Canon PowerShot SX270 HS vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V: A Detailed Superzoom Shootout

In the vast landscape of compact superzoom cameras that emerged in the early 2010s, the Canon PowerShot SX270 HS and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V stand out as compelling options for enthusiasts seeking a versatile yet pocketable long-zoom camera. Having extensively tested both models side-by-side over several months, I found them to represent two subtly different philosophies in design and performance - each with its own set of strengths and compromises.

If you’re considering an upgrade from a basic point-and-shoot to something with a powerful zoom range but don’t want to leap into interchangeable-lens systems, this comparison will give you the granular insights and practical intelligence you need. I’ve broken down each major aspect from sensor tech to ergonomics, tested performance in varied photography genres, and concluded with clear recommendations tailored to different photographer profiles.

Let’s dive right in.

A Matter of Size and Handling: Pocketability Meets Ergonomics

When it comes to carrying a superzoom camera every day or on travels, size and ergonomics often define how often you’ll actually bring it along. Both the Canon SX270 HS and Sony HX20V feature fixed 25–500mm equivalent zooms, but their body designs take contrasting approaches.

The Canon SX270 HS is a tad more compact and noticeably lighter at just 233 grams compared to the Sony’s 254 grams. Canon’s chassis measures 106 x 63 x 33 mm whereas Sony offsets the greater depth for a chunkier grip at 107 x 62 x 35 mm. The Canon adopts a more rounded, slipperier casing, which can slip from your hands unless you’re careful. Conversely, the Sony tarried with a slightly bulkier but more textured grip - better for extended handheld shooting, especially zoomed in.

Control layouts are intuitive on both, though neither model sports the full gamut of manual dials enthusiasts crave. While the Canon’s buttons are well spaced and provide direct access to key exposure modes (including shutter and aperture priority), the Sony's design feels slightly dated despite its “XtraFine TruBlack” display benefits (more in a moment). For lefties or those with larger hands, the Sony's heft offers a more secure hold.

For compact superzooms, this size and control tradeoff is often the story: smaller means more pocketable but less comfortable over long shoots, while a slight bulk adds comfort but compromises stealth. My hands favored the Sony for day-long outdoor shooting despite a minor weight penalty.

Topside Design and Control: Subtle Differences Affect Usability

Looking down from above, these cameras reveal other key usability aspects. Both forego viewfinders, leaning into LCD-only composition and playback. Here's how their tops compare:

The Canon’s top plate is simple with a dedicated zoom rocker encircling the shutter button. The on/off switch sits nearby with easy thumb reach. Notably, Canon includes a physical exposure compensation button - handy for quickly dialing in creative exposure tweaks when shooting landscapes or portraits.

Sony's top layout lacks that direct exposure comp control, which might frustrate those who like on-the-fly adjustments without digging into menus. The Sony HX20V sports a mode dial with fewer priorities than the Canon, which provides more granular manual exposure access, important for inspired amateurs wanting creative control.

Neither offers touchscreens, focusing instead on traditional physical controls - a mixed blessing depending on user preferences. Overall, Canon's control layout feels slightly more ergonomic with classic features amateur photographers appreciate, while Sony leans toward minimalism.

Sensor Specs and Image Quality: Larger Resolution vs Processor Refinement

One of the most distinct hardware differentiators is sensor resolution and imaging processor partnership. Both cameras use the same 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS sensor size, which is typical for this class, but with notable differences:

• Canon SX270 HS has a 12-megapixel resolution coupled with the Digic 6 processor
• Sony HX20V packs an 18-megapixel sensor driven by the BIONZ engine

On paper, the Sony offers greater pixel density, which suggests more detail capture but also potentially increased noise at higher ISO settings due to smaller pixel pitch. The Canon trades some resolution for better noise control and dynamic range optimized by the newer Digic 6 processor - significant given its 2013 release date compared to Sony’s 2012 model.

In real-world shooting, the lower-res Canon files exhibit slightly smoother gradations in skin tones and landscapes, especially in low or mixed lighting. The Sony files, with more pixels, can resolve finer textures but noise becomes intrusive past ISO 800, which limits practical low-light usability for print or detail-critical work.

Regarding dynamic range, Canon’s processor tends to pull marginally more shadow detail without overly compromising highlights, aiding landscapes. Sony’s HX20V, while good, showed minor highlight clipping in contrast-heavy scenes.

Neither camera supports RAW capture, so photographers are locked into JPEG output from these processors. The Canon's Digic 6 engine, however, crafted more consistently natural colors, especially greens and blues, which made outdoor scenes more vibrant yet realistic on my calibrated monitor.

Display and Interface: The Window You’ll Rely On

The rear LCD is your primary window to composition, preview, and menu navigation, especially since neither camera includes an electronic viewfinder. Here the Sony pulls clear ahead.

Both sport 3-inch fixed displays. Canon’s screen resolution is a modest 461k dots, while the Sony HX20V boasts a strikingly higher 922k dots with “XtraFine TruBlack” technology for superior contrast and viewing angles. The Sony screen’s deeper blacks and better sunlight legibility made framing in bright conditions far easier - a daily boon for outdoor photography.

Menu interfaces on both remain functional if pedestrian by today’s standards; neither supports touch input which would have made navigating parameters less tedious. For a compact, these models stick to traditional button-driven systems - an earlier era remnant.

In the field, I appreciated the Sony’s clarity when reviewing critical focus and exposure but found the Canon’s dimmer screen prone to glare, necessitating position adjustments.

Autofocus and Burst Performance: Speed Matters Differently for Each Genre

Autofocus responsiveness and burst frame rates are extensions of usable photography, especially for active subjects like wildlife or sports.

• Canon SX270 HS offers continuous autofocus, face detection, and a 4 fps continuous shooting rate.
• Sony HX20V, conversely, has a slower AF system without continuous AF for video and shoots up to 10 fps - but only with locked focus from the first frame.

Both rely on contrast-detection AF without phase detection or hybrid systems. This translates to slower focus acquisition compared to DSLRs or mirrorless cameras and challenges in tracking fast-moving subjects.

In practice, the Canon’s continuous AF showed more reliable subject tracking during activities like children playing or animals moving, albeit with noticeable hunting in low-contrast scenes. Sony’s faster burst speeds excel at capturing brief action bursts but risk missed focus since AF is locked after the first frame.

Face detection worked well on both but Canon’s was more aggressive and consistent. Neither supports animal eye AF (a modern auto-focus boon), reflective of their era.

Flash and Low Light: The Reach and Stability Battle

Flash power and image stabilization shape how compact cameras perform in gloomy settings or indoors.

• Canon’s built-in flash illuminates up to approximately 3.5 meters, with Red-Eye reduction, Slow Sync, and user-selectable flash modes.
• Sony’s flash pushes further, lighting subjects up to 7.1 meters, but lacks Red-Eye reduction or external flash support.

Both cameras include optical image stabilization, crucial for handholding long zooms at slower shutter speeds. Canon's OIS performs admirably, especially photographing static subjects in lower light, helping keep images sharp at apertures near f/6.8 when zoomed max. Sony’s optical stabilization is competent but slightly less effective when fully zoomed or in tricky lighting.

Slow shutter speeds are available on Canon down to 15 seconds (useful for night or astro photography), while Sony tops out at 30 seconds but max shutter speed caps at 1/1600 sec (Canon offers faster max shutter of 1/3200 sec).

Low light ISO capabilities favor Canon with a max native ISO of 6400 versus Sony’s 12800; however, noise performance at high ISO is still a limiting factor on both. The Canon’s Digic processor manages noise slightly better - always a key for night shooters needing cleaner images without lugging tripods.

Video Capabilities: HD Capture Meets Practicality

If video is on your checklist, both cameras will satisfy casual users but fall short for serious videographers.

Sony’s AVCHD codec typically yields better compression and quality than Canon’s MPEG-4 but practical viewing on consumer gear is similar. Neither includes microphone or headphone ports, limiting audio control - a standard limitation for cameras of this era and class.

Interestingly, Canon supports a slow-motion mode at reduced resolution (240 fps at 320x240), useful for creative clips, although image quality is basic. Both handle 1080p smoothly, aided by optical IS.

Specialized Photography Uses: How They Perform Across Genres

Let’s analyze the practical strengths of both in popular photography genres superzoom users pursue.

Canon SX270 HS front Canon SX270 HS screen back Sony HX20V front Sony HX20V screen back

Portraits

Skin tones and eye detection matter here. Canon’s 12MP sensor with Digic 6 processes natural skin hues, while Sony’s higher-res but noisier sensor renders more detail but slightly harsher textures. Canon’s face-detection autofocus proved more stable and consistent under various lighting. Neither offers bokeh quality approaching large-aperture lenses, but Canon’s lens has marginally creamier background blur at 25mm wide-open.

Landscapes

Dynamic range and resolution underpin landscape photography. Sony’s 18MP sensor edges Canon in raw detail capture, but JPEG-only outputs limit flexibility. Canon wins marginally on dynamic range due to processor improvements, preserving shadow detail better in high contrast situations - beneficial for sunrise and sunset scenes. Neither camera is weather sealed, so cautious use is advised in tough environments.

Wildlife

Fast autofocus and burst rates are vital. Canon provides continuous AF, ideal for re-focusing if subjects shift, but only 4 fps burst limits frame capture speed. Sony’s 10 fps bursts achieve more frames but AF locks on first shot, risking missed focus if subjects move fast. Zoom equivalence identical, but Canon’s quicker autofocus tracking gives edge for wildlife patrols.

Sports

Tracking accuracy and frame rate matter critically. Here neither camera is ideal given slow AF systems and modest burst modes. Sony’s faster 10 fps could slightly outpace Canon but at loss of AF tracking - critical for unpredictable action. Both struggle under indoor sports lighting given sensor limitations.

Street Photography

Discreteness and portability weigh heavily. Canon’s more compact and lighter design aids discreet shooting. Sony’s brighter, higher-res screen helps compose quickly. Low-light capabilities are middling; neither excels after dusk without tripod or flash. Both silence their shutters relatively, but Canon’s shutter sound is slightly quieter.

Macro

Close focusing range and stabilization are tested here. Sony wins with a 1cm macro focusing distance versus Canon’s 5cm, enabling more detailed close-up shots. Good optical image stabilization on both helps maintain sharpness handheld. Macro enthusiasts might appreciate Sony’s finer framing capability despite smaller sensor size.

Night and Astro

Slow shutter modes are necessary. Canon supports exposures up to 15 seconds, Sony up to 30 seconds, but ISO noise hampers star field imaging. Neither camera supports bulb or advanced astro modes, so both are confined to casual night shots.

Video

Both shoot full HD, but neither is suited to advanced filmmaking due to lack of mic input, limited manual control, and no 4K. Canon’s slow-motion clip mode is a creative plus, Sony’s AVCHD codec offers better compression efficiency.

Travel

Versatility, battery life, and size matter most. Sony’s 320 shot battery runtime eclipses Canon’s 210 shots, a critical edge on long excursions. Both are pocketable enough but Canon’s slight weight and slimmer body favor carry comfort. Sony’s built-in GPS offers geo-tagging and trip tracking, valuable for travel logs.

Professional Work

While these compacts never replaced professional DSLRs or mirrorless bodies, their JPEG images suffice for quick documentation, web content, or travel blogging. Canon’s broader exposure modes and better dynamic range offer easier manual control. Neither supports RAW or tethering workflows necessary for studio environments.

Build Quality and Durability: What To Expect

Neither model offers environmental sealing, dustproofing, waterproofing, or freezeproofing. Both should be handled as delicate electronics, ideal for casual outdoor use but not heavy-duty or extreme weather shooting.

Lens Ecosystem and Focus Control

Both feature fixed 25-500mm equivalent zoom lenses (approximately 20x zoom). Here is a breakdown:

Sony’s slightly faster aperture is beneficial for light gathering and shallower depth of field, while tighter macro focusing offers creative flexibility on close subjects.

Manual focus is available on both, with Canon offering slightly finer control via its physical controls. Neither camera has focus stacking or bracketing features.

Connectivity, Storage and Battery Life

Sony wins on battery life by a substantial margin - 320 shots compared to Canon’s 210 - a crucial factor when shooting long trips without recharge. Both accept SD family cards, but Sony:

• Adds support for Memory Stick formats (popular in Sony gear back then)
• Features built-in GPS for position tracking
• Offers Eye-Fi compatibility for wireless image transfers (indirect WiFi)

Canon doesn’t include wireless or GPS, but does provide HDMI output for easy TV playback. Both use USB 2.0 for data transfers.

Price-to-Performance and Value Assessment

At launch and on the used market today, Canon SX270 HS typically retails or trades for about $284, while Sony HX20V sits nearer $397 - a substantial premium. Given their similar zoom and sensor sizes, the key differentiators justify this gap only partially:

• Sony offers higher resolution, better screen, longer battery, GPS
• Canon offers superior image processing, exposure controls, and smoother autofocus

For budget-minded buyers prioritizing image quality and portability, Canon offers better value. For users desiring GPS, longer runtime, and macro prowess, Sony’s higher price can be justified.

Summing Up: Which Camera Should You Choose?

Canon PowerShot SX270 HS shines if you want:

• Balanced image quality with smoother tones and better noise control
• More ergonomic, compact body with classic exposure modes
• Better autofocus tracking for casual wildlife or children’s action
• Longer exposures for night photography without much compromise
• A more affordable option with solid performance for landscapes and portraits

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V appeals if you need:

• Higher resolution for larger prints or extra cropping flexibility
• Brighter LCD for easier framing in bright light
• Longer battery life for travel or extended shooting days
• GPS tagging and wireless transfer for on-the-go workflow
• Macro photography with close focusing capabilities

Neither camera is a giant leap forward by today's standards, but both serve well as affordable superzooms for casual enthusiasts wanting a versatile travel companion or family camera.

Final Thoughts from an Experienced Tester

Having taken these two dogs on numerous city strolls, nature hikes, and family gatherings, my personal affection leans slightly toward the Canon SX270 HS. Its modern processing chops and balanced controls bring a rewarding shooter experience that feels more responsive and deliver quality images with less fuss. The Sony HX20V, however, is a terrific choice for those who prize raw resolution and battery life, and GPS is a neat bonus.

Remember, the best camera is the one you carry - and both models succeed remarkably at making long zooms approachable in a compact package.

I hope this detailed comparison arms you with the nuanced insight to make your superzoom choice confidently. If you have questions or want me to test specific scenarios, feel free to ask!

Happy shooting!