Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX150 IS review

By dpreview staff on May 15, 2012 at 00:11 GMT

Just posted: Canon PowerShot SX150 IS review. The PowerShot SX150 IS is a mid-priced compact superzoom - it's not as slim or stylish as the Panasonic TZ (ZS) models that have helped define the class, but it still boasts a 28-336mm equivalent zoom range and a comprehensive set of features, both in terms of special effects and manual controls. It also differentiates itself through the use of AA batteries and a CCD sensor - both helping to keep costs down. So has Canon cut too many corners in pursuit of cut-price capability?

Comments

Total comments: 86
fuxicek
By fuxicek (1 month ago)

my canon sx150 stopped reading the memory cards, ok, its two years, guarantee is gone, time to look for something else... maybe canon a4000.. its small, 8x zoom, probably slow too, the continuous shooting by sx150 is horrible 0,8 fps, flash recycling time is something between 10 seconds and eternity, otherwise is quite enjoyable camera :) any opinions on the Canon A4000?

0 upvotes
kadajawi
By kadajawi (Nov 17, 2012)

A CCD sensor is a godsent. I have the SX130, and the best feature about is is the CCD sensor. No rolling shutter effect at all. So much better when taking videos...

0 upvotes
smodha
By smodha (May 17, 2012)

Great review!

I own the first generation SX100 and still use it today. It's great for quick, easy pictures whilst your on vacation. The SX150 has been around a few months but I personally think it's still a great camera for the price (seen it online for around $150). You're still getting plenty of bang for you buck.

I didn't like the shape. I personally think it looks out of touch with most modern HD cameras. But in all honesty there is very little to complain about. It's small and functional with 14.1 Mega Pixel resolution which makes it a perfect gift.

Anyway I'm a big fan of Canon and I've created a <a href="http://www.canoneos1100dreview.com">Canon EOS 1100D Review</a>. If you're looking for a great entry-level DSLR camera then check it out.

1 upvote
officialrohan
By officialrohan (Sep 22, 2012)

Yes its a great camera!! GREAT ZOOM, 14.1 MP HD videos ,wow thats why I made a review for it in my blog !! I love it. http://dietheight.blogspot.in/2012/09/review-canon-powershot-sx150-best-rs.html

0 upvotes
mzillch
By mzillch (May 16, 2012)

My recent SX230HS, have a KILLER undocumented feature that reviewers don't know: Immediate, FULL screen, last shot review, zoomable, (with pan and scan), WITHOUT resorting to going into dedicated playback mode, as one could on any camera, which inevitably may reset certain record mode settings.
It's similar to their "focus check" review, but the beauty is it is FULL screen, and not a smaller PIP window using only a subset of the full screen's resolution, and oddly, to use my undocumented trick, you must leave "focus check" set to OFF! If you have a Canon with "focus check", Try it out!
NOTE: There will undoubtedly be posts "correcting" mine, however when I posted on this before, not a single person was able to document where in the manual Canon wrote: "There's also a superior, full screen version of our focus check review feature. SET IT TO OFF." Canon's only mention of instantaneous review zooming, without engaging play mode, is using their inferior focus check ON method.
I'm gone.

0 upvotes
W0LKC
By W0LKC (May 16, 2012)

Does seem odd to see a review this late in 2012 for a camera that came out in 2011. Shouldn't the 2012 model be coming out soon?

I think the line has gone down hill since SX120. They got wider, which is nice. But, they got slower, which is bad. I've been in situations where the f/2.8 of my SX120 saves me vs the f3.5 of my more compact/wider wide cameras.

Battery life seems odd....though, I use Lithium AA's in my SX120....and it seems to last forever, until it didn't. Lulled me into forgetting to check the batteries before a trip. Though its been almost year since that trip now.

And, I think its a decent size...sure a touch smaller might be nice sometimes, but not too small like my newer compact cameras. But, the SX120 is still my EDC Camera.

1 upvote
adobepro
By adobepro (Sep 1, 2012)

Totally agree with you. I have still use the the Canon SX110IS (paid $300 for it, would gladly buy another at that price now if I could when this one dies) and it takes GREAT photos without any adjustments, zoomed or not. However, not the greatest indoors without flash, and flash recycling can take up to 10 seconds, missing shots while the flash recycles. However, the F/2.8 makes a HUGE difference in low light. Such a shame what they did with this line.

I just recently purchased the Sony A57, and I still prefer the Canon SX110IS -- the sharpness of the Canon is incredible -- it blows away my A57. I tried every imagine setting on the kit lens and the SAL35F18 prime lens, and while the SAL35F18 comes close, I still prefer the Canon -- going to miss it once it dies.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Streetlight
By Streetlight (May 16, 2012)

This camera's price has dropped from $225 to $179 now to $150 almost everywhere (Staples, Office Depot, Sam's Club, etc.) This suggests that Canon has a new version coming out soon. Will this be the SX160 IS? They skipped the SX140 IS moniker jumping from the 130 to the 150.

The SX150 IS has been around for quite some time. This review is about a very old camera, at least in Canon's refresh scheme.

Anyone have information?

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike G Lee
By Mike G Lee (May 16, 2012)

When it comes to performing technical reviews, I think someone other than Theano Nikitas would be a better choice. It's as if he read a review somewhere else and then copy and pasted some of that misinformation. He was way out in left field when he reviewed this model with alkaline batteries and then made some (and here comes the copy and paste topic) incorrect judgements that performance or metering might suffer from the use of NiMH batteries. Test a claim like that first, before even suggesting it. Performance and metering do not suffer one iota. Meager 2100mAh NiMH batteries can power this unit quite satisfactorilly, and 3+ times longer than alkalines. This unit is a unique blend of function, features and performance, and especially so at its price point. I couldn't be happier with my results.

0 upvotes
Master Yoda
By Master Yoda (May 16, 2012)

I agree. Jeff would have been a better person to review this camera.

0 upvotes
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (May 17, 2012)

If you read the review it states : "This will most likely have an effect on the camera's battery meter, showing a lower charge level than is actually in the batteries."

The meter in question is the battery meter, not the light meter. NiMH batteries provide 1.2 volts per cell instead of the 1.5 volts per cell of traditional alkaline batteries. The camera's battery reads the total voltage available to determine the life remaining in the batteries. At 1.2 volts per cell this means that 2 NiMH batteries will supply 2.4 volts versus the expected 3 volts from alkaline batteries. Even though NiMH batteries are often rated with higher capacity, the lower voltage can cause the camera to incorrectly judge the remaining power.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
valmorph
By valmorph (May 16, 2012)

My girlfriend has the first generation of SX - the SX100 which is bascially the same but a bit older. It is a really hardy camera that has been dropped, bumped and generally abused and works great for its $250 price point. With the long lense it can get quite a lot of photos that my more expensive s90 can't. Tables are turned at nighttime however.

As mentioned by others a set of Sanyo Eneloops will solve any AA battery issues (eg 400-600 per charge in the SX100) and really should be the standard testing battery in tests.

0 upvotes
d10694
By d10694 (May 15, 2012)

My wife runs a playgroup, for 2-4 year olds. They use an assortment of very old Powershot cameras, up to around 5 years old. They are used every day, dropped, kicked, used in rain, dropped in sand pits, use rechargeable AA batteries.

They have never had a failure yet, which is actually very impressive, considering their working environment and users.

The other photo success has been 3 Flips, which have also survived well, but which sadly are no longer around in the market.

1 upvote
SM7
By SM7 (May 15, 2012)

"very old Powershot cameras, up to around 5 years old". Yeah, those cameras they had even 4 years ago, stone age stuff...

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 15, 2012)

Panasonic ZS20 is so much better it is not even funny.

0 upvotes
MIKE GG
By MIKE GG (May 15, 2012)

yeah if you like splotchy panasonic noise reduction

3 upvotes
SM7
By SM7 (May 15, 2012)

Just the other day I was out shooting with my S3 IS. 12x zoom, CCD sensor, stereo audio (non-HD vid), 4xAA batteries... Still takes fantastic photos! And it's got a F2.7-3.5 lens. CHDK gives it extra features, such as RAW.

3 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (May 15, 2012)

On a tangent, I remember several years ago the bugbear of all compacts was purple fringing - DPReview used to have a specific test, with a cut-out bit of cardboard in front of a bright light. The SX150 has some, but not very much - what happened to cure the problem? Better lens coatings, clever sensor design, processing?

0 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (May 15, 2012)

You should have marked the camera *up* for using AA batteries!

Rechargeable AA batteries are much more convenient than having to carry around 80 random chargers and countless incompatible batteries with you, wherever you go.

It also beats paying £/€/$50 for yet another spare incompatible proprietary lithium battery. Of course most of us buy 3rd party batteries and pay a lot less money, but still. A nice set of low self discharge AA NiMH batteries and a charger will usually cost less than one spare proprietary battery.

AA batteries are available everywhere - by contrast a fully charged (insert your choice of random battery) is almost impossible to find anywhere...

I'd like to see manufacturers get marked down for *not* using AA's.

I've had three Canon dSLRs so far, none use the same battery. None of my other cameras do either. Every single camera on the market seems to have yet another proprietary battery type.

Actually what we really need is a lithium cell standard. Anyone?

8 upvotes
bookmatch
By bookmatch (May 15, 2012)

I agree. I still use my Canon A620, which had a great firm factor for my big hands, and takes AA batteries. I always thought taking AAs was a brilliant advantage -- so much easier to travel with it instead of a dedicated charger/battery.

2 upvotes
EpicshotsAU
By EpicshotsAU (May 15, 2012)

You're joking, right? I really hope you're trolling here.

Lithium battery packs last longer, are lighter than AA batteries and also hold their charge longer. When NiCAD and NiMH battery packs have self-discharged, those LiPO battery packs will be holding their charge. That includes onthe shelf 6 months later when they haven't even been used. Try that with a half-used AA.

Lots of different chargers? I have 5 canon camers, an they use a whole two different types of charger and battery. And as soon as I purchased the cameras, I purchased at least 2 spare batteries for each camera, which fit neatly and without issue into each seperate camera bag. I have never experienced an issue with running out of power... ever.

AA Batteries are false economy, especially rechargable batteries.

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (May 15, 2012)

good points about AA, particularly since the advent of slow-discharge (e.g., Sanyo Enelops)... too bad this camera doesn't have an OVF, but no superzoom has OVF by necessity...

EpicshotsAU: No need to call names. Most of us are not so lucky to share any chargers and Lion batts across the dozens of devices refusing to adopt a standard (also for chargers). Panasonic and others even adds chips to prevent noname spares... such practice (preventing competition and open markets) ought to be illegal, yet it's business ;-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (May 15, 2012)

EpicshotsAU:

Which cameras take LiPo batteries?

Yes Canon used the same batteries in many cameras, but you can't then expect to use those LiIon batteries in in Panasonic cameras.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (May 15, 2012)

Lan:

Yes AA batteries are all well and good, but they don't have the punch of LiIon batteries. Though slowly LiIon AAs are starting to be available. And those LiIon AAs appear to run at 1.8 volts, unlike the 1.2 volts of NiMH AAs.

0 upvotes
SilverFilm
By SilverFilm (May 15, 2012)

EpicshotsAU:

I have a SX110 which uses AA. I use Energizer Lithium AA and get close to 1000 pics per set of two. Every time I pick it up its ready to go. No charging, no fussing. I also happen to work somewhere that sells Canon products (God bless the 6%-10% markup cameras allows us:(). I'm on vacation right now so I can't count them, but I think we stock 22 different Li-ion batteries for Canon and they are ridiculously expensive. That's just for Canon. Then we have to stock batteries and chargers for other brands. As a retailer its nice to have something we can make a profit on but this is a shame and joke for customers. No the battery from your old Canon won't work in your new one. Here, let me sell you a spare for $50-$70.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mayank B
By Mayank B (May 16, 2012)

One more vote for cameras with AA batteries; right now they are an exception but instead should be the norm.. I agree with d10694, cameras that use AA batteries should getter better review points; simply for being more 'planet friendly'.

0 upvotes
valmorph
By valmorph (May 16, 2012)

Totally agree. AAs are so much better than having to carry around loads of different chargers and batteries for all devices.

0 upvotes
marolou
By marolou (May 16, 2012)

Thank you, Lan, this is a clear and true vote!

0 upvotes
CameraManDan123
By CameraManDan123 (May 15, 2012)

I had the SX110IS, brilliant little camera. Now i think canon are packing too many megapixels into a small sensor.

2 upvotes
carokann
By carokann (May 15, 2012)

They're still milking the 1/2.3" sensor?

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (May 15, 2012)

Pretty decent compared to the Leica M9-P.

OK, that was lame.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (May 15, 2012)

Rubenski:

Yeah that was kinda dumb, does this Canon shoot raw, have a full frame sensor, take interchangeable lenses? Get back to me when Canon L lenses can match Zeiss and Leica M mount lenses for colour. (And the lens on this camera is no where near the quality of a Canon L.)

0 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (May 15, 2012)

I don´t see why people complain. At first there is whining that there are less reviews than in earlier years, now they published a review and people complain that it is about an "uninteresting camera". No one is forced to read it. See the very first reviews from this site in 1999, they were about compact cameras. Surprise?

4 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (May 15, 2012)

I didn't like this post. I remember the time DPR used to review many of these compacts, but their attempts to bring collective reviews when it comes to budged (or of less quality, or compact, or whatever better call them) cameras were great and really reflect better DPR format today. A simple review for a single camera like this, though very welcome (the review itself), is not as interesting as would a collective one.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
aleksdat
By aleksdat (May 15, 2012)

This Camera have Sony CCD 1/2.3", but G10 1/1.7" - so what did balico have to say about Canon developers?

0 upvotes
balico
By balico (May 15, 2012)

Seems like Canons sensor development is come to a stand still..
Although this is a very affordable little camera, I was surprised to see that the old Powershot G10 (2008) has less noise at higher iso then this new model!

1 upvote
KieranGee
By KieranGee (May 15, 2012)

I don't know what everyone moaning about how posting compact camera reviews isn't like "the old DPReview" is on about really. Compact camera reviews are what this place used to do the most of!
I myself love reading about the newest and shiniest high end equipment, in the same way that I love watching reviews of supercars, but at the end of the day, there are far more family sedans and saloons sold than mid-engined exotica, and the same is true of cameras like this and the myriad of other compacts out there, so a review of this is far more relevant to far more people than one of whatever multi thousand *currency of local choice* camera has just topped the range of camera maker X
As always though, if you don't like the content, nobody has forced you to read it just so that you can offend your delicate little sensibilities, so I suggest that you don't.

10 upvotes
Gerard Hoffnung
By Gerard Hoffnung (May 15, 2012)

I agree. From time to time I get asked for advice from casual users about which camera to buy and I always direct them to DPReview. I might give them a little guidance based on their intended use but never recommend a specific camera or brand. DPReview's database and search and compare features are second to none and without the reviews of ALL types of cameras I would have no reason to direct them here. Hopefully, they may see some of the other features here such as the challenge section or book reviews etc. and be inspired to dig deeper into the world of digital photography.

2 upvotes
CAClark
By CAClark (May 15, 2012)

I had the SX120 and if I pixel peeped the results from the camera were just horrible. If however I accepted it price point and looked at prints/captures as a whole, the results were pleasing enough. With some photoshoppery I managed to document a holiday to Scotland with it, and while I'd have liked an SLR, it was actually decent enough.

As Mark Byland says, in the right context, I think these are decent cams.

1 upvote
MarkByland
By MarkByland (May 15, 2012)

Decent camera for the price. IMO, no one can legitimately knock CCD tech. It runs 90% of most high end Astrophotography around the world. CCD Vs CMOS is old news and perhaps DPR should do an informative article on Kodak and CCD Tech.

The battery thing can be solved with rechargeables. It actually still looks like a camera instead of a cell phone you can't use to make calls. That's a big plus: cameras that actually look like cameras.

Image quality looked great against the P510. Much sharper and considerably less noise than the other 3. The zoom is respectable at full length being able to read the lettering on the electric grinder.

It would be an interesting challenge to hand these out to a few 'pros' who think they can do no wrong. Spend a week actually using the camera instead of judging the book by the cover.

1 upvote
JordanAT
By JordanAT (May 15, 2012)

As someone who just recently was looking for a camera for my wife's 90 year old grandmother, I like to see these reviews of less expensive (and less ambitious) cameras. Just because she doesn't understand the intricacies of f-stops and doesn't have a PC at home doesn't mean she should be relegated to lousy snapshots.

I can't actually remember which camera we got her, but I felt it needed to have AA batteries so she could get power anywhere without having to keep it charged. Since she was used to disposable cameras (*shiver*), charging wasn't part of her "workflow."

We bought her the camera, batteries, and ten small (512MB) SD cards (ebay, about $2-3 each). She can put about 40-45 images on a card, which is about double what she's used to on a roll of film. She fills them up and takes them to a local store for "developing." She labels the full card and puts it back in the box. I told her when she fills the cards, I'll transfer the images and give her empty ones. Works perfectly!

4 upvotes
tagomilonga
By tagomilonga (May 15, 2012)

Remind us again, why don't you write this post in "How my granny uses camera" blog?

1 upvote
JordanAT
By JordanAT (May 15, 2012)

Why? Because I know you're going to be a big boy someday, and you should learn about cameras without having to copy what my granny does. ;-)

1 upvote
eliaspt
By eliaspt (May 15, 2012)

Boring, I guess this should be part of the contract with Amazon or something like that. Please use your time reviewing some real cameras, guys.

We want the good old DPReview back.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (May 15, 2012)

Right, only 5lb Pro DSLRs should be reviewed in DPR. Let other sites review cameras that consumers want to use on family vacations to Disney World. Only big fat black DSLRs on DPR from now on.

2 upvotes
eliaspt
By eliaspt (May 15, 2012)

Well, two cameras I had in mind when I made my post were both the Fujifilm X10 and the X-Pro1, which are far from weighing 5LBs.

1 upvote
SM7
By SM7 (May 15, 2012)

troll.

1 upvote
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (May 15, 2012)

Boring, ho-hum. Who is this review for - readers of DPR? Where's 5DM3, Fuji X10 and XPro1? Heck, where's the Pentax K01 and Q reviews? Disappointing.

1 upvote
Alwina H
By Alwina H (May 15, 2012)

I find the author's comments about the batteries disappointing too. Like it is said below: the standard should be NiHm batteries (like the Eneloops; you probably use them in your flash too). Alkalines are for emergency cases, and lithiums if you need > 1000 shots during an event and have no spare batteries.

2 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (May 15, 2012)

Did anyone actually want this review over a SX40?

Given the SX40 has dipped as low as $250 it's hard to see the point of reviewing (or buying) this camera.....

0 upvotes
douple
By douple (May 15, 2012)

meh, you guys should do proper review of Fuji x10, when the final sensor clicked into camera.

2 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (May 15, 2012)

I fail to see why Dpreview bothered to review this Canon-model when there is an other, more interesting, SX240 or Sx260 with an even longer zoom.

0 upvotes
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (May 15, 2012)

The 67% rating is understandable, much more than the 72% awarded out of the blue to the Sony soandso200V in yesterday's review.
The images at low ISO are way better compared to the Sony.

Of course it is utterly nonsensical that anything but lowest ISO is selectable in such cameras at all.

0 upvotes
tessl8d
By tessl8d (May 15, 2012)

These reviews are just a bit of grease for the corporate wheels. I been looking for a Ricoh GRD4 review and found one yesterday posted by an enthusiast.G great info and amazing samples.Pays to look around. DPR's previews and samples are pretty ordinary.

2 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (May 15, 2012)

Since when is the GRD4 relevant here? It is another compact, definitely not a super-zoom. By the way, the GRD4 is very much of a raw only compact. It may have NR off but as many users of Ricoh-compacts know, that is not real NR off.
But I agree that Dpreview should spend more time to review the real intersting models instead for this 'me too' super zoom. Especially since the SX240 and SX260 have been around for some time and have very good image quality compared to most of their main competitors.

0 upvotes
Andreas Stuebs
By Andreas Stuebs (May 15, 2012)

"The SX150 IS's top-plate is relatively sparsely populated and plays host to the exposure mode dial, a combined zoom toggle/shutter button and on/off switch. A pop-up zoom is housed in the bulge above the lens barrel"

WOW a second zoom ... in case the primary does not work?

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Mayank B
By Mayank B (May 15, 2012)

I agree with Sean Nelson below on the poor battery performance mentioned in this review. Have been using Hybrid NiMH batteries (Eneloops) in an SX130, they cost much-much less than proprietary lithium batteries and give good battery life. Never had battery issues by always keeping a spare, charged pair in the camera pouch. We need more cameras with AA batteries IMHO, the batteries are versatile (can be used across multiple devices) and are therefore more planet friendly!

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Mayank B
By Mayank B (May 15, 2012)

Thank you for the review! Always lovely to see a P&S review on DP Review. I'd say this is the only camera in Canon's current lineup that retains a bit of the DNA from the A6XX series; I hope Canon will revive the A6XX series of cameras sometime soon, it had (and still has) many fans!

3 upvotes
Sean Nelson
By Sean Nelson (May 15, 2012)

I find it frustrating that your reviews of AA-powered cameras never properly explain the battery options:

- Alkalines are for emergency use because they can be bought anywhere and retain their charge for decades. But they drain quickly during actual use in high current devices such as digital cameras and you should never use them as a "normal" choice for your camera.

- Lithium batteries (the non-rechargeable ones) have extremely long shelf life and a very high capacity. My experience is that you can get a couple of thousand shots out of them. They're expensive, but perfect if you're going on a trip where recharging opportunities won't be available.

(continued next post...)

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
19 upvotes
Sean Nelson
By Sean Nelson (May 15, 2012)

(...continued from original post)

- For people who go through a LOT of shots in a SHORT time (hundreds of shots a week), buy rechargeable NiMH batteries with a high capacity rating (2700mAH, for example). These hold enough juice for several hundred shots, but they have a fairly short shelf live and will lose most of their charge over the span of a month or two even if you don't use them.

- For EVERYONE ELSE, buy HYBRID NiMH batteries such as Sanyo Eneloops. These have a lower capacity (typically 2000mAH), but they hold almost all their charge for well over a year. Because of this they'll outlast higher-rated NiMH batteries (such as the 2700mAH ones) over a long period, yielding at least 400 hundred shots and often nearly double that in my experience.

AA-powered cameras are unique in offering you this wide range of power options. Downrating the camera because it has a short battery life on alkalines does a real disservice to your readership.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
22 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (May 15, 2012)

Excellent post Sean. I have a Panny LZ5 as my 3rd camera and have used all 3 of the battery scenarios you described. I'll gladly take the small additional weight for the versatility that AA's provide. Not to mention they are much less expensive than buying a second OEM lithium battery on those cameras that don't use AA's.

0 upvotes
Ikari120378
By Ikari120378 (May 15, 2012)

Expensive and long lasting might be the attributes of proprietary lithium batteries. Therefore nothing can beat Sanyo Eneloop, for it is cheap and long lasting (except for the compact-size department).

0 upvotes
zorgon
By zorgon (May 15, 2012)

Yes energizer lithium AA's are the way to go for traveling etc. I use them in my flashguns and they last a surprisingly long time.
The 2000mAh Sanyo eneloops are the best NIMH in terms of charge retention and longevity but there are higher capacity low self discharge cells available these days with a slight compromise in the self discharge and total no. of charges.

I'd recommend:
Sanyo XX 2500mAh
Maha imedion 2400mAh

I'll also add that you need to use a decent charger in order to get the best out of the cells. You need one with individual cell monitoring and smart termination. Maha also make an excellent line of chargers. Don't dig up some ancient 20 year old charger from the back of your wardrobe, this will kill the cells in no time.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (May 15, 2012)

Nice battery summary, thanks. It's also worth mentioning that there are now higher capacity Eneloops available. The Eneloop XX has a capacity of 2400 mAH, and of course retains its charge over a long period just like the original Eneloops. This pretty much negates any small advantage standard NiMHs might have had.

0 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (May 15, 2012)

To benefit from Hybrid batteries like Sanyo Eneloop one also needs a good charger which support discharging to keep the Nimhs in good condition over time.

0 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (May 15, 2012)

I've produced decent 16x20 prints from our vacations with this camera. Ya, it's not my 7D or D700, but for 200 bucks, it's great!

1 upvote
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (May 15, 2012)

"We didn't notice much rolling shutter effect.."
It has a CCD, nitwit. Rolling shutter is a problem with CMOS sensors.

CCDs can deliver ful HD, and they can deliver higher FPS. DSLRs based on CCDs have done that for years. But it's the cost savings that keeps higher quality & faster image processing out of the camera, and the pixel count chasing that robs the sensor of light gathering that would reduce nose... that hurt this camera the most.

Put in a 10 MP sensor with larger, light gathering pixels, and bump up the processor to handle higher FPS and 1080p30, at least. Canon, the G1X was the camera no one asked for. We want something between features without quality (this) and quality without features (that.)

"So has Canon cut too many corners in pursuit of cut-price capability?"
Yes.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
cadet stimpy
By cadet stimpy (May 15, 2012)

My favourite feature of the SX cameras is they takes AC power - I've been using them for years for my online business, great little work horses, my sx110 must have taken close to 100,000 shots and it still works like new. Image stabilisation is great - i can take 1000 photos in a session in a badly lit studio and none will be out of focus.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
dtmoody
By dtmoody (May 15, 2012)

Id like to see a review of something newer please. OM-D...

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (May 15, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/

6 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (May 15, 2012)

or the D800.

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (May 15, 2012)

Wow....

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/

6 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (May 15, 2012)

Ok OK! How about this one! Canon 1dmk 3! How about a review for that camera!! :)

Ive been waiting years!!!

0 upvotes
dtmoody
By dtmoody (May 15, 2012)

Well, I feel like a HUGE fool now...lol

2 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (May 15, 2012)

Much as I love the fact that there's all of a sudden "reviews" at DPReview.... this camera is getting close to a year old -it was announced in August of last year. Local big box stores have already sold off their stock at fire sale prices (about $130) a couple months ago.

Still, keep 'em coming; the "big gun" pro dSLR cameras are fun to look at but it's not as though I can afford any of them - $8000 for a Leica? Really?

10 upvotes
1singur
By 1singur (May 15, 2012)

it is probably that reviews are sometimes based on the camera's popularity. at launch maybe it wasn't considerred fit for an in-depth review, but enough sales gave it that missing inch to deserve one, at least so the people that bought it know what they bought.

edit: i'm just guessing here, but it seems reasonable :P

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (May 15, 2012)

ecm:

And I don't think cameras which don't shoot raw should be given serious reviews, seriously.

Though not all raw able cameras sell for $8000 or even $2000. And the Leica M9 is not a dslr either.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (May 15, 2012)

Not everyone enjoys post processing their images all the time. Besides, there are plenty of good cams that produce nice jpeg images straight out of the camera- my Olympus and Fuji both give great results that often need little or no improvement after the fact.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (May 15, 2012)

@rpm40:

Right and so you don't have to use raw. I was writing about raw able cameras, not raw only cameras.

Now about jpeg only cameras, well at lower ISOs (below 400) there's not a great difference from one to the next. And there's rarely a point in shooting jpeg only at higher ISOs, say starting at 800.

The point was why do a full review of a not very capable camera? Lens distortion? Speed of recording jpegs? How easy it is to activate the wrong feature? Those points can be quickly summarized.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 15, 2012)

How come the review marked May 15th? Are you outsourcing the reviews to where it is 15th already? ;)

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sean Nelson
By Sean Nelson (May 15, 2012)

DP Review is (was?) based in England, where it is already the 15th. It's a big world out there beyond your screen... ;)

2 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (May 15, 2012)

I thought they were based in Seattle...?? i duno

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 15, 2012)

I thought they are in Seattle too.

0 upvotes
NowHearThis
By NowHearThis (May 15, 2012)

The alkaline battery comment in the cons is almost as silly as saying (when reviewing and SLR) " pictures come out dark if you leave the lens cap on".

I think you deserve the 'face-palm' award of the day. But thanks for the review anyway.

8 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (May 15, 2012)

AA Batteries give this gadget a great feature found in so few cameras these days.

This is the sort of camera you keep in the glove compartment for 6 months until a UFO crosses your path on the highway.

You know the batteries would be decently charged...

.

5 upvotes
ProtoPhoto
By ProtoPhoto (May 15, 2012)

The combination of low price, AA batteries, full manual controls, and a little chunky all make the SX150 remarkably like an old "A" series canon, before they dumbed and slimmed them down.

It is good have a classic "A" series choice again, even if the initial is gone...

Also good see that DPR is making the effort on returning to compact reviews!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
14 upvotes
Total comments: 86