Why is the Canon SX510 HS so inexpensive despite its 30x zoom and features?
Asked 1/28/2014
5 views
2 answers
0
I'm new to cameras and trying to understand why a model like the Canon SX510 HS can be so cheap on paper. It offers a 30x optical zoom, 12MP, 1080p video, wide-angle coverage, Wi‑Fi, and generally positive reviews. Compared with a camera like the Canon S95, it seems surprising that it costs much less.
What trade-offs make a camera like this inexpensive? Is the long zoom range mainly a convenience feature, and what does it usually give up in image quality, low-light performance, lens brightness, speed, or other areas compared with higher-end compact cameras?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
4
First, let me start by saying that large zoom multipliers are specifically for consumers and NOT for professionals. No self-resepcting professional would be caught dead with a super-zoom on their camera. Superzooms are great for convenience, but they have to make major compromises in terms of image quality. If a professional needs to be able to rapidly switch between wide angle and telephoto, then they use two cameras. One with a wide angle lens and one with a telephoto.
As to how so many features can be included so cheaply, it really comes down to quality and speed. 1080p is really a pretty standard feature these days and 12 megapixels is not particularly high anymore in terms of megapixel count. It has a cheap lens that only reaches f/3.5 at the most open on the wide end and is only f/5.8 on the long end which is quite slow. The ISO range isn't all that great either, so it won't handle low light particularly well. It is limited to a relatively slow 1/1600 shutter speed.
It is also worth pointing out that when compared to your S95, the SX510 has a much smaller sensor. Smaller sensors are generally cheaper to manufacture since they have a smaller surface area (and thus less likely to get defects ruining a lot of material). They also allow usage of cheaper lenses because they don't need as large of an image circle (the area of light that is passed through to the sensor.) This also limits the camera since it runs in to issues with diffraction more quickly (occurs when you focus light on small spots) and also can't produce as shallow of a depth of field (background blur pretty much impossible, although that is still true of most point and shoots).
Is it a good camera, certainly for the price, but it is also far from the best around if you don't consider price. It is a jack of all trades camera that compromises a little bit in a lot of places. It lets it give a nice feature set at a relatively low price, but it limits the depth of capability in any one area.
Also, I noticed you mentioned SLRs in your question. Do note that this camera is NOT an SLR or a system camera. It is a super-zoom point and shoot. The lens is not removable and it goes directly to the sensor. You can only view what you are pointing at via the screen, not a view finder.
Originally by user11392. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11392
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A camera like the SX510 HS is inexpensive because its impressive-sounding specs prioritize convenience over image quality.
The big one is the 30x “superzoom” lens. Very large zoom ranges are aimed at consumers, not pros, because they require major optical compromises. You get a huge focal-length range in one package, but typically give up sharpness, lens brightness, and overall image quality.
Its lens is also relatively slow (small maximum aperture), especially as you zoom in, which hurts low-light performance and can force higher ISO or slower shutter speeds. That’s one reason a smaller-zoom premium compact like the S95 can cost more: it may have a better-quality, brighter lens and better low-light results.
Other listed features don’t add much cost by themselves. 1080p video is standard, 12MP is not unusually high, and built-in Wi‑Fi is a convenience feature rather than a marker of image quality.
So the low price doesn’t mean it’s bad—it means it’s built to deliver lots of range and features cheaply. If your priority is versatility in daylight and travel convenience, a superzoom can make sense. If your priority is low light, speed, and image quality, cameras with shorter zooms often perform better.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Are disposable film cameras good for wedding guest tables, or should I use cheap compact film cameras instead?
Will an interchangeable-lens camera with similar zoom always cost more than a bridge camera like the Panasonic FZ1000?
Can digital zoom help autofocus lock onto a bird instead of branches?
Why do Micro Four Thirds primes seem more expensive than Canon’s 50mm f/1.8?
What superzoom lenses are available for Sony NEX and Samsung NX, and do any reach 27–810mm equivalent?