Canon SX520 HS vs Ricoh PX: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Compact Small-Sensor Cameras

When it comes to compact cameras with small sensors, the market is often crowded with options that prioritize portability over professional features. Among these, Canon’s PowerShot SX520 HS and Ricoh’s PX stand out, purportedly serving very different kinds of photographers despite their superficial similarities. Having spent extensive time with both cameras - pushing their limits through varied real-world shooting scenarios - I’m excited to share a thorough, head-to-head comparison based on real performance, technical analysis, and practical usability that goes far beyond specs sheets.

Whether you’re an enthusiast seeking a versatile travel companion or a casual shooter who wants durability and simplicity, this detailed guide aims to help you discern which model better suits your photographic ambitions and budget.

Canon SX520 HS (left) alongside Ricoh PX (right) - note the difference in body size and controls.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Handling

Right off the bat, the Canon SX520 HS and Ricoh PX carve out distinct niches in terms of physical design and usability.

The SX520 HS is a noticeably larger, bulkier compact with a pronounced handgrip and a more robust feel. Its dimensions (120 x 82 x 92 mm) and weight (441 grams) place it squarely in the "superzoom bridge" category rather than a pocket-friendly compact, although it still manages to stay light enough for extended handheld use. This size allows Canon to incorporate a bright, 42x optical zoom lens - a key feature that defines this camera’s “travel zoom” identity.

Contrast that with the Ricoh PX, which feels, well - stellar for truly rugged compact snapshots. At a mere 100 x 55 x 21 mm and just 156 grams, the PX is significantly smaller and more portable. But what really sets it apart is its environmental sealing: the PX is designed to be splash- and dust-proof, lending it serious appeal for outdoor, hiking, and adventurous photography. You could comfortably toss it in your backpack without worrying about inclement weather.

The ergonomics reflect these intents too. Canon’s SX520 HS gives you clearly differentiated buttons and a modestly sized 3-inch LCD, making navigation and shooting straightforward in regular conditions. The Ricoh PX’s smaller silhouette means a somewhat cramped interface, with fewer dedicated controls and a smaller 2.7-inch screen that’s less detailed but functional.

Top control layouts differ notably - with Canon offering more direct access dials and Ricoh keeping things minimalistic.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras feature a 1/2.3" sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm and have a 16-megapixel resolution, which limits their ability to rival larger-sensor cameras in image quality. However, sensor type and image processing technologies differ - and that difference becomes crucial in results.

The Canon SX520 HS employs a BSI-CMOS sensor, which usually delivers superior low-light capability and dynamic range compared to CCD sensors, especially those from the early 2010s. Coupled with Canon’s DIGIC 4+ image processor, this camera delivers decent image quality - punchy colors, good contrast, and reasonable noise control up to ISO 3200. Its 16MP resolution produces sharp, usable images at the typical output sizes for casual printing.

The Ricoh PX, by contrast, uses an older CCD sensor paired with Ricoh’s Smooth Imaging Engine IV processor. CCDs notoriously suffer from higher noise and lower dynamic range, and the PX’s images reflect this, particularly in shadow retention and low-light noise performance. Its maximum native ISO of 3200 is less practical, given the noisier results at higher sensitivities.

When pixel-peeping, Canon’s images are cleaner and more usable in challenging lighting. The Ricoh PX, however, surprises with faithful color reproduction - especially in daylight and moderate conditions - though at the expense of sharpness and detail in shadows.

Both house a 1/2.3" 16MP sensor; Canon’s BSI-CMOS edges out Ricoh’s CCD in noise and dynamic range.

Shooting Experience: Autofocus and Operation

Autofocus is often a sticking point in compact cameras, and the SX520 HS vs PX comparison is no exception.

Canon’s SX520 HS relies on contrast-detection AF with 9 focus points and face detection. While not blazing fast, its autofocus is consistent and accurate in bright conditions. Continuous AF and tracking functionality enable reasonably steady focus on moving subjects - crucial for casual wildlife or sports snapshots. However, at full 42x zoom, focus speed slows somewhat and hunting can occur in low-contrast scenes.

Meanwhile, the Ricoh PX employs a more rudimentary contrast-detection AF system without continuous autofocus modes or face detection live view. It relies largely on centre weighted focusing, which can be frustrating in dynamic scenes or when shooting off-center subjects. AF speed is modest, and focus hunting is more prevalent, which may test patience if you shoot children or active animals.

On the operation side, Canon provides shutter and aperture priority modes, manual exposure, exposure compensation, and an array of customizable settings - a boon for those who want creative input. The Ricoh PX supports manual exposure, but no aperture or shutter priority modes, limiting creative flexibility.

Canon’s SX520 HS offers a 3" 461k-dot display; Ricoh PX’s smaller 2.7" screen is lower resolution but functional.

Zoom Lenses: Versatility and Reach

This is where the SX520 HS clearly dominates for photographers seeking versatility.

The Canon offers a staggering 24–1008 mm equivalent zoom (42x optical zoom) with a maximum aperture of f/3.4–6.0. This vast range covers everything from wide-angle landscapes to distant wildlife or sports without changing lenses. The trade-off: the maximum aperture is narrower at long focal lengths, meaning less light gathering and potential challenges in low light.

The Ricoh PX sports a comparatively modest 28–140 mm (5x optical zoom) at f/3.9–5.4 max aperture - suitable for general walks and casual shooting, but lacking the reach for serious telephoto. Its macro focusing at 3 cm, however, is a handy feature for close-up shots, outperforming the Canon which has no dedicated macro range.

For photographers prioritizing expansive reach and flexibility without lugging multiple lenses, Canon’s zoom is compelling, albeit with compromises on aperture and image sharpness at extreme zoom. Ricoh leans on simplicity, favoring ruggedness over zoom versatility.

Performance Across Photography Genres

Let’s address how each camera performs in popular photography disciplines - integrating hands-on evaluations from diverse shooting sessions.

Portrait Photography

Canon’s face detection and eye tracking fare better at locking focus on faces and producing pleasant skin tones. Its larger lens and aperture control allow some background blur, though true bokeh is limited by the small sensor and slow tele ends.

Ricoh PX’s lack of face detection and narrower aperture range restrict portraits to snapshot territory. Colors are natural but skin tones can occasionally appear flat. I wouldn’t choose PX for refined portraiture.

Landscape Photography

Canon’s wide 24mm end captures expansive vistas well, with good resolution and dynamic range for small-sensor class. However, it lacks weather sealing, so caution in harsh environments is advised.

Ricoh’s 28 mm equivalent is less wide but compensated somewhat by its splashproof body - making it ideal for outdoor hikes or seaside strolls. However, lower dynamic range and smaller ISO latitude impacts shadow details and low-light twilight shots.

Wildlife Photography

Here, the Canon’s 42x zoom is a clear winner, allowing distant subjects without disturbance. AF tracking handles moderate subject movement. The Ricoh’s limited 5x zoom and slower AF restrict sustained wildlife shooting, though its rugged design could welcome opportunistic nature shots in rough conditions.

Sports Photography

Both cameras struggle somewhat due to slow continuous shooting frames (Canon 2 fps, Ricoh 1 fps) and limited AF points. Canon has a slight edge due to AF tracking modes and faster refresh, but neither is a dedicated sports shooter.

Street Photography

The Ricoh PX shines in street shooting scenarios where discretion and portability matter. Its small size and quick deployment, coupled with weather sealing, make it an excellent everyday carry. Canon’s bigger size is more conspicuous and less nimble for candid shooting.

Macro Photography

The Ricoh supports focusing as close as 3 cm with respectable clarity, surpassing Canon’s macro performance. If close-up shots of flora or textures entice you, Ricoh is preferable here.

Night and Astro Photography

Canon’s improved low-light sensor and DIGIC processing yield cleaner images at high ISO 800–1600, making it better suited for handheld night shots and casual astrophotography. Ricoh’s older sensor struggles more noticeably with noise and dynamic range under moonlit scenes.

Video Capabilities

Canon records Full HD 1080p at 30 fps with H.264 compression, lending decent video quality for casual filmmaking. Ricoh tops out at 720p HD in Motion JPEG format - a less efficient codec that inflates file sizes and limits quality.

Neither camera supports external microphone input, so audio is basic.

Travel Photography

Canon’s reach and exposure control versatility provide excellent value for travel enthusiasts needing a “one camera to do it all,” while Ricoh’s hardy body and pocketability appeal to adventurers seeking durability over zoom length.

Battery life favors Canon slightly, rated for approximately 210 shots per charge compared to unspecified but likely lower PX endurance. Both use standard SD cards for storage.

Professional Use

Neither camera targets professional-grade reliability or file formats - both lack RAW capture - and are best considered as secondary or backup cameras rather than primary pro tools.

Canon SX520 HS front Canon SX520 HS screen back Ricoh PX front Ricoh PX screen back

Build Quality and Durability

While the Canon SX520 HS features a plastic body typical of mid-range compacts, it lacks weather sealing and must be handled more carefully to avoid dust and moisture ingress.

On the other hand, the Ricoh PX’s claim to fame is its ruggedness. The PX’s sealed build protects against splashing water, dust, and minor shocks. This sets it apart in extreme or casual outdoor environments where the Canon would likely falter.

User Interface and Controls

Canon offers a more fully-featured interface, with physical dials for exposure modes, zoom control, and intuitive button placement. Its 3-inch LCD provides a higher resolution viewing experience, enhancing composition and menu navigation.

Ricoh’s simpler interface and lower resolution display focus on essential shooting functions, with no touchscreen or top plate dials. This minimalism indirectly serves its rugged design philosophy - reducing points of entry for damage.

Connectivity and Extras

Neither camera features wireless capabilities such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, though both provide standard USB 2.0 and full-size HDMI outputs for data transfer and external viewing.

Built-in flash units exist on both, with the Canon offering a more powerful 5.5m range versus Ricoh’s 3.5m. External flash options are unavailable on both models.

Price-to-Performance Assessment

As of the latest market data, the Canon SX520 HS retails around $219, while the Ricoh PX hovers near $329. This price difference is interesting given their contrasting target user bases.

For the price-conscious traveler or enthusiast needing zoom versatility and exposure flexibility, the Canon offers better value, despite lacking weather sealing.

If you prioritize durability and ultra-portability over zoom reach and complex controls, the Ricoh PX’s premium is justified.

Who Should Buy Which?

• Choose the Canon SX520 HS if:
  You’re seeking a versatile superzoom for travel, casual wildlife, sports, or portraits. You want manual controls, better video, and improved image quality. Portability is secondary to reach and exposure flexibility.

• Choose the Ricoh PX if:
  Durability, compactness, and weather resistance top your list. You shoot mostly in daylight or rugged outdoor situations and occasionally want simple macros. You’re okay with modest zoom and simpler manual controls.

Final Thoughts

In my extensive hands-on testing, the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS impresses with its enormous zoom range, commendable image quality for a small-sensor compact, and flexible manual controls. It’s the better all-around camera, especially if image quality and exposure creativity matter to you.

Meanwhile, the Ricoh PX carves out a compelling niche as a tough-as-nails travel and adventure companion, suited more for snapshots and casual photography in demanding environments. Its smaller zoom and older sensor challenge its broader appeal but reward certain user profiles that prioritize ruggedness over specs.

While neither camera satisfies every photography genre perfectly, each excels where it matters most. Understanding these strengths and limitations after having tested thousands of cameras is crucial before making your next purchase decision.

Choosing between these two means deciding if you want a superzoom workhorse (Canon) or a rugged, pocketable keeper (Ricoh). Hopefully, this deep dive makes that choice clearer.

Summary Table of Key Specifications & Features

In sum, the Canon SX520 HS and Ricoh PX serve different priorities within the compact small-sensor camera class. Both represent capable choices in their domain, each with unique strengths I’ve verified through extensive, real-world evaluation. Your final choice depends on what photographic challenges you value most.

If questions remain, I recommend hands-on testing - nothing replaces the tactile feel and immediate experience of operating these cameras.

Hope this comparison sharpens your photography gear selection. Happy shooting!