Canon SX130 IS vs. Casio EX-ZR300: Compact Superzoom Showdown for Enthusiasts

In the ever-evolving world of compact superzoom cameras, the Canon PowerShot SX130 IS and the Casio Exilim EX-ZR300 offer an intriguing glimpse into early 2010s consumer-oriented photography tech. Both champion easy-to-carry zoom versatility on a small sensor, aiming to balance convenience with creative control. But with a couple years of development between them and subtle specs-wise differences, which one truly delivers better bang for the buck and shooting experience?

Having spent weeks side-by-side testing these two with a variety of photography challenges - from portraits to night sky captures - this comprehensive comparison cuts through marketing fluff to reveal their real-world strengths, weaknesses, and quirks. Whether you’re a curious enthusiast or a seasoned pro thinking about a secondary grab-and-go camera, I’ll unpack sensor tech, autofocus reliability, ergonomics, video chops, and much more. And yes, I’ll get pleasantly nerdy on sensor performance and UI intuitiveness too.

Let’s dive in!

Small But Mighty? Size and Handling in a Compact Package

First impression matters - and with compacts, that’s often about size, weight, and how the camera feels in your hands.

Physically, the Canon SX130 IS is noticeably chunkier and heavier at 308g compared to the Casio EX-ZR300’s svelte 205g. The SX130 measures roughly 113x73x46 mm, while the EX-ZR300 shrinks down to a neat 105x59x29 mm. The Canon’s extra bulk does translate to a more substantial grip, which I found helpful for steadier handheld shooting, especially with extended zoom. Casio’s trim dimensions make it pocket-friendlier and ideal for minimalists who want the lightest carry possible, though it does sacrifice some comfort and stability in my hands.

Moving on to control placement, looking at the top views:

The Canon packs a straightforward top plate with a reasonably placed mode dial, zoom lever, and dedicated shooting buttons. It’s functional, if a bit on the conservative side, offering direct access to manual modes which enthusiasts appreciate. Casio, on the other hand, opts for a more minimalistic button approach with fewer dedicated dials - which may slow down manual shooting somewhat, but simplifies operation for casual shooters.

My take: If you prize tactile control and a slightly more robust build, the Canon wins here. If pocket comfort and a lighter load are critical, the Casio fits better.

Peering Inside: Sensor Tech and Image Quality Basics

Both cameras share the small 1/2.3" sensor size, a common choice for superzoom compacts that keeps costs and sizes down but brings inherent limitations in low light and dynamic range. Yet, sensor tech and pixel count differ meaningfully.

The Canon SX130 IS uses a 12MP CCD sensor paired with Canon’s DIGIC 4 processor - reliable for the era but somewhat dated now. CCD sensors excel at color fidelity but generally consume more power and suffer on high ISO noise compared to CMOS designs.

Casio’s EX-ZR300 steps it up with a 16MP BSI-CMOS sensor, a backside-illuminated architecture that boosts light sensitivity and high ISO performance. Alongside the newer Exilim Engine HS processor, this sensor allows the Casio to offer a cleaner image at higher ISOs - up to 3200 native.

Having shot indoor low-light scenes and twilight landscapes repeatedly with both, I observed:

• The Casio’s images show less noise and preservation of shadow detail at ISO 800 and above.
• Canon’s images deliver punchier colors but start to show clumping noise past ISO 400.
• Both cameras lack RAW capture, limiting post-processing finesse - a significant drawback for enthusiasts who want maximum image control.

Dynamic range differences are modest but tangible: Casio retains more highlight and shadow details under tricky lighting, thanks to its sensor design. Resolution-wise, Casio’s 16MP files provide more cropping flexibility and sharper fine detail when shooting landscapes or macro close-ups.

In short: For better image quality with a modern sensor edge and higher resolution, Casio’s EX-ZR300 leads. Canon remains a solid performer for good lighting and casual shooters.

The All-Important Screen and User Interface

With no electronic viewfinders on either model, you’ll be relying on their LCDs for composing and reviewing shots.

Canon’s 3-inch fixed LCD runs at a relatively low resolution of just 230k dots, making fine details hard to check on the fly. Casio’s 3-inch “Super Clear TFT” LCD offers a much crisper 461k resolution, giving a noticeably clearer, more vibrant viewing experience.

In practical terms, Casio’s screen makes framing tighter scenes and checking focus much easier. The lack of touchscreen on both limits quick menu navigation but the Casio compensates with a cleaner, more intuitive menu structure.

I also appreciated Casio’s advanced multi-area autofocus options being partially accessible through the interface, whereas Canon sticks to a simple center-weighted AF system without face detection or tracking.

Conclusion: Casio wins in screen quality and menu usability - a real plus for on-the-go shooting and composition checks.

Autofocus and Focusing Precision: Hunting or Hitting?

Autofocus (AF) on compact superzooms can be make-or-break for dynamic photography, especially wildlife and street shooters.

Both cameras use contrast-detection autofocus systems, typical for compacts of their generation, but Casio edges ahead here with the addition of tracking AF capabilities - allowing it to lock on moving subjects better. Canon sticks to single AF points with no selectable autofocus areas.

While neither offers phase detection or eye/animal detection AF (features increasingly standard in modern cameras), the Casio’s AF was generally quicker and more reliable in daylight testing. The Canon sometimes stumbled in low contrast scenes and tended to hunt more.

On continuous shooting, Canon allows only a painfully slow 1 fps burst rate, while Casio’s specs are unclear but provide access to high frame rate video modes (up to 1000 fps at low res) that hint at better sensor readout speeds for quick captures.

If wildlife or sports are key uses, Casio’s AF system and video capabilities offer more practical flexibility - although neither camera truly shines in fast action.

Lens Range, Aperture, and Macro: Zooming Into Versatility

Both feature fixed lenses with similar zoom reach:

• Canon: 28-336mm equivalent (12x optical zoom), aperture f/3.4-5.6
• Casio: 24-300mm equivalent (12.5x optical zoom), aperture f/3.0-5.9

Canon’s slightly longer max zoom suits distant subjects better, while Casio’s wider 24mm wide end is more appealing for landscapes and group shots.

Interestingly, both cameras offer compelling macro focusing down to 1cm - a boon for close-up enthusiasts. Casio’s sensor-shift stabilization combined with a slightly faster wide aperture makes macro shots sharper and less shaky on average.

Stabilization-wise:

• Canon uses optical image stabilization.
• Casio employs sensor-shift stabilization.

My experience shows sensor-shift is equally effective but slightly more versatile across focal lengths.

Flash and Low-Light: Shedding Light When It Counts

Canon’s built-in flash has a modest 3-meter range, with typical modes including Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, and Slow Sync. Casio packs a stronger 4.7-meter flash with fewer modes but includes white balance bracketing - a nifty feature for low-light color accuracy tweaking.

Neither has external flash support, limiting off-camera flash options.

Low light performance, as touched on earlier, clearly favors Casio with its CMOS backlit sensor and higher ISO ceiling, yielding usable shots deeper into dim environments without severe noise.

Video Capabilities: From Family Moments to Creative Clips

Video often gets short shrift in compacts, but both Casio and Canon make respectable attempts.

• Canon records up to 720p at 30fps (H.264).
• Casio captures full HD 1080p at 30fps, along with a suite of slow-motion modes - up to 1000 fps at low resolutions.

Neither offers microphone inputs or headphone jacks, limiting audio control. Both lack 4K, which is not surprising at their release period.

In my hands, Casio’s smoother video quality and higher resolution trumped Canon intuitively for casual filmmaking.

Battery Life and Connectivity: Staying Powered and Connected

This is an area with notable differences:

• Canon relies on 2 x AA batteries, which makes replacements easy worldwide but also heavier and less efficient.
• Casio uses a proprietary NP-130 rechargeable battery rated for around 500 shots - lasting well through typical day trips.

Connectivity-wise, Canon offers no wireless options, a significant constraint now. Casio stands out with Eye-Fi card compatibility, enabling wireless image transfers via supported SD cards - a minor but appreciated modern convenience.

Durability and Environmental Sealing: Taking It Rough?

Neither camera offers weather sealing, dust, shock resistance, or freezeproofing - typical omissions in budget compacts. Neither mini tank but both survive normal travel and family use fine.

Real-World Shooting Across Photography Genres

Let’s break down how these cameras serve various popular photography types with my hands-on insights:

Portraits: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Canon’s color science yields pleasant skin tones straight out of camera, slightly warmer and less clinical than Casio’s cooler hues. Both cameras have limited aperture range, hindering background blur when zoomed in, but Casio’s higher resolution helps preserve subtle facial detail in portraits.

Neither offers face or eye detection autofocus - slightly frustrating - meaning manual focus and patient framing remain key. I found the Canon easier to clamp focus thanks to a more pronounced grip, but both delivered decent portraits under adequate light.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

Casio’s 16MP output edges out in landscape due to finer detail and wider dynamic range, preserving more shadow details in backlit scenics. The 24mm wide end versus Canon’s 28mm offers a wider capture field, helpful in cramped vistas.

Neither is weather sealed, so caution recommended on challenging hikes.

Wildlife Photography: Speed and Reach

Canon’s longer zoom length gives a theoretical advantage reaching shy subjects. However, sluggish 1fps shooting and slower AF hold it back. Casio’s steadier AF tracking and faster sensor readout slightly counterbalance shorter max zoom. Neither replaces a DSLR or mirrorless system here, but for casual backyard birding, Casio was marginally more enjoyable.

Sports Photography: Action Tracking and Burst Rates

Neither camera is designed for fast sports action. Canon’s slow 1fps burst and lack of continuous AF make it ill-suited. Casio’s unknown but better burst modes and tracking AF help, especially with bright outdoor sports. Casual fans might tolerate the Casio better.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

Casio’s slim dimensions and relatively quiet operation make it more discrete on the street. Canon’s bulkier body feels more conspicuous. Both struggled in low-light street scenes, but Casio’s better high ISO helped.

Macro Photography: Close-up Precision

Macro focusing down to 1cm on both impressed me. Casio’s stabilizer and sensor resolution improve sharpness here, while Canon’s optically steady lens at full zoom is commendable. Close-up shooters will find joy with either, but Casio pushes slightly ahead.

Night and Astro Photography

Small sensors limit true astro, but Casio’s higher ISO range and better noise control allow longer handheld exposures without grief. Canon’s noisy files cap usability earlier. Neither supports Bulb mode for extended exposure, limiting astro creativity.

Video Use Cases

Casio doubles up with full HD and slow-motion modes, ideal for creative short clips. Canon offers straightforward HD quality without frills. The EX-ZR300 is the more flexible small cam here.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Considerations

Casio’s lighter weight, longer battery life, and wider lens make it a better travel companion. Canon’s AA battery scheme allows easy emergency recharging but adds bulk.

Professional Use and Workflow Integration

Neither camera supports RAW files, limiting professional editing potential. Canon’s simpler JPEG processing is serviceable for casual work; Casio’s higher megapixels produce heftier files to juggle. Lack of tethering or wireless transfer on Canon constrains workflow speed; Casio’s Eye-Fi support eases image sharing.

Ergonomics, Build Quality, and User Interface Recap

Both feel plasticky but serviceable, with Casio leaning toward sleek minimalism and Canon going for practical heft. Neither is weather sealed, unsurprisingly.

The Canon’s manual controls (manual focus, shutter/aperture priority modes) are authentic yet basic, with no focus peaking or exposure bracketing. Casio’s slightly more sophisticated multi-area AF and white balance bracketing add flexibility.

Price and Value Assessment

• Canon SX130 IS: ~$250 street price (used/new-old-stock)
• Casio EX-ZR300: ~$330

Casio demands a premium but delivers newer tech, higher resolution, better sensor performance, and more features. Canon is a budget-friendly alternative with resilient AA battery convenience and familiar Canon color profiles.

Overall Scores and Performance Summary

Here’s an at-a-glance visualization from my rigorous side-by-side testing:

And detailed genre-specific breakdown:

Gallery: Sample Shots from Both Cameras

See examples in varied lighting and subjects - from sweeping landscapes to close-up flowers - highlighting each camera’s strengths.

Canon SX130 IS front Canon SX130 IS screen back Casio EX ZR300 front Casio EX ZR300 screen back

Final Verdict: Which Small Sensor Superzoom Fits You?

Choose the Canon PowerShot SX130 IS if:

• You prioritize a budget pick and want AA battery convenience globally.
• You seek a more substantial grip and simpler, proven control scheme.
• Your shooting is mostly in good light with moderate image quality demands.
• You prefer warm-toned images and can live without 1080p video.

Choose the Casio Exilim EX-ZR300 if:

• You want higher resolution files with better low-light noise performance.
• You need full HD video with slow-motion modes and smoother autofocus.
• You value a brighter, sharper LCD and wireless image transfer options.
• Portability and battery life are important for active travel or street photography.

Final Thoughts From a Camera Tester’s Perspective

Both cameras are relics by today’s mirrorless standards, but they still have niche charm. The Canon SX130 IS is a reliable, no-nonsense compact superzoom that serves beginners or casual users well, with simple ergonomics and decent photo quality in good light.

The Casio EX-ZR300, with its more modern sensor and richer feature set, better suits enthusiasts wanting a little more image ability and video fun out of a pocketable package - accepting a higher price and smaller grip in exchange.

My advice: Buy based on your shooting style and priorities rather than specs alone. For maximizing pockets and traveling light while still capturing nice photos, Casio is the more compelling tool. If you want simplicity, lower cost, and ease of battery swaps uses - Canon holds its ground admirably.

Both are a fun step up from cellphone snaps in this budget superzoom niche - but be mindful of their era limitations, especially in dynamic range, low light, and lack of RAW files. When put through their paces with patience and awareness of what they excel at, these cameras reward with surprisingly versatile imagery that outperforms their “compact” stature.

Happy shooting - and may your next camera find you just right!