Previous news story    Next news story

Canon announces PowerShot SX500 IS and SX160 IS 16MP superzooms

By dpreview staff on Aug 21, 2012 at 16:28 GMT

Canon has annnounced the PowerShot SX160 IS and SX500 IS - two mid-range superzoom cameras. The SX160 IS has a 16x zoom covering a 28-448mm equivalent range. This is backed with a 16MP CCD sensor and Digic 4 processor. The SX500 IS features the same sensor and processor but adds a 30X, 24-720mm equivalent lens. Both feature faster autofocus and less shutter lag than previous models, while the SX160 IS includes Canon's Intelligent IS system designed to compensate for a greater variety of camera movements. Both models will be available from September at recommended prices of $329 for the SX500 IS and $229 for the SX160 IS.

Jump to:


Press Release:

New PowerShot Cameras 'Zoom Photographers In' Close To The Action And Offer Fast Auto Focus Speeds To Help Capture The Moment In Stunning Quality

LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., August 21, 2012– Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced two new additions to the Canon PowerShot digital camera lineup designed for the on-the-go photographer looking for large extended zoom in compact easy-to-use cameras. For all those times when the action is just out of reach, Canon offers two new super-zoom solutions, the new PowerShot SX500 IS and PowerShot SX160 IS digital cameras featuring an impressive 30x and 16x optical zoom, respectively. Both cameras are equipped with Canon's latest advancements in AF technology enhancing auto focus (AF) speeds over previous SX-series cameras[i] to capture the excitement in brilliant clarity and quality. The extremely responsive high-speed AF lets you capture great shots as they happen, with significantly reduced lag time. With incredible zoom capabilities, fast responsive AF, stunning resolution and easy-to-use features, both cameras are stylish and compact to take along for any occasion to help you get a good shot from the back of a school theatre or the sidelines of a game.

Borrowing from Canon's optics expertise, these new models include long-reaching zoom and Canon's Intelligent Image Stabilization technology which analyzes the scene being shot and compensates for camera movement for steady images and video even while panning or walking. In addition to the great optical features, both of these new cameras are also equipped with Canon's Smart AUTO mode - which will automatically apply optimum image settings for 32 different shooting scenarios. In this mode, the camera automatically identifies the ideal setting, making high-quality images easy for anyone to capture.

"In photography, there is no substitution for great optical zoom and while our customers may not always be close to the action, these cameras are designed to help bring their photos and videos in close, with great image resolution and quality as if they were standing right there," said Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A.

PowerShot SX500 IS

With a 24mm wide angle lens and an incredible 30x optical zoom (up to 720mm) packed into a compact design, the PowerShot SX500 IS enables users to pull subjects in close and capture stunning, high-quality images with a 16.0 megapixel sensor and powerful DIGIC 4 image processor. With such incredible zoom capabilities, the camera is also equipped with Canon's Intelligent IS system for rock-steady images and HD video even at full-telephoto zoom. A 3.0-inch LCD screen makes operation easy and intuitive, and displays the scene with brilliant clarity. In addition, the camera is equipped with a Zoom Framing Assist feature - a Canon technology that makes zooming-in and framing subjects quick and effortless. This feature is a tremendous benefit for those times when you lose sight of your subject after zooming in. By simply pressing the Zoom Framing Assist button located on the lower front left of the camera, the lens will quickly zoom out to help you re-locate and frame your subject. A frame box appears on the LCD as a guide to place your subject in and releasing the button quickly brings the camera back to the initial "zoomed-in" range. The lens retraction and extension is faster using the Zoom Framing Assist button than the zoom lever, and allows the photographer to keep the camera more stable for the shot, this is particularly helpful for those trying to zoom in and shoot pictures of animals or moving subjects.

PowerShot SX160 IS

With its compact design and powerful 16x optical zoom, the PowerShot SX160 IS is a versatile camera with a dynamic optical zoom range from 28mm wide up to 448mm, perfect for everyday use. This model also features a 16.0-megapixel sensor, DIGIC 4 image processor and Canon's Intelligent IS system - providing ultimate functionality in a compact, easy-to-carry design. The camera is always ready to shoot video with its dedicated movie button to start and stop recording HD video instantly and uses the full range of optical zoom when recording, without sacrificing HD resolution. The camera's large 3.0-inch LCD provides a beautiful display when shooing and recording video or simply scrolling through menu options. Powered by AA batteries, the PowerShot SX160 IS is ideal for easy and convenient shooting on-the-go even when charging a battery may not be an option. The PowerShot SX160 IS digital camera will be available in red or black.

Both the new PowerShot SX500 IS and PowerShot SX160 IS digital cameras are expected to be available in September 2012 for an estimated retail price of $329.99, and $229.99, respectively.

For more information, visit www.usa.canon.com/powershot

[i]According to tests performed by Canon Inc. when compared to the PowerShot SX150 IS model, the PowerShot SX160 IS digital camera exhibits improvements in AF speed with a 22 percent reduction in AF time and a 46 percent reduction in shutter lag. When tested against PowerShot SX40 HS model, the PowerShot SX500 IS digital camera exhibits improvements in AF speed with a 32 percent reduction in AF time and a 33 percent reduction in shutter lag.  Tests were conducted under identical conditions - Subject brightness: Lv 13, shooting mode: P mode/Single AF (center point). The percentage of improvement for AF and Shooting time lag (Shutter lag) is measured in seconds. Defined focal length for each model: SX500 IS and SX40 HS at 24mm wide and SX160 IS and SX150 IS at 28mm wide. AF time definition conforms to CIPA guidelines established in April 2012.

Canon PowerShot SX500 IS and SX160 IS specifications

 Canon PowerShot SX500 ISCanon PowerShot SX160 IS
Body type
Body typeCompact
Sensor
Max resolution4608 x 3456
Image ratio w:h1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9
Effective pixels16 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors17 megapixels
Sensor size1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm)
Sensor typeCCD
ProcessorDigic 4
Image
ISOAuto, 80 ,100, 200, 400, 800, 1600Auto,100, 200, 400, 800, 1600
White balance presets5
Custom white balanceYes
Image stabilizationOptical
Uncompressed formatNo
JPEG quality levelsSuperfine, Fine
File format
  • JPEG v2.3
Optics & Focus
Focal length (equiv.)24–720 mm28–448 mm
Optical zoom30×16×
Maximum apertureF3.4 - F5.8F3.5 - F5.9
Autofocus
  • Contrast Detect (sensor)
  • Multi-area
  • Center
  • Tracking
  • Single
  • Face Detection
  • Live View
Digital zoomYes (4x)
Manual focusYes
Macro focus range1 cm (0.39)
Screen / viewfinder
Articulated LCDFixed
Screen size3
Screen dots461,000230,000
Touch screenNo
Screen typeTFT Color LCD
Live viewYes
Viewfinder typeNone
Photography features
Minimum shutter speed15 sec
Maximum shutter speed1/1600 sec1/3200 sec
Exposure modes
  • Auto
  • Program
  • Shutter priority
  • Aperture priority
  • Manual
  • Scene
  • Creative Filter
  • Discreet
  • Movie
Scene modes
  • Portrait
  • Face Self-timer
  • Low Light
  • Snow
  • Fireworks
Built-in flashYes (Pop-up)
Flash range5.00 m3.00 m
External flashNo
Flash modesAuto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Slow Sync
Drive modes
  • Single
  • Continuous
  • Self-timer
Continuous drive1 fps
Self-timerYes (2 or 10 sec, Custom)
Metering modes
  • Multi
  • Center-weighted
  • Spot
Exposure compensation±2 (at 1/3 EV steps)
WB BracketingNo
Videography features
Resolutions1280 x 720 (25 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps)1280 x 720 (30, 25 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps)
FormatH.264
Videography notesMiniature Effect (HD, L) 6fps, 5fps, 3fps, 1.5 fpsMiniature Effect (HD, L) 6fps, 3fps, 1.5 fps
MicrophoneStereo
SpeakerMono
Storage
Storage typesSD/SDHC/SDXC
Connectivity
USB USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec)
HDMINo
WirelessEye-Fi Connected
Remote controlNo
Physical
Environmentally sealedNo
BatteryBattery PackAA
Battery descriptionLithium-Ion NB-6L rechargeable battery & charger2 x AA batteries
Battery Life (CIPA)195380
Weight (inc. batteries)341 g (0.75 lb / 12.03 oz)291 g (0.64 lb / 10.26 oz)
Dimensions104 x 70 x 80 mm (4.09 x 2.76 x 3.15)111 x 73 x 44 mm (4.37 x 2.87 x 1.73)
Other features
Orientation sensorYes
Timelapse recordingNo
GPSNone

Additional images

Canon PowerShot SX160 IS Canon PowerShot SX160 IS
Canon PowerShot SX500 IS Canon PowerShot SX500 IS
7
I own it
2
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums
4
I own it
3
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 120
janieannie
By janieannie (Nov 10, 2012)

Just read all the comments - some real camera pros here who definitely would never buy this camera, but for me, the 160 IS seems perfect. I have been using the 110 IS for four years to take photos at San Antonio Spurs basketball games which I post on a blog. The NBA does not allow cameras with detachable lens or with lenses that extend more than 3 inches, so this camera is perfect. With the ability to manually adjust the settings, I am able to get action shots that are quite good. I take over 100 shots a game and am able to watch the game because I don't have to look through a viewfinder. It took patience and trial and error to get the settings and skills to take good shots, but I have been very pleased with the results from the 110 and expect the 160 will give even better results.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
theGryphondog
By theGryphondog (Oct 5, 2012)

Is this camera available in red anywhere? Canon's site shows it backordered and other sites show pre-order? I'd like to order one today as a gift.

0 upvotes
John McCormack
By John McCormack (Aug 31, 2012)

The more I look at this entry from Canon the more I think they will sell them by the boatload - to the average person looking for a travel/wildlife superzoom to take on vacation. It's got all one needs for bright light shooting and it's smaller and cheaper than the competition. Sure it doesn't shoot fast, but as Ghandi said, "There's more to life than going fast."

0 upvotes
Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni
By Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni (Aug 24, 2012)

Continious drive 0.8 fps???? For a magazoom camera??
Is this a typo?

competetors are talking about 10fps and 12fps!!!

0 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (Aug 22, 2012)

Before anyone starts on who uses what i have DSLRs superzooms, compacts, large sensor compact. all produce great results for different occasions.

The MegaPixel war is over, the small vs large(r) sensors fans have been arguing for years. I personally would like see more 1/1.6-7 sensors in everday cameras improving noise and image quality ok the trade off is less pixels and compactness and that has become the real decider for a lot of consumers.

With mobile Phones starting to join the competition and now Nikons new Coolpix S01 miniature compact entering the market it is Convenience for the consumer that is the deciding factor.

The future for everyday cameras will be 4G/5G WiFi direct internet Access phones packing cameras with eg. 20mp on 1/3 sensor or smaller with live streaming image capture to news networks or social networking sites for everyone to share in an even smaller shell than now, linked to there tablet or what ever comes next.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 22, 2012)

The best video is "1280 x 720 (25 fps)". Even on SX500. Wow. I thought they don't make cameras without full HD anymore, for years.

0 upvotes
daniel gautreau
By daniel gautreau (Aug 22, 2012)

What an ugly looking camera!

2 upvotes
Koulang
By Koulang (Aug 22, 2012)

Canon should have released the higher class super-zoom compact with RAW format, latest Digic and good ISO performance like Panasonic FZ200.

6 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Aug 22, 2012)

Why on Earth would you put 'Super Zoom' and 'RAW' together??? This style of camera will not give the IQ to warrant RAW.... It's just cloud in the sky mentality...

1 upvote
Charrick
By Charrick (Aug 22, 2012)

Why NOT do it, Beany? I have an SX30is and it gives me very good shots at ISO 80, 100, and even 200. Not everyone mostly shoots dark scenes. I'm sure that my super zoom can take a much better picture at ISO 100 than a DSLR can take at ISO 6400, yet you'd probably think it was crazy to not have the ability to shoot ISO 6400 images in RAW.

Maybe RAW is not necessary, but I wonder why you are wasting your time to argue AGAINST including something.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Aug 22, 2012)

"Why on Earth would you put 'Super Zoom' and 'RAW' together?"
Flexibility?

0 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Aug 23, 2012)

Most of the Mass market don't even know what a RAW file is. They just about understand JPEG. Not every camera that has to be made has to have everything that's why brands have a range of products with different specs at different prices. Every time a new camera appears the same moans and groans come from the same people. Go build your perfect camera. Or just buy the right product for you.

0 upvotes
kkardster
By kkardster (Aug 23, 2012)

The mass market will not be spending nearly $600 for the FZ200 with its paltry 24X zoom when they can spend hundreds less and get more MP and bigger zoom. The FZ200 is more of an enthusiasts camera with its f/2.8 lens throughout the zoom range. Many of us can't afford the equivalent DSLR system with its better IQ costing thousands. And we may not print posters - that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to get the best we can out of it.

The FZ200 also sports features their rivals often leave out, like the hot shoe, or filter threads, or remote control, or RAW. Why RAW? Why not? It's the same reason DSLRs offer RAW - to provide the ability to process the image as desired. This is not exclusive to DSLRs and may be even more important for superzooms to get the best out of their pinhead sensors. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It may not be the best, but what's wrong with better?

1 upvote
zebarnabe
By zebarnabe (Aug 24, 2012)

Using CHDK on SX220/230 to access RAW data shows that some extra detail can be obtained from the sensor... really... even if buried in the menus, RAW should be present in almost every camera, it is not costly to implement it in firmware, there are no real disadvantages of having RAW in a camera.

But this 2 cameras ... I feel that there is something wrong with them... looking at the release price they look like budget cameras with lots of features. I guess it all depends how they perform.

0 upvotes
NikonsForLife
By NikonsForLife (Oct 17, 2012)

I bought every other superzoom to find the most practical---one that actually work at its maximum zoom position as well as other attributes----and tried Canon, Nikon (the 510 going out to 1000mm & a joke), finally settling on the Lumix FZ200. I have not tried this new Canon of course. Too new.
As I also own a D800, I was very demanding in my desire for the utmost image quality. I can only say I LOVE the FZ200. Terrific camera to use when I don't want or cannot carry the heavier D800.

0 upvotes
Babya
By Babya (Aug 22, 2012)

Semms the SX500IS is a start of a new line of super zooms for Canon-and not a SX40HS successor (that may come next month). Liken it to the Coolpix L810-it has no EVF too.

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Aug 22, 2012)

Do a side-by-side comparison of the new SX 160 IS and the SX 10 IS from 4 years ago. The 4 year old SX 10 has the same size sensor with less pixels but a brighter and better lens and an articulated screen. 4 years of technology advancement???

3 upvotes
Lenny L
By Lenny L (Aug 22, 2012)

I'm not too surprised at the inferior optics and lack of an articulated LCD - we're looking at 4 years of cost cutting here. One's a $400 (MSRP, 2009 dollars) camera and the other is $229 (MSRP, 2012 dollars).

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Aug 22, 2012)

So if we project about 4 years from now we should be able to buy a new PowerShot without a screen, viewfinder, or sensor for about $50. At least it will have the new 28- 3000mm lens so that we can take pictures of the nose of our children across the soccer field.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Lenny L
By Lenny L (Aug 22, 2012)

IF Canon thinks that in 2016, people are only willing to pay $50 for a camera, and if they still want to stay in that business, sure, why not?

You're talking about 4 years of progress in technology, but there hasn't been much progress in optics in the last 4 years (or even 10 years). Look at the high end lenses by any provider. We still use the same material, the same methods for focusing, controlling aperture. I think your expectations are unrealistic.

1 upvote
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Aug 22, 2012)

.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zebarnabe
By zebarnabe (Aug 24, 2012)

Aspherical lens are now cheaper and computer assisted designs and manufacturing allow for much better lens design ... though .... there is always a cost associated, I think everything has a price, so is up to Canon to provide a line of cameras that suits most of potential customers... these cameras are a tad too 'cheap', but they might please many folks out there... that is... assuming they perform well for what one expects from them.

0 upvotes
okaro
By okaro (Sep 29, 2012)

SXxx and SX1xx are completely different series. SXxx cameras weight twice that SX1xx cameras do and they also cost twice as much. If one wants to go four years back then the proper comparison would be SX110 IS. SX160 IS has newer processor, more pixels and wide angle lens, 16x zoom instead of 10 x and better video.

SX1xx cameras also use AA-batteries. There are people who prefer them, and Canon gives a model fro them also. Remember that if you do not like it that dos not mean it is bad.

Now if you compare SX50 HS with SX10 IS then that's another matter.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Aug 21, 2012)

Don't get upset guys. You need to understand there is a market for any grade of products.

I think these cameras are meant to be sold in supermarkets and 7-11's. Soon to be discounted to $99 if you buy two. ;)

4 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 21, 2012)

Add my vote to: no evf, never going to buy it

3 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Aug 21, 2012)

This isn't a cam for you, so no one cares... ;)

5 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 21, 2012)

I am entitled to my opinion, just like everyone else here. Why are you such a rude and mean person?

Edit: and, I find it funny, this coming from the same guy who states "What a snooze fest..." regarding the Casio ZR300 announcement. Hypocrisy much?

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
waitformee
By waitformee (Aug 22, 2012)

actually, I am quiting ovf to the big big big lcd screen. I really cant find any reason to continue to use OVF or EVF! I just do not understand, what is the thing about EVF/OVF that some pro like it so much.

1 upvote
beholder1
By beholder1 (Aug 22, 2012)

Here is a hypothesis: One word matters most in the reason why for "candid" moving photography, 'Stability'. An extension of the eye and also of the co-ordination system around a point of greatest stability. More specifically "Familiar" stability. The hand eye coordination is more fine nearest... well you can figure that out.
What kind of photographers need the greatest assurance of stability in candid moments (assuming they are not in a fixed location. ) Sports perhaps and then some.
Then again its just another educated guess that happens to be from another stranger such as I.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
beholder1
By beholder1 (Aug 22, 2012)

Here shown are the advantages of either perspectives. :)
http://blog.neocamera.com/?p=1248

0 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Aug 22, 2012)

@waitformee:
A recent trip to Niagara Falls illustrated *precisely* why I require a viewfinder. It was bright outside, with lots of reflections off the water, so there was absolutely no way to tell exactly what I was taking a picture of. The screen was totally invisible.

So instead of taking 4-5 nice pics and putting the camera away, I took over a hundred and later figured out which 5 actually framed what they were supposed to. Very irritating.

If I only took pics in the dark, I'd have no need for a viewfinder either.

1 upvote
tje1964
By tje1964 (Aug 21, 2012)

Lots of people have a lot to say about these two cameras, and I suspect a lot of the negative comments come from people who don't use cameras like these. I have a PowerShot SX150 IS, and I can tell you that even though it has a CCD sensor, the image quality is EXCELLENT. Yes, there are limitations, but overall these SX series PowerShots are GREAT picture takers.

I'm surprised they didn't up the resolution on the SX160's LCD screen, but other than that these look like nice cameras. They wouldn't make them if they didn't sell a lot of them.

It's not always a race to see who can have the latest features. Sometimes it's just about selling cameras.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Aug 22, 2012)

I agree. I produced a superb 16x20 from our trip to Hawaii at iso 80....great optics, decent sensor.

1 upvote
Anepo
By Anepo (Oct 1, 2012)

As someone who purchased they're other line of super zooms the Canon powershot sx210 for my father as a birthday gift... I must say the SX210 and it's line = a total disaster, Dust gets EASILY behind the lens, I did own an SX120 for a while and it did work fine no dust behind the lens issue, Finally this camera actually has more zoom than my fathers compact which now has so much dust its a miracle if he can get a good image, I am thinking about purchasing this camera for him for his bday after I get to see samples from it as I do know the SX120 was okay and I hope the ISO performance is very improved from back then.

0 upvotes
karlviehe
By karlviehe (Aug 21, 2012)

The Sony DSC HX30V beats either on specs ... has wi-fi built in ( not the best implementation ) and takes usable indoor basketball pictures at 3.5 to 5.0, 1/500 at ISO 3200 .... What does Canon have to offer ? The pics from the Sony are almost on a par with the T3i .... which, in my opinion, is better than the T4i under the conditions noted.
kwv-dc

2 upvotes
dmanthree
By dmanthree (Aug 21, 2012)

I have that Sony, and while not perfect it's an excellent carry-around super zoom.

0 upvotes
jhsia
By jhsia (Aug 21, 2012)

SX40HS already has the CMOS sensor...at a higher price.

These new cameras seem ho-hum because they're targeted at more price-sensitive folks. If that's not you, Canon has other cameras to tempt you

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 22, 2012)

$329 is not so cheap.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 21, 2012)

This is great news, folks! Now we have 2 more models in this particular digi-cam class -- in addition to the 498 current models we already have with just about the same specifications as these two "new" Canon-cams.

Great news also for Canon to push the revolutionary new CCD sensor technology -- I guess they leave CMOS sensors to Nikon and the other camera mfrs.

0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Aug 21, 2012)

Neither are really new technologies. CMOS is 'faster' at readout, so usually better for video or high speed shooting. But it doesn't always give better image quality. That's why Panasonic often makes to versions of their small-sensor cameras, with the cheaper, CCD-based one offering better photo quality, at the expense of video modes and at a cheaper price.

I generally find CCD to be sharper and more defined, while CMOS to give a more flexible image that is easier to post-process, a bit more like negative film. I know, for all it's flexibility, CMOS is the way to go, but there is still life (and picture quality) in CCD, especially in smaller sensors.

1 upvote
mytake
By mytake (Aug 21, 2012)

The last Powershot I had (actually still have) was a Powershot 85, it has a 38-85 zoom, no LCD, a very small viewfinder, oh yea, and it shoots film. I think I paid about $80.00 for it (the silver edition...silver plastic). I bought it for my wife and she took alot of nice family snaps with it. At the time, alot of people, maybe even most, were buying disposable cardboard boxes with 24-36 shots and you sent the whole thing to get the pics developed. I know what this sounds like (and we walked for three days...one way!) but, this doesn't seem like all that bad a deal to me.

You get a camera, a 28-448 zoom, some flash capability, a shutter down to 1/1600, and a zillion other things for $200. Alot of people will buy these cameras (or something close) and put alot of DSLR and mirrorless buyers to shame (meaning, they will actually use them, you know, to take pictures with). As a package it seems like alot for not very much, to me...just saying

1 upvote
gasdive
By gasdive (Aug 23, 2012)

My experience with the compact camera owners is that they take maybe 100 shots a year at best. There's a reason why they had rolls of film in 24... Because they'd expire in the camera if they were any longer. Me, I shot film SLR and put up with getting 100 rolls of Kodachrome through the airports that had "film safe X-Ray" for years. Stand up fights for a hand search every time. Now I shoot an average of 20 000 images a year. The idea that people with little cameras use them more is a myth.

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (Aug 21, 2012)

@h2k,

- Maybe you are lucky to be young enough to have a good sight.
Like many aging people, I am long-sighted and I need to wear glasses to see what's on an LCD screen. But when I am outdoor shooting I generally wear sunglasses. So being obliged to exhange glasses whenever I want to shoot is boring. So an EVF/OVF with diopter adjusment is a must have for me !
And do not forget that in "modern" countries, percentage of old people is increasing over years. One time or another, camera manufacturers will be obliged to consider this...
- If you are more stable shooting with extended arms than applying the camera on your face, you must not be human !
Maybe from Mars, or maybe a troll ?

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 21, 2012)

Your options seem to be as follows, Karroly:

1. Purchase one of the dozens/hundreds of digital cameras that have OVF or LCD/OLED EVF viewfinders.

OR

2. Use an LCD VF accessory that you can attach to the LCD screen itself. Thus, creating your ow LCD EVF out of the 3-inch LCD screen.
Best forget these two Cannon wannabe-cams, in other words.

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (Aug 21, 2012)

Thank you very much, Francis, for your advices, but I do not wait for them to buy my cameras...they all have EVF/OFV already !
Please also note that I did not even mention, nor criticize these Canon cams in my post just because I actually ignore them...
I was just reacting to someone who pretends framing with an OVF is old-fashioned and not from the 21st century.
I have never read such stupid an argument to defend LCD...
And h2k needs a swivel display. So, please tell him to ignore these cams as well...
Thank you.

0 upvotes
bormanator
By bormanator (Aug 22, 2012)

You could try sunglasses that go over your prescription glasses, like the ones by Coccoon.

1 upvote
Abbas Rafey
By Abbas Rafey (Aug 21, 2012)

I think canon has alot of old stock bodies, sensors and other things whihc they want to get rid of it. Thats why they were left behind in the recent sells. If this is there policy in the market soon or later they will became like yashica, Kyocera, Minolta, contex, etc, they were giants some day but no name now. Canon has to think Better than this and the key successor is to listen to your users which make you best in the market.

2 upvotes
Gary Yelland
By Gary Yelland (Aug 21, 2012)

Hmm, no wifi, no gps, no support apps, no 1080p60 video, seems a bit dated before its released.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 22, 2012)

" no 1080p video" at all.

0 upvotes
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (Aug 21, 2012)

I guess Canon is in the business of selling cameras, so they are going to make whatever they can sell. Still, I wish Canon would take the initiative and improve cameras rather than just selling "me too" superzooms.

If Apple was content making their iPhones and iPods to be essential clones of the competition, they would still sell them, but no one would love them. The reason people love Apple is that they made the iPhone better than it needed to be, and changed the whole playing field.

Canon has the money and the technology to do the same for cameras. They don't do it because they are lazy. Why bother making something 60% better when you can sell a million of them by just making it 10% better?

If it weren't for the competition, Canon would still be selling nothing but film cameras.

2 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Aug 21, 2012)

16x zoom for $229. Wow! Why did I buy Sony RX100 if I could have bought 3 of these for the same money :)

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tongki
By tongki (Aug 21, 2012)

and Canon did the same stupid decisions,
camera nowadays with no wifi,
Samsung already step ahead on this area

1 upvote
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Aug 21, 2012)

I wish DP Review would stop allowing comments. Cameras like these are for the masses and the people who comment here and have no idea about cameras in this category. Brands don't make full frame or APSC sensors with 100 focus points and shoot at 20fps with full HD with manual audio control and a battery that never goes flat for these prices and if the did they would be £20K or more. So just get with the real world please...

8 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 21, 2012)

Hey Beany, STOP YOUR COMMENTING, please!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 upvotes
dmanthree
By dmanthree (Aug 21, 2012)

I have an SLR, a Panny GX1, and I also like to have a superzoom, similar to these. So please, don't asume that we have no idea about cameras on this segment.

1 upvote
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Aug 22, 2012)

Hi Fancis Carver. I'll stop when you make a comment that actually means something ;)

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

BeanyPic -- I have been reading your comments here for years. YOU has never made a comment that had actually meant anything. Seriously.

0 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Aug 23, 2012)

Don't know who's comments you've been reading Francis. My account is not even a year old yet?
On the same note I'm glad someone is reading my comments ;)

1 upvote
kkardster
By kkardster (Aug 24, 2012)

You obviously have no idea about cameras in this category either. The announcment above states these are "mid-range super zoom" cameras. As such, they offer snapshot capability with extended zoom ranges, not full frame pie-in-the-sky capabilities that costs thousands. Everybody agrees these are intended for the mass market and that's what they were designed for - you are providing nothing new.

I see from your profile that you are dreaming about a nice DSLR - do you really want to be known for trolling this junk which is obviously below you?

0 upvotes
kkardster
By kkardster (Aug 24, 2012)

Hey BeanyPic - while I'm at it, here's a comment regarding the FZ200 superzoom that doesn't merit RAW from someone who's actually owned your dream camera:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=42326083

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 21, 2012)

Wait, in the specs of DPReview it says that both cameras start with 28 mm eq, but what about this quote: "PowerShot SX500 IS

With a 24mm wide angle lens and an incredible 30x optical zoom (up to 720mm) packed into a compact design, the PowerShot SX500 IS "

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 21, 2012)

That's been fixed. Thanks.

0 upvotes
thomas2279f
By thomas2279f (Aug 21, 2012)

These look ok for the job - not sure on having 16mp on sensor like this. Not only Canon doing this but Nikon & Sony.

Wished Canon put Raw featutre on the SX500 - unless I didn't pick it up.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Aug 21, 2012)

The number of pixels is mostly immaterial when it comes to IQ; it's the size of the sensor that is more important.

0 upvotes
kkardster
By kkardster (Aug 23, 2012)

I believe it's more the size of the pixels that matters, not the size of the sensor. Increasing the number of pixels - without also increasing the sensor size - simply results in smaller receptors that aren't as good because they get less light to work with.

More than one manufacturer has actually reduced the number of pixels while keeping the same sensor size to greatly improve IQ - the Panasonic FZ100 was panned at 14MP but the upgrade FZ150 using the same size sensor with 12 MP has been lauded.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 21, 2012)

DIGIC 4 processor? Really? Even DIGIC 5 is hopelessly behind the times...

4 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Aug 21, 2012)

DiIGIC 4 or 5—doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that 16MP on that tiny sensor is just too much.

3 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Aug 21, 2012)

Does DIGIC 5 require a CMOS sensor? Both of these cameras have CCD sensors.

0 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Aug 21, 2012)

These are fairly standard for this type of camera peevee1. Not certain what you are comparing them to.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 22, 2012)

I compare them to, for example, every modern Olympus or Sony. Look, even 720UZ has 5fps at full resolution, and up to 30 fps with reduced resolution. Nothing "standard" about 0.8 fps in 2012...

0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (Aug 21, 2012)

is it some low grade SX 40 ?

1 upvote
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Aug 21, 2012)

SX500 is a crippled version of SX30.

0 upvotes
jhsia
By jhsia (Aug 21, 2012)

Yup, the SX500 is Canon's de-featured SX30IS. Different (cheaper) lens and simpler body. On the other hand, it's quite a few $$ less money.

For those who didn't appreciate the flash hotshoe, tilt/swivel LCD, etc., this is a reasonable alternative for less money.

1 upvote
dmanthree
By dmanthree (Aug 21, 2012)

Looks like Panny caught them all off guard with their f2.8 constant aperture superzoom. That's the only standout I've seen so far this year and should help AF on the tele end quite a bit, not to mention allowing higher shutter speeds. IQ on all these 1/2.3" cams is pretty similar, so it's features that separates them. These Canon's are nothing special. MOTS...

5 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Aug 21, 2012)

This isn't canons competition for the fz200, that would be the up-coming sx50.

The panny looks like it should be good, although early samples were very poor. Plus its missing a manual zoom :(

0 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Aug 21, 2012)

As far as I know the Pana FZ-150 does have manualzoom (by changing the option in menu that the shiftbutton on the side of the Leica lens can be turned to mode "focus" or "zoom) So there is manual focus or manual zoom. Indeed there is no manualfocusring on the Leicalens on the FZ150 (andFZ200).

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 21, 2012)

Yeah, Canon-cam superzoom lens is a lamentable F3.5-5.9.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 superzoom lens is a constant F2.8.

Also, Panny-cam's sensor is only 12MP, so pixels are much larger than in these two 16MP Canon jobs.

Nice try, Canon.

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Aug 21, 2012)

Wow, another Canon dud. I really hope that they are just putting out the sub-par items prior to Photokina to let the disappointment settle before they bring out the good stuff next month.

A revised EOS-M with fully articulated screen or a new Powershot Pro1X with APS-C sensor, fully articulated screen, and a bright 24-200mm 'L' lens would be sweet redemption.

It seems that Canon thinks non-pro users don't actually look at the screen or viewfinder when taking a picture. Only 'Pros" need to see what they are shooting. For the rest of us it is just blind luck anyway... right? < please note the sarcasm.

3 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Aug 21, 2012)

pathetic, why every superzoom that canon releases year by year looks cheaper and cheaper.

6 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Aug 21, 2012)

You mean like the hugely succesful sx40?

0 upvotes
jadrzew
By jadrzew (Aug 21, 2012)

Walmart needs some merchandise to sell too!

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Aug 21, 2012)

Microscopic sensor, no viewfinder. Another disposable camera.

3 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Aug 21, 2012)

those"microscopic" sensors especially Sony back-lit CMOSs are as good as past generations 1/1.7 and 1/1.63 CDDs, now why care about size itself if the IQ is there ? hoping get a better DOF ? :D

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Aug 21, 2012)

CCD"

0 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (Aug 21, 2012)

No reason to have viewfinders on these cams ...they are marketed towards people who wouldn't use them anyway ...if this depresses you, well, I have a feeling you have bigger problems. If you think selling 15,000,000 iphones a quarter is stupid, I would believe you are thinking totally differently than Canon's marketing team, who would probably be pretty happy to sell that many of these next quarter. If you think an LCD is useless, well, open your eyes.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 21, 2012)

What?

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Aug 22, 2012)

I see these people in the camera stores and they will buy whatever the sales person recomends. Often the sales clerk is completely clueless and tells them whatever they want to hear. I realized one thing. Most people only care about the price and what it looks like. So if their budget is $600 then they will pick the best looking camera for for $600. That is it. they pretend to care about everyhing else but then they pick the one with all the worst specs and features so then you know that all they really care about is what it looks like.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 22, 2012)

Vitruvius, people care about brand even more. That is why Canon will sell loads of that POS.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

PV, people are still buying Canons, you say?

0 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (Aug 21, 2012)

safe to say YAWN yet another 1/2.3" sensor to ..... sorry......... fall asleep about

4 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Aug 21, 2012)

looking forward instead to a prosumer PowerShot Pro1X (provided it has a starting zoom at a wider 'golden' 24mm, instead of 28mm)... a wide/med zoom... not a 'superzoom' and retention of their VASS (vari-angle swivel screen)... (maybe EOS-1M sensor or G1X sensor)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (Aug 21, 2012)

it would be nice to see a large sensor super zoom camera but that'll be a while coming if ever and will surely cost over £600

1 upvote
steven2874
By steven2874 (Aug 21, 2012)

Very depressing. Nikon eliminates even the peephole finder with the latest P7700 and Canon follows suit with the EOS-M and these two jokers.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 21, 2012)

Perhaps Canikon is auditioning for a spot on the Barnum & Bailey's traveling circus route? :~))

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Aug 21, 2012)

NEXT!!!!

1 upvote
FelipeSasso
By FelipeSasso (Aug 21, 2012)

I thought the upcoming Canon would be to reach the P500 and P510 Nikon cameras. I sincerely hope new releases.

0 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Aug 21, 2012)

sx40 and the coming sx50 (see canons lens patent on canon rumours)

0 upvotes
Esa Tuunanen
By Esa Tuunanen (Aug 21, 2012)

Just depressing...
That long zooms without viewfinder are just hand shake amplifiers.
SX500's probably better grip than in most mirrorless bodies isn't going to help any in that.

6 upvotes
xoio
By xoio (Aug 21, 2012)

ANOTHER 'wave it about in front of your face like a stupid iphone' camera.
Sorry, but this recent 'trend' from numerous manufacturers' of omitting EVFs & OVFs is really S**t!

7 upvotes
Damo83
By Damo83 (Aug 21, 2012)

Yes, but most enthusiast level and upward models retain a viewfinder, as their users would appreciate and no doubt use frequently. These latest compacts, however, don't fit this category.

3 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Aug 21, 2012)

I don't need a view finder. It limits your viewing angles dramatically. I need a swivel display. I use that even in bright light. And with long exposures. 80 percent of my keepers would have been impossible with the eyes glued to (potentially toxix) camera body plastic. This is the 21st century.

1 upvote
Damo83
By Damo83 (Aug 22, 2012)

@h2k Fair enough. Not sure how you see clearly enough in bright sunlight but if it works for you then great.

I also find tucking a camera against my face more stable than holding it outstretched. I also rarely need to hold the thing above crowds or use it to peep around corners or whatever it is one needs an articulating screen for but hey, that's just me.

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Aug 21, 2012)

Canon is going down..

8 upvotes
Waleed Alzuhair
By Waleed Alzuhair (Aug 21, 2012)

Why?

0 upvotes
Esa Tuunanen
By Esa Tuunanen (Aug 21, 2012)

I've been following digital cameras soon ten years and there's hardly any maker which isn't going the way of Idiocracy-movie in real features.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 21, 2012)

Well, Sony and Olympus seem to really improved their cameras lately. For example, Olympus SZ-31MR iHS offers continuous shooting speeds of 7, 15 and 60 (with lower resolution) fps, vs. 0.8 fps for Canon SX500 (like 1999 all over again).

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Aug 21, 2012)

What size sensor?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 21, 2012)

Almost certainly 1/2.3" type, like virtually every compact camera. We'd point it out if it was anything bigger.

1 upvote
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Aug 21, 2012)

The specs are on the Canon USA web site:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras

0 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Aug 21, 2012)

Richard, i think you should mention the sensor size always, even if insiders might guess it.l Actually i'd also like to read the pixel pitch or pixel size, but we had that discussion before.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Aug 21, 2012)

Canon Sx500 looks awful lot like the Olympus SP series of superzooms(even its missing an EVF). And whats more shocking about these cameras is that Canon has chosen to use Digic 4 processor instead of Digic 5 which was first seen on SX40 IS.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
FelipeSasso
By FelipeSasso (Aug 21, 2012)

Good comparison. It reminded me also of GE cameras.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 22, 2012)

Except Olympus SP are actually fast.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Aug 21, 2012)

I sure wish the spec below was emphasized more than the number of pixels, the focal length range, or the max extended ISO value.

I had to search on the Canon website to find out what focal ratio these cameras have. Now I see why they are hiding that information.

f/3.4 (W) - f/5.8 (T)

f/3.5 (W) - f/5.9 (T)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Graystar
By Graystar (Aug 21, 2012)

I found the same information by just looking at the images above.

4 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Aug 21, 2012)

One of the images has it. The other one doesn't. It sure would be nice if the Press release said it. Oh wait they don't want you to know that about the camera.

1 upvote
David Hurt
By David Hurt (Aug 21, 2012)

Still using Digic IV?? Should have Digic V in Both models!

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 21, 2012)

Unless they're less expensive models.

You'll notice they don't have constant F2.8 lenses or flip-out screens, either.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 21, 2012)

Even DIGIC 5 is slow, as evidenced by slow AF and sequential shooting speed of G1X. Those SX are just pathetic - 0.8 fps, really?

3 upvotes
okaro
By okaro (Sep 29, 2012)

CCDs are slow in sequential shooting. That's nothing new and the more pixels they have the slower they are. SX240 HS has a CMOS sensor and it can take 10 shots at 10 fps with full resolution

0 upvotes
Total comments: 120