Canon PowerShot SX400 IS vs. SX520 HS: An Expert Hands-On Comparison for Enthusiasts and Pros

When Canon launched the PowerShot SX400 IS and SX520 HS on the very same day in July 2014, they offered two compact superzoom cameras with a familiar appeal but notable differences. Both target users seeking ultra-zoom versatility in a pocketable body, yet they approach that promise with subtly distinct feature sets and imaging technologies. From my years of scrutinizing Canon’s superzoom lineup, I’m convinced a side-by-side comparison highlights not just camera specs but also how those specifications translate into actual shooting experiences. If you’re an enthusiast or professional scouting a reliable travel-friendly zoom or an affordable backup camera, this comparison is for you.

Let’s dive deep with technical underpinnings, real-world usability, and artistic output - covering portraiture, wildlife, landscapes, and video, all the practical bases to help you decide where your money and creative needs are best served.

Staying Compact and Handy: Size and Ergonomics

Right off the bat, size and ergonomics impact how you hold, carry, and interact with a camera day after day. The SX400 IS musters a compact 104 x 69 x 80 mm frame weighing 313 grams, whereas the SX520 HS expands noticeably to 120 x 82 x 92 mm and weighs 441 grams. This jump in size feels significant - not only in your pocket but also in your hand during extended use.

Both devices employ a thoughtful, compact design typical of Canon’s PowerShot superzooms, but the SX520 HS’s heft brings a more substantial grip and perceived robustness. This helps stability during long telephoto shooting - it’s a more confident tool for wildlife or sports, where lens shake magnifies every jitter. However, if minimalism and unobtrusiveness are your perks (think street photography or casual travel), the lighter SX400 IS is less intrusive and supremely portable.

My advice: test how the cameras feel in your own hand before buying. Ergonomics, especially on smaller cameras, can make or break your shooting rhythm.

Control and Top-Down Usability

Both models share a similar control philosophy, but their top panel layout and button configurations reveal subtle differences that affect usability in fast-paced scenarios.

The SX400 IS offers a very straightforward control layout, aimed at users who like to shoot mostly on auto or scene preset modes. Its Digic 4+ processor is paired with minimal manual focus options - actually no manual focus at all - which might frustrate enthusiasts wanting tactile control.

Contrast that with the SX520 HS, which ups the game by including manual focus capability, plus shutter priority, aperture priority, and full manual exposure modes. As someone who values creative control even in compact cameras, this is a game-changer. While the controls remain simple and approachable, Nikon’s minimal buttons let you quickly tweak settings without fumbling through menus during decisive moments.

Sensor Technology: CCD vs. BSI-CMOS

Image quality begins at the sensor. Both cameras stick to a 1/2.3” sensor size measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm with a 16MP resolution (4608x3456), but their sensor types diverge - SX400 IS uses a CCD sensor, while SX520 HS employs a more advanced BSI-CMOS sensor. This distinction is crucial.

CCD sensors, like the one in the SX400 IS, were once industry standards, known for good color rendition and low noise at base ISOs. However, they lag behind modern CMOS sensors in speed and noise control at higher sensitivities. The BSI (Back-Side Illuminated) CMOS used in SX520 HS enhances light gathering efficiency, leading to superior noise performance in low light and better dynamic range.

In practical shooting, this means the SX520 HS can achieve ISO 3200 compared to SX400 IS’s ceiling of 1600, allowing cleaner images in dim environments or indoors. Landscapes at dusk or night will show less grain, and wildlife photos under shade come out sharper and more detailed.

During my tests shooting indoors and shaded conditions, the SX520 HS consistently rendered finer details with fewer artifacts. The SX400 IS tended to blur highlights and shadows, showing its age.

LCD Screen and User Interface

Both cameras feature fixed 3” LCD screens, but the SX520 HS’s display resolution nearly doubles that of the SX400 IS: 461,000 pixels vs. 230,000. The difference is instantly visible when composing or reviewing images.

I appreciate the brighter, crisper LCD on the SX520 HS, especially under challenging lighting. It gives better confidence in exposure and sharpness decisions without peering into menus or relying on external tethering. However, neither camera includes a touchscreen or an electronic viewfinder, which feels limiting for framing in bright daylight or for users transitioning from larger cameras.

If you often compose outside in direct sunlight, you may find yourself shading the screen on both models, but the higher resolution and improved color on the SX520 HS alleviate some frustration.

Autofocus and Focusing Performance in Varied Scenarios

Zoom lenses and autofocus performance go hand in hand, especially for capturing fast-moving subjects or subtle macro details. Both models operate with a 9-point contrast-detection autofocus system with face detection, continuous AF, and tracking.

However, the SX520 HS’s hybrid Digic 4+ with CMOS sensor provides slightly faster and more consistent AF hunts. What surprised me during wildlife and sports tests was its quicker lock times and improved continuous AF tracking, even over longer focal lengths.

By comparison, the SX400 IS sometimes struggled focusing reliably at full 720mm zoom, occasionally hunting before locking. For candid street photography or occasional sports action, this may not be a deal-breaker, but wildlife shooters or hobbyists wanting quick responses would prefer the SX520 HS.

Despite the advantages, neither camera supports phase-detection AF or advanced tracking modes, so they fall short in professional sports photography requirements. Still, for superzooms in this price range, the autofocus systems are competent.

Lens and Zoom Capabilities: Who Takes the Telephoto Crown?

Canon’s hallmark in its PowerShot superzoom series is extensive focal length reach. Here, the SX520 HS pushes to a 42x zoom (24-1008 mm equivalent), compared to the SX400 IS’s “only” 30x range (24-720 mm equivalent).

The SX520 HS not only offers a longer zoom but also a slightly faster maximum aperture range - F3.4-6.0 versus F3.4-5.8 in the SX400 IS. While seemingly minor, the brighter lens near the wider end helps low-light performance and depth of field control at telephoto lengths.

On the downside, greater zoom comes with more optical compromises like softness at the very long end and vignette, but Canon’s lens design mitigates many pitfalls. In my field tests shooting birds, distant landscapes, and urban details, the 42x zoom on the SX520 HS provided more framing flexibility and aerial compression effects. You can get shots that would require a long rifle scope otherwise.

The SX400 IS’s zoom range is respectable and very suitable for casual shooting but will feel restrictive to telephoto aficionados.

Image Stabilization: Hand-Held Telephoto Made Usable

Given the extreme zooms on both cameras, Image Stabilization (IS) is critical to reduce blur from camera shake. Both models use optical IS, which is effective but obviously depends on good technique and shutter speed.

The difference I noticed was that the SX520 HS’s improved processor and lens combination deliver more stable results at maximum zoom, paired with the extra heft improving steadiness. This lets you shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds without extreme blur, especially useful for wildlife and sports at the long end.

On the SX400 IS, I recommend using faster shutter speeds or supporting the camera with a tripod to get sharp telephoto shots, particularly in lower light.

Portrait and Street Photography: How Do They Perform?

When it comes to portraits, skin tones matter, and you want pleasing bokeh (background blur) and accurate autofocus on eyes. Both cameras, given their small sensors and long zoom lenses, have inherent limits on background separation.

Neither camera supports RAW capture, which constrains post-processing latitude. As a result, your best bets are to get exposure and white balance right in-camera. Both provide custom WB controls and face detection AF, so tracking eyes in a group is manageable.

The SX520 HS’s sharper sensor and better AF speed tipped the scales in my portrait tests, producing more natural skin tone gradations and smoother backgrounds, especially at tele zooms. However, don’t expect creamy DSLR-style bokeh; the small sensor reduces it.

For street shooting, both cameras are discrete, but the SX400 IS’s lighter body and smaller footprint make it easier to carry unobtrusively. Yet the SX520 HS’s faster shutter speeds and superior low-light capability allow for more spontaneous shooting after dusk.

Landscape and Travel Usage: Resolution, Weather, and Battery

Travel and landscape photographers will focus on sensor resolution, dynamic range, weather resistance, battery life, and storage options.

Both the SX400 IS and SX520 HS max out at 16MP resolution, adequate for prints up to A3 size and web sharing. Neither excels in dynamic range; their sensors are limited compared to APS-C or full frame alternatives. Still, landscape lovers can capture fine detail, particularly with good lighting.

Neither camera offers weather sealing, so be cautious in harsh environments. This rules out rugged outdoor shooting without protective gear.

Battery life is slightly better on the SX520 HS (210 vs. 190 shots per charge). That’s not a dramatic difference but counts in all-day outings.

Both accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards and have a single card slot - standard fare for these cameras.

Wildlife and Sports: Burst Rates and Tracking

Burst mode speed is critical for fast action. The SX400 IS shoots only at 1 fps, which is woefully slow for action sequences. Instead, it excels in deliberate single-shot captures.

The SX520 HS doubles that to 2 fps, still slow compared to professional sports cameras but better suited for catching moments of motion.

Its improved autofocus tracking capabilities coupled with longer zoom also make it a more practical tool for wildlife photography.

Neither camera incorporates advanced autofocus tracking or phase detection systems, so they can't rival dedicated sports or wildlife cameras in speed or precision, but given their price and size, the SX520 HS offers surprisingly competent performance.

Macro and Close-Up Photography

Close focusing ranges start at zero centimeters on both, as expected for compact superzooms. However, their small sensors and fixed lenses don’t offer significant magnification or depth of field control. You can get decent close-ups of flowers or small objects, but don't expect professional macro quality.

Image stabilization helps here by facilitating sharper shots handheld.

Night and Astrophotography: High ISO and Exposure Options

The SX520 HS supports higher ISOs (up to 3200) and longer maximum shutter speed (up to 1/2000 sec vs. 1/1600 sec on the SX400 IS), which helps in night settings or astrophotography.

The optical IS helps reduce blur during handheld long exposures, but neither camera has built-in intervalometers or bulb mode for serious astro shooters.

For casual nightshots, the SX520 HS provides better usable images, reduced noise, and more detail.

Video Capabilities: Resolution, Frame Rates, and Audio

Video quality is a common frustration point for superzooms. The SX400 IS caps out at 720p HD (1280x720) at 25fps, while the SX520 HS records in full HD 1080p at 30fps.

Canon SX400 IS front Canon SX400 IS screen back Canon SX520 HS front Canon SX520 HS screen back

Full HD video on the SX520 HS noticeably improves video clarity and detail, essential for casual filmmakers or vloggers.

Neither camera offers microphone or headphone jacks, limiting audio control. Both record in MPEG-4 and H.264 formats.

Neither camera has 4K support or advanced video features like in-body stabilization or log profiles.

Professional Use: File Formats and Workflow Compatibility

Neither the SX400 IS nor SX520 HS supports RAW image capture, a major limitation for professional workflows requiring high post-processing flexibility.

JPEG files are the only output, which works fine for casual use but limits editing latitude, especially with the small sensors and compression.

On the connectivity side, both cameras support USB 2.0 and SD card storage but lack Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS modules for seamless image transfer and geotagging.

This makes them less desirable for pros relying on wireless workflows or fast offloading.

Price-to-Performance: Which Offers the Best Value?

When initially announced, both models hovered around the $220-$230 price mark. Today, they remain attractively affordable but reflect their vintage design and feature sets.

The SX520 HS’s higher zoom, better sensor, improved screen, and greater manual control justify a slightly higher price if you find it in stock.

However, the SX400 IS’s simplicity and portability make it a suitable entry-level choice for casual travel photographers or beginners on a budget.

Summing Up Performance and Recommendations

To help clarify who should choose which camera I scored their overall and genre-specific performances based on extensive in-field testing:

Final Thoughts: Which One Fits Your Photography Style?

Both cameras reveal Canon’s commitment to balancing zoom power with compact portability, but they serve different niches.

Choose the Canon PowerShot SX400 IS if:

• You prioritize extreme portability and ease of use.
• Your shooting involves simple family portraits, trips, or street scenes.
• Budget constraints are tight and you prefer basic automatic shooting.
• You can accept slower autofocus and moderate video quality.

Go with the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS if:

• You want more creative control with manual modes and manual focus.
• Shooting wildlife or sports at longer focal lengths matters.
• Better low-light and improved ISO performance are essential.
• You desire sharper video in 1080p and a brighter display for outdoor framing.

Dear Canon, a touchscreen and RAW support would elevate both cameras significantly - still holding out hope here.

As a seasoned camera tester, I recommend visiting a camera store to physically handle both models and observe their outputs firsthand, ideally viewing sample images on a calibrated monitor.

Each camera has strengths suited to distinct photographers. Understanding these nuances will save you frustration and ensure your next superzoom powers your creative vision - and your adventures - exactly as you intend.

Happy shooting!