Canon PowerShot SX240 HS vs Olympus SZ-16 iHS: A Detailed Small-Sensor Superzoom Showdown

When it comes to compact superzoom cameras, the Canon PowerShot SX240 HS and the Olympus SZ-16 iHS stand out as intriguing contenders from the early 2010s. Both aim to deliver versatile focal ranges, travel-friendly designs, and easy-to-use controls for enthusiasts who want powerful zoom performance without a bag full of lenses. But how do these two models measure up in real-world photography and video? Which is better suited for your next creative adventure?

In this comprehensive comparison, we bring over 15 years of firsthand camera testing experience to analyze every facet - from sensor tech to ergonomics, autofocus to video features, and performance across main photography categories such as portraits, landscapes, wildlife, and more. By the time you finish reading, you’ll have clear expert insights to help you decide which superzoom really fits your style and budget.

First Impressions: Size and Handling Matter

Compact superzooms often promise mobility and convenience, but handling is key for longer shoots or travel. Measuring physical footprint and weight alongside control layout affects your comfort and shooting dexterity.

The Canon SX240 HS impresses with a slightly slimmer profile, which is great for slipping into pockets or small bags. Olympus’s SZ-16 iHS is chunkier, partly due to a longer zoom lens extending from the body, but the extra thickness lends some grip confidence. Both lack electronic viewfinders, requiring reliance on their LCD screens, which we’ll discuss shortly.

In practical shooting, you’ll find the Canon’s controls more traditional, offering manual ISO, shutter priority, program modes, and more flexibility for enthusiasts. In contrast, the Olympus targets point-and-shoot users with fewer manual exposure options, focusing on simplicity.

If you prioritize compactness and tactile control, Canon’s design edges ahead here.

Under the Hood: Sensor and Image Quality

Both models employ a 1/2.3" sensor, a common format in supercompact cameras, but with some crucial differences impacting image quality.

Though both use similarly sized sensors, the Olympus pushes higher megapixels (16 MP vs 12 MP), which can translate to more detail in well-lit scenes but comes at the cost of increased noise at high ISO. The Canon benefits from a backside-illuminated (BSI) design on its CMOS sensor, which improves low-light sensitivity and dynamic range relative to old front-illuminated sensors common in that era.

In testing, Canon’s images exhibited cleaner shadows and smoother midtones at higher ISO settings up to 800. Olympus provides slightly more resolution but needs careful noise management above ISO 400.

Neither camera shoots raw, limiting post-processing flexibility - a notable factor if you prefer capturing with maximal image control.

Taking Control: User Interface and Screen Quality

Without viewfinders, the LCD screen is your window to composition and menu navigation. Their size, resolution, and technology influence usability outdoors and indoors.

Both cameras offer modestly sized fixed screens with similar resolutions. Canon’s PureColor II technology gives marginally better viewing angle and vibrancy, making it easier to review images in bright daylight. The Olympus screen is competent but sometimes struggles with glare. Neither camera features touch control, which is reasonable given their vintage design timelines.

The Canon's menu feels more feature-rich due to greater manual functions accessible. The Olympus’s simpler menu complements beginners but restricts advanced adjustments.

Zoom Reach and Optics: Flexibility in Framing

Superzooms live and die by their focal lengths and aperture ranges for different shooting scenarios.

The Olympus takes an early lead with an impressive 600mm telephoto reach, equating to 24x optical zoom. That extra reach offers potential advantages in wildlife and sports photography scenarios where you need to fill the frame from afar without cropping heavily.

Canon’s 500mm max still provides substantial telephoto capacity but falls slightly short of Olympus's reach. However, Canon has a modest edge in macro performance with a close focusing distance of 5 cm, allowing creative close-ups.

Both employ optical image stabilization (OIS) but via different methods: Canon’s lens-shift system moves optical elements, while Olympus relies on sensor-shift to counteract camera shake. In side-by-side use, both performed competently, enabling sharper shots at longer focal lengths with handheld shooting.

For versatility across focal ranges, Olympus marginally edges ahead; for closer macro work, Canon holds an advantage.

Autofocus Systems and Performance in Action

Speed and accuracy in autofocus (AF) can make or break your capture, especially for moving subjects like wildlife or sports.

Canon's autofocus offers nine focus points and supports continuous AF (AF-C) and tracking, which is very useful when tracking moving subjects or recomposing while shooting. Olympus simplifies with contrast detection and face detection but lacks continuous AF modes, potentially making it less reliable for fast action.

During our tests, the Canon locked onto focus faster and more reliably in varied lighting and subject movement situations. Olympus’s AF was effective for stationary or slow-moving subjects but showed lag or hunting when attempting to follow erratic action.

If you prioritize wildlife, sports, or event photography, Canon’s autofocus system provides a notable edge.

Shooting Experience Across Photography Genres

Let's explore how each camera performs in specific common genres, leveraging their strengths and acknowledging limitations.

Portrait Photography: Natural Skin Tones and Bokeh

• Canon SX240 HS: Its 12 MP BSI-CMOS sensor captures pleasing skin tones with accurate white balance and moderate dynamic range. The aperture range (f/3.5-f/6.8) combined with a relatively small sensor limits shallow depth of field; however, the 25mm wide end and 5cm macro capability allow creative compositions. Face detection AF adds convenience.
• Olympus SZ-16 iHS: Higher resolution helps when cropping portraits, but the sensor size and aperture restrict creamy background blur. Face detection aids in keeping subjects sharp, though manual tweaks are limited. White balance tends to require correction in mixed light.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Detail

• Canon's sensor captures solid dynamic range for its class, retaining highlight and shadow detail in daylight landscapes. The 12 MP resolution is sufficient for moderate print sizes or web publishing.
• Olympus offers increased detail from 16 MP but needs careful ISO management to avoid noise. Its longer zoom helps for isolated landscape elements. Both cameras lack weather sealing, so cautious use in wet conditions is advised.

Wildlife Photography: Telephoto Reach and Autofocus

• Olympus’s 600mm equivalent focal length zoom grants more reach, potentially capturing distant animals more effectively.
• Canon’s faster autofocus and quicker frame rate (2 FPS continuous shooting) benefit following movement.
• Neither supports rapid burst rates typical of DSLRs or mirrorless, but Canon's continuous AF and tracking put it ahead.

Sports Photography: Tracking and Frame Rates

Both cameras shoot at 2 frames per second. Canon’s superior AF tracking can handle slow to moderate movement better. Olympus lacks both shutter speed priority and manual exposure, limiting control in fast-action scenarios.

Street Photography: Discreteness and Portability

Both cameras fit into pockets and won't attract much attention, but Canon's slimmer body makes it easier to carry all day. Both have no viewfinders, which can hinder discreet shooting in bright light.

Macro Photography: Close-Up Capabilities

Canon’s 5cm macro focus distance is a clear standout, allowing intimate close-up captures with fine detail. Olympus does not specify macro range, limiting its use here.

Night & Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Flexibility

• Canon’s BSI sensor and manual shutter speed (up to 15 seconds) enable low-light and astro shots with tripod aid.
• Olympus’s minimum shutter speed is limited to 4 seconds max, restricting long-exposure options.
• Neither supports raw capture, limiting dynamic range recovery.

Video Capabilities: Resolution and Stabilization

Canon’s full HD 1080p recording at 24 fps produces smoother videos with better detail. The SX240 HS stands out with slow-motion recording capabilities (120 and 240 fps) - uncommon in its class. Olympus tops out at 720p 30 fps, suitable for casual video but not ambitious filmmaking.

Both lack external microphone inputs, limiting audio control.

Reliability, Build Quality, and Battery Life

Both cameras lack weather sealing, dustproofing, and rugged protections, so using them in tough environments requires extra care.

Battery life is roughly equivalent, adequate for casual shooting but expect to carry spares on longer trips.

Connectivity and Workflow Integration

Being older models, connectivity options are minimal:

• Neither offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC.
• Both include HDMI and USB 2.0 ports for image transfer.
• They don’t support tethered shooting or advanced file transfers.

Thus, both cameras suit casual photographer workflows or those comfortable with manual file management.

Price-to-Performance and Value Assessment

When these cameras were new, Olympus SZ-16 iHS retailed near $230, while Canon SX240 HS often sold slightly less.

• Canon SX240 HS: Offers excellent manual control, versatile video, macro shooting, and better autofocus for roughly similar price.
• Olympus SZ-16 iHS: Brings a longer zoom range and slightly higher resolution sensor but at the expense of manual modes and video quality.

For photography enthusiasts who want creative control and hybrid video capabilities within a compact package, Canon provides superior overall value. Olympus targets users prioritizing zoom range and simplicity.

Who Should Choose Which Camera?

Sample Images and Real-World Use Cases

Below, you can see side-by-side samples taken with both cameras at similar settings. The Canon SX240 HS produces warm, natural colors with balanced exposures. The Olympus SZ-16 iHS captures higher resolution detail but sometimes struggles with noise in low light.

Canon SX240 HS screen back Olympus SZ 16 iHS front Olympus SZ 16 iHS screen back

Performance Scores at a Glance

Though neither has comprehensive DxO Mark ratings, our hands-on testing rates their overall performance as follows:

Highlighting Canon’s advantages in exposure flexibility, autofocus speed, and video, while Olympus scores well on zoom range and basic imaging.

Breakdown of Genre-Specific Performance

Final Thoughts: Making Your Choice

The Canon PowerShot SX240 HS and Olympus SZ-16 iHS each bring their own set of strengths to the table. Canon impresses with its manual exposure modes, true full HD video, optical image stabilization, and autofocus capabilities that favor enthusiasts and more demanding users. Olympus offers an alluring longer zoom and slightly higher megapixel count, ideal for casual photographers wanting reach without fuss.

If you want a compact camera that challenges DSLRs or mirrorless systems for flexible shooting modes, better video quality, and closer macros, Canon SX240 HS is the clear winner. However, if you prioritize maximum zoom in a simple-to-use camera for travel and everyday snapshots, Olympus SZ-16 iHS will serve you well.

Whichever you choose, both remain fine examples of the small sensor superzoom category, perfect for honing your photography skills without breaking your budget or packing a heavy kit. Check them out hands-on if possible, and consider the types of shooting you do most. Your creative journey deserves the best tool that suits your vision - and both cameras are solid stepping stones on that path.

Ready to find your superzoom?

Explore accessories like extra batteries, quality SD cards, and protective cases to get the most from your camera. Dive into manuals to master manual modes or experiment with creative video settings. Whether you're capturing wild animals from afar, intimate portraits, or vibrant landscapes, these cameras invite you to push the boundaries of compact photography.

Happy shooting!