Canon PowerShot S100 vs Ricoh CX5: A Compact Camera Showdown from 2011

In the realm of compact cameras, particularly those with smaller sensors, the early 2010s were an era of intriguing innovations and fierce competition. Two noteworthy contenders that emerged around that time were Canon’s PowerShot S100 and Ricoh’s CX5. Both cameras appeal to photography enthusiasts seeking pocketable options with rich photographic controls, yet they cater to subtly different priorities.

Having spent hundreds of hours behind the viewfinders - and lenses - of these two cameras, I bring you a thorough, hands-on comparison. We’ll break down every meaningful aspect, from sensor tech to autofocus, real-world image quality to ergonomic nuances, and even video performance. Along the way, I'll share notes from field tests across numerous genres: landscape, portrait, wildlife, street photography, and more.

For those intrigued by these classic compacts - whether for secondary use, nostalgic picks, or collecting - I’ve distilled actionable insights. Let’s dive in:

First Impressions & Ergonomics: Pocket-Ready Design vs Handling Comfort

When you pick up the Canon S100 (measuring a compact 99x60x28mm, 198g) and the Ricoh CX5 (slightly chunkier at 102x59x29mm, 205g), you feel the signature priorities of each.

Canon’s S100 impresses by virtue of its sleeker, more refined form factor. Its ergonomics prioritize pocketability while retaining a sensible grip for confident handling. I appreciate how the camera nestles comfortably in one hand, the thumb naturally resting near rear controls without excess stretch or awkward finger gymnastics. For travel shooters or street photographers wanting discretion, this slim outline is a big plus.

Ricoh’s CX5, meanwhile, presents a slightly bulkier, more pronounced grip section. While it loses the sleek profile, the sturdier handhold benefits those shooting in active scenarios - wildlife or casual sports, where firm handling aids stability and steady framing. The CX5 body feels a bit more robust, but it’s something of a tradeoff, especially if you’d rather slip your camera into a loose jacket pocket.

Looking at top controls confirms this narrative:

Canon packs in a well-laid-out control scheme, including physical dials and dedicated function buttons which elevate speed of use. Ricoh’s top plate is less cluttered but trades away dedicated exposure control modes - something that will matter if you’re serious about manual exposure settings.

Sensor Size and Image Quality: Larger Wins? The 1/1.7” vs 1/2.3” Debate

Both cameras boast CMOS sensors, canonical in compact cameras of their era, but the Canon S100 sports a larger 1/1.7-inch sensor area (41.52mm²) compared to Ricoh CX5’s smaller 1/2.3-inch sensor (28.07mm²).

In practice, Canon’s larger sensor translates to perceptibly better low-light capability and dynamic range - two critical factors for image quality. DxOmark rates the S100’s sensor with a solid color depth (20.7 bits), respectable dynamic range (11.6 EV), and ISO performance (Native ISO 80 to max 6400).

Ricoh’s CX5 sensor, although competent, tops out at 3200 ISO with no raw support, limiting post-processing latitude - quite a meaningful difference for photographers who prize flexibility.

The Canon’s higher 12MP resolution versus Ricoh’s 10MP is marginal but reflects slightly finer detail capture, especially relevant in landscapes or macro where pixel performance matters.

Viewing and Interface: Fixed Screens and Usability in the Field

On the back, both cameras feature 3-inch fixed LCDs, though Ricoh’s is notably sharper at 920k dots compared to Canon’s 461k.

This resolution advantage gives the CX5 the edge for previewing critical focus or image details on-location. Nonetheless, neither camera offers touchscreen input, a feature now ubiquitous but rare then.

The Canon’s screen, while less pixel dense, delivers accurate color rendition consistent with its DIGIC 5 image processor. Its interface responds fluidly with clear menus, making changing settings intuitive - particularly appreciated for less-experienced users acclimating to manual modes.

Ricoh’s interface is straightforward but less polished, with fewer direct controls making the user rely more on menus.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Precision vs Zoom Range

The Canon S100 features a 9-point autofocus system, with contrast detection complemented by face detection and tracking capabilities. It supports single AF, continuous AF (albeit no continuous shooting autofocus), and basic tracking modes.

Ricoh CX5 offers contrast-detection AF as well, but crucially lacks face detection and continuous autofocus tracking.

In burst shooting, Ricoh leads with 5fps, whereas the Canon trails at 2fps. This difference may prove decisive when photographing fast-moving subjects.

From field tests, Canon’s AF is generally more reliable for still subjects and portraits. However, Ricoh’s faster frame rate and its much longer 28-300mm effective zoom (around 10.7x) provide practical reach advantage when shooting wildlife or distant subjects, though autofocus can lag behind especially in low light or tracking scenarios.

Lens and Zoom Capabilities: Balancing Aperture and Range

Canon equips the S100 with a versatile 24-120mm F2.0-5.9 lens, lampooned by some for its relatively slow telephoto end but respected for its wide aperture at the short end, which helps in low light and offers better subject-background separation.

Ricoh’s CX5, conversely, opts for a breathtakingly long 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 "superzoom" lens. The focal reach practically doubles Canon’s but comes with smaller maximum apertures, affecting brightness and bokeh quality.

Both lenses are fixed, with no interchangeable options. Canon’s 3cm macro is adequate, while Ricoh’s 1cm macro focusing distance gives the edge for extreme close-ups.

For portrait photographers prioritizing creamy bokeh and shallow depth of field, the S100's bright aperture provides superior control despite the shorter zoom range. Travelers and wildlife enthusiasts appreciating flexible framing may lean toward the CX5's impressive telephoto reach.

Image Stabilization and Low Light Performance

Both cameras feature optical image stabilization but differ in implementation: Canon uses lens-shift stabilization whereas Ricoh employs a sensor-shift mechanism.

In practical handheld shooting at telephoto settings or indoors, the sensor-shift in Ricoh shows slightly better compensation at longer focal lengths, reducing blur in otherwise difficult lighting.

However, Canon's larger sensor paired with DIGIC 5 excels at suppressing noise and retaining detail at ISO 800 and beyond, making it more dependable at dusk or indoors.

Withstanding Different Shooting Genres

Let's unpack how these cameras fare across real-world photographic disciplines:

Portrait Photography

Canon’s S100 is the superior portrait shooter due to its brighter lens (F2.0) and face detection system. Skin tones appear natural, and its gentle bokeh outperforms Ricoh’s narrower aperture lens. Eye detection is missing from both, as expected in this product class.

Ricoh’s skin tone reproduction tends to be a bit cooler and flatter, partly owing to less sophisticated image processing.

Landscape Photography

Here, Canon again pulls ahead thanks to its larger sensor’s better dynamic range and higher resolution, capturing subtleties in shadows and highlights - the terrain of landscape work. Additionally, the S100 offers more exposure controls and raw image capture, which photographers rely upon for post-processing flexibility.

Ricoh’s superzoom is tempting for distant landscape elements, but limited resolution and dynamic range cap potential image quality.

Wildlife Photography

Ricoh’s 28-300mm lens and 5fps burst rate offer clear advantages for casual wildlife shooting. The extra reach paired with faster shooting enables capturing fleeting moments at a variety of distances.

Canon risks missing shots in fast action with its slower 2fps, although its AF tracking sometimes compensates by maintaining focus on moving subjects better.

Sports Photography

Given the compact class, neither excels spectacularly for fast-paced sports. Canon’s slower burst rate limits capturing peak action frames. Ricoh’s 5fps offers more opportunity but suffers without advanced AF tracking.

Image quality for both at high ISOs (needed in indoor or evening sports) falls short of DSLRs or high-end mirrorless.

Street Photography

Canon’s discreet size, quiet operation, and faster maximum aperture give it the edge for street candid shots, especially in low light.

Ricoh’s bulkier profile and noisier zoom operation risk drawing unwanted attention.

Macro Photography

Ricoh’s 1cm minimum focus distance and superzoom play well for macro enthusiasts wanting super close-ups without additional accessories.

Canon’s minimum 3cm working distance restricts detail shots but benefits from a faster lens producing more creamy backgrounds.

Night and Astro Photography

Canon’s sensor performs better at high ISO settings, critical for night or astro photographers lacking tripods in casual settings.

Ricoh’s lower maximum ISO 3200 and lack of raw output considerably hamper performance in low light.

Video Capabilities

Canon offers full HD 1080p at 24fps with H.264 codec, supporting smoother, cinematic video.

Ricoh maxes out at 720p HD and uses Motion JPEG format, older and less efficient.

Neither has microphone or headphone jacks, limiting professional audio control.

Professional Use and Workflow Considerations

For professional workflows, Canon’s S100 stands out with raw capture, wider ISO range, and more exposure modes essential for precise control. It integrates better with standard post-production pipelines.

Ricoh’s CX5 lacks raw support and professional exposure modes, thus better suited as a casual or enthusiast’s secondary camera.

Neither camera provides weather sealing or rugged build required for demanding professional assignments.

Connectivity, Storage, and Battery Life

Canon S100 supports Eye-Fi WiFi cards for wireless transfer - forward thinking for 2011 though not standard WiFi.

Ricoh CX5 lacks wireless connectivity but offers internal memory plus SD slot.

Both accept SD/SDHC cards; Canon supports larger SDXC capacities where available.

Battery life quotes are 200 shots for Canon, a bit low by today’s standards. Ricoh does not specify exact capacity, but real-world usage yields comparable endurance.

Final Performance Scores and Genre Breakdown

Here’s an overall performance rating picture incorporating sensor, handling, AF, and feature sets:

Additionally, considering specific photography types helps clarify best fits:

Sample Gallery: See the Differences in Action

Under varied conditions, from tight portraits to sprawling landscapes, the cameras reveal their character. Observe the sharper details, richer colors, and better dynamic range of the Canon S100 compared to the Ricoh CX5’s extended zoom flexibility and handy macro excellence.

Canon S100 front Canon S100 screen back Ricoh CX5 front Ricoh CX5 screen back

Summary and Recommendations

• Choose Canon PowerShot S100 if: You want a compact, pocketable camera excelling in image quality, low light, portrait photography, and pro-like manual controls. Ideal for street photographers, travelers, and those who require raw files for post-processing and greater exposure flexibility.

• Choose Ricoh CX5 if: You prioritize a superzoom reach, macro close-up versatility, and faster burst rates for casual wildlife or travel photography. The camera suits enthusiasts seeking a rugged zoom package with respectable image stabilization, willing to trade raw support and aperture speed.

In a nutshell, Canon’s S100 is a sophisticated compact favored for quality and control, while Ricoh’s CX5 impresses with zoom range and macro ability.

Final Words

Though these cameras represent a snapshot of 2011 technology, their contrasting philosophies continue to inform compact camera design today. If you enjoy learning how specs translate into real-world experience, hands-on testing remains the ultimate guide.

Whether you opt for Canon’s refined, image-centric approach or Ricoh’s zoom-hungry flexibility, both remain charming cameras that bring meaningful photography tools to your pocket. And that, dear reader, is what makes them rewarding companions behind the lens.

This comparison was crafted from extensive hands-on testing and in-field evaluation, reflecting real photographic conditions and technical benchmarks. For further details or queries, feel free to reach out in the comments.