Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V vs Canon Powershot SX40

Winner
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

72

Canon Powershot SX40

65

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot SX40

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/2.7
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens

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

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 (Lumix DC-FZ82)

Super zoom

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Touch screen Has a touch screen
GPS No built-in GPS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Super zoom

$534

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$237

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Much longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Canon Powershot SX40 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$237

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Much longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Travel zoom

$179 - $249

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Significantly smaller
Aperture Narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot SX420 IS

Canon PowerShot SX420 IS

Super zoom

$229 - $237

Screen size Larger screen
Size Smaller
Aperture Significantly narrower aperture

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