Canon PowerShot SX620 HS vs. Casio Exilim EX-ZR100: Compact Superzoom Showdown

Choosing the right compact superzoom camera can be a deceptively complex task, especially when faced with models like Canon's PowerShot SX620 HS and Casio's Exilim EX-ZR100. Both cameras promise versatility wrapped in a portable body, designed for enthusiasts who crave the convenience of long zoom ranges without lugging a DSLR or mirrorless rig. Having spent dozens of hours testing, shooting, and dissecting both models side-by-side, I’m excited to share an in-depth, authoritative comparison to help you understand not just the specs but the nuanced real-world performance and suitability of these two cameras.

Whether you’re an enthusiast wanting a travel buddy, a casual shooter craving a ready-at-hand wildlife cam, or a budding professional seeking a backup superzoom, this thorough breakdown covers the rear, the guts, and the practicalities you need to make a confident choice.

First Impressions: Size, Ergonomics, and Handling

Compact cameras are meant to be pocketable yet comfortable - and here’s where subtle differences matter a lot. Although both the Canon SX620 HS and Casio EX-ZR100 fall in the "small sensor superzoom" category, their physical dimensions and handling characteristics tell slightly different stories.

The Canon SX620 HS measures 97 x 57 x 28 mm and weighs approximately 182 grams, making it notably lighter and marginally more compact than the Casio EX-ZR100, which clocks in at 105 x 59 x 29 mm and 204 grams. On paper, this doesn’t seem like a vast difference, but during extended shooting sessions, the slimmer, lighter Canon noticeably feels more portable and unobtrusive in hand or pocket.

Ergonomically, the Canon offers a slightly more contoured grip area, which adds some peace of mind when holding at high zoom reach (somewhat necessary given its massive 25-625mm equivalent lens). The Casio’s squarer, boxier design feels less fashionably refined but trades some grip comfort for a more balanced weight distribution, especially when zoomed in.

Neither camera sports a dedicated viewfinder, so you’re relying exclusively on the rear LCD for composition (more on that shortly) - a key consideration for bright daylight shooting and street photographers craving eye-level framing. The Canon marginally edges in portability and comfort here, perfect for travel on the go.

Design and Control Layout: Which Feels More Intuitive?

Handling a camera effectively means intuitive controls and a logically arranged interface. Both cameras share a fixed rear screen and minimal external buttons, leaning on menu dives for advanced functions, a trait common to compact superzooms.

From my hands-on time, the Canon SX620 HS triumphs with a cleaner, more uncluttered button layout. The zoom toggle is conveniently placed for thumb operation, and the dedicated playback button responds crisply. Exposure and shooting modes are significantly simplified on the Canon side - it’s aimed squarely at point-and-shoot users who prize speed and simplicity.

Meanwhile, the Casio EX-ZR100 offers more exhaustive manual controls, including true shutter and aperture priority modes with customizable exposure compensation. This is a boon for enthusiasts who want strong creative control - something increasingly rare in this compact superzoom class. The downside is a bit of a menu labyrinth and some cramped buttons on the rear that can feel fiddly if you’re shooting on the fly.

For photographers who appreciate tactile feedback and want to thumb through ISO or metering without menu deep-diving, the Casio appeals more. But if you want to grab and shoot rapidly with minimal fuss, the Canon’s interface shines.

Sensor and Image Quality: What Does the 20MP Canon Bring Compared to 12MP Casio?

Image quality is the primary currency for any camera evaluation. Both cameras employ 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS sensors measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, a standard in compact superzoom territory. The Canon SX620 HS offers a 20-megapixel sensor versus the Casio’s 12 megapixels.

The higher resolution of the Canon translates to greater detail capture at base ISO and better cropping flexibility. However, pixel size shrinks somewhat, which can impact noise performance, especially at elevated ISO levels. Canon’s DIGIC 4+ processor works conservatively but capably with noise reduction, ensuring cleaner images up to ISO 800 and usable files up to ISO 1600, although it struggles beyond that.

Casio’s 12MP sensor is physically identical in size but benefits from larger individual pixels. This results in slightly cleaner output at low light, conceding fine detail for better signal-to-noise ratio. The Exilim Engine HS processor’s noise handling favors a smoother tonal rendition, but images can appear softer - especially visible when zoomed into fine textures.

Color reproduction on both cameras is pleasingly natural, but I noticed the Canon renders warmer, richer skin tones, beneficial for portraiture, while Casio’s palette leans neutral, which some might prefer for landscape or product shooting. Both retain respectable dynamic range thanks to BSI technology, with subtle highlight retention on the Canon due to its higher resolution - but neither performs near the thresholds of larger-sensor cameras.

In summary, for detail-focused work like landscapes or cropping telephoto shots, Canon’s sensor wins hands down. But if your priority is cleaner low-light handheld shots, Casio’s approach has merit.

Rear LCD and Viewing Experience

Without electronic viewfinders on either, the rear LCD becomes your eye to the world.

The Canon’s fixed 3-inch screen comes with a resolution of 922K dots - significantly sharper and crisp compared to the Casio’s 3-inch 461K dot Super Clear TFT. The higher pixel density of the Canon’s screen makes it far easier to evaluate focus and image sharpness in the field.

On the other hand, Casio’s “Super Clear” screen technology ensures better visibility under harsh sunlight by reducing reflections, which somewhat mitigates its lower resolution disadvantage.

Neither is touch-enabled, but the Canon’s faster menu navigation and live view responsiveness feel snappier, aligning with its modern image processor. Casio’s interface sometimes suffers lag, especially when reviewing large burst sequences.

If you heavily rely on the LCD for framing and critical assessment - frontliners in street and travel photography will identify - Canon’s superior resolution and fluid interface will keep frustration at bay.

Autofocus Capabilities and Speed

AF is often a dealbreaker in superzoom compacts, where precise and rapid focus is vital, especially in wildlife, sports, or street scenarios.

Canon’s AF system uses 9 contrast-detection focus points with face detection and multi-area AF. In my testing, it provides reliable lock-on for stationary and moderately moving subjects but can falter slightly in low contrast or low light, occasionally hunting before settling. AF tracking is present and works reasonably, but it’s decidedly not the speed demon some mirrorless systems offer.

Casio’s EX-ZR100 uses contrast-detection AF with multi-area, but lacks face detection support entirely. However, the camera excels at rapid single-shot focus acquisition, and its standout feature is the continuous shooting burst rate of 40 fps (albeit at reduced resolution and focus hold) - unprecedented in this class.

This burst speed makes Casio an attractive contender for capturing fleeting moments - especially when manual focus tweaking or shutter priority mode complements your intent.

In wildlife or sports scenarios demanding precision with fast-moving subjects, neither camera is a serious professional system. But for casual sports and action shots, Casio offers an edge in burst shooting, and Canon provides more reliable focus with face detection assistance.

Lens and Optical Performance: Who Wins the Zoom Race?

The heart of any superzoom is range and optical quality. Canon and Casio both integrate fixed lenses with varying focal extents and maximum apertures.

Canon’s PowerShot SX620 HS boasts a staggeringly long 25-625mm (25x zoom equivalent), f/3.2-6.6 lens. This ultra-telephoto reach is a massive advantage for wildlife shooters, distant landscapes, and travel scenarios where you can’t get closer physically.

Casio’s EX-ZR100 features a 24-300mm (12.5x zoom equivalent), f/3.0-5.9 lens. While more modest in reach, the slightly faster maximum aperture allows marginally better low-light and shallow depth-of-field effects at the telephoto end.

In optical performance, Canon’s lens maintains reasonable sharpness throughout the zoom range but suffers from noticeable chromatic aberration (CA) and softness near the extremes - typical for such extreme zoom ratios. Casio’s optics produce sharper images with less CA in the 24-100mm aka “normal” zoom range, but image softness becomes evident beyond 200mm.

Optical image stabilization is present on both but implemented differently: Canon relies on lens-shift “Optical IS,” whereas Casio uses sensor-shift stabilization, which tends to be more effective at longer focal lengths and video shooting.

The Canon’s 25x zoom is an undeniable benefit for users prioritizing maximum reach, but the Casio lens offers a balanced compromise of speed and sharpness for everyday photography.

Real-World Shooting Across Photography Genres

Now that we’ve dissected individual specs, the following genre-specific observations arise from extensive shooting tests.

Portrait Photography

Canon’s higher resolution sensor and warmer color science make it better suited for capturing natural, flattering skin tones. Additionally, face detection autofocus aids focusing on eyes, crucial for compelling portraits. The lens’s variable aperture can produce satisfactory background separation at longer focal lengths, though it won’t rival prime lenses.

Casio’s lack of face detection hinders pinpoint focus accuracy in portraits. The maximum aperture is slightly faster in the wide-angle range but overall softer output limits portrait sharpness. The absence of eye AF and less refined color tuning make it less ideal for dedicated portraiture.

Landscape Photography

The Canon’s 20MP sensor shines for landscapes, delivering finely detailed images with ample cropping allowance. Despite the small sensor size limiting dynamic range somewhat, JPEG processing retains highlight and shadow detail acceptably. Lack of weather sealing on both models is a limitation for outdoor use in humid or dusty conditions.

Casio’s softer detail rendition and smaller resolution constrain landscape impact, but its reliable stabilization and color neutrality can produce pleasing results. The slightly wider lens coverage at 24mm versus Canon’s 25mm is negligible in practice but worth noting.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Canon’s massive 25x zoom enables photographers to fill the frame with distant wildlife subjects - critical when approaching is impossible. However, limited burst speed (2.5 fps) and average AF tracking reduce chances of nailing decisive moments.

Casio’s 40 fps burst gives it a dynamic advantage for capturing action bursts but with limited AF tracking and no face or eye detection, many shots may miss critical focus, reducing keeper rates. The shorter zoom range restricts close framing of small, distant animals.

Overall, the Canon is preferable for reach-dependent wildlife photography, while Casio appeals more to fast-action bursts in controlled environments.

Street Photography

Discretion, responsiveness, and portability define good street cameras. The Canon’s smaller size and lighter weight aid concealment and endurance on long walks. Its higher resolution screen assists in quick framing and focus checks.

However, slower continuous shooting and autofocus lag can hurt capturing spontaneous moments. Casio’s rapid burst mode is attractive here, but the lack of face detection and lower screen resolution impair usability.

For street shooters prioritizing stealth and clarity over burst performance, the Canon is my pick.

Macro Photography

The Canon boasts a remarkable macro focusing distance of just 1 cm, enabling tight close-ups with impressive detail - ideal for insect or product shooters on the go. Casio lacks a clearly specified macro range and, given its softer optics, falls behind in this discipline.

Additionally, Canon’s optical stabilization helps keep handheld macro shots steady, boosting the likelihood of sharp imagery.

Night and Astro Photography

Low-light sensitivity is challenging for small sensors.

Canon’s ISO ceiling of 3200 is similar to Casio’s nominal spec, but Canon’s superior sensor resolution and advanced noise reduction therapy yield consistently better night shots, especially handheld. The camera’s long shutter speed capability (up to 15 seconds) also supports astrophotography attempts, though the lack of manual bulb mode limits true star trail or deep sky shooting.

Casio has adequate shutter speed range but poorer noise handling and less manual exposure flexibility curtail night imaging potential.

Video Capabilities

Both cameras offer 1080p Full HD video at 30 fps with H.264 compression; however, neither supports 4K. Canon’s built-in optical image stabilization delivers smooth footage, making handheld shooting more pleasant.

Casio employs sensor-shift stabilization, which has pros and cons depending on zoom length and motion type. The Casio offers high-speed slow-motion modes at lower resolutions - a creative bonus absent in Canon.

Audio quality and the absence of external mic inputs limit both cameras from serious video pursuits.

Travel Photography

For travelers, the Canon’s lightweight body, massive focal reach, and Wi-Fi with NFC connectivity foster compelling photo opportunities and easy sharing. Battery life of approximately 295 shots per charge is adequate though not generous for extended trips.

Casio’s physical dimensions and weight are slightly more cumbersome, and the absence of wireless connectivity is a drawback for instant uploads. Its superior burst shooting speed compensates if quick sequential shots of fleeting subjects are a priority.

Build Quality, Durability, and Reliability

Neither camera offers environmental sealing - no dustproof, splashproof, or shockproof claims - so both require care when venturing into challenging conditions. Build materials are mostly plastic for both, common in this class.

Buttons and dials feel sturdy but not rugged; I’d call the SX620 HS slightly more refined in overall finish. Neither camera sports an electronic viewfinder, often missed by enthusiasts demanding eye-level stability.

Battery life favors the Canon marginally at 295 shots per charge compared to Casio’s unspecified rating but generally shorter endurance according to user feedback.

Connectivity and Storage Options

Canon’s built-in Wi-Fi and NFC significantly outperform Casio, which lacks any wireless features. This translates to faster, more convenient image transfer and remote control capabilities - valuable for on-the-move workflows.

Both cameras use standard SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with one card slot each - industry standard, no surprises.

Price and Value Analysis

At time of launch, Canon SX620 HS retailed around $279 and Casio EX-ZR100 near $299. While these prices are close, the Canon’s more modern sensor and expanded zoom range offer a better bang for your buck if you prioritize image quality and portability.

Casio’s advantage lies in burst rate and manual exposure controls, catering to niche users valuing action capture and exposure flexibility in a compact body.

Canon SX620 HS front Canon SX620 HS screen back Casio EX ZR100 screen back

Final Performance Ratings and Genre-Specific Scores

Our extensive hands-on performance tests grade Canon SX620 HS higher overall - especially for portrait, landscape, and travel photography. Casio’s EX-ZR100 earns credit in fast-action burst capture but falls behind in most other areas.

Conclusion: Which Camera Should You Choose?

Both the Canon PowerShot SX620 HS and Casio Exilim EX-ZR100 hold clear appeal within the compact superzoom niche, but they cater to subtly different user needs.

Choose the Canon SX620 HS if you:

• Want superior image detail and 20MP resolution for landscape, travel, and portrait photography.
• Need extensive zoom reach (25x) for wildlife or distant subjects.
• Value a lightweight, pocket-friendly design with better LCD resolution.
• Desire Wi-Fi/NFC connectivity for easy sharing.
• Prefer reliable face detection autofocus and image stabilization.
• Are looking for better low-light handheld shooting and macro performance.

Choose the Casio EX-ZR100 if you:

• Prioritize an extremely high burst shooting speed of up to 40 fps.
• Want greater manual control over shutter and aperture settings.
• Prefer sensor-shift image stabilization and slightly faster lens aperture on the wide end.
• Can compromise on image resolution and LCD sharpness for action-oriented shooting.
• Are less reliant on connectivity features or wireless image sharing.

While the Canon SX620 HS wins hands down for most enthusiasts and travel photographers requiring versatility and image quality, the Casio EX-ZR100 carves out a niche for high-speed, manual exposure aficionados seeking a compact powerhouse of burst capability.

How I Tested and What This Means for Your Purchase

My hands-on review encompassed real-world shooting with both cameras across varied conditions, including studio portraits, outdoor landscapes in differing light, wildlife encounters, and urban street photography. I ran lab tests for resolution, noise, and autofocus speed and carefully evaluated interface usability.

This well-rounded approach reveals how these cameras perform beyond specs - helping you understand strengths and compromises before investing.

If you're eyeing your next superzoom compact, I hope this detailed comparison has provided clarity and direction. Experience shows that understanding what you need the camera to do - rather than chasing specs alone - yields the best results for your photography journey. Happy shooting!