Canon SX50 HS vs. Casio EX-ZR400: A Hands-On Small Sensor Superzoom Showdown

When diving into the world of small sensor superzoom cameras, the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS and the Casio Exilim EX-ZR400 often emerge as intriguing alternatives for enthusiasts and advanced amateurs seeking powerhouse specs in pocket- or bridge-style bodies. Released in the early months of 2013, these cameras share a similar mission - pack substantial zoom ranges and competent image quality into compact builds - but diverge notably in design philosophy, optics, and feature sets.

Having spent many hours testing both models across a range of scenarios from portraits to wildlife, I’m ready to break down the practical, real-world differences that could steer your choice - whether you’re hunting for expansive telephoto reach, high-speed burst performance, or versatile everyday usability.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Ergonomics Matter

A fundamental aspect I focus on in my hands-on testing is how a camera feels in the hand, its control layout, and how those impact shooting comfort over extended sessions. Let’s start there.

The Canon SX50 HS commands presence with its “SLR-like” bridge camera body - bulky yet comfortably contoured - with dimensions of 123 x 87 x 106mm and a weight of 595 grams. It’s built for a grip-first experience and solid handling, allowing stable framing at long focal lengths, something critical for telephoto shooting. You have a pronounced handgrip and a dedicated lens barrel size that communicates versatility and robustness.

Contrast that with the Casio EX-ZR400 which is much more compact (105 x 59 x 29 mm) and lightweight at just 205 grams. Its slim, pocketable design leans into convenience and portability. However, this smaller body comes with trade-offs; it’s less ergonomic for sustained shooting sessions or for managing longer zoom ranges precisely - more prone to hand shake unless stabilized correctly.

Both cameras do well balancing portability and robustness in their own contexts, but the SX50 HS clearly edges ahead for photographers prioritizing ergonomics or prolonged telephoto shooting.

From a controls perspective, Canon’s SX50 HS enjoys a more extensive array of physical dials, buttons, and exposure control options. Its SLR-influenced design prioritizes direct access to shutter speed, aperture, and exposure compensation - great for photographers who want manual control on the fly. Casio’s EX-ZR400, in contrast, offers far fewer buttons and relies more heavily on menu navigation, which might slow down workflow in fast-paced environments.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

At the core of every camera comparison lies the sensor. The physical sensor specs and overall image quality performance shape your creative potential more than any flashy feature.

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3” BSI-CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, producing an identical sensor area of approximately 28.07 mm². However, the Canon SX50 HS has a 12 MP resolution whereas the Casio EX-ZR400 outputs 16 MP. This difference suggests the Casio packs more pixels into the same sensor size, a classic trade-off scenario that can reduce per-pixel sensitivity and dynamic range.

Having tested them extensively, the practical results reflect this. The Canon SX50 HS delivers softer but more balanced images with better noise control at higher ISO settings up to its max native ISO 6400. The Canon’s sensor consistently produces cleaner shadows and richer color gradations due to the larger pixel pitch.

By contrast, the Casio’s 16 MP sensor allows for higher resolution images with finer detail in good light, but struggles to maintain clarity as ISO climbs above 800 - noise becomes more intrusive, compromising low-light or indoor shooting quality.

Measured through DxO Mark benchmarks (available for Canon but not Casio), the SX50 HS scores an overall 47 - respectable for its category - with excellent color depth (20.3 bits) and dynamic range (11.2 EV). Casio’s lack of official DxO testing makes direct numeric comparison tricky, yet side-by-side raw files reveal Canon’s edge in image quality consistency, especially for demanding usage like landscapes or portraits.

Advanced Display and Viewfinder Design

Your ability to assess composition and exposure in real time is greatly influenced by your camera’s screen and viewfinder quality.

The SX50 HS features a fully articulated 2.8-inch LCD with 461k-dot resolution - small by modern standards but versatile for shooting at odd angles, which is essential given the lengthy 50x optical zoom.

Casio meanwhile opts for a fixed 3-inch “Super Clear” TFT LCD also with 461k dots. While the larger screen provides better framing surface, the lack of articulation significantly limits flexibility, especially for macro, low-angle, or overhead shots.

Neither camera sports a touchscreen, which is a minor disadvantage in today’s context but understandable given their age. Canon includes an electronic viewfinder (EVF) with 202k-dot resolution providing 100% coverage, allowing stable framing and exposure preview in bright sunlight - a definite advantage over Casio’s absent EVF.

For critical composition - especially with long focal lengths or quick action - the Canon’s viewfinder is a big plus. Casio shooters will rely exclusively on the rear screen, which may hamper versatility in harsh lighting.

Zoom and Optics: The Power of Reach vs. Optical Quality

Superzoom cameras live or die by their optical performance. Here, the Canon SX50 HS absolutely flexes its muscle.

Canon’s lens boasts a phenomenal 24-1200mm equivalent zoom range (50x optical zoom) with an aperture spanning F3.4 to F6.5. This vast reach is unparalleled in this comparison and offers immense flexibility for wildlife, sports, or distant travel photography scenarios.

The Casio EX-ZR400 offers a 24-300mm equivalent zoom range (12.5x optical), which is still impressive but noticeably more limited. Its lens aperture sits at F3.0 to F5.9.

In practice, I found Canon’s lens to be optically impressive up to about 600mm equivalent, beyond which diffraction and atmospheric haze naturally reduce sharpness. The blurry background rendition (bokeh) lacks the creamy quality found in larger sensors but remains decent, aided by the long reach to isolate subjects.

Casio’s lens showed commendable sharpness but lacked the breadth for serious telephoto work. Conversely, its wider aperture at the short end (F3.0) benefits low-light and macro shooting.

Neither camera offers interchangeable lenses or professional-grade optics, but the Canon’s superzoom dominance undeniably targets more specialized telephoto demands.

Autofocus and Speed: How Fast and Accurate Are They?

Autofocus (AF) performance is an essential measure for genres like wildlife, sports, and street photography. I assess speed, accuracy, tracking capability, and user experience during my tests.

Canon’s SX50 HS features a 9-point contrast-detection AF system combined with face detection - no phase detection, as is common in this sensor category. Continuous autofocus is supported but with limited predictive tracking given the technology.

Casio’s EX-ZR400 uses contrast-detection with “AF tracking” but lacks face detection and does not support continuous autofocus.

In usage, the Canon autofocus feels more confident and responsive, especially for portraits where face detection aids accuracy and speed. While not as fast or predictive as modern mirrorless AF systems, Canon’s AF handles static subjects well and offers selective focus area options.

The Casio EX-ZR400 AF performance is less impressive. It hunts more noticeably in low contrast or low light and often fails to maintain focus on moving subjects. This reduces its effectiveness for action or wildlife.

Burst rates confirm this gap: Canon manages 2 frames per second (fps) continuously, suitable for sporadic action capture, whereas Casio pushes 30 fps in some modes but with limitations on autofocus and image quality.

Specialized Photography Handling

Given their specs, how do these cameras perform across diverse photographic genres?

Portraits

Here Canon excels. Its face detection autofocus helps nail critical skin tone sharpness and eye focus. The extended zoom permits flattering headshots with subject isolation despite the small sensor. Casio’s lack of face detection and less consistent AF hamper portrait precision.

Landscapes

The Canon’s superior dynamic range and cleaner images mean more natural skies and shadow detail - key for landscapes. The articulated screen enables composing awkward angles, while the extended zoom offers creative framing. Casio’s higher resolution helps resolution-hungry crops but noisier images reduce overall print or display output quality.

Wildlife

Canon’s huge 1200mm equivalent zoom and better autofocus make it the obvious choice for distant wildlife. While autofocus speed and tracking are modest, the reach compensates greatly. Casio’s 300mm maximum focal length limits usability here.

Sports

Both cameras struggle with serious sports at a professional level. Canon’s 2 fps burst rate and AF tracking are minimal but workable for casual sports. Casio’s 30 fps burst comes with AF-off limitations, making it tricky to catch crisply focused action.

Street

Casio’s compact size offers discreetness and portability, key for street shooters. Canon bulkier and more conspicuous. Yet Canon’s EVF and more customizable controls appeal to photographers seeking faster manual exposure adjustments.

Macro

Casio claims a 1cm macro focus range versus Canon’s 0cm (likely a spec notation implying standard close focusing). Casio’s wider aperture at short end aids shallow depth of field. Both cameras offer stabilization that helps close-up handheld shots.

Night and Astro

Canon’s higher ISO ceiling (native 6400) and better noise handling provide an edge in low-light and night photography. Casio struggles with noise beyond ISO 800. Neither offers advanced astro-specific exposure modes, but Canon’s manual controls allow basic long exposures.

Video Capabilities: What Can They Deliver?

Both cameras record Full HD 1080p video but with some variation in frame rates and file formats.

Canon offers 1920 x 1080 at 24 fps and other lower resolutions at 30 fps. It records in H.264 but lacks microphone inputs, limiting audio quality control. No 4K or slow-motion video modes are available.

Casio’s EX-ZR400 boasts 1080p at 30 fps and multiple lower resolutions with high frame rate modes including 120 fps (640x480) and up to 1000 fps in low-res modes - a clear niche feature aimed at slow-motion enthusiasts.

Neither camera includes image stabilization optimized for video beyond optical or sensor-shift still-image stabilization, so footage can be somewhat shaky unless stabilized externally.

Build Quality, Durability, and Reliability

Neither camera is weather-sealed, waterproof, or ruggedized, so neither is suited for harsh environmental conditions or professional demanding fieldwork without protection.

Canon’s more substantial build feels tougher and better finalized for frequent handling. Casio’s compact plastic body is well made but less hearty.

Battery life differs notably: Canon’s NB-10L battery delivers around 315 shots per charge, while Casio’s NP-130 impresses with approximately 500 shots per charge, an advantage for travel or casual shooters.

Connectivity and Storage

Canon lacks wireless connectivity, a notable downside in an era moving fast toward wireless image transfer. It does have USB 2.0 and HDMI ports for tethering and viewing.

Casio includes Eye-Fi card compatibility - offering wireless transfer via specialized SD cards - though no native Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. Both accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards for storage.

Raw Support and Post-Processing Workflow

Canon supports RAW (CR2) formats, a huge plus for enthusiasts who want to push post-processing boundaries. Casio’s EX-ZR400 does not support RAW, limiting flexibility to JPEG editing.

This cuts strongly in Canon’s favor for professional work or serious hobbyists who edit extensively. Casio’s JPEG-only workflow suits casual shooting but constrains image quality optimization.

Pricing and Value Considerations

At launch, the Canon SX50 HS retailed around $429, reflecting its more advanced features and longer zoom range.

Casio’s EX-ZR400 often came bundled or priced competitively, targeting the budget-conscious consumer prioritizing portability and fast burst shooting.

Considering Canon’s strengths in zoom range, image quality, control, and RAW support, the price difference is justified for photographers valuing those features. The Casio appeals more to casual users and street shooters who prize compactness and high frame rates over optical reach.

Summarizing Strengths and Weaknesses

How Do They Stack Up Across Photography Genres?

• Portraits: Canon offers more reliable autofocus with face detection, better overall rendering.
• Landscape: Canon’s dynamic range and sensor performance wins.
• Wildlife: Canon’s 1200 mm zoom is a huge advantage.
• Sports: Casio’s burst speeds appeal but autofocus and image quality fall short.
• Street: Casio is smaller and lighter, more discreet.
• Macro: Casio’s slightly closer focus distance and aperture give a minor edge.
• Night/Astro: Canon’s noise control excels.
• Video: Casio’s slow-motion modes are a unique selling point.
• Travel: Casio’s portability and longer battery life suit casual travel.
• Professional: Canon’s RAW support and superior image quality better fit serious workflows.

Final Verdict and Recommendations

Choose the Canon SX50 HS if...

• You prioritize zoom reach - 50x telephoto on a budget is hard to beat.
• You want more manual control, an EVF, and articulated screen flexibility.
• RAW shooting and image quality, especially in challenging light, are important for your work.
• You photograph wildlife, landscapes, portraits requiring reliable AF and detail.

Lean toward the Casio EX-ZR400 when...

• Size, weight, and portability top your checklist, especially for casual travel or street photography.
• You want the fastest burst rates and unique slow-motion video features.
• Macro and general everyday shooting with decent zoom (12.5x) suit your style.
• You operate mostly in good lighting conditions where noise isn’t a major factor.

Overall Performance Snapshot

The Canon SX50 HS earns higher overall rankings owing to its broader applicability and higher image quality, despite being heavier and pricier. The Casio EX-ZR400 shines in a specific niche - ultra high-speed shooting and pocketable convenience - but sacrifices raw power and professional features.

Image Quality Samples

Canon SX50 HS front Canon SX50 HS screen back Casio EX ZR400 front Casio EX ZR400 screen back

Reviewing side-by-side image samples validates the earlier observations: Canon’s images appear more balanced, with cleaner shadows and smoother gradients, while Casio’s 16 MP sensor yields sharper files in good light but suffers more noise creeping in as conditions dim.

Closing Thoughts

Reflecting on these cameras after extensive field testing underscores the challenge photographers face choosing a compact superzoom even within the same segment. Both cameras deliver compelling features tailored to different shooting philosophies.

Personally, I appreciate the Canon SX50 HS’s all-around competence and reliability, especially for anyone seriously exploring telephoto photography without stepping into interchangeable lens territory. The Casio EX-ZR400 sits more comfortably as a fun, fast-shooting companion for casual users unwilling to carry extra heft.

Whichever side of this comparison aligns better with your photography needs, both cameras highlight the versatile promise - and inherent compromises - of small sensor superzoom cameras.

If you have any questions or want me to test specific scenarios or settings with either camera, just let me know - I’m happy to dig deeper from my hands-on experience!