Canon SX520 HS vs Fujifilm SL1000: A Deep Dive into Two Small Sensor Superzooms

When it comes to superzoom cameras with small sensors, the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS and the Fujifilm FinePix SL1000 stand out as contenders, each boasting some impressive ultra-zoom capabilities. Though neither are new kids on the block - they debuted in 2014 and 2013 respectively - they still tick the boxes for many enthusiasts and even budget-conscious pros looking for versatility without lugging Sony mega-zoom pocket rockets or mirrorless beasts.

In this hands-on comparison, I’ve put these two cameras head-to-head, wrestling them through various photography disciplines, technical specs, and real-world usability. I’ll share my firsthand impressions based on extensive testing, and help you decide which one suits your shooting style and needs best.

Let’s start with the basics and see where these pocket-friendly, ultra-zoomers stand.

Comparing the Size and Ergonomics: Handling the Beastly Zooms

When I pulled both cameras out of their boxes for a side-by-side field test, the physical differences were immediately clear - even if both were targeting the same superzoom niche.

Canon SX520 HS: Compact and neat, the SX520 HS weighs in at a mere 441 grams. Its 120x82x92 mm dimensions make it comfortable enough for extended handheld shoots without turning your hand into a claw. The compact body feels more pocketable than the SL1000 but still has enough heft to feel like a proper camera, integral when you’re trying to hold steady at long zoom lengths.

Fujifilm SL1000: This one is a chunkier, bridge-style camera at 659 grams and larger dimensions (123x89x123 mm) - it looks and feels more like an SLR-style camera than a pocket point-and-shoot. The bigger grip and size might be a dealbreaker for city street photographers craving discretion, but it gives you more confidence and stability once you’re ready to zoom all the way out to 1200mm.

Verdict: If portability and ease of handling are priorities (say for travel or street shooting), the Canon’s smaller size could win your vote. But if you need that extra heft to steady super-telephoto shots, Fujifilm feels more substantial.

Top Deck Controls and Interface: Which One Puts the Clubs in Your Thumbs?

Neither camera wins awards for control layout sophistication, but they each have their own quirks that affect shooting comfort.

The Canon SX520 HS keeps things simple and clean on the top plate - there’s a mode dial, zoom toggle, shutter release with a concentric zoom ring, and a few comfortable buttons for exposure compensation and quick menu access. You get manual focus rings and some basic exposure modes including aperture and shutter priority. Not too many clubs for your thumbs here, but it works well enough for everyday shooting.

Fujifilm SL1000’s SLR-like design carries more buttons and switches which can be a blessing or curse depending on your preference. The dedicated mode dial and proximity of exposure controls make tweaking settings faster once you get used to where things are, but it may intimidate beginners. Interestingly, it does offer an electronic viewfinder (with decent 920k dots resolution), which Canon lacks.

Verdict: Fujifilm offers the more traditional camera ergonomics, especially appealing if you’re used to DSLR-style controls. If you’re a cheapskate who wants less complexity, Canon’s straightforward design will suit you better.

Sensor and Image Quality: Same Size, Different Results?

At the heart of both cameras sits a 1/2.3-inch BSI CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, sharing an identical resolution of 16 megapixels.

You’d think that identical sensor size and pixel count would lead to near-identical image quality, but the devil is in the details of image processing:

• Canon SX520 HS: Powered by the DIGIC 4+ processor, Canon’s image processing pipeline is optimized for color accuracy, with a slight bias towards warmer skin tones and naturalistic colors. However, noise control starts to degrade noticeably after ISO 800, limiting night shooting. The fixed lens max aperture of f/3.4-6.0 hampers low-light performance at long zoom.

• Fujifilm SL1000: The Fujifilm processes images differently with its own color science and supports a broader ISO range (64-12800, though noise blows up beyond 800-1600). The sharper max aperture range of f/2.9-6.5 slightly helps low-light and depth of field control at the wide end. Also, Fujifilm supports RAW shooting - an essential tool for post-processing aficionados looking to squeeze every bit of image quality.

My Testing Notes: Under controlled lighting, both cameras deliver respectable sharpness and detail for their sensor class, but neither can compete with larger sensor compacts or mirrorless. Still, Fujifilm’s RAW support and slightly wider aperture make it preferable for those wanting to do serious editing or low-light work.

The Rear Screen & Viewfinder Experience: Live View Matters

Handling and composing images is always easier with the right display. Here’s how these two compare:

Canon’s fixed 3-inch screen with 461k dots feels a bit dated and lacks touch sensitivity. It’s bright enough for shading your eyes outdoors but refresh rates lag behind Fujifilm. No electronic viewfinder means relying wholly on that LCD, which can be tricky in harsh lighting.

Fujifilm’s 3-inch tilting TFT LCD with 920k dots is a big upgrade for composing shots at various angles, and the high-resolution electronic viewfinder is excellent for precision framing in bright conditions or when stability is key (telephoto lenses magnify shake, after all). The viewfinder's refresh rate and clarity were solid during my tests, making it a more premium experience.

Verdict: For framing versatility and shooting comfort, the Fujifilm SL1000 clearly edges out with its EVF and better screen.

Zoom Range and Macro: Zoom Kings with Close-Up Potential

Both cameras shine in providing long-zoom capabilities:

• Canon boasts a 42× optical zoom (24-1008mm equivalent).
• Fujifilm pushes even further with a 50× zoom (24-1200mm equivalent).

That extra 192mm telephoto reach on the Fujifilm means more framing options for distant subjects, from wildlife to sporting events.

Macro focusing on both is advertised at 0 cm, meaning the lens can focus literally at the front element - great for shooting small subjects with a close working distance. However, neither camera offers advanced focus bracketing or stacking (features that pros use for optimum macro precision).

Practical Takeaway: If shooting distant subjects is your game, Fujifilm’s greater reach is enticing. For casual macro enthusiasts, both offer reasonable performance but expect some compromises in detail and bokeh quality given sensor limitations.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Fast Enough for Action?

Autofocus and frame rates are critical for wildlife, sports, and spontaneous street photography, so let’s see how they compare:

• Canon SX520 HS: Contrast-detection autofocus system with 9 focus points, including face detection and tracking capable. However, the AF is slower and less reliable in dim lighting or high-zoom ranges. Continuous shooting is a sedate 2 fps, limiting the ability to capture fast bursts.

• Fujifilm SL1000: Lacks face/eye detection autofocus and uses a more basic contrast-based system, which proved less responsive in my tests. Continuous shooting is significantly faster at 10 fps, which can help in some sports or wildlife scenarios but only if focus is locked.

My Field Observations: The Canon’s focus tracking is slightly more dependable for portraits and casual wildlife, while Fujifilm rewards you with faster burst speeds but requires patience due to less reliable AF performance. Neither is ideal for pro sports photography though.

Low Light and Night Photography: Who Shines in the Dark?

Night and astro photographers often rely on good sensor performance and manual exposure controls.

• Canon’s max ISO tops at 3200, and noise becomes prominent above 800 ISO. Limited shutter speed range caps at 15s on the slow end, which limits its capability for long exposure astrophotography.

• Fujifilm extends ISO sensitivity to 12800 with a minimum shutter speed of 30s, which helps in low light and night skies. Though compressed Motion JPEG video and no RAW video recording put a damper on videographers seeking professional-grade output.

Neither camera was built with night photography as a priority, so noise and sensor size limitations mean long exposures require a sturdy tripod and manual techniques.

Video Capabilities: Entry-Level Vlogging or Casual Clips?

Both cameras offer 1080p full HD video but differ in frame rate and codec:

• Canon records at 1080p/30fps using MPEG-4 and H.264 codec, with optical image stabilization aiding handheld shots.

• Fujifilm offers 1080p/60fps recording in Motion JPEG format, allowing smoother motion but larger files and less efficient compression.

Neither supports 4K video or external microphone/headphone jacks, limiting their use in professional video production.

Verdict: Fujifilm’s higher frame rate and superior stabilization edge out for casual video shooters, but don’t expect cinematic quality from either.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long Will They Last?

Battery and storage are practical factors, especially on long outings:

• Canon packs a NB-6LH battery rated for 210 shots per charge.

• Fujifilm contains a larger battery, pushing about 350 shots per charge, almost twice Canon’s endurance.

Both cameras use a single SD/SDHC/SDXC card slot, standard for this market segment.

If you’re prone to heavy shooting, Fujifilm’s battery advantage is substantial, meaning fewer hours clinging to a power bank or packing spare batteries.

Lens Ecosystem and Expandability: Fixed Means Fixed

Both cameras have fixed lenses - no option to swap or expand lenses, meaning you rely solely on the built-in superzoom for framing versatility.

However, Fujifilm supports external flash units via hot shoe - something Canon SX520 HS lacks. This can be a plus if you want to experiment with off-camera lighting.

Neither camera includes wireless connectivity such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, so transferring images requires USB or removing memory cards.

Build Quality and Weather Protection: Shooting in the Field

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, splash, dust, or freeze-proof capabilities. The Canon is more compact and lighter, but feels less rugged in the hand. Fujifilm’s SLR-style body is more robust but not immune to hard knocks.

Both cameras are best treated as indoor/outdoor fair-weather companions rather than rugged adventure gear.

Image Samples and Real-World Shooting

Time to look at what really counts - image quality in practice.

Canon SX520 HS front Canon SX520 HS screen back Fujifilm SL1000 front Fujifilm SL1000 screen back

Test shots show both cameras produce vibrant images with good detail in daylight. Canon's colors skew a little warmer and softer at telephoto, whereas Fujifilm offers punchier colors and slightly more edge definition.

At ISO 800 and above, noise is more noticeable on Canon images, with Fujifilm managing somewhat better noise control at comparable exposure settings. Zoomed-in wildlife shots demonstrate Fujifilm's longer reach can make a tangible difference in composition.

Scores by Category: How Do They Stack Up?

Breaking down performance by major photography types reveals distinct strengths and weaknesses.

• Portraits: Canon wins slightly with face detection autofocus and better skin tone rendering.

• Landscape: Fujifilm benefits from higher ISO and better dynamic range handling, though both limited by sensor size.

• Wildlife: Fujifilm’s longer zoom and 10 fps burst rate shine, but AF limitations reduce reliability.

• Sports: Neither is ideal, but Fujifilm's speed offers better chances.

• Street: Canon’s compact size and discreteness give it an edge.

• Macro: Comparable, both offer decent close focusing.

• Night/Astro: Fujifilm’s wider shutter range and ISO give it an advantage.

• Video: Fujifilm again leads with 60 fps recording.

• Travel: Canon’s lighter size is preferable.

• Professional work: Neither targets pro workflows, but Fujifilm’s RAW output offers modest benefits.

Overall Performance Scores

In aggregate, Fujifilm’s SL1000 scores higher overall thanks to its zoom range, viewfinder, better battery life, and video frame rates. Canon’s SX520 HS impresses with better handling, face detection AF, and a lighter body.

Pros and Cons Recap

Canon SX520 HS:

Pros:

• Compact and lightweight body
• Good color accuracy and skin tones
• Face detection AF and tracking
• Simple controls and operation
• Reasonably priced (~$219)

Cons:

• Shorter zoom range (42× vs 50×)
• Lower video frame rates (30fps max)
• Limited ISO range and noisy at high ISO
• No viewfinder or tilting screen
• Poor battery life (210 shots)

Fujifilm SL1000:

Pros:

• Longer ultra-zoom (50×)
• High-resolution electronic viewfinder and tilting screen
• Supports RAW capture
• Higher ISO range and longer shutter speed
• Much better battery life (350 shots)
• Faster continuous shooting (10fps)
• External flash support

Cons:

• Bulky and heavier
• Slower and less reliable autofocus
• More complex control layout
• Proprietary video codec (Motion JPEG)
• More expensive (~$600)

Final Verdict: Which Small Sensor Superzoom Is Right for You?

Choosing between the Canon SX520 HS and Fujifilm SL1000 boils down to what you value most as a photographer. Neither is a Swiss Army knife, but each offers compelling features in a small sensor, superzoom form factor.

• If your budget is tight, you lean toward travel or street photography, and want a lightweight camera with simple operation - Canon SX520 HS delivers solid value. Its decent image quality, face detection, and manageable handling make it great for everyday shooters, families, and beginners.

• If you crave the longest zoom reach, need an electronic viewfinder, shoot RAW photos, or want faster shooting plus better battery life - Fujifilm SL1000 is worth the premium. It suits hobbyists focused on wildlife, landscapes, and travel who can tolerate bulkier gear and slower autofocus.

Personally, having tested superzoomers across the spectrum, I find the SL1000’s value proposition more compelling for enthusiasts with an eye for manual controls and extended reach. But if you just want a no-fuss superzoom for casual, sunny day shoots, Canon’s SX520 HS gets the job done with minimal fuss.

Whatever your choice, remember these cameras serve as versatile stepping stones - while full-frame or APS-C mirrorless are tech’s current darlings, the convenience and wild zoom ratios of these models remain unmatched at their price points.

I hope this comprehensive head-to-head comparison helps you zero in on the superzoom that’s right for your photographic adventures. Feel free to ask if you want hands-on tips with either or how to maximize small sensor superzoom potential in your workflow!