Canon ELPH 500 HS vs Sony HX9V: Which Compact Zoom Camera Fits Your Photography Style?

Exploring compact cameras always feels like navigating a rich maze of compromises and features. The Canon ELPH 500 HS and Sony HX9V, both announced in 2011, represent two intriguing takes on small-sensor compacts with zoom capabilities. Despite their age, these cameras still resonate for enthusiasts who want portability without sacrificing key capabilities. Having spent countless hours comparing gear from pocket-friendly compacts to mirrorless systems, I’m here to unpack what these two cameras deliver in real-world photography settings.

Let’s begin by sizing up these contenders physically and ergonomically.

Hands-On Feel: Ergonomics and Physical Dimensions

Looking at measurements and weight, you’ll find the Canon ELPH 500 HS is a svelte 101 x 56 x 25 mm and 185 grams, while Sony’s HX9V packs a slightly bulkier frame of 105 x 59 x 34 mm weighing 245 grams. That extra thickness on the Sony speaks volumes about its superzoom lens capability (16x compared to Canon’s 4.4x). Holding them side-by-side, the Canon feels noticeably more pocket-friendly and sleek - ideal if you prefer slipping the camera in daily without weighty bulk.

Both include fixed lenses, so you’re tethered to their optical versatility without the expense or bulk of interchangeable lenses. However, the HX9V’s heft may offer better grip and stability, especially for longer zoom ranges, while the ELPH’s compactness benefits street photographers or travelers prioritizing discretion.

Switching between these two in typical handheld shooting, I found the Canon’s slim form charming for spontaneous snaps but slightly less steady at telephoto. The Sony’s bulk translates to a steadier feel in hand, softer button feedback, and a more robust stance overall. That said, neither camera offers weather sealing, which limits rugged outdoor use.

Moving on, let’s peek at their control layouts from above, detailing how accessible key functions are during your shoots.

Control Layouts and User Interface in Practice

When glancing overhead, the Canon ELPH 500 HS opts for simplicity - the design is minimal with few buttons next to an intuitive shutter release and zoom toggle. It’s great for quick operation without a cluttered control scheme. The touchscreen PureColor II LCD also boosts ease of navigation through menus and creative settings.

Sony’s HX9V opts for more traditional physical controls, including a dedicated zoom rocker, manual focus ring (a rare boon in compacts) and a straightforward mode dial. I appreciated the manual focus ring greatly for macro and selective focusing; Canon’s lack of manual focus can frustrate users needing precision.

Sony’s screen, while smaller at 3 inches versus Canon’s 3.2 inches, offers high 921k-dot resolution and TruBlack technology, significantly improving visibility in bright outdoor light. Canon’s touchscreen, despite being larger, can become washed out in harsh sunshine - a point to consider if you often shoot on the move.

Neither camera has an electronic viewfinder, steering use toward LCD framing - something casual shooters may not mind, but professionals might find limiting.

Next, understanding their image sensors shapes expectations about image quality.

Sensor, Image Quality, and Resolution Differences

Both cameras share the same sensor size - 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS, measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm covering a sensor area of just over 28 mm². This common small sensor size implies inherent limitations in dynamic range, noise performance, and depth of field control compared to larger APS-C or full-frame sensors.

However, resolution differs - Canon’s ELPH 500 HS delivers 12 megapixels, adequate for 4000 x 3000 px images, while Sony’s HX9V bumps this to 16 megapixels at 4608 x 3456 px. This means Sony offers finer detail capture, suitable for moderate cropping or larger prints.

Both sensors include anti-alias filters to reduce moiré, though this slightly dampens ultimate sharpness, but that’s par for the course in compact digital cameras.

The Canon sensor benefits from DIGIC 4 processing with iSAPS technology, which held up admirably for vibrant colors and decent noise control for its generation. Sony’s BIONZ processor runs the HX9V, delivering crisp images with good color fidelity, albeit introducing some green tint under tungsten lighting that requires white balance tweaking.

It’s important to note that neither supports RAW capture, meaning photographers are restricted to JPEGs - a significant limitation for professional workflows or those wanting extensive post-processing latitude.

In terms of practical output:

• Canon’s 12MP sensor is optimized for balanced low noise and clarity at moderate ISOs (up to ISO 800 usable, ISO 3200 possible but noisy).
• Sony’s 16MP sensor yields higher detail but with a slight tradeoff in low light noise due to smaller photosites.

These traits matter most when shooting portraits or landscapes, where resolution and noise levels impact print quality. From my field tests, both cameras produce pleasing skin tones but neither can rival APS-C or larger-sensored models.

Capturing portraits involves more than sensor specs though - autofocus systems play a key role.

Autofocus Precision and Speed in Everyday Shooting

Autofocus can make or break a camera’s usability, especially for moving subjects or spontaneous moments.

Canon’s ELPH 500 HS features 9 contrast detection points and face detection for improved focus on portraits, albeit no tracking or continuous AF. It lacks manual focus, so you’re tied to its center or multi-area AF selections.

Sony’s HX9V also uses contrast detection with 9 points but adds manual focus capability - a big plus for macro or deliberate focus control. Face detection isn’t supported, reducing ease for portraiture.

Both cameras struggle with fast AF tracking. The Canon’s focus locks reasonably quickly in good light but hunts noticeably in low light or on complex textures. Sony’s AF, while a touch slower, is consistent due to steady contrast detection.

In practical terms, neither camera excels for fast action or wildlife photography relying on split-second AF accuracy. Their small sensors and lenses mean they complement slow, deliberate shooting styles.

For continuous shooting: Canon’s 3 fps top burst rate is basic, while Sony’s 10 fps is surprisingly robust, though memory buffer limits sustained bursts.

Visual Interfaces: Screen Quality and Usability

As highlighted earlier, Canon’s 3.2-inch touchscreen feels intuitive for casual users especially, with tap-to-focus and easy menu navigation. The 461k-dot resolution is modest, adequate indoors but challenged in daylight.

Sony’s 3.0-inch screen packs in double the resolution at 921k dots, delivering crisper previews and more accurate color representation - critical for reviewing shots in the field. The lack of touchscreen might be inconvenient for some, but physical buttons compensate well.

Neither camera offers an electronic viewfinder, limiting framing options solely to the rear screen. If you prefer composing via an eyepiece, these models aren’t suitable.

Image Sample Comparison: Color, Detail, and Noise

Canon ELPH 500 HS front Canon ELPH 500 HS screen back Sony HX9V front Sony HX9V screen back

In controlled test shoots, Canon’s ELPH 500 HS delivered warm, pleasant color rendition, especially skin tones. The optical image stabilization helped achieve sharp shots handheld at slower shutter speeds. Still, at ISO 800, graininess grows rapidly, reducing fine detail.

Sony’s HX9V impressed with superior edge-to-edge sharpness at wide angles and maintained details well at lower ISO speeds. Its longer zoom facilitates framing flexibility and wildlife shots. Noise control up to ISO 800 was comparable to Canon, though Sony images sometimes veered cooler in color temperature.

In macro shots, Sony’s manual focus offered tighter control, producing crisp close-up details, whereas Canon’s autofocus sometimes struggled to lock onto minute subjects.

Specialized Photography Use Cases

How do these cameras fare across various photography categories? Here’s my breakdown:

• Portraits: Canon takes the edge with face detection autofocus and a bright f/2.0 wide aperture, enabling pleasant subject isolation and better skin tone rendering. Sony’s absence of face AF and higher minimum aperture at 24mm (f/3.3) present limitations.

• Landscape: Sony compensates with higher resolution (16MP) and longer zoom, giving more framing creative options. Its TruBlack screen aids composition in sunlight. However, both cameras’ small sensors limit dynamic range, demanding careful exposure.

• Wildlife: Sony’s 16x superzoom and 10 fps burst rate give it the clear advantage here. Canon’s 4.4x zoom and slower 3 fps burst simply can’t keep pace with fast-moving subjects.

• Sports: Neither camera is particularly suited to sports photography due to lacking advanced autofocus tracking, high frame rates, or rapid focal length changes.

• Street: Canon’s smaller size and touchscreen make it ideal for unobtrusive street shooting. Sony’s bulk and lack of touchscreen detract somewhat from quick, candid captures.

• Macro: Sony’s manual focus ring allows fine focusing control, critical for macro work. Canon’s 3cm closest focus is respectable but AF lethargy can impede sharp shots.

• Night/Astro: Small sensors and lack of RAW hurt low light performance. Canon’s f/2.0 aperture is a plus, but neither camera excels in star photography or serious long exposures.

• Video: Canon supports 1080p at 24fps with H.264 encoding, delivering smooth cinematic clips but no microphone input limits sound control. Sony provides 1080p at 60fps and uses AVCHD alongside MPEG-4 codecs, better for action and smoother playback. Both lack advanced video features or in-body stabilization.

• Travel: These models shine for travel ease. Canon’s compactness wins for pocketability, Sony for versatility due to superzoom. Battery life favors Sony (though unspecified exact rating), but both use proprietary batteries limiting spare availability.

• Professional Work: Neither camera supports RAW capture or offers advanced file formats. They're best suited as backup or casual use cameras rather than professional mainstays.

Build Quality, Weather Resistance, and Reliability

Constructed mostly of plastic, both cameras feel solid enough but light. Neither is weather sealed or splash proof - something pros should note if shooting in rigorous conditions.

Sony’s slightly heavier design speaks to a robust lens assembly to support the 16x zoom range. Canon’s lighter frame sacrifices that extra zoom capability for nimbleness.

In terms of reliability, both Canon and Sony have long track records for durable compact cameras, but keep in mind the aging electronics may need service or battery replacement.

Lens Systems: Fixed but Functional

Canon’s 24-105mm f/2.0-5.8 lens is versatile for everyday shooting, with a nice bright aperture wide-open to help isolate subjects at 24mm.

Sony’s fixed 24-384mm f/3.3-5.9 lens extends telephoto reach dramatically - a massive advantage for nature or travel photographers looking to capture distant subjects.

Neither option is interchangeable, so you’ll want to weigh whether range or lens brightness matters more to you.

Battery Life and Storage Options

Canon uses the NB-6L battery pack, granting about 180 shots per charge. This modest life requires carrying spares for extensive outings.

Sony’s NP-BG1 powers it, with manufacturer claims of more extended usage (though official numbers are less clear). Both cameras accept SD cards; Sony adds support for Memory Stick formats, enhancing compatibility.

Connectivity and Extras

Sony edges ahead here with built-in GPS, enabling automatic geotagging - a boon for travel photographers.

Its Eye-Fi wireless connectivity support facilitates easier Wi-Fi image transfer via compatible cards, whereas Canon lacks wireless features altogether.

Both cameras have HDMI output and USB 2.0 for basic connectivity but no microphone or headphone jacks, limiting advanced video use.

Putting It All Together: Performance Ratings and Genre Suitability

Pulling from multiple tests and personal experience, here’s a snapshot:

• Canon ELPH 500 HS scores well for portability, portrait friendliness, and ease of use.
• Sony HX9V impresses with zoom versatility, video frame rates, and resolution.
• Both fall short in professional demands due to no RAW and smaller sensors.
• Sony suits wildlife/travel better; Canon suits street and everyday shooting.

Who Should Choose the Canon ELPH 500 HS?

If you crave a slim, pocketable compact with a bright lens to gently blur backgrounds and nail skin tones without fuss, the Canon ELPH 500 HS is your candidate. It’s ideal for casual portraits, travel snapshots, and street photography where discretion and ease matter. While limited by sensor size and the absence of manual controls, its intuitive touchscreen and face detection keep tech simple but effective.

Who Benefits from the Sony HX9V?

For those craving more reach - a significant zoom lens, sharper resolution, and better control over focus - the Sony HX9V is a compelling option. Its manual focus ring caters to macro enthusiasts, and built-in GPS plus smoother video frame rates broaden creative horizons. Wildlife and travel shooters needing to capture distant subjects will appreciate the 16x zoom.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Both cameras are products of their era with compromises inherent in small sensor compact designs. As a photography enthusiast who’s tested gear across cameras and price points, I recognize neither will replace your high-end mirrorless or DSLR system but can complement daily shooting in specific niches.

The Canon ELPH 500 HS is a delightfully compact, user-friendly camera for casual daily use, portraits, and street photography. It excels in simplicity and quick operation but lacks zoom range and manual control.

Sony’s HX9V challenges that by offering a versatile superzoom, manual focus, and superior video capabilities but at the cost of bulk and a less intuitive interface.

If budget allows, and you want superior zoom and image options with flexibility, lean towards Sony’s HX9V. For those prioritizing portability and ease, Canon’s ELPH 500 HS remains a worthy candidate.

Both cameras embody practical compact photography but serve distinct preferences and shooting styles. Keep in mind their age means modern compacts (even smartphones) have surpassed many of their specs, yet enthusiast shooters will find these cameras’ unique strengths for tailored photographic needs.

Thank you for joining me in this in-depth comparison! For more hands-on camera reviews and guides, keep exploring and happy shooting.

Appendices: Image Credits and Resources

• Illustrations and sample shots courtesy of official Canon and Sony product archives
• Performance data derived from hands-on testing and third-party camera review benchmarks
• Photos by the author during controlled lighting and field shoots

This concludes my comprehensive take on the Canon ELPH 500 HS vs Sony Cyber-shot HX9V. If you have specific use scenarios or questions, feel free to reach out - I’d be glad to help!