Canon PowerShot SX620 HS vs Sony Cyber-shot HX350: A Definitive Hands-On Superzoom Showdown

When it comes to small sensor superzoom cameras, the 2016 releases from Canon and Sony - the PowerShot SX620 HS and the Cyber-shot HX350, respectively - represent two distinctly different philosophies packaged under the same category. Both offer mammoth zoom ranges and compact footprints but cater to notably divergent user preferences and shooting styles.

Having tested thousands of cameras across genres and use cases, I’m excited to share a granular, experience-driven comparison between these two. We’ll cover everything from ergonomics and image quality to autofocus and genre-specific performance, peppered with technical insights that reveal each’s strengths and compromises. Let’s dive in.

The First Impression: Size, Shape, and Handling

Glancing at the physical dimensions and weights of these cameras highlights their contrasting design approaches. The 182g Canon SX620 HS feels like a pocket-friendly compact, slim and light with dimensions of 97 x 57 x 28mm. It’s the kind of camera you’ll hardly notice in a jacket pocket or bag compartment, making it a classic point-and-shoot form factor optimized for spontaneity and portability.

The Sony HX350, on the other hand, weighs in at a hefty 652g and assumes an SLR-like bridge design measuring 130 x 93 x 103mm. This heft and girth are justified by the inclusion of a vast 50x zoom lens, a detailed electronic viewfinder (EVF), and a more substantial grip that benefits long shooting sessions. It’s less about stealth and more about presence and control.

In practical use, I found the Canon's compactness favors street and travel photographers prioritizing minimalism and quick access. Meanwhile, the Sony's bulk supports wildlife and sports enthusiasts needing solid handling stability during fast action and extended zoom reach.

Design and Control Layout: Simplicity vs. Complexity

The Canon SX620 HS maintains a pared-down control scheme often found in point-and-shoot compacts. Its top plate offers only essential buttons, lacks an aperture or shutter priority dial, and omits an EVF outright. Settings adjustments rely on the rear 3-inch fixed LCD with 922k dots resolution, but touch functionality is absent. While straightforward for beginners, seasoned shooters might feel curtailed in hands-on creative control.

Sony’s HX350 takes a more traditional bridge camera approach: a dedicated mode dial with manual exposure options (including aperture and shutter priority), custom buttons, and a tilting 3-inch 922k-dot LCD screen enhancing compositional flexibility, especially for low or high-angle shots. The inclusion of a 202k-dot EVF with 100% coverage offers a tangible benefit in bright outdoor shooting where LCDs wash out.

This difference isn’t trivial - if you’re a photographer who prefers direct tactile control and the use of an EVF, Sony clearly wins this round. But if lightweight, simplicity, and ease of discovery are your mantra, Canon’s setup may be more inviting.

The Heart of the Matter: Sensor and Image Quality

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, with an effective area of 28.07mm². They also max out at roughly 20 megapixels (Canon: 5184 x 3888 pixels vs Sony: 5184 x 3456 pixels). From a sensor size and resolution standpoint, they are essentially siblings. But the devil is in the details of image processing engines - Canon’s DIGIC 4+ and Sony’s more advanced BIONZ X.

In real-world use, the Sony’s BIONZ X processor pulls ahead in higher ISO performance and dynamic range, thanks to better noise reduction algorithms without overly smudging fine detail. Although neither can compete with APS-C or full-frame cameras, for small sensor superzooms, Sony provides more usable files in low-light and shadow recovery.

Color reproduction differs slightly: Canon’s processing favors warmer, richer tones, rendering skin tones pleasingly natural in portraits. Sony’s output leans cooler, but offers a more neutral palette that can serve as an excellent base for post-processing.

Neither supports RAW shooting, limiting post-processing latitude. However, Sony’s higher max boosted ISO of 12,800 (although pushing the limits of clean output) versus Canon’s 3,200 max ISO, allows you more flexibility in dim situations.

Viewing Experience: LCD Screen and Viewfinder

Both cameras offer identical 3-inch LCDs with 922k dot resolution, but Sony’s tilting mechanism offers far superior flexibility for composition at awkward angles, a significant plus for macro or street photographers when shooting discreetly or from hip level.

Sony’s HX350 adds a 202k-dot EVF with 100% coverage - an indispensable tool when shooting in bright daylight or when handholding long focal lengths causes LCD shake. The Canon’s lack of any viewfinder can become a hindrance in such scenarios, forcing reliance on the LCD, which washes out under strong sunlight.

While the EVF’s resolution is modest, its refresh rate and coverage meet the needs for accurate framing and maintaining focus awareness. Watch out, though - Sony’s EVF adds bulk and battery drain, factors that hardcore travellers might want to weigh.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance

Let’s get technical about AF performance, a make-or-break element for wildlife and action photographers.

The Canon SX620 HS employs a 9-point contrast-detection AF system including face detection, with capabilities for single, tracking, and selective area modes. However, its continuous shooting rate caps at a pedestrian 2.5 fps - hardly sports camera territory.

Sony HX350 trades the 9-point count for an unspecified number of contrast-detection points with face detection as well but omits animal eye detection and phase-detection autofocus. It achieves a confident continuous burst rate of 10 fps with manual exposure, a remarkable feat for bridge camera standards. Tracking suffers somewhat without phase detection but remains usable for moderate-speed subjects.

In my hands-on testing, the Sony autofocus locked on faster and retained focus better during wildlife attempts with the 50x zoom engaged. Canon’s autofocus felt sluggish and hesitated more in low light or complex scenes.

If your photography involves fast-moving subjects - sports, wildlife, or kids - Sony’s HX350 provides the more capable autofocus toolkit and shooting speed.

Lens and Zoom: Battle of the Beastly Zooms

• Canon SX620 HS: 25-625 mm (25x optical zoom), max aperture f/3.2-6.6
• Sony HX350: 24-1200 mm (50x optical zoom), max aperture f/2.8-6.3

Sony handily doubles the zoom reach, reaching an astonishing 1,200 mm equivalent focal length while maintaining a slightly wider wide-angle edge at 24 mm vs Canon’s 25 mm. The brighter f/2.8 aperture at the wide end also benefits low-light environments and offers better depth-of-field control.

Canon’s 25x zoom length is respectable and more manageable in terms of size and weight. It’s suitable for everyday superzoom needs, portraiture at longer focal lengths, and casual wildlife. But compared to Sony, it limps behind in sheer versatility.

While I appreciate Sony’s huge range for spotting distant birds or sports action, keep in mind that ultra-long zoom inherently magnifies camera shake - making solid image stabilization essential.

Image Stabilization: Keeping Shots Sharp

Both cameras come equipped with optical image stabilization systems tailored to counteract handshake during shooting at long focal lengths.

Though neither manufacturer details stabilization performance explicitly, in controlled testing the Sony HX350’s system felt more robust, particularly when shooting at full zoom in dim conditions. The Canon SX620 HS stabilizer works well but occasionally struggles against vibrations at the telephoto end, causing slightly more blurred frames in handheld low-light or slow shutter speed scenarios.

Given the Sony’s far longer zoom, expect the stabilization to be “good but not magic” in practice. Tripods or monopods remain recommended accessories for extended supertelephoto use, especially in wildlife or sports photography.

Macro Photography and Close-up Capability

Both cameras boast a macro focusing distance as close as 1 cm, which is commendable for superzoom compacts.

Canon’s SX620 HS can sneak in pretty close with the fixed lens, capturing decent detail with blurred backgrounds, benefiting from a fast enough wide-angle aperture and its color science. The Sony also puts up a solid macro performance enhanced by the tilting screen, aiding compositions from low angles that are tricky with fixed LCDs.

However, neither camera offers focus bracketing or stacking, meaning that extended depth-of-field macro shots need manual focus blending during post-processing.

Video Features: Basic but Serviceable

Both cameras record full HD (1920 x 1080) video at 30p. Formats differ slightly - Canon uses MPEG-4 and H.264, while Sony offers MPEG-4 and AVCHD.

Neither supports 4K video or slow-motion modes, and no external microphone or headphone jacks exist on either, limiting audio control. Sony’s video autofocus does not appear as smooth or continuous as Canon’s, which performs basic face tracking fairly well.

In practice, both cameras suffice for casual video diaries or travel clips but fall short for serious videographers or vloggers seeking professional control or higher quality.

Battery Life and Storage

• Canon SX620 HS: Approx. 295 shots per charge
• Sony HX350: Approx. 300 shots per charge

Battery life is roughly equal, though note the Sony HX350’s EVF may lead to quicker battery drain if used extensively.

Both cameras use a single card slot supporting SD/SDHC/SDXC memory; Sony also supports Memory Stick Pro Duo - a format with diminishing relevance but still useful for legacy users.

Connectivity: Where Canon Takes an Edge

Here’s where something interesting happens: Canon’s SX620 HS comes with built-in Wi-Fi and NFC for wireless image transfer - a significant convenience for quick sharing on smartphones or social media.

The Sony HX350 lacks any wireless options, relying solely on USB 2.0 and HDMI connections. Sony fans will find this limiting, particularly in today’s always-connected workflows.

Build Quality and Durability

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, dustproofing, or ruggedized construction. They’re designed primarily for casual or enthusiast use in controlled conditions.

Sony’s larger bridge-style body implies a more robust chassis and sturdier feel; Canon’s pocketable build is more vulnerable to knocks and drops but rewards with ease of carry.

Practical Imaging Tests Across Photography Genres

To ensure practical relevance, I deployed these cameras across a variety of popular photography disciplines, contextualizing their performance beyond specs.

Canon SX620 HS front Canon SX620 HS screen back Sony HX350 front Sony HX350 screen back

Portrait Photography

Canon delivers pleasing skin tones thanks to its warmer color rendition, making faces pop naturally without oversaturation. The SX620 HS’s limited aperture (max f/3.2 at wide-angle) restricts bokeh quality at common focal lengths, but it still manages decent subject isolation at full telephoto.

Sony’s wider aperture at f/2.8 helps with subject-background separation; however, its cooler color bias requires occasional white balance correction for warmer skin tones. The HX350’s EVF assists in composition accuracy here.

Neither camera offers eye detection autofocus, making critical focus acquisition manual or contrast-dependent.

Landscape Photography

Both sensors deliver 20MP resolution - enough for high-quality 8x12-inch prints or moderate cropping. Sony’s superior dynamic range extraction comes through in shadow detail and highlight retention.

Sony’s wider 24mm lens edge captures broader vistas than Canon’s 25mm. The tilting LCD on Sony aids shooting from unusual angles such as low foliage or over uneven terrain.

Neither camera offers weather sealing, limiting outdoor ruggedness. The Sony’s heft makes handheld hiking less ideal than Canon’s pocketable SX620 HS, which boasts better portability for travel landscapes.

Wildlife Photography

Sony’s HX350 with its 50x zoom and 10 fps burst is clearly aimed at wildlife shooters who want reach and speed. The EVF enables stable framing on distant birds or animals, and autofocus is more robust at long focal lengths.

Canon’s 25x zoom and slower 2.5 fps burst reduce its effectiveness in this genre. It works for casual zoo visits or suburban wildlife but struggles with fast-moving subjects.

Sports Photography

Sony again pulls ahead with fast continuous shooting and manual exposure control – critical for capturing high-speed action under varying light.

Canon SX620 HS’s lack of manual exposure modes and slow burst rate make it a poor choice for sports. The camera’s AF isn’t built for fast tracking, leading to missed or soft shots.

Street Photography

Here, Canon’s small size, lightweight, and relatively quiet operation make it a stealthy street shooter’s companion. The fixed LCD simplifies operation.

Sony’s bulk and conspicuous design make street shooting more intrusive, yet its tilting screen aids shooting from the hip or creative angles.

Macro Photography

Both cameras’ 1cm macro focus capabilities allow fun close-up shots of flowers or small objects. The Sony’s tilting screen and wider angle provide added composition freedom.

Night and Astro Photography

Both cameras struggle with high ISO noise due to small sensors. Sony’s ability to boost ISO to 12,800 offers some flexibility, but noise is evident.

Neither camera has specialized exposure modes for astro or long exposure time-lapses, limiting their utility for serious night photographers.

Video Shooting

Video quality on both cameras is serviceable for casual use but limited by lack of mic input, 4K recording, and stabilization complexity.

Travel Photography

Canon’s SX620 HS is designed for travel ease with lightweight, Wi-Fi, and simple controls. Sony’s HX350 sacrifices portability for zoom range and control, better for specific photographic aims during travel.

Professional Work

Neither camera caters to professionals needing RAW files, robust AF, or durable bodies. They serve enthusiasts and hobbyists better.

Putting Numbers on It: Overall and Genre-Specific Performance

While no official DxOMark scores exist for these models, my empirical assessment ranks the Sony HX350 higher in image quality, autofocus, zoom versatility, and general photographic flexibility. The Canon SX620 HS shines for budget travelers and casual photographers prioritizing compactness and ease of use.

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

• Ultra-compact and lightweight
• Built-in Wi-Fi & NFC for easy sharing
• Pleasing color rendering for portraits
• Simple operation ideal for beginners
  – Limited zoom reach (25x)
  – Slow burst rate, sluggish autofocus
  – No EVF and fixed screen
  – No RAW, limited video features

Sony Cyber-shot HX350

• Massive 50x zoom and fast f/2.8 aperture wide end
• 10 fps burst rate suitable for wildlife and sports
• Electronic viewfinder with 100% coverage
• Tilting LCD screen for compositional flexibility
• Superior image processing and dynamic range
  – Heavy and bulky form factor
  – No wireless connectivity
  – No RAW support
  – Slightly cooler color rendering needing adjustments

Who Should Choose Which?

• Casual Travelers, Street Photographers, and Beginners:
  Canon SX620 HS offers an ultra-portable, user-friendly option perfect for quick snapshots, everyday use, and social sharing without fuss.

• Wildlife, Sports, and Enthusiast Photographers:
  Sony HX350’s robust zoom, faster burst, and EVF cater to demanding photography, especially when reach and camera control matter.

• Budget-Conscious Buyers Seeking Zoom Flexibility:
  Both cameras occupy similar price points, but Sony’s broader feature set justifies a slight premium for users valuing performance.

Final Thoughts: Two Cameras, Two Personalities

The Canon SX620 HS and Sony HX350 were released just months apart in 2016 but present two distinct superzoom visions. The Canon is the faithful companion for those valuing inconspicuous gear and simplicity. The Sony is the dogged hunter’s tool, ready to chase fast action and distant subjects with confidence and precision.

Ultimately, the best camera depends on your photographic goals and shooting style. I encourage you to weigh portability, zoom needs, and control preferences in light of this comprehensive breakdown.

In the end, some dogs are good boys, but others are good boys with bigger sticks.

Happy shooting!