Canon SX520 HS vs Sigma DP2x

Canon PowerShot SX520 HS vs. Sigma DP2x: A Deep Dive into Two Distinct Compact Cameras

In the realm of compact cameras, the choices can range from versatile superzooms to specialized large sensor shooters. Today, I’m putting two very different machines head to head: the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS, a quintessential superzoom compact, and the Sigma DP2x, a large sensor compact with a singular fixed focal length, boasting Foveon sensor technology. Both have carved out reputations in their niches and arrived with distinct philosophies: Canon aiming for reach and ease, Sigma for image quality and uniqueness.

Having tested thousands of cameras over 15 years, including both superzooms and large sensor fixed-lens models, I’m eager to share a granular, experience-driven comparison across every major photography discipline and use case, backed by technical analysis and real-world performance stories.

Putting Size and Handling on the Table: Ergonomics & Portability

Let’s begin by sizing these contenders side by side.

The Canon SX520 HS is a compact superzoom that feels chunky but manageable for a 42x zoom camera. Measuring roughly 120 x 82 x 92 mm and weighing around 441 g, it balances portability with grip. Its somewhat bulky lens barrel extends noticeably when zooming, but the rubberized grip provides confidence during one-handed shooting.

In contrast, the Sigma DP2x is a distinctly smaller and lighter beast - 113 x 60 x 56 mm at just 280 g. It’s more pocketable, yet its angular, boxy profile and smoother magnesium alloy body invite a more deliberate shooting style. The fixed 41mm equivalent lens and minimalist control layout reinforce this intentionality. It’s a camera designed for photographers who relish image-making over zooming or versatility.

An important note: The Canon’s size and heft stem from its lens mechanics and optical image stabilization system. The Sigma lacks stabilization entirely, trading physical bulk for sensor quality.

Handling the Canon, I found it easy to operate quickly, especially when shooting wildlife or sports, where one-handed zooming and fast responsiveness matter. Meanwhile, the Sigma demands more careful composition and deliberate framing - a contemplative shooter’s tool.

Designs from Above: Control Layout and Top Panel

Control ergonomics can make or break the shooting experience. Here’s a top-down view to compare:

The Canon’s top plate is busier, sporting a mode dial, zoom lever around shutter release, dedicated exposure compensation button, and flash pop-up switch. The layout is intuitive for those familiar with Canon’s typical compact styling. It caters well to grip-and-go users.

The Sigma’s sparse top design offers only a shutter release and power button. Its menu-driven interface requires more menu diving to access important settings. While this minimalist approach keeps distractions limited, it slows down operation speed - noticeable in fast-action situations or street photography scenarios.

This control contrast reflects their target audiences: Canon appeals to travelers and enthusiasts who want a quick-access hybrid auto/manual system, while Sigma leans towards experienced photographers comfortable navigating menus for image quality demands.

Sensor Contrasts and Image Quality Potential

Now to the heart of image creation: the sensor. The Canon SX520 HS features a 1/2.3" backside-illuminated CMOS sensor with approximately 16 megapixels, whereas the Sigma DP2x offers a much larger APS-C sized Foveon X3 CMOS sensor, albeit with a lower output pixel resolution.

The Canon’s sensor area clocks in around 28 mm², typical of superzoom compacts, enabling a long zoom but limited in dynamic range and high ISO performance. The 16MP count is a marketing highlight, but remember the pixels are densely packed on a small sensor - which leads to significant noise and limited shadow recovery in low light.

Sigma’s sensor is approximately ten times larger in area (~285 mm²), a substantial advantage for dynamic range and tonal richness. The Foveon X3 sensor records red, green, and blue information in layers rather than Bayer-filtered pixels, providing exceptional color fidelity and sharp detail in good lighting conditions. However, the effective resolution is around 5MP, contributing to a tradeoff: bigger pixels and colors at the expense of megapixel count.

In practical terms, for landscape and portrait photographers who prioritize image quality, color depth, and tonality over megapixels and reach, Sigma’s sensor excels. For casual shooters or wildlife enthusiasts who want versatile focal length and decent daylight image quality, Canon’s sensor is sufficient.

Taking a Closer Look: LCD Screens and User Interface

Monitoring and composing with confidence requires good displays and interface ease.

The Canon’s 3-inch screen boasts 461k dots. Though fixed and non-touch, it offers decent brightness and clarity for composition and menu navigation. I found it responsive and well balanced numerically against prefocus brightness.

The Sigma’s smaller 2.5-inch display with 230k dots feels dated and dimmer in comparison. It lacked the vibrancy helpful for critical focus checks. Combined with the camera’s limited AF system (more on this later), it made manual focusing a challenge in sunlight or shadow.

From a professional or enthusiast standpoint, Canon’s interface wins for ease and quick feedback. Sigma’s screen supports its slower, more meditative shooting style but may frustrate those needing quick image confirmation.

Real-World Image Samples: Shining Light on Output Differences

To showcase practical image output, I shot a variety of scenes with both cameras - outdoors, portraits, and macro.

Canon SX520 HS front Canon SX520 HS screen back Sigma DP2x screen back

Canon SX520 HS:

• The 42x zoom allowed detailed wildlife shots from a safe distance, though with some softness at full zoom and edge distortion noticeable.
• Portraits captured at moderate apertures had pleasant background blur given focal reach but exhibited softness and some color casts in shade.
• Landscapes offered usable color but lacked depth and detail, especially when zoomed in or in flat lighting.

Sigma DP2x:

• Its fixed 41mm lens excelled at landscapes and street scenes, delivering impressively sharp and color-accurate results.
• Portraits had beautiful skin tone gradation with creamy rendition, though bokeh was limited by the moderate fixed lens aperture.
• Macro attempts were limited physically but showed extraordinary detail on close subjects thanks to the sensor.

Both cameras have distinct looks: Canon images feel “digital compact” with convenience prioritized; Sigma photos possess more character and depth, albeit at the expense of flexibility.

Autofocus Systems and Performance Under Various Conditions

Autofocus is critical - especially when shooting wildlife, sports, or street action.

Canon SX520 HS features a contrast-detection AF system with 9 focus points including face detection, offering continuous AF at about 2 fps shooting. It’s not blazing fast but reliable enough for casual wildlife and travel photography. However, tracking fast-moving subjects is a stretch, and in low light, performance slows noticeably.

Sigma DP2x’s AF is contrast-detection only with a single central point and no continuous AF mode. It requires static subjects and manual focus assistance, limiting usefulness for dynamic scenes. It is better suited to controlled environments like portraits or landscapes where deliberate focusing is possible.

In summary: Canon is decent for moderate action and travel, while Sigma demands patience and careful composition.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speed Ranges

For sports and wildlife shooters, continuous shooting speed and shutter capabilities matter.

• Canon maxes out at just 2 fps - slow by today’s standards, but sufficient for casual bursts.
• Sigma offers a slightly higher 3 fps in single AF mode. Still, neither camera will satisfy professional sports shooters requiring 10+ fps or responsive buffer depths.

Regarding shutter speeds, both share a 15s minimum and 1/2000s maximum exposure range. This breadth is sufficient for everyday shooting and night scenes but lacks very fast shutter speeds needed for freezing high-speed action or advanced stroboscopic work.

Stabilization, Flash, and Low-Light Handling

Canon brings Optical Image Stabilization (OIS), valuable for superzoom photography to mitigate shake at extreme focal lengths and slower shutter speeds. This boosts handheld low-light capabilities somewhat and smoothes video.

Sigma DP2x lacks any stabilization, challenging handheld shooting below 1/60s without blur unless a tripod is used.

The SX520 HS’s built-in flash has a range up to 5.5 meters with multiple modes including slow sync, whereas Sigma’s flash is slightly weaker (4.3m) but allows external flash attachment, a plus for studio-like control.

Low-light ISO tops at 3200 on both, but thanks to larger sensor pixels, Sigma images retain better detail and less noise at higher ISOs.

Video Capabilities: What Can These Cameras Deliver?

Two cameras released in different times with differing video ambitions.

Canon SX520 HS records Full HD (1920x1080) at 30 fps with H.264 encoding and stereo sound. Video stabilization helps smooth handheld clips, making it decent for casual videography such as travel vlogs or home videos.

Sigma DP2x offers only severely limited video capability - 320x240 at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format, audio excluded. It is effectively a stills camera, not aimed at video creatives.

Lens Ecosystems and Compatibility Considerations

Both cameras have fixed lenses, eliminating interchangeable options but differentiating their approach.

Canon’s 24-1008mm equivalent lens with a 42x zoom offers impressive reach for wildlife, sports, and travel. Aperture varies from f/3.4 at wide angle to f/6.0 at telephoto, typical for superzooms.

Sigma DP2x features a sharpened 41mm f/2.8 prime lens, perfect for portraits and street photography with a natural field of view and shallow depth of field abilities.

If lens flexibility is a priority, these cameras are less accommodating, but Canon’s zoom versatility is unquestionably broader.

Battery Endurance and Storage Options

Canon’s NB-6LH battery powers around 210 shots per charge - modest by modern standards but typical for compact superzooms of its era. Sigma’s battery details aren’t officially specified, but its lower power demands and smaller screen mean it might edge Canon in stamina marginally. Both cameras accept SD or compatible memory cards and have a single card slot.

For extended use or travel, the Canon’s battery life may constrain intensive sessions, and lack of dual slots limits professional reliability.

Connectivity and Wireless Functions

Both cameras are barebones in connectivity. Canon offers USB 2.0 and HDMI outputs but omits Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, or NFC - surprising for a 2014 model but common for compacts then. Sigma is similarly limited with USB but no external ports beyond that.

Modern photographers will find these cameras limited, especially if instant sharing or tethered shooting is desired.

Toughness and Environmental Resistance

Neither camera offers weather sealing, waterproofing, or ruggedized build features, underscoring their compact camera status. Both demand careful handling in adverse conditions.

Price-to-Performance: Value Insights

• Canon SX520 HS, at around $219 new (or less used), presents an affordable option for hobbyists craving an all-in-one zoom camera with competent features.
• Sigma DP2x carries a higher $699 price tag, justified by its specialized sensor and image quality, appealing to connoisseurs valuing nuanced midsize sensor output.

What These Cameras Mean for Different Photography Genres

To visualize how each performs across photographic needs, here’s a breakdown supported by our evaluation scores:

Portrait photography:

• Canon: Decent eye detection and decent bokeh at telephoto ends but limited by sensor size and noise.
• Sigma: Superior skin tone rendering, rich color fidelity, and sharpness, at the cost of slower AF and fixed focal length.

Landscape photography:

• Canon: Limited dynamic range and smaller sensor impact image quality, though 24mm wide captures are useful.
• Sigma: Outstanding tonal range, detail, and color for static landscapes; limited zoom requires composition consideration.

Wildlife photography:

• Canon: Advantageous 42x zoom and stabilization help, though focus tracking is slow.
• Sigma: Challenged by fixed prime and slow AF, not ideal for this genre.

Sports photography:

• Canon: Low frame rate insufficient for high action; mild tracking.
• Sigma: Not intended for action given manual focus and lack of burst shooting.

Street photography:

• Canon: Bulky and somewhat conspicuous.
• Sigma: Compact, discreet, and perfect for deliberate street portraits and urban exploration.

Macro photography:

• Canon: Lacking true macro capabilities.
• Sigma: Close focusing with sharp detail, though limited magnification.

Night/Astro:

• Canon: Limited by sensor noise and stabilization, acceptable for casual night scenes.
• Sigma: Better ISO performance and tonal gradations make it suitable for night landscapes, but no long exposure aids.

Video:

• Canon: Full HD with stabilization, user-friendly for casual video.
• Sigma: Limited low-res video only.

Travel:

• Canon: Versatile focal range and decent battery life, love for storytellers on the go.
• Sigma: Lightweight and image-focused, suitable for photographers prioritizing output quality over zoom.

Professional Work:

• Canon: Convenience focus, limited raw support (none) and connectivity; less suited for professional workflows.
• Sigma: Offers raw capture but slow AF and limited video; niche use for high-quality stills.

Summing Up Performance and Ratings

Stepping back, we assessed these cameras across a number of objective and subjective criteria.

Canon SX520 HS rates as a capable, user-friendly superzoom compact delivering reasonable image quality alongside flexibility. Its AI stabilization and zoom capabilities make it an excellent vacation or family camera on a budget. However, its slow burst rate and modest sensor limit advanced photographic aspirations.

The Sigma DP2x stands apart with its pioneering Foveon sensor providing stunning color accuracy and image depth unmatched by small sensor compacts. Yet, its slow AF, fixed prime lens, and limited video hold it back to a niche for patient photographers emphasizing image quality over versatility.

Final Recommendations: Which Camera Fits Your Needs?

Choose the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS if you:

• Desire a long zoom range for wildlife or travel photography without changing lenses.
• Require optical image stabilization for handheld, telephoto shots.
• Prioritize ease of use and quick autofocus over maximum image quality.
• Need Full HD video recording capability in a budget compact.
• Prefer an affordable, versatile “point-and-shoot” ready camera for everyday moments.

Choose the Sigma DP2x if you:

• Are a discerning photographer seeking exceptional color depth and tonal accuracy in JPGs and raw.
• Prefer a fixed focal length and appreciate slower, thoughtful shooting methods.
• Shoot mostly landscapes, portraits, or street scenes in good light.
• Require raw file support to leverage detailed postprocessing control.
• Are willing to trade autofocus speed and zoom for superior image quality per shot.

In Closing: Thoughtful Choices for Different Photographic Philosophies

This comparison is less about a winner and more about understanding distinct photographic tools. Canon’s SX520 HS is a Swiss Army knife: broadly capable and accessible, ideal for documenting a broad range of subjects without fuss. Sigma DP2x, on the other hand, is a high-fidelity paintbrush, suited to creators prioritizing image nuance and craftsmanship, willing to accept limitations.

Choosing between them boils down to your style, subjects, and patience. Both can deliver rewarding images - the challenge lies in aligning the camera’s strengths with your photographic vision.

In a world saturated with interchangeable lens systems and smartphones, these two offer niche approaches - one all about reach, the other about depth. After hundreds of comparative tests, I can confidently say that understanding such differences before purchase saves heartaches and sharpens expectations.

Happy shooting!

If you want to examine detailed sample images or have questions about specific use cases beyond this article, feel free to reach out or check out our in-depth field test galleries and user reports. Our goal is to equip you with clarity in the ever-evolving photographic landscape.