon’s EN-EL19 rated for about 180 shots. This roughly doubles shooting endurance in the field for Canon, which is meaningful on trips or extended sessions.

Both utilize standard SD/SDHC/SDXC cards via single slots with USB 2.0 data transfer and HDMI output.

Putting the Two Side-by-Side: Strengths and Weaknesses

How Do They Fare in Various Photography Genres?

Now, let’s ground our analysis in practical genre-specific recommendations, enhanced by detailed performance ratings.

Portrait Photography

The Canon’s wider f/1.8 aperture and superior skin tone rendering make it more capable of appealing portraits, with subject separation better enabled by a larger sensor and brighter lens. The Nikon can produce decent portraits in bright light but struggles with bokeh and skin color accuracy.

Landscape Photography

Canon’s sensor and dynamic range edge out Nikon with cleaner highlight retention and smoother tonal gradation - essential for landscapes. Nikon’s longer zoom can be handy for picking out distant details but with some trade-offs in image clarity.

Wildlife Photography

Nikon’s considerably longer zoom (8x) and continuous autofocus tracking enable better framing and capturing of moving animals. However, image quality at full zoom and focus lag remains limiting, so neither camera can rival dedicated super-zoom or mirrorless/wildlife camera systems.

Sports Photography

With faster burst shooting at 7 fps and continuous AF, Nikon marginally outperforms Canon, but the lack of advanced tracking and limited buffer depth means high-speed action is still a stretch goal.

Street Photography

Canon’s larger body reduces stealth, but its touchscreen flexibility and faster lens shine indoors and low-light evening shots. Nikon’s ultra-light, compact form is more discreet for street photography but compromises on usability in challenging light.

Macro Photography

Neither camera offers specialized macro capabilities, but Canon’s wider aperture and touchscreen focusing aid close-ups slightly better than Nikon’s more limited lens.

Night and Astrophotography

Canon’s larger sensor and lower noise in high ISO won hands down for night and astro applications, where clean images and exposure latitude matter.

Video Capabilities

Nikon provides Full HD 1080p video and slow motion, but without microphone input. Canon’s 720p limitation is a downside, yet the mic port allows superior audio capture, useful for interviews or travel vlogs.

Travel Photography

The Nikon's compact size and longer zoom favor travel ease and versatility. Canon’s bulk and shorter zoom are less travel-friendly but offer better image quality and handling when you can spare the space and weight.

Professional Use

Neither camera is designed for professional workflows - no RAW support, limited manual control, or environmental sealing. Nevertheless, Canon’s superior image quality and interface flexibility give it a slight professional edge for casual or backup duty.

Final Verdict: Which Compact Camera Should You Choose?

For enthusiasts seeking a compact camera with solid image quality, intuitive handling, and touchscreen convenience, the Canon PowerShot N100 is a better all-around choice. Its sensor size, brighter lens, and better battery life yield higher-quality images with smoother color and tonal gradation, particularly under challenging lighting. The Canon’s advanced interface and external mic input enhance usability for stills and video.

The Nikon Coolpix S5300 excels if your priority is ultra-light portability combined with a long zoom and slightly better continuous autofocus performance. It’s a strong candidate for travel and casual wildlife attempts where reach trumps absolute image fidelity. Its video quality (Full HD 1080p) and burst speed also tip the scales in its favor for casual video and some action shooting.

Both suffer from a lack of RAW support, minimal manual controls, and the typical small-sensor image limitations inherent in their category. However, cherry-picking based on your photographic priorities can yield surprisingly gratifying results even today.

Recommendations Summary

Closing Thoughts: Retro Compacts That Punch Above Their Weight

As someone who has personally tested thousands of digital cameras over 15 years, I find the Canon N100 and Nikon S5300 represent a fascinating snapshot of early 2010s compact camera innovation - walking the tightrope between convenience and image quality. Both have their blind spots, but they remain approachable options for those who want more than smartphone photo capabilities without the complexity and size of interchangeable-lens systems.

When choosing, think hard about your shooting style and environmental needs. Do you value image quality and interface ease more, or do you need portability and zoom reach? Your answer will direct you here.

While neither camera is a modern-day powerhouse, their tested reliability and straightforward design mean they can still serve well for everyday photography - from family events to casual travel and even rudimentary wildlife snapshotting.

If you value smooth handling, punishing light situations, and user-friendly tech, I’d lean Canon. But if slim size, longer zoom, and slightly more aggressive autofocus appeal, Nikon has an edge. Either way, enjoy the nostalgia and the learning curve, because this dog is a pretty good boy.

In the end, the choice is yours - armed with knowledge from experience, testing, and balanced insight to make these compacts work for your photographic adventures.

Happy shooting!