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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Pretty decent compared to the Leica M9-P.

OK, that was lame.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

"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?

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!

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!

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...)

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!

"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.

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?

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.

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...

.