Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V vs Canon Powershot SX40

Winner
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

74

Canon Powershot SX40

68

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
Great battery life
Battery life
450 shots
Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
 

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot SX40

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/2.7
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
10.3 fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon Powershot SX40.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V.

competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II

Super zoom

$1,198 - $1,296

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Zoom Less zoom
Sony CyberShot DSC-H400

Sony CyberShot DSC-H400

Super zoom

$449

Zoom Much more zoom
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Sensor type Has a CCD-family sensor
Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Super zoom

$144 - $178

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Sensor type Has a CCD-family sensor

Canon Powershot SX40 Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Super zoom

$315 - $429

Zoom Much more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Aperture Narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

Super zoom

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Aperture Narrower aperture
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$358 body only

$438 with 18-55mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
True resolution Much higher true resolution
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V
Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V
Sony

Report a correction
Canon Powershot SX40
Powershot SX40
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments