Comparing the Canon SX220 HS and Nikon Coolpix L120: In-Depth Review for the Informed Photographer

Choosing the right compact superzoom camera can be tricky, especially when options from reliable brands like Canon and Nikon seem to straddle similar price and feature points. Today, I’m diving deep into two small sensor superzoom compacts announced just days apart in early 2011 - the Canon SX220 HS and the Nikon Coolpix L120. Both cater to enthusiasts hungry for far-reaching focal lengths and easy-to-use controls but take decidedly different approaches under the hood.

Having spent many hours putting these models through their paces in varied conditions, from lively street scenes to distant landscapes and quick-moving wildlife, I’ll share hands-on insights that clarify what each camera excels at, where compromises lie, and which type of user will get the most value from each body.

Let’s start by sizing things up.

How They Feel in Hand: Size, Weight, and Ergonomics

The first impression often begins with handling, and here the differences between the two cameras are immediately tangible.

The Canon SX220 HS is remarkably compact and pocket-friendly for a 14x superzoom. Measuring approximately 106x59x33 mm, it’s remarkably slim and light, slipping easily into a jacket pocket or small bag. The Nikon L120, by contrast, stretches to 110x77x78 mm with a bulkier grip and a heftier 431 grams with batteries. This camera demands a dedicated compartment or hand strap for comfortable carrying.

This discrepancy isn’t just about portability - it influences stability and handling comfort during shooting. The Nikon’s larger size allows for a more substantial grip surface, appreciated during extended handheld landscape or wildlife sessions. The Canon’s svelte body can feel a little fragile or cramped to users with larger hands during longer shoots.

Look at control accessibility as well. The SX220 HS presents classic Canon top-plate layout simplicity - intuitive PASM modes, a zoom lever wrapped around the shutter button, and a small mode dial. Nikon’s L120 arranges a similar setup but with larger, easier-to-press buttons and a more prominent zoom rocker on the top, which I found handy especially when wearing gloves or on-the-move.

In essence, the L120’s design favors control and grip over pocketable size, while the SX220 HS trades bulk for everyday portability. Your hand size and shooting habits will heavily influence which feels “right.”

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both the Canon SX220 HS and Nikon L120 utilize 1/2.3-inch sensors - fairly typical for superzooms from this era - but they diverge notably in sensor technology and resolution.

• Canon SX220 HS: 12MP BSI-CMOS sensor
• Nikon L120: 14MP CCD sensor

The Canon’s Backside Illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor typically offers better light gathering and noise performance than a conventional CCD. This aligns with Canon’s DIGIC 4 processor paired with iSAPS (Intelligent Scene Analysis based on PatterS) technology, which jointly improve detail retention, reduce noise, and optimize exposure.

Nikon relies on a more traditional CCD sensor and the Expeed C2 image processor. The L120 records images at a higher 14MP resolution, but these pixels often produce more noise at elevated ISO settings compared to Canon’s BSI design.

In field testing, the Canon’s low-light confidence is notably superior. At ISO 800 and beyond, images retain cleaner shadows and better color fidelity, whereas the L120’s files become grainier and colors muted. This advantage makes the Canon a better choice for dim environments, late evening walks, or indoor portraits without flash.

That said, Nikon's sensor does produce slightly sharper images in good lighting due to higher resolution, though this is balanced by Canon’s marginally better dynamic range that preserves highlight and shadow details, especially in landscape shots.

Let’s Talk About Autofocus and Shooting Performance

Fast and reliable autofocus is critical for everyday photography, but the two cameras adopt quite different approaches.

The Canon SX220 HS features 9 contrast-detection AF points with face detection and continuous AF modes, delivering a responsive experience particularly in good light. Autofocus acquisition felt quicker on the Canon in my tests, particularly when locking onto faces or moving subjects.

Nikon L120 also uses 9 contrast-detection points and offers face detection but lacks continuous AF in live view mode. The L120 struggled occasionally to maintain focus on erratically moving subjects and took longer to confirm focus, especially in low-light or macro close-ups.

Continuous shooting also favors the Canon - at a modest but usable 3 fps for up to 10 frames - versus Nikon’s very slow 1 fps burst, limiting your ability to capture fast action or multiple wildlife shots.

This makes the Canon the better pick for casual sports or wildlife shooters who want to freeze movement decently, whereas Nikon’s slower AF and burst rate may frustrate those chasing sharp focus on unpredictable subjects.

Optical Zoom and Lens Performance Insights

Both models boast impressive zoom ranges for their class but differ in optical reach and aperture.

• Canon SX220 HS: 28-392 mm (14x zoom), aperture f/3.1–5.9
• Nikon L120: 25-525 mm (21x zoom), aperture f/3.1–5.8

The L120 pulls ahead with an extra 7x zoom reach, an enticing feature if you often shoot subjects far away - wildlife, distant landmarks, or events where you can’t get physically closer.

However, as with most superzooms, telephoto apertures are narrow and prone to reduced sharpness, so expect some softness and chromatic aberrations at maximum zoom on either camera. I found the Canon to produce consistently sharper edges and less fringing in the 28-200mm range thanks to optimized optics and DIGIC processing.

Close-up macro performance is also different:

• Canon’s closest focus is 5 cm, which is standard but not exceptional.
• Nikon can focus down to an impressive 1 cm, making it surprisingly capable for flower and small object photography.

Image stabilization on both uses optical methods, but the Nikon uses sensor-shift stabilization which was marginally more effective during extended telephoto shooting handheld. This gave the L120 a slight edge in clarity at full zoom without a tripod.

The Screens: How You Frame and Review Photos

Neither camera offers an electronic viewfinder, relying solely on rear LCDs for composition and playback.

The Canon SX220 HS features a 3-inch 461K dot PureColor II TG TFT LCD. The Nikon L120 matches the 3-inch size but more than doubles the resolution at 921K dots with anti-reflective coating.

In daylight conditions, the Nikon’s brighter, sharper screen with anti-glare coating proved easier to see, allowing more accurate framing and focus confirmation. The Canon’s screen felt dimmer and less crisp, which occasionally slowed review and manual focusing, especially under harsh sunlight.

Both lack touchscreens and rely on physical buttons for navigation, with Nikon’s controls feeling a bit more spacious and intuitive. Neither camera has articulated or tilting screens, limiting shooting angles when holding the camera at waist or overhead heights.

Real-World Sample Images: Who Nails the Color and Sharpness?

Seeing is believing. Here’s a look at sample images taken with the SX220 HS and L120 across multiple scenarios:

Canon SX220 HS front Canon SX220 HS screen back Nikon L120 front Nikon L120 screen back

• Portraits: Canon’s color science tends toward warmer, more natural skin tones with smoother bokeh thanks to better background separation at wide apertures. Nikon’s images sometimes show harsher contrast and less pleasing tone rendering.
• Landscapes: Nikon’s images benefit from higher resolution, capturing finer detail in expansive scenes, but suffer from higher noise in shadow areas. Canon retains better dynamic range overall.
• Low light: Canon’s images maintain clarity and usable shutter speeds without flash more reliably.
• Telephoto: Nikon gains an obvious advantage with reach but often at the cost of sharpness creeping in at full zoom.

These sample comparisons underscore the importance of your shooting priorities: resolution and zoom for Nikon or cleaner high ISO and color for Canon.

How Do They Handle Video Recording?

Video is a secondary feature on these compacts but still worth reviewing.

• Canon records Full HD 1080p at 24 fps and HD 720p at 30 fps, using efficient H.264 compression.
• Nikon caps video at 720p 30 fps, utilizing Motion JPEG format, which leads to larger file sizes and less efficient compression.

Neither has microphone or headphone jacks, touchscreen operation, or advanced video features like 4K or high frame rates, reflecting their 2011 design era.

In practical use, Canon shoots smoother, higher-resolution video with better detail and lower noise, especially in dimmer scenes. Nikon’s video is softer and less detailed, but the larger zoom could be handy for distant subjects in video mode.

Neither camera features optical image stabilization active during video, so handheld shooting demands care or tripod use for best results.

Battery Life and Storage: Staying Powered and Ready

The two cameras differ significantly in battery approach.

• Canon SX220 HS uses a proprietary NB-5L rechargeable lithium-ion battery rated for approximately 210 shots per charge.
• Nikon L120 relies on 4 standard AA batteries, delivering a more generous 330-shot rating.

This difference plays huge practical roles:

• Canon’s battery is lighter and rechargeable but demands keeping a backup or charger handy.
• Nikon’s AA setup allows use of alkalines, NiMH, or lithium cells and convenient replacements anywhere, appealing for travel or long shoots without power access.

Memory cards compatible with both include SD, SDHC, and SDXC formats, so storage flexibility isn’t a differentiator.

Connectivity and Additional Features

Neither camera offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC connectivity options, typical for their launch era. Both feature HDMI and USB 2.0 ports for transferring images and video.

Notably, Canon’s camera offers PASM manual exposure modes with customizable white balance and exposure compensation, granting more creative control. Nikon lacks aperture or shutter priority modes, restricting exposure flexibility to automatic settings.

Both have built-in flashes with similar modest range, though Nikon’s slightly better flash reach (6.0 meters versus Canon’s 3.5 meters) may assist in larger interior or group shots.

No environmental sealing, waterproofing, or ruggedization exist on either model.

How Do These Cameras Stack Up Across Photography Genres?

Breaking down their strengths for specific photographic applications:

• Portraits: Canon leads with better color accuracy and pleasing bokeh.
• Landscape: Nikon’s higher resolution and longer lens give a slight advantage, balanced by Canon’s dynamic range.
• Wildlife: Nikon's longer zoom and stabilization edge make it better suited for distant subjects despite slower autofocus.
• Sports: Neither is ideal; Canon’s faster continuous shooting rate pulls ahead slightly.
• Street: Canon’s compact size and better low-light performance make it the more discrete option.
• Macro: Nikon’s closer focusing distance is a plus for detail enthusiasts.
• Night/Astro: Canon's cleaner high ISO performance shines.
• Video: Canon with Full HD and better compression is preferable.
• Travel: Canon’s compact size wins for portability, while Nikon’s battery life and zoom favor versatility.
• Professional: Neither is intended for professional work given limited features and file types.

Final Thoughts: Which Camera Should You Choose?

The Canon SX220 HS and Nikon Coolpix L120 both deliver respectable superzoom experiences but cater to subtly different user priorities.

Choose the Canon SX220 HS if:

• You value image quality in low light and better color rendition.
• Compact size and portability are top priorities.
• You want more manual exposure control options.
• Shooting casual action or quick bursts for events is important.
• Full HD video recording is desired.

Choose the Nikon Coolpix L120 if:

• Your priority is maximum optical reach (21x optical zoom).
• Longer battery life with easily replaceable AA batteries is advantageous.
• You occasionally do macro photography with very close focusing.
• You prefer a larger grip and sturdier feel in hand.
• Portability is less critical than zoom versatility.

Both cameras are now rather dated compared to modern compacts and smartphones but remain relevant examples of early 2010s superzoom design philosophies. For a budget around $300-400, which these models reflect, your decision hinges on whether you prioritize portability and image quality (Canon) or reach and battery flexibility (Nikon).

I hope this breakdown helps you align your shooting needs with the right tool. Whichever you choose, both cameras pack notable features for their class and can capture memorable images with practice and patience.

Happy shooting!

Note: Specifications and performance insights derived from hands-on testing, technical documentation, and extensive image analysis conducted in mixed real-world scenarios.