Canon SX240 HS vs Panasonic Lumix FH27: A Hands-On Comparison for Photography Enthusiasts

When I first picked up the Canon PowerShot SX240 HS and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH27, I knew I was looking at two compact cameras aimed at casual shooters and enthusiasts craving portability. But beyond their petite forms and inviting price tags, these two cameras hide technical and practical differences worth exploring deeply, especially if you want a serious second camera or a reliable travel companion. Over the past three weeks, I’ve used both extensively in varied shooting scenarios - from portraits and landscapes to fast action and travel strolls - testing everything from image quality to ergonomics.

This head-to-head comparison brings you my direct experiences, measured against technical specs, to help you decide which compact delivers more bang for your buck, tailored to your photographic priorities.

Getting Physical: Size, Handling, and Control Layout

I always start my camera tests by sizing up the ergonomics - because handling shapes what you shoot and how comfortably.

The Canon SX240 HS feels noticeably chunkier in hand with its 106 x 61 x 33 mm dimensions and 224 gram weight. This bulkiness isn’t a negative; rather, it lends a reassuring grip for longer handheld sessions, especially when zoomed in to max focal length. The rubberized grip area provides enough confidence to hold steady without loading up a tripod immediately.

In contrast, the Panasonic FH27 is more sleek and streamlined: 99 x 57 x 28 mm, weighing just 152 grams. It slips effortlessly into a jacket pocket or purse, making it a better candidate for street and casual travel photography where discretion is valued over extensive zoom reach.

The Canon’s control layout is more traditional, featuring physical exposure compensation, manual-focus modes, aperture, and shutter priority dials. This hands-on control is a boon to enthusiasts who want tactile feedback when adjusting settings on the fly. Meanwhile, the Panasonic’s streamlined interface is touch-enabled but lacks manual exposure modes, nudging more toward ease-of-use over creative granularity.

Summary: If you value a more substantial grip, physical dials, and dedicated exposure controls, the Canon SX240 HS wins on ergonomics. The Panasonic FH27 attracts with its featherweight, pocketable frame and touchscreen simplicity.

Inside the Frame: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

In modern digital cameras, sensor technology often dictates image quality and low-light usability - so understanding what each model packs inside is key.

Both cameras use the same 1/2.3" sensor size (around 28 mm² sensor area), which is typical for compacts. But Canon opts for a 12 MP backside-illuminated CMOS sensor (BSI-CMOS), while Panasonic employs a 16 MP CCD sensor. This contrast fundamentally affects noise handling and dynamic range.

From my side-by-side lab tests and handheld shooting, the Canon’s BSI-CMOS sensor delivers cleaner images at base ISO 100 and noticeably better noise control as ISO increases up to 3200. The Panasonic’s CCD sensor, while producing slightly higher resolution images at 16 MP, shows more noise and less dynamic range beyond ISO 400, which can hamper shooting in dimmer conditions.

However, the Panasonic FH27’s sensor resolution advantage results in crisper detail in bright, well-lit environments - landscapes and daylight cityscapes, for example - where its 4608x3456 maximum image resolution outperforms the Canon’s 4000x3000 pixels.

Summary: For general purpose and variable lighting conditions, the Canon SX240’s BSI-CMOS sensor is superior, particularly in noise performance and dynamic range. The Panasonic FH27 provides higher resolution files beneficial for large prints in good light but lacks in low-light versatility.

Seeing Your Shot: LCD Screens and Usability

Reviewing images on the back screen and composing shots comfortably is essential - and here the screens differ substantially.

Canon equips the SX240 HS with a 3-inch PureColor II TFT LCD boasting 461k dots, which produces rich color and good visibility outdoors. The screen is fixed, meaning no articulating or tilting capabilities. However, the clarity, especially under bright sunlight, helps precise framing and focus confirmation.

Panasonic’s FH27 features a 3-inch TFT touchscreen with only 230k dots. I found this screen visibly less sharp and poorer in brightness outdoors. Yet, the touchscreen capability provided me faster, more intuitive access to focusing points and settings - a useful feature when shooting street scenes where quick reflexes matter.

Neither camera includes an electronic viewfinder, which means relying entirely on the rear LCD. Based on my experience, the Canon’s larger, higher-resolution screen is more comfortable for long sessions in varying light; Panasonic’s touchscreen suits those who prioritize quick operation over visual fidelity.

Getting Focused: Autofocus Performance Across Genres

When putting a camera through its paces in portraits, wildlife, or sports, autofocus (AF) speed and accuracy are paramount.

The Canon SX240 HS employs a contrast-detection AF system with 9 focus points, supporting face detection and AF tracking, alongside continuous AF modes. In real-life shooting, I appreciated how the SX240 reliably locked on faces even under tricky indoor lighting, maintaining focus with decent accuracy during short bursts. The absence of phase detection doesn’t critically hamper performance but does mean AF hunting can occasionally occur in low contrast scenes.

The Panasonic FH27 has a contrast-detection AF with 11 focus points and also includes face detection with touch AF. However, it lacks continuous AF and shutter priority modes, limiting action-shooting flexibility. I noticed the FH27’s AF hunts more visibly in low light, and the burst rate of 4 fps is faster than Canon’s 2 fps but constrained by slower buffer clearing.

Summary: For portraits and casual wildlife/street shooting, the Canon’s AF system feels more dependable and flexible. Panasonic’s quicker burst will serve snapshots better but with less focusing finesse on moving subjects.

Zoom and Lens Characteristics: How Far and How Sharp?

A compact’s built-in lens is where zoom reach and optical quality intersect. Comparing these two:

• Canon SX240 HS: 25-500 mm equivalent (20x optical zoom), aperture f/3.5-6.8
• Panasonic FH27: 28-224 mm equivalent (8x optical zoom), aperture f/3.3-5.9

Canon’s superzoom advantage is obvious in telephoto reach, allowing me to capture distant wildlife and candid street moments with ease. The downside is lens speed; reaching f/6.8 at 500 mm means more challenging low-light conditions without stabilization.

Panasonic’s shorter zoom range limits framing flexibility but results in slightly brighter apertures, helpful indoors and for macro work down to 5 cm focusing distance.

Both cameras offer optical image stabilization - which I found critical on the Canon when shooting at maximum zoom handheld to reduce motion blur. Panasonic’s stabilization works well but benefits from the shorter zoom range.

Summary: Canon SX240 HS’s 20x zoom is a standout for wildlife, sports, and travel photographers valuing reach. Panasonic FH27’s smaller zoom scope favors casual shooting, landscapes, and macro at closer distances.

Picture This: Sample Image Quality in Real-World Scenarios

To bring these technical points to life, I shot side-by-side samples in various conditions:

Canon SX240 HS screen back Panasonic FH27 screen back

• Portraits: Canon delivered more natural skin tones with better bokeh blur in aperture priority mode, even with a fixed lens. Panasonic’s images were sharper wide-open but lacked smooth background separation.

• Landscapes: Panasonic’s higher resolution yielded more detailed textures - especially in bright sunlit scenes - while Canon held better shadows and highlights in dynamic range.

• Low Light: Canon’s images were cleaner with less grain at ISO 800+; Panasonic showed noticeable noise degradation.

• Action: The FH27’s 4 fps burst caught quicker sequences, but Canon’s more stable AF tracking won out for freezing moments sharply.

These differences underline how sensor type, processor, and lens interplay affect final imagery.

Video Capabilities: More Than Just Stills

For the casual videographer, both cameras offer HD video options, but with key distinctions:

The Canon's Full HD 1080p recording at 24fps provides a more cinematic quality, and its H.264 compression results in efficient file sizes with good detail retention. The ability to shoot slow-motion in lower resolutions is a nice extra. Panasonic’s HD video quality and format felt more basic and less flexible in post-processing.

Audio options are limited with both cameras, and neither supports external microphones, reflecting their budget-friendly orientation.

Durability and Battery Life: What Can You Rely On?

Neither camera offers weather sealing, shockproofing, or freezeproofing, so neither is ideal for extreme outdoor professionals. For most walking-around and travel uses, however, they are robust enough.

Battery life is roughly comparable, with Panasonic rated at 250 shots per charge and Canon close at 230. I found real-world stamina similar, but the Canon’s bigger size accommodates a larger battery, which might translate into marginally better dependability for day-long shooting sprees.

Connectivity and Storage: How Do They Share Your Work?

Both cameras record to SD/SDHC/SDXC cards via a single slot. Canon supports USB 2.0 and HDMI output, giving easier file transfers and external monitor connections. Panasonic lacks HDMI but does offer internal storage, a minor convenience.

Wireless features such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC are absent in both, expected given their production era and market segment.

What They Are Best For: Photography Type and Use Case Performance

• Portrait Photography: Canon’s accurate face detection and better bokeh tips the scale in its favor.
• Landscape Photography: Panasonic’s higher resolution edges out fine detail in daylight.
• Wildlife Photography: Canon’s superzoom reach and steadier AF offer clear benefits.
• Sports Photography: Panasonic’s faster burst rate is useful but hampered by slower AF.
• Street Photography: Panasonic’s smaller size and touchscreen are more discreet.
• Macro Photography: Both capable to 5 cm; Panasonic slightly better due to brighter lens aperture.
• Night/Astro Photography: Canon’s sensor excels at high ISO clean images.
• Video: Canon strongly recommended for Full HD recording.
• Travel Photography: Canon’s zoom versatility balanced against Panasonic’s ultra-compact convenience.
• Professional Work: Neither fully matches pro-grade needs, but Canon edges ahead for serious enthusiasts.

Overall Performance and Value

While neither of these cameras is cutting-edge by today’s standards, both hold their ground well for their entry-level, compact niche. The Canon SX240 HS offers more versatility overall, with a better sensor, longer zoom, and superior video. The Panasonic FH27 appeals to those prioritizing pocketability, image resolution in good light, and touchscreen convenience.

In terms of price, the Canon is often found secondhand affordably, while Panasonic’s original retail (~$229) places it in direct competition with budget compacts today.

Final Verdict: Which One Should You Buy?

If you're a photography enthusiast or traveler seeking a compact all-rounder with decent manual control, wide zoom, and good image quality across lighting conditions, I recommend the Canon PowerShot SX240 HS. Its ability to capture sharp portraits, decent sports action, and clean low-light photos while retaining easy handling makes it a dependable companion.

On the other hand, if you want an ultra-portable, touchscreen-equipped compact with slightly higher resolution for daylight shooting and faster burst rates for casual snaps, the Panasonic Lumix FH27 is a competent option. Its smaller size and intuitive touch interface suit street photographers and families looking for quick grab-and-go functionality.

Personal Testing Methodology Notes

Over the last several weeks, I shot standardized test charts in controlled lighting to compare resolution, noise, and dynamic range, supplemented by varied real-world use - urban landscapes at dusk, wildlife images from a local park, indoor candid portraits, and quick street sequences. Both cameras were tested using their default settings, with adjustments for ISO and exposure modes where applicable.

My evaluations included subjective impressions such as grip comfort and interface ease, alongside objective metrics like burst rate and zoom magnification. All files were processed using standard software with minimal editing to ensure fairness.

Thank you for reading this detailed comparison. If you’re considering either camera for your photographic journey, I hope these firsthand insights help you decide which model best suits your needs and inspires you to capture your next unforgettable moment.

Happy shooting!