Canon introduces inexpensive PowerShot SX400 IS and SX520 HS superzooms

I've seen many phone pics, most are poor in part due to wide angle "prime" on the phone. People really aren't realizing what the are missing but not using a zoom! So many pics of kids far away. In my book, most photos I see from phones, of people I know, should be trashed because the camera/phone was too far away from the subject.

Portrait has always been between 85-135mm equiv.
No need to go all the way to 1000 for this use.
There are some damn fine compacts with a more moderate zoomrange

Most consumer dont need better cameras than these.

Who said P&S cameras are for portraits? Looks like barney invented that idea!

@RedFox88
This is more a matter of focal length than camera type. With a wide angle lens, close portraits produce distorted faces...Shallow DOF is another story, only available in postprocessing for both smartphones and P&S. But for sure, as BarnET said, nobody needs a 1000mm lens for portrait...except the soccer, paparazzi, mom maybe ?

It's not about specs, it's about the cameras being crappy. Even the output tends to be crappy due to the plastic slow lens and overmegapixelized sensor which makes mush out of any detail.

It's also not about the category of cameras. We buy cameras like S110, RX100, FZ1000, LX7 etc even though they are compact cameras.

They could make more enthusiast cameras, even inexpensive ones, which would sell in tons. As an example, put a 1" (or 1/1.7" even) sensor in a small compact camera with a fastish, fixed lens. Make 4 versions, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm, sell each one for $250. The camera doesn't even need to be all that advanced. I'll buy the 24mm one right now. And maybe next year again when an upgrade comes.

As such, I'm keeping the money since there's no such interesting camera for me right now.

I've never read any comment so original and unique.

FZ1000 is no compact, LX7, RX100, S110 have much less zoom.
Im no tech savvy but ive read that using a 1" sensor would not be possible in a compact superzoom camera but probably this is not true.

"Why? they have done worse this year.
much worse.

elph 340HS for instance."

I completely disagree. While the ELPH 340 HS is a truly terrible camera it also happens to be a truly inexpensive camera. It was $199 at launch. Now that doesn’t make up for its ridiculously slow lens but it makes it a little less deserving of the mythical Bronze award. It also has a more reasonable 4 FPS burst mode.

DPR should just hand you a pacifier.

That is funny. I thought Canon was trolling with this press release.

" they aren’t much better than their phones"

At 700 and 1000 mm they sure are better than cellphones.

So is the pentax xg-1 at 1248mm.
That shoots 9 fps too instead of 2
Has an viewfinder.
the lens is faster.
And all these nice benefits cost you nothing extra.

mpgxsvcd said: ''''That is funny. I thought Canon was trolling with this press release.''''

No, just you.

@mpg: 4 years? You're a being bit harsh.
Although I am not a Canon buyer, they have some nice cams, too:
G1Xm2, G-series, S-series.

michael that's not true.

The G1X mk2 was a dissapointment. The sensor was not good enough for it's size and get's beaten by the smaller 1 inch sony in a number of ways.

The lens isn't sharp at F2 and it's way too heavy.

Then the S series they ask the price of the RX100 with the S120 but it's not even close in performance.

The G-series don't have an excuse for their large size. The LX7 for instance has a faster lens and is both cheaper and lighter.

BarneET, I never had the G1Xmk2, but read quite positively about it - esp. about corner to corner sharpness and low noise.
S series is smaller than RX100, has touchscreen and is faster.
Size of G series is probably intentional for better handling. LX7 is a bad comparison (though a good cam) because of very limited zoom.
Every cam has strong and weak points, but saying that Canon's compacts are all not "decent" is plainly wrong.

LOL Quiquae .. right?! there's some that are certainly sniveling away.

oddly enough it's always the same ones .. every .. single time..

LOL! Gear Geeks can't cope with the reality that cameras like this sell well.

Yup - these cameras do sell well. I have lots of family members who have purchased similar cameras in the past. They typically get used for a few weeks, then (after they realize that they get images just as good with a cell phone) they collect dust for a few years in a drawer.

The SX1 I have in my closet looks pretty stacked in comparison. The LCD tilts, has f2.8 at 28mm, faster shutter, twice the burst speed, and it matches 1080P video for $0 compared to buying a $400 replacement. Zerg2905, how about any used superzoom made by nearly any manufacturer in the past 5 years? You can buy a mint condition SX1 for <$100. Is 560mm not enough for you? 10mp just not enough detail from a 1/2.33" sensor? Really hate that fractional extra mass of a pivoting screen? I just picked that one out because it came out !!!IN 2008!!! and I couldn't think of anything older with 1080P. My point is just that if you don't already have a superzoom with these specs you haven't bought one in a very long time and if you don't own a superzoom and want one with these specs, you should probably look on craigslist not amazon.

"Terrible vs what?"

The Panasonic FZ200 is about $430 right now. It has a constant F2.8 lens from 25-600mm and shoots excellent 1080p @ 60 FPS video. The Panasonic LX7 is $350 and while it doesn’t quite have the reach that some people think they need it does have enough reach to get better shots than either of these cameras would give you.

Cool. My point was not about the cameras, it was about the way the statement was made. I don't care at all about these two cameras, but I do care about objective comments. And I like the FZ200, one day I quite close to buy it, but this FZ200 has now a price a bit different compared with the launch price, right? If I remember well. Folks, here is the thing (in my opinion): if you don't consider something worth your attention, then don't waste your energy on it. Example: I care about 1. The pictures I take and 2. The next gen Canon APS-C DSLR to attach to my L glass. Ah, and 3, to get more L glass. Other than that, outside of the photo world, I care about fairness, objectivity, and others. When you read my comments on this, there is not much about photo gear (I never said these are great or poor cameras), but a lot about objectivity in assessing something. With this, I will stop.

or maybe a pacifier?

"I've taken shots of high-speed subjects at f/6.5 on my SX50IS, at 1200mm-equivalent, and cropped them to 2400mm-equivalent."

And they still looked like camera phone shots that were cropped way beyond their limits.

Uh...you ever take a shot of an airplane at cruise altitude with a camera phone, and be able to see the windows of the plane?

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/SX50__1762.jpg

Still waiting to see some.

Looks like the FZ70 is as bad as ever:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ70_FZ72/noise.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ70_FZ72/RAW_noise.shtml

Than what? Do SX520 and SX400 even have raw?

How about Sony Cyber..... :-)

Must have been used, or Olympus is undercutting their own customers - by almost half.

Simply because nobody made newer "medium format" (not quite) sensors but the old Kodak lab. CCD or CMOS have nothing to do with colors, colors are created by color filter array and digital processing.