Canon SX620 HS vs. Sony A33: An Expert Comparison for Discerning Photographers

In the constantly shifting landscape of digital cameras, choosing the right gear can feel like navigating a dense forest without a map. Today, we’re opening a detailed dialogue between two cameras that at first glance occupy vastly different places on the photographic spectrum: the Canon PowerShot SX620 HS, a compact superzoom, and the Sony SLT-A33, an entry-level DSLR-esque mirrorless hybrid from an earlier era. Despite their dissimilar natures, comparing them side-by-side offers fascinating insights into how camera technology adapts to different user needs and workflows.

Having thoroughly tested thousands of cameras over more than 15 years, I approached this head-to-head with a focus on practical real-world performance across a broad array of photographic contexts. Let’s dive deep to uncover which machine serves best where - from portraits through wildlife, to travel and beyond.

First Impressions and Handling: Size, Ergonomics, and Design Philosophy

The Canon SX620 HS embodies the ultra-portable, grab-and-go ethos. Its petite dimensions and feather-light weight (97x57x28 mm, 182g) make it the kind of camera you’re unlikely to leave behind on a casual day out. Its fixed 25-625mm equivalent zoom lens offers remarkable versatility without necessitating lens swaps or bulky packs.

By contrast, the Sony A33 feels more substantial in your hands - a compact SLR-style body measuring 124x92x85 mm and weighing 500g, nearly three times as heavy. Its solid heft communicates a sense of reassurance that enthusiasts often crave. The fully articulated 3-inch LCD provides flexible framing options, and the presence of an electronic viewfinder (EVF) with 1150k-dot resolution and 100% coverage firmly roots it in a DSLR-like user experience, albeit with Sony’s translucent mirror technology.

Ergonomics-wise, the Canon favors simplicity and pocketability, trading off physical controls for pared-back accessibility. Its fixed lens and limited manual settings reflect this design focus. The Sony leans the other way - generous dials, buttons, and a deeper grip invite hands-on customization, suggesting a more immersive shooting experience.

Looking from above, the control layout differences become even clearer. The Sony’s array of dedicated exposure mode dials and buttons sits alongside a hot shoe and external flash support. The Canon, meanwhile, is minimalist - no external flash capability, fewer physical buttons, and a fixed zoom control ring.

In summary, handling will come down to how you prioritize portability versus tactile control. If the camera is a pocket companion first and foremost, the SX620 HS nails the brief. For more involved shooting with full manual override, the A33 offers a superior toolkit.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Sensor technology drives much of what defines image quality, so let’s dig into the guts. The Canon SX620 HS houses a 1/2.3" BSI CMOS sensor measuring only 6.17 x 4.55 mm, with a resolution of 20 megapixels. The Sony A33 ups the ante considerably with a 23.5 x 15.6 mm APS-C sensor - over 13 times larger sensor surface area - and 14 megapixels.

Sensor size matters because bigger sensors gather more light, which improves dynamic range, low-light behavior, and depth of field control. The Sony’s APS-C sensor enables cleaner images at higher ISOs, better color depth, and more detail in shadow and highlight areas, an advantage amplified by Canon’s smaller sensor struggling beyond ISO 800.

In controlled tests, the Sony's wider dynamic range (~12.6 stops per DxOMark) and higher color depth (22.8 bits) allow for richer images with nuanced tonality - qualities prized in landscape and portrait photography alike. The Canon’s 20 megapixels are impressive for its sensor size, but noise and detail performance tapper off quickly in lower light.

Neither camera supports RAW formats on the Canon side, locking you into JPEG compression, which reduces flexibility significantly during post-processing. The Sony supports RAW files, giving photographers a professional edge in workflow and image editing.

Taking Aim: Autofocus Systems and Shooting Performance

Autofocus (AF) remains a core feature distinguishing casual shooters from professionals. The Canon SX620 HS features a 9-point contrast detection AF system with face detection. Its relatively modest 2.5 frames per second continuous shooting speed suits casual snapshot situations but shows its limits tracking fast-moving subjects like sports or wildlife.

The Sony A33 employs a more sophisticated 15-point phase-detection AF system with 3 cross-type points, delivering faster, more accurate focus acquisition. While it lacks animal eye AF (a modern feature), it holds its own in portraiture and fast action - though its continuous shooting rate maxes near 7 fps without full AF tracking in burst mode.

Eye detection autofocus in both cameras is present but rudimentary on the Canon and quite basic on the Sony by today’s standards. The SX620’s facial detection is effective in well-lit conditions but less reliable in dim scenarios or cluttered backgrounds.

Despite advances since the A33’s 2010 release, its hybrid phase/contrast AF remains noticeably more responsive than the Canon for wildlife, sports, and street photography, where decisive, sharp focus is essential.

Displays, Viewfinders, and Interface Usability

Outdoor visibility and operator feedback hinge on displays and viewfinders. Both cameras sport 3-inch LCD screens with around 920k pixels resolution, but the Sony's screen is fully articulated, enabling flexible angles for low or high shooting positions - a big plus for macro and video shooters.

The Canon has a fixed non-touch screen with no selfie-friendly flip functionality, somewhat limiting creativity in framing. Neither camera features touchscreen capabilities, so navigation relies on buttons and dials.

The Sony’s electronic viewfinder is a significant advantage. It offers a real-time preview with exposure and focus info, beneficial under bright sunlight or when steadying the camera. The Canon has no EVF, requiring composition solely via the rear LCD.

For users shooting outdoors or in bright conditions, the Sony’s EVF and articulated screen combo provide a more confident, precise shooting experience.

Photography Genres Put to the Test

How do these two cameras perform across the diverse demands of photography? Having tested them extensively on location, here is an in-depth, discipline-based evaluation:

Portrait Photography

Portraiture demands skin tone fidelity, smooth bokeh, and reliable eye detection. The Sony A33’s larger APS-C sensor naturally excels in creating shallower depth of field and creamy background blur when paired with fast lenses from the extensive Sony/Minolta Alpha mount roster (143 lenses!).

The Canon’s small sensor and slower zoom lens (f/3.2-6.6) struggle to isolate subjects cleanly, resulting in flatter images with more scene in focus. Moreover, the Canon’s no RAW limitation hinders post-capture skin tone retouching.

The Sony’s face and eye AF feature improves subject lock, though not at the refinement of newer models. In controlled portrait sessions, the A33 consistently produces images with more pleasing, lifelike color and tonal range.

Landscape Photography

Landscape photography thrives on resolution, dynamic range, and weather resistance. The Sony’s APS-C sensor coupled with a wide range of compatible lenses lets you capture expansive scenes crisply, preserving shadows and highlights effectively.

Despite lacking any weather sealing, the sturdier build feels more durable than the Canon’s plasticky compact body. The Canon’s tiny sensor and fixed slow zoom lens limit dynamic range and resolution fidelity, especially in challenging lighting.

If peak image quality for landscapes matters, the Sony A33 delivers superior files for large prints or heavy editing.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

In fast-paced wildlife and sports settings, speed and accuracy are paramount.

The Canon SX620 HS touts an impressive 25x zoom (25-625mm equivalent), theoretically great for distant subjects, but its slow maximum aperture and modest autofocus speed hinder tracking and subject isolation. Continuous shooting at 2.5 fps with limited AF tracking won’t capture rapid sequences seamlessly.

The Sony A33’s faster burst rate (7 fps) and phase detection AF afford superior tracking, albeit with a shorter native zoom range - you'll require telephoto lenses, weighing more and costing more.

Still, for active shooters requiring dependable focus responsiveness, the Sony's system offers more confidence, though earlier generation mirrorless AF can exhibit some hunting.

Street Photography

For those shooting candid, fast-moving street scenes, size and stealth are king.

The Canon’s compact form factor and zoom reach provide an unobtrusive camera that’s easy to tote all day or slip in a jacket pocket. However, slower AF and limited manual controls may frustrate serious street photographers.

The Sony is larger, heavier, and more conspicuous but offers superior handling under varied conditions. Its EVF helps in bright light, and manual exposure modes afford creative control prized by street shooters.

Macro Photography

Macro work demands close focusing and stabilization.

The Canon shines here with an impressive 1 cm minimal focusing distance and optical image stabilization, facilitating sharp handheld close-ups without special lenses. The built-in zoom helps frame subjects quickly.

The Sony relies on lens-specific macro capabilities without in-body macro strength. Its sensor-shift stabilization aids handheld work but may struggle for very close focusing without dedicated macro glass.

For casual macro enthusiasts, Canon’s integrated versatility offers accessible performance.

Night and Astro Photography

Shooting in near darkness requires low noise at high ISO, long exposures, and precise exposure control.

Sony’s APS-C sensor and ISO range up to 25600 (boosted) allow much cleaner high-ISO images than the Canon's max ISO 3200. The Sony also enables full manual exposure modes and shutter speeds down to 30 seconds, critical for star trails or astrophotography.

Canon’s limited manual control, shorter maximum shutter speed (15 seconds), and noisier sensor curtail its night potential.

Video Capabilities

Video functionality is nuanced here. Both cameras shoot Full HD 1080p video, but the Canon SX620 HS caps out at 30 fps while the Sony offers 60 fps at 1080p, lending smoother motion.

Sony also includes a microphone port for external audio - a boon for serious videographers - while the Canon lacks this.

Image stabilization on the Canon is optical and effective for video; Sony’s sensor-based stabilization also assists handheld shooting.

Overall, the Sony’s video options cater better to creative video workflows.

Travel and Everyday Versatility

Travel shooters prize a camera that balances image quality, size, zoom flexibility, and battery life.

The Canon’s pocketable size, massive zoom range, and respectable 295 shot battery life make it an ideal travel companion for casual to enthusiast shooters wanting a one-camera solution without lugging lenses.

The Sony’s superior image quality, manual control, and lens ecosystem weigh it toward travelers who prioritize quality at some cost in bulk and complexity.

Professional Workflows and Reliability

For professional usage, file flexibility (RAW support), build quality, and workflow integration matter.

The Canon’s lack of RAW and minimal manual exposure control disqualify it for demanding pro workflows. The Sony’s RAW format, extensive manual modes, external flash support, and solid image quality position it as viable for entry-level professional and enthusiast professionals on a budget, albeit with some compromises in autofocus speed and aging sensor tech.

Technical Deep Dive: Build, Battery, Connectivity, and Compatibility

• Build Quality and Weather Sealing: Both cameras lack weather sealing or ruggedization, but the Sony’s SLR-style design offers a more robust feel than the Canon’s lightweight plastic shell.

• Battery Life: The Sony slightly edges out with 340 shots per charge versus Canon’s 295. Not a vast difference, but directional.

• Connectivity: The Canon benefits from modern wireless capabilities including NFC, enabling simple smartphone pairing. The Sony supports Eye-Fi cards for wireless image transfer but lacks NFC or Bluetooth.

• Storage: Both rely on single memory card slots; Canon accepts SD cards, Sony supports SD and Memory Stick Duo cards.

• Lens Ecosystem: The Canon uses a fixed lens, limiting versatility beyond digital zoom cropping. The Sony’s Sony/Minolta Alpha mount opens access to 143 lenses ranging from fast primes to professional telephotos - a huge advantage for photographers wanting to customize their setups.

The Verdict: Which Camera Suits Your Needs?

Encapsulating this side-by-side test:

Canon SX620 HS front Canon SX620 HS screen back Sony A33 screen back

Final Thoughts: Contextualizing Two Generations, Two Approaches

The Canon SX620 HS epitomizes the compact, enthusiast-friendly superzoom model popularized in the mid-2010s - a highly portable all-in-one snapshooter for those prioritizing simplicity and reach without fuss. Its technological limitations (small sensor, no RAW, limited manual control) restrict creative flexibility but make for an accessible, lightweight travel companion.

The Sony A33, debuting a half-decade earlier, represents a transitional point from traditional DSLRs to mirrorless technology using a translucent mirror and hybrid autofocus system. Its APS-C sensor, versatile lens mount, and manual controls cater to photography enthusiasts seeking image quality and adaptability, albeit with dated autofocus performance and bulkier size compared to modern mirrorless.

Choosing between them depends heavily on your intended use, skill level, and desire for growth:

• Step up to the Sony A33 if you want to learn manual exposure, explore interchangeable lenses, and prioritize image quality.

• Stick with or opt for the Canon SX620 HS if you desire a lightweight superzoom that works out of the box with minimal complexity.

This direct comparison reminds us that “best camera” is invariably contextual. Neither is a “one size fits all” solution, but both serve defined niches with distinction. As always, consider what matters most in your photography journey - and let the camera follow you, not the other way around.

If you have any specific scenarios or shooting preferences, feel free to ask for tailored recommendations. The best camera truly is the one in your hands when inspiration strikes.