Canon SX710 HS vs Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651: A Comprehensive Hands-On Comparison for Enthusiasts and Pros

Choosing the right compact superzoom camera is never straightforward, especially when models from different brands tackle similar categories with distinct philosophies. Today, I’m diving deep into the Canon PowerShot SX710 HS and the Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651 - two small sensor superzoom compacts released within a year of each other, both flaunting massive zoom ranges, user-friendly designs, and approachable price tags. But beyond the spec sheet, which camera truly delivers in the field?

Having tested and extensively used both cameras across various photographic disciplines - from portraits to wildlife, from travel to night astro - I’ll break down their performance nuancedly and with the perspective only years of hands-on experience can bring. If you’re a photography enthusiast or a professional looking for a versatile bridge-style camera (or compact powerhouse) for specific use cases, read on.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Ergonomics

The SX710 HS wears its compact point-and-shoot heritage on its sleeve, coming in at a slim 113 x 66 x 35 mm and weighing only 269 grams. Its pocket-friendly form factor means you can carry it all day without fatigue - ideal for casual travel or street photographers who prize discreteness and portability above all else.

In contrast, the Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 leans into a bridge camera (SLR-like) body style, measuring a bulkier 125 x 114 x 89 mm, more than double the Canon’s weight at 567 grams. This heft affords a more substantial grip, better for extended shooting sessions and telephoto zoom stability but sacrifices pocketability.

This size difference is critical depending on your photography style. I found the SX710 HS far easier to slip into a jacket pocket for quick snaps or impromptu street shooting, whereas the Kodak feels more purposeful, almost demanding that you carry dedicated gear bags or straps.

Canon’s control layout on the SX710 HS is minimalist but functional - no touchscreen to complicate things - and offers dedicated dials for shutter priority, aperture priority, and manual modes. This gives it an edge for photographers wanting creative control without overwhelming micromenus. However, its 9-point autofocus system (with face detection) is pretty basic compared to others in this category.

Kodak’s AZ651 brings a more traditional bridge camera button and dial arrangement with slightly larger buttons and an electronic viewfinder that covers 100% of the frame. While this boosts framing precision, the absence of touch input and no dedicated manual exposure priority modes makes the interface feel less flexible for those accustomed to finer control. Yet its 25-point autofocus system with multi-area and face detection stands out as more advanced in tracking moving subjects.

Sensor and Image Quality: Small Sensors, Big Expectations?

At the core, both cameras rely on 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensors (28.07 mm²) - typical in travel-friendly superzooms. The Canon uses a 20MP BSI-CMOS sensor coupled with the DIGIC 6 image processor, while Kodak offers a slightly higher-resolution 21MP CMOS sensor with RAW support - something the Canon lacks.

This sensor size imposes inherent limitations, especially under challenging lighting or when shallow depth of field is needed, but both brands optimize what they can.

In practice, images from the Kodak show marginally better dynamic range and color depth in my testing, especially when shooting RAW and applying edits. Canon’s JPEG output often delivers more saturated colors straight out-of-camera, which enthusiasts might appreciate for quick sharing, but it lacks RAW flexibility.

Both cameras cap native ISO at 3200, but noise creep becomes apparent past ISO 800, which is expected for sensors of this class.

Display, Viewfinder, and Live View Usability

Canon’s SX710 HS sports a 3-inch fixed, non-touch LCD with 922k-dot resolution, delivering bright and accurate viewing outdoors, but no articulating mechanisms. This limits creative angles - a drawback in macro or video shooting from low or high perspectives.

Conversely, Kodak’s AZ651 offers a 3-inch fully articulated screen (920k dots), allowing shooting from varying positions including selfies - a helpful feature given the camera’s selfie-friendly designation. More significantly, the Astro Zoom has an electronic viewfinder (EVF) with full coverage, useful for framing in bright conditions where LCD use can be challenging. The Canon doesn’t include a viewfinder at all.

For street and travel photographers, the Kodak’s EVF and articulating screen enhances compositional precision and flexibility, although the EVF resolution is modest by today’s standards.

Canon SX710 HS front Canon SX710 HS screen back Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 front Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 screen back

Real-World Field Tests: Photo Quality Across Genres

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Portraits from the Canon SX710 HS are surprisingly decent given its sensor size, especially with its DIGIC 6 processor lending smooth tonal gradations and natural skin color reproduction. The lens’s max aperture of f/3.2 wide angle and f/6.9 telephoto limits shallow depth of field effect; hence, bokeh is soft but doesn’t isolate subjects strongly against backgrounds. Face Detection autofocus is competent but occasionally hunts in low light.

Kodak’s Astro Zoom AZ651 with its slightly faster f/2.9 aperture wide angle and 25-point AF system fares better in low-light portraits, locking focus relatively quick on faces and delivering more pleasing bokeh for subject-background separation. RAW shooting further allows tweaking skin tones and highlights without degradation.

Landscape Photography: Resolution and Dynamic Range

Landscape shooters will miss the professional-grade sensor but both cameras do a commendable job. The Kodak’s RAW files deliver slightly higher latitude in post-processing shadows and highlights, making it the better pick for artisans who wish to push files creatively.

Weather sealing? Neither camera is weather-resistant, which restricts harsh outdoor use. Landscape enthusiasts should treat these as fair-weather tools or consider protective housing.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: Autofocus Speed and Burst

Kodak’s 65x zoom (24-1560mm equivalent) is a standout for wildlife and sports enthusiasts craving reach. The 9 fps burst rate is competitive for action shots. However, autofocus accuracy at full zoom is hit or miss; hunting in challenging light is noticeable.

Canon’s 30x zoom (25-750mm equivalent) is more restrained but autofocus tends to be a tad faster and more reliable in daylight. The 6 fps burst is decent but doesn’t match Kodak’s speed. Neither camera offers advanced subject tracking or animal eye-AF, which pros will feel immediately.

Street and Travel: Discreteness, Size, and Battery Life

Canon’s compact size gives it the edge for low-profile street photography and unpredictable travel scenarios. It’s lightweight enough to shoot handheld comfortably for hours.

Battery life favors Canon modestly at approximately 230 shots per charge compared to Kodak which lacks public battery life data - though given its size and EVF, expect shorter endurance.

Macro Photography: Close-Up Performance

Canon’s macro focusing down to 1cm is impressive, allowing detailed close-ups with good stabilization. Kodak starts focusing at 3cm minimum, making the Canon better suited for macro hobbyists.

Both cameras have optical image stabilization, crucial for handheld macro and telephoto work, with Canon’s system feeling slightly more refined in my trials.

Night and Astro Photography: ISO and Exposure

Low-light performance is a challenge for both - not surprising with their sensor class. High ISO images present noise from ISO 800 up, with Kodak having a slight advantage thanks to RAW capture allowing better noise control in post.

Neither supports longer exposure bracketing modes or specialized astro modes; astrophotographers will find limitations here but may appreciate Kodak’s manual exposure mode for controlled long exposures up to 2000 shutter speed.

Video Capabilities

Both record full HD (1080p) video, with Canon supporting 60p for smoother motion and Kodak limited to 30p. Neither camera supports 4K video or offers microphone/headphone ports, limiting serious videography.

Optical image stabilization on both aids handheld video smoothness but I noticed Kodak’s articulation screen helps monitor challenging angles during filming.

Technical Analysis: Sensor, Autofocus, and Construction

From an engineering standpoint, the Kodak’s broader zoom range and richer AF system tip the scales in its favor for serious tele shooting scenarios. However, Canon’s more compact form and predictable controls favor casual photographers valuing portability and faster setup.

Who Should Buy Which? Clear Recommendations Based on Use Cases

• Casual Travel and Street: The Canon SX710 HS is the better companion. Its slim profile, decent image output, comfortable ergonomics, and modest zoom cover typical travel needs without the bulk. It rewards photographers who prioritize quick shooting, subtlety, and portability.

• Wildlife and Sports: The Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 shines with its monster 65x zoom and faster burst shooting. If long reach and subject tracking take priority, the Kodak delivers more, at the expense of weight and pocketability.

• Portraits and Macro: For those exploring close-ups or portraits, the Canon’s closer macro focus and more natural JPEG colors provide an edge, though Kodak’s RAW gives advanced editors a powerful asset.

• Landscape and Post-Processing: Enthusiasts leaning towards manual control and RAW capturing should gravitate to the Kodak. Its articulated LCD and EVF also help in bright outdoor shooting conditions where the Canon’s LCD struggles.

• Video Shooters: Neither is a serious video camera, but if 1080p60 is important, Canon holds advantage. Kodak’s articulation perks it as a more flexible video tool in awkward angles.

Value Analysis: What’s Your Money Buying?

Priced around $350 for the Canon SX710 HS and approximately $420 for the Kodak AZ651, both represent budget-friendly entries into superzoom photography.

The Canon balances price, size, and ease of use - delivering solid images without rifling your wallet. I found it respectable for casual users unwilling to carry larger gear or fuss with complex settings.

Kodak asks a premium for its fusion of extended telephoto reach, RAW files, and viewfinder, targeting more ambitious photographers who value creative flexibility and zoom range.

Final Thoughts: Expertise From the Field

No camera is perfect in this category - small sensor superzooms inherently juggle compromises between size, zoom, and image quality. What I appreciate after hours of shooting with both is how distinctly they cater to different user fingerprints.

The Canon SX710 HS is a quiet workhorse for light travel, street, and casual portraiture, excelling in portability and intuitive operation. Its shortcomings (no RAW, limited zoom) are offset by its approachable footprint and dependable output.

On the flip side, the Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 is a beast of reach and creative control, better suited for dedicated hobbyists or semi-pros who can tolerate heft for extended focal lengths and need RAW flexibility. Its lack of finer exposure modes and modest video specs somewhat hinder its versatility.

If you prioritize portability and ease-of-use, Canon is your ally. If reach, RAW editing, and framing control excite you, Kodak deserves a serious look.

Summary: Canon SX710 HS vs Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651

I hope this comprehensive evaluation brings clarity to your decision-making process. Both cameras hold value but speak to different priorities - no surprises given their divergent designs and features.

Photography is as much about knowing your tools as mastering your vision. Choosing the right camera lays the foundation; your creative intent carries it forward.

Happy shooting!

Thanks for reading. For detailed samples and performance charts referenced, see the embedded images throughout the article.