Canon SX60 HS vs Sony HX400V: The Ultimate Small-Sensor Superzoom Showdown

When scouting for a versatile, do-it-all camera without breaking the bank or lugging around a bag full of lenses, small-sensor superzooms like Canon’s SX60 HS and Sony’s HX400V often come up as savvy choices. Both models deliver extensive focal ranges, electronic viewfinders, fully manual control, and bridge-style ergonomics, ticking off many checkboxes for travel, wildlife, and everyday photography.

But which one actually holds up when you dig into real-world shooting? As someone who has tested thousands of cameras across genres over 15 years, I’ve spent quality time with these two contenders to size them up from sensor tech to autofocus grit, image quality, and beyond. Let’s cut through specs and marketing jargon, and get down to the practical stuff you actually experience behind the viewfinder.

Getting a Feel for It: Size, Build, and Handling

Before diving into sensors and autofocus gobbledygook, handling a camera is often an underrated dealbreaker. Small-sensor superzooms - by virtue of their zoom range - tend to be chunkier than compacts, yet more manageable than full-on DSLRs.

The Canon SX60 HS and Sony HX400V are neck-and-neck in size, though the Canon stretches a bit taller and deeper, offering a slightly beefier grip. The SX60 has a classier “SLR-like” plastic body with a textured grip that nests naturally in my hand, which suits longer shooting sessions. Sony plays a more compact silhouette, shaving about 10 mm off in body depth, which benefits stealthier street photography and fits better in those tight backpack slots.

Both cameras weigh close to 650 grams, making them comfortable enough for all-day carry without killing the shoulder. The Canon’s back grip feels a little more substantial, though. Bonus points for Canon’s fully articulated LCD screen, a boon when shooting lower or awkward angles (especially video or macro work). Sony’s tilting screen suffices but can’t match Canon’s flexibility.

Examining the control layouts, Canon’s buttons and dials feel a bit more logically placed for quick adjustments on the fly. Dedicated rings for zoom and focus on the lens barrel are handy in both models, but I found the Canon’s shutter button clusters easier to access without adjusting my grip.

Sony scores some points with a higher maximum shutter speed (1/4000s vs 1/2000s on Canon), although that rarely affects everyday superzoom shooting unless you chase bright scenes or fast action with wide apertures.

Sensor Details and Image Quality: Beyond Just Megapixels

Both cameras pack a 1/2.3” BSI-CMOS sensor - standard fare in this category - but with some important distinctions.

The Canon delivers 16 megapixels, while the Sony edges it out with 20 MP, providing slightly higher resolution captures (5184 x 3888 vs 4608 x 3072). On paper, higher resolution sounds great, but sensor size and image processing algorithms matter far more for real-world outcomes - especially at higher ISOs or tricky lighting.

Canon’s DIGIC 6 processor is a known workhorse for this era, handling noise reduction and color faithfully. Sony’s Bionz X processor is newer and aimed at improving low-light performance, though no official DXO Testing goes on record for the HX400V. Still, my tests showed:

• Color Reproduction: Canon’s colors look slightly warmer and more natural for portrait and nature shots, especially skin tones. Sony leans a bit cooler, which you can easily tweak in post but might catch some by surprise straight out of the camera.

• Dynamic Range: Canon’s sensor shows moderately better handling of shadows and highlights, translating to more flexibility in tough light. Sony’s higher megapixel count demands more careful exposure discipline to avoid highlight clipping.

• Noise Handling: Both struggle past ISO 800, as expected with such a tiny sensor, but Canon keeps luminance noise more under control up to ISO 1600. Low-light enthusiasts will find neither ideal for astro work or dim interiors without accepting significant noise.

• Raw Support: Canon offers raw, providing better editing latitude. Sony, on the other hand, does not support raw files here, which is a bummer for serious tinkerers wanting maximum post-processing freedom.

Eye on the Prize: Autofocus and Burst Shooting

Superzoom cameras live or die by autofocus speed and tracking reliability, especially for wildlife and sports photography.

Canon equips the SX60 HS with 9 contrast-detection autofocus points, face detection, and continuous autofocus with tracking. Sony also uses contrast detection but adds center-weighted point AF, Face detection, and AF tracking.

My hands-on experience:

• Speed: Sony’s autofocus felt snappier for single shots, especially in decent light. It locks on quickly - helpful when shooting spontaneous subjects on a city walk.

• Tracking: Canon’s continuous AF had an edge in tracking moving subjects. Its AF tracking was smoother during burst shooting, which clocks in at 6.4 fps compared to Sony’s 10 fps, but Sony’s higher frame rate sometimes struggles in maintaining sharp focus mid-burst.

• Low Light: Neither camera’s AF is stellar in near darkness, but Canon’s low-light AF slightly outperforms, making those tricky sunset portraits a little less stressful.

For wildlife and sports shooters who need to lock onto fast-moving critters or players, Canon’s AF system, though slightly slower, is more reliable for keeping the subject sharp in the sequence. Sony edges out in speed but compromises consistency.

Through the Viewfinder and Screen: Framing and Reviewing Shots

The electronic viewfinders (EVFs) and LCD screens can make or break usability in bright daylight or action-heavy sessions.

Canon’s fully articulated 3” LCD delivers 922K dots, exactly like Sony’s tilting LCD with 921K resolution. The articulation margin gives Canon a practical advantage for vlogging, video, or shooting from unconventional angles.

Viewfinder-wise, Canon offers a 922K-dot EVF with 100% coverage. Sony’s EVF specs are less clear, but it provides similar 100% frame coverage. However, in person, Canon’s EVF feels brighter and less laggy, helping manual focus and composition, especially when zoomed all the way out.

Stretching the Focal Range: Lens and Zoom Capabilities

Let’s talk about the optic muscle here: zoom range and aperture matter a ton for the superzoom buyer.

The Canon SX60 HS pushes way further toward super-long telephoto territory, which is magic for birders, wildlife fans, and anyone who thrives on far-off detail. The massive 65x zoom makes it easy to capture subjects that would be impossible with most consumer cameras.

Sony’s 50x zoom maxes at 1200mm, still hugely impressive, but you sacrifice some reach. However, the Sony wins a little at the wide end with f/2.8 aperture, beneficial for low-light snapshots and portraits with some background separation.

Pros and Cons Breakdown: Canon SX60 HS

Pros:

• Massive 65x optical zoom covering 21–1365mm for unparalleled reach.
• Fully articulated 3" LCD ideal for video and creative angles.
• Reliable continuous autofocus tracking suitable for wildlife and sports.
• Raw file support for advanced post-processing.
• Larger hand grip, better ergonomics for long shoots.
• Slightly better dynamic range and color rendition out of camera.
• Built-in NFC wireless connectivity for quick image transfer.

Cons:

• Heavier and bulkier than SX400V.
• Max shutter speed limited to 1/2000 sec (limits freezing really fast motion).
• No in-body stabilization beyond lens optical IS.
• Lacks GPS tagging.
• Older USB 2.0 standard, slower file transfers.
• Battery life is decent but not exceptional.

Pros and Cons Breakdown: Sony HX400V

Pros:

• Faster shutter speed ceiling (1/4000s) and continuous shooting at 10 fps.
• Slightly higher megapixel count (20 MP) offering more image detail at optimal ISO.
• Built-in GPS for geo-tagging adventures - great for travel photographers.
• Slightly brighter wide-end aperture at f/2.8 for low-light.
• Extra flash modes with wireless capability.
• Supports Memory Stick formats along with SD cards.
• Slightly more compact, easier for street shooting and discreet use.

Cons:

• No raw file support limits post-processing flexibility.
• Autofocus tracking less consistent during burst mode.
• Tilt-only LCD limits framing versatility.
• USB 2.0, similar to Canon, is slow by today’s standards.
• Slightly shorter zoom range (50x vs 65x).
• Lower battery life (roughly 300 shots).

Real-World Performance Across Photography Genres

Now, let’s assess how each camera stacks up for different photographic styles, the kind your everyday enthusiasts and pros actually pursue.

Portraits: Rendering Skin and Background Bokeh

Neither camera can deliver DSLR-level background blur due to sensor size and lens aperture, but within their limitations…

• Canon has mildly warmer skin tones with pleasant, creamy bokeh at wider apertures, especially at 21mm f/3.4.
• Sony’s f/2.8 wide aperture can create slightly shallower depth at the short end, but the background blur remains limited.
• Both cameras support face detection autofocus, which is reliable in good light.
• Lack of eye tracking or animal eye AF limits precision focus on critical portrait detail, but the SX60’s tracking performs slightly better.

Landscapes: Detail, Dynamic Range, and Weather Challenges

• Canon’s better dynamic range (DXO 10.1 stops) aids retaining highlight and shadow details in high-contrast scenes.
• Sony’s higher resolution IS useful for cropping tightly on distant landscape details.
• Neither offers weather sealing; handle both with care in harsh environments.
• Both cameras’ wide 21–24mm equivalents work well for sweeping vistas.

Wildlife: Autofocus Tracking and Super-Telephoto Reach

• Canon’s extreme 65x zoom (1365mm eq.) is a boon for spotting wildlife from afar.
• Reliable continuous AF tracking on Canon helps nail quick bird flights or animal motion.
• Sony’s faster burst rate (10 fps) is tempting but let down by wobbly AF consistency during the series.
• Canon’s optical image stabilization softens the inevitable telephoto shake better in testing.

Sports: Frame Rate and Focus Accuracy

• Sony’s 10 fps wins on speed, great for sports like basketball or soccer.
• Canon’s 6.4 fps is slower but focuses more securely between frames.
• Both rely on contrast-detection AF; no phase detection here means focus can hunt under challenging conditions.
• Highlight shutter speed differences: Sony tops out at 1/4000s (better for freezing motion), Canon at 1/2000s.

Street: Discreetness, Size, and Quick-Focus

• Sony edges ahead in portability with its slightly smaller body and weight savings.
• Canon’s chunkier grip may draw more attention but aids stability.
• Both cameras aren’t the quietest; lack of electronic shutter options limits stealth.
• Autofocus speed favors Sony in bright light and casual snapshots.

Macro: Close Focus and Stabilization

• Sony’s 1cm macro minimum focus distance lets you get impressively close.
• Canon’s “0 cm” macro claims are a bit exaggerated; minimum focus remains similarly close.
• Optical image stabilization on both models helps handheld macro shots.

Night and Astro: High ISO Noise and Exposure Modes

• Both cameras’ sensors struggle with noise beyond ISO 800.
• Canon’s better noise control gives cleaner images in dim light.
• Neither offers bulb mode or specialized astro-friendly features.
• Longest shutter speeds differ: Canon tops at 15s, Sony 30s, giving Sony a slight edge for nightscapes.

Video: Recording Quality and Features

• Both shoot Full HD 1080p at 60p (Canon MPEG-4/H.264, Sony MPEG-4/AVCHD).
• Canon’s fully articulated screen is a standout for vloggers.
• Both feature optical steady shot IS.
• Built-in stereo microphones with external mic input help with audio quality.
• Neither offer 4K or advanced video tools, limiting usefulness for pro video work.

Travel: Versatility, Battery, and Connectivity

• Both cameras excel as travel companions, with extensive zoom ranges covering most shooting needs.
• Canon’s SX60 HS slightly better in battery life (340 shots vs 300 shots).
• Sony offers GPS tagging, a decisive feature for travel/timeline enthusiasts.
• NFC in both simplifies wireless sharing, despite no Bluetooth.
• Compact Sony body feeds better into packing-light strategies.

Professional Use: Reliability, Formats, and Workflow

• Neither camera is a professional workhorse; small sensors and jpeg/raw limitations hold back quality.
• Canon’s raw support is a plus for workflow integration but limited to 16 MP.
• Build quality sufficient for casual pro backup or reference shooting.
• For heavy-duty jobs or print gigs, these cameras are more secondary tools than frontline assets.

Canon SX60 HS front Canon SX60 HS screen back Sony HX400V front Sony HX400V screen back

The above samples illustrate the typical output differences - Canon’s images tend warmer, Sony sharper at base ISO but noisier at high ISO, especially in shadow areas.

Technical Specs in a Nutshell: Summary Table

Wrapping it Up: Which One’s Right for You?

Both cameras punch above their weight in the budget-friendly superzoom category, but your priorities will determine which one fits best.

• Choose Canon SX60 HS if you:

  • Need the longest zoom possible for birds, wildlife, or distant subjects.
  • Appreciate a fully articulated screen for video or creative compositions.
  • Want raw file support for serious post-processing.
  • Desire slightly better dynamic range and autofocus tracking consistency.
  • Can handle a slightly bulkier grip and extra weight.

• Choose Sony HX400V if you:

  • Prioritize faster continuous shooting for capturing sports or action.
  • Want built-in GPS for travel shots and geo-tagging.
  • Value a brighter wide-angle aperture for low-light street or portraiture.
  • Prefer a slightly smaller, lighter body for stealth and portability.
  • Don’t mind missing raw support and tweaking images from JPEGs.

Final Thoughts from the Field

If I were packing a superzoom for a long trip where versatility is king, I’d lean toward the Canon SX60 HS. The extra reach and touch of professional control make a tangible difference when patience and framing matter more than speed. Its fully articulated screen and raw output seal the deal for creative types who want greater framing freedom and editing power.

That said, if you lean toward shooting fast-paced street scenes or sports with a tighter budget, Sony’s HX400V hits most of the sweet spots at a lower price and smaller size. The GPS tag alone makes it a clever travel companion for those geotaggers and bloggers out there.

Remember: neither replaces a full-frame mirrorless or DSLR experience. Both represent a carefully crafted compromise between zoom reach, image quality, and portability - all without the club requirements of pricey pro lenses.

At the end of the day, knowing your shooting style and flexibility needs will outperform any spec sheet. If that’s you, either of these cameras can be a reliable, budget-conscious gateway into serious superzoom photography.

Happy shooting!