Canon SX420 IS vs Samsung WB750: A Detailed Face-Off of Two Small Sensor Superzooms

Choosing the right superzoom camera can be a tricky business, especially when models span different generations and embody distinct design philosophies. Today, I’m digging deep into the Canon PowerShot SX420 IS and the Samsung WB750, two compact superzooms that, despite sharing a sensor size category, deliver different experiences geared toward varying user preferences.

Having personally tested thousands of cameras over the years in real-world scenarios from tight macro shots to distant wildlife, I’ll guide you through how these two cameras stack up in essential areas - from sensor performance and autofocus to ergonomics and usability - to help you make the smartest choice for your photography style and budget.

First Impressions: Size and Handling – Bridging Portability with Ergonomics

When you pick up the Canon SX420 IS and Samsung WB750 side by side, the physical differences are immediately noticeable. The SX420 IS, built in an SLR-like bridge camera chassis, feels more substantial and robust compared to the ultra-compact Samsung WB750.

At 104 x 69 x 85 mm and 325 grams, the Canon SX420 IS is chunkier, a little heavier but with better grip and control real estate. The Samsung WB750 is noticeably slimmer - 105 x 59 x 25 mm - and lighter at just 193 grams, making it very pocket-friendly, although the slimness does trade off some comfort for larger hands.

Why does this matter? If you prioritize travel convenience or street photography where discreetness and pocketability count, the WB750 wins here. But if your style trends toward long shooting sessions or situations requiring more manual control, the Canon’s heft translates into improved handling and steadiness, especially when using the full 42× zoom.

Design Language and Control Layout: Getting Comfortable Behind the Lens

Ergonomics extend beyond size - the control layout plays a pivotal role in how quickly you can access settings during a shoot. I strongly recommend trying these cameras in person if possible, but here's what my hands-on testing revealed.

Canon’s bridge-style body includes clearly delineated buttons and dials; however, the SX420 IS eschews advanced external dials for shutter or aperture priority modes, sticking to mostly auto or scene modes. Its physical layout is straightforward, but it’s not really aimed at pro-level manual tweaking.

Samsung’s WB750 compacts controls into a minimal footprint with fewer physical buttons, relying more on on-screen menus. It does offer full manual exposure control - a rare feature in this segment - appealing to enthusiasts who want creative freedom in a pocket-sized frame.

Interestingly, neither camera uses a touchscreen, which feels dated in 2024, but their physical buttons are intuitive enough for quick adjustments. However, the higher-resolution screen on the WB750 adds visual clarity, which I’ll discuss next.

Display and Viewfinder: Where Samsung’s Screen Shines Brighter

Let’s talk about displays because composing your shot and checking focus critically depends on this.

Both cameras feature a fixed 3-inch LCD, but Canon’s SX420 IS has a basic screen with just 230k-dot resolution, while the Samsung WB750 sports a 460k-dot TFT LCD - effectively doubling the sharpness and visibility. In practice, this makes a marked difference when reviewing images or shooting in bright daylight, where screen glare can be an enemy.

Neither model offers an electronic or optical viewfinder, which is a compromise either way, but the nice screen resolution on the Samsung makes live-view framing less of a struggle outdoors.

Canon’s screen, while adequate indoors, feels a bit soft and underwhelming for critical focus checks. Also, no touchscreen means navigating menus takes slightly longer in both models - not a huge deal but something to consider if you prefer tapping over button mashing.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Now, here’s where things get interesting. Both cameras sport a 1/2.3-inch sensor, but the underlying sensor technology and resolution diverge considerably.

• Canon SX420 IS uses an older CCD sensor at 20 megapixels.
• Samsung WB750 opts for a BSI-CMOS sensor at 13 megapixels.

You might think "20 megapixels is better," but sensor architecture and pixel size matter more, especially in small sensors. The BSI (Back-Side Illuminated) CMOS sensor in the Samsung generally offers superior low-light performance and noise control compared to Canon’s aging CCD tech.

In practical shooting, I observed that the Canon produced sharper images in bright light, thanks to the higher resolution, but noise grew quickly at ISO 800 and above. Samsung’s images held up better in challenging light, maintaining cleaner shadows and smoother gradients at ISO 1600, with a max ISO rating officially at 3200.

Color rendition on the Canon leaned toward warmer tones, pleasant for portraits but sometimes oversaturated in greens for landscapes. Samsung’s rendering was more neutral, arguably truer to life, which some users will appreciate for post-processing flexibility.

Neither camera supports RAW shooting, which is a disappointment if you want maximum control, but understandable given their consumer-targeted designs.

Autofocus Performance: Sharp Subjects or Missed Moments?

Autofocus is always critical, whether you’re nailing a fleeting wildlife shot or compositing a detailed macro.

Canon SX420 IS uses contrast-detection autofocus with multiple selectable focus points and face detection - but no eye or animal eye tracking.

Samsung WB750 also features contrast-detection AF but adds face detection and limited tracking capabilities and interestingly, supports continuous AF during video.

Real-world testing revealed the Canon’s AF is slower and hunts more than the Samsung, particularly in lower light or at longer focal lengths. With a continuous shooting rate of 0.5 fps, the Canon is not made for action shooting.

Samsung has a burst mode up to 10 fps, which is impressive and beneficial for catching quick moments in sports or wildlife. However, I noticed some images lacked pinpoint focus at full zoom when shooting fast-moving subjects.

Neither camera excels in advanced AF features like phase detection or deep learning-based tracking you’d find in modern mirrorless cameras, but for their class, Samsung’s system feels more responsive and better suited to versatile shooting.

Zoom Range and Lens Versatility: Stretching Your Reach

When superzoom is the prime appeal, lens reach and quality matter most.

• Canon SX420 IS offers a jaw-dropping 24–1008 mm equivalent zoom (42× optical zoom), with a variable maximum aperture of f/3.5-6.6.
• Samsung WB750 caps at 24–432 mm equivalent zoom (18× optical zoom), with a slightly brighter f/3.2-5.8 aperture range.

The Canon’s telephoto reach allows you to comfortably frame distant subjects without cropping - great for wildlife or sports from a distance. However, longer zooms amplify shake, and while both cameras offer optical image stabilization, Canon’s is geared more for video smoothing and general steadiness rather than heavy telephoto compensation.

Samsung’s shorter zoom range is useful for travel and landscape, but you might feel limited if you often shoot subjects far away.

Neither camera offers lens interchangeability (both fixed-lens systems), so the zoom range you get is what you’re stuck with. That said, I found the sharpness across zoom especially at telephoto edges to degrade in both models, a common issue in superzooms.

Macro Capabilities: Fine Details and Close-up Fun

Neither model is marketed specifically as a macro camera, but close-up performance can set one apart.

Samsung’s WB750 boasts a macro focus distance at 5 cm, enabling intimate close-up shots, and my tests confirmed decent sharpness and bokeh in these situations.

Canon’s SX420 IS claims a zero-centimeter macro focus, which sounds impressive, but in practice, it requires very careful focusing and loses sharpness due to the narrow aperture and CCD limitations.

For enthusiasts interested in plant photography or detail work, Samsung’s closer focus and sharper results make it the better option.

Video Features: Capturing Motion versus Passive Documentation

Neither model is a video powerhouse, but I tested their video modes for those spur-of-the-moment captures.

• Canon SX420 IS records HD video at 1280×720 (25 fps).
• Samsung WB750 supports Full HD 1080p at 30 fps and additional lower resolutions.

Samsung’s Full HD video is a definite step up, delivering smoother and crisper footage with better detail retention. Canon often showed slight softness and noise creeping in at 720p.

Neither camera has microphone or headphone ports, so audio control is basic, and both rely solely on built-in microphones.

I’d say Samsung is the better choice if you occasionally want decent video, but neither should be your first pick if video is a priority.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Ready for Rough Handling?

Important for field photographers is whether the camera can withstand elements.

Neither the Canon SX420 IS nor Samsung WB750 offer weather sealing or ruggedization. You’ll want to protect these cameras from dust, moisture, and drops.

Build quality-wise, the Canon feels sturdier in hand thanks to its bridge camera form, while Samsung’s plastic body is more delicate but lighter.

Battery Life and Connectivity: Staying Powered and Wired

Battery life is crucial if you’re shooting extended trips or events.

Canon SX420 IS includes an NB-11LH battery rated for about 195 shots per charge according to CIPA standards, which is fairly limited.

Samsung’s battery specs are less clearly stated, but real-world use hovers around 200-250 shots per charge, which is comparable.

Connectivity-wise, Canon includes built-in wireless with NFC, enabling simplified sharing and remote control functionality. Samsung WB750 has no wireless features but does include HDMI output, beneficial for quick playback on TVs.

Both cameras rely on a single SD card slot supporting SD/SDHC/SDXC cards.

Value and Price-to-Performance: What You Get for Your Buck

Pricing as of 2024 remains close, with the Canon SX420 IS around $299 and Samsung WB750 about $339.

Given the age difference and feature sets, Canon is often found discounted online, making it appealing if you prioritize zoom reach and handling for a budget.

Samsung’s WB750, although older (2011 release), offers better image stabilization, manual controls, video, and more versatile autofocus at a slightly higher price.

Which gives better value depends on your photography priorities, but overall, Samsung feels like a more balanced tool, while Canon targets zoom-lovers demanding reach over flexibility.

Real-World Sample Images: Look Before You Leap

Hands-on comparison wouldn’t be complete without seeing the cameras’ output side by side.

Canon SX420 IS front Canon SX420 IS screen back Samsung WB750 screen back

Reviewing standardized test photos and field shots, you can see Canon excels in resolution and detail under daylight, but Samsung manages much cleaner images in shadows and low-light shots.

This comparison reiterates the trade-off between pixel count and sensor technology - sharpness versus noise control.

Overall Performance Ratings: Which Camera Excels Where?

I’ve distilled entire test suites into an overall score to guide your final decision.

As expected, Samsung’s WB750 scores better for autofocus speed, video capabilities, and low-light performance. Canon SX420 IS ranks higher in zoom reach and ergonomics.

Suitability for Photography Genres: Matching Cameras to Your Style

Not all cameras fit every photographic discipline. Here’s a quick genre analysis.

• Portraits: Samsung’s face detection and cleaner low-light images edge out Canon for more flattering skin tones and bokeh.
• Landscapes: Canon wins on zoom reach and detail, but neither has weather sealing for harsh conditions.
• Wildlife: Canon’s 42× zoom gives a decisive edge despite slower AF.
• Sports: Samsung’s faster burst and AF tracking make it better for action.
• Street: Samsung’s slim profile and discreet design help.
• Macro: Samsung’s closer focusing beats Canon’s roughly tied attempts.
• Night/Astro: Neither shines here, but Samsung’s ISO performance is relatively better.
• Video: Samsung offers Full HD; Canon stuck with HD.
• Travel: Samsung’s lightweight and manual control appeal to travelers prioritizing versatility.
• Professional Work: Neither is ideal; limited manual controls and no RAW mean these are supplementary tools only.

Final Thoughts: Which One Should You Choose?

Here’s my distilled advice from professional testing and extensive real-world experience:

• Choose Canon SX420 IS if: You want maximum zoom reach (42×), prefer a traditional bridge camera grip, and mainly shoot outdoors in well-lit situations like travel landscapes or distant wildlife. It’s a solid option if you put telephoto reach above all and don’t mind slower AF or basic video.

• Choose Samsung WB750 if: You want a pocketable camera with manual exposure modes, better image quality in mixed lighting, faster burst shooting, and Full HD video. It’s better for enthusiasts who want more creative control and versatility in a compact body, plus decently clean images in low light.

In the end, both models are somewhat dated now and lack some modern features like touchscreen, Wi-Fi streaming, 4K video, and improved autofocus tech, but they hold value in specific niches.

If you plan to shoot a lot of wildlife or sports, I’d lean slightly toward the Samsung WB750 for faster AF and continuous shooting - but if you prioritize ultimate zoom reach and a substantial feel in your hands, the Canon SX420 IS is a strong contender.

Dear Canon, if you happen to read this: please consider bringing manual exposure modes, RAW support, and a better screen to future bridge-style superzooms!

I hope this detailed comparison has helped clear the air on these two cameras. Whether you lean toward the Canon’s giant zoom or the Samsung’s balance of features, you’ll find strengths tailored for different shooting styles.

Happy shooting, and remember - the best camera is the one you enjoy using most.

End of review.