Updated (September 2010): Compare the Canon PowerShot SX20 IS vs Canon PowerShot SX30 IS

Canon PowerShot SX30 IS vs Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

Winner
Canon PowerShot SX30 IS

49

Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

44

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS

Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX20 IS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX30 IS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Super zoom

$350 - $449

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Aperture Narrower aperture
Nikon Coolpix P100

Nikon Coolpix P100

Super zoom

$599

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Image stabilization Worse image stabilization
Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$435 - $649 body only

$529 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Screen size Much larger screen
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Canon PowerShot SX20 IS Competitors

Nikon D3000

Nikon D3000

Entry-level DSLR

$400 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Canon PowerShot SX10 IS

Canon PowerShot SX10 IS

Super zoom

$375

Lowest price Cheaper
Movie format Lower resolution movies
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3

Travel zoom

$233

Size Smaller
Weight Significantly lighter
Wide angle Much worse wide angle

discussion

Canon PowerShot SX30 IS
PowerShot SX30 IS
Canon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX20 IS
PowerShot SX20 IS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments