Canon SX520 vs Olympus XZ-1

The Canon PowerShot SX520 HS and the Olympus XZ-1 are two digital cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in July 2014 and January 2011. Both the SX520 and the XZ-1 are fixed lens compact cameras that are based on a 1/2.3-inch (SX520) and a 1/1.7-inch (XZ-1) sensor. The Canon has a resolution of 15.9 megapixels, whereas the Olympus provides 10.1 MP.

Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.

Headline Specifications

Canon SX520		Olympus XZ-1
Fixed lens compact camera		Fixed lens compact camera
24-1008mm f/3.4-6		28-112mm f/1.8-2.5
15.9 MP – 1/2.3" sensor		10.1 MP – 1/1.7" sensor
1080/30p Video		720/30p Video
ISO 100-3,200		ISO 100-6,400
No viewfinder, LCD framing		Viewfinder optional
3.0" LCD – 461k dots		3.0" LCD – 614k dots
Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)		Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)
1.6 shutter flaps per second		2 shutter flaps per second
Lens-based stabilization		In-body stabilization
210 shots per battery charge		320 shots per battery charge
120 x 82 x 92 mm, 441 g		111 x 65 x 42 mm, 275 g

Check SX520 offers at
ebay.com
Check XZ-1 offers at
ebay.com

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS and the Olympus XZ-1? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.

Body comparison

The side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Canon SX520 and the Olympus XZ-1. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

The XZ-1 can be obtained in two different colors (black, white), while the SX520 is only available in black.

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Olympus XZ-1 is notably smaller (27 percent) than the Canon SX520. Moreover, the XZ-1 is substantially lighter (38 percent) than the SX520. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the SX520 nor the XZ-1 are weather-sealed.

The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators. In case you want to display and compare another camera duo, you can use the CAM-parator app to select your camera combination among a large number of options.

Body Specifications

		Camera Model	Camera Width	Camera Height	Camera Depth	Camera Weight	Battery Life	Weather Sealing	Camera Launch	Launch Price (USD)	Street Price
1.		Canon SX520	120 mm	82 mm	92 mm	441 g	210	n	Jul 2014	399	ebay.com
2.		Olympus XZ-1	111 mm	65 mm	42 mm	275 g	320	n	Jan 2011	499	ebay.com
3.		Canon 1200D	130 mm	100 mm	78 mm	480 g	500	n	Feb 2014	449	ebay.com
4.		Canon 1300D	129 mm	101 mm	78 mm	485 g	500	n	Mar 2016	449	ebay.com
5.		Canon 4000D	129 mm	102 mm	77 mm	436 g	500	n	Feb 2018	399	amazon.com
6.		Canon SX60	128 mm	93 mm	114 mm	650 g	340	n	Sep 2014	549	ebay.com
7.		Canon SX510	104 mm	70 mm	80 mm	349 g	250	n	Aug 2013	249	ebay.com
8.		Canon SX530	120 mm	82 mm	92 mm	442 g	210	n	Jan 2015	429	ebay.com
9.		Canon SX540	120 mm	82 mm	92 mm	442 g	205	n	Jan 2016	399	ebay.com
10.		Canon SX700	113 mm	66 mm	35 mm	269 g	250	n	Feb 2014	349	ebay.com
11.		Canon SX710	113 mm	66 mm	35 mm	269 g	230	n	Jan 2015	349	ebay.com
12.		Nikon B600	122 mm	82 mm	99 mm	500 g	280	n	Jan 2019	349	ebay.com
13.		Olympus E-PL1	115 mm	72 mm	42 mm	334 g	290	n	Feb 2010	599	ebay.com
14.		Olympus E-PL3	110 mm	64 mm	37 mm	313 g	300	n	Jun 2011	599	ebay.com
15.		Olympus E-PM1	110 mm	64 mm	34 mm	265 g	330	n	Jun 2011	499	ebay.com
16.		Olympus XZ-2	113 mm	65 mm	48 mm	346 g	340	n	Sep 2012	599	ebay.com
17.		Panasonic LX5	110 mm	65 mm	43 mm	271 g	400	n	Jul 2010	499	ebay.com
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.
Convert to Imperial

Any camera decision will obviously take relative prices into account. The listed launch prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The SX520 was launched at a somewhat lower price (by 20 percent) than the XZ-1, which makes it more attractive for photographers on a tight budget. Normally, street prices remain initially close to the MSRP, but after a couple of months, the first discounts appear. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down.

Sensor comparison

The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors of image quality. A large sensor will tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixel-units in a sensor of the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be more expensive and lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.

Of the two cameras under consideration, the Canon SX520 features a 1/2.3-inch sensor and the Olympus XZ-1 a 1/1.7-inch sensor. The sensor area in the XZ-1 is 64 percent bigger. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 5.6 and 4.4. Both cameras feature a native aspect ratio (sensor width to sensor height) of 4:3.

Despite having a smaller sensor, the Canon SX520 offers a higher resolution of 15.9 megapixels, compared with 10.1 MP of the Olympus XZ-1. This megapixels advantage comes at the cost of a higher pixel density and a smaller size of the individual pixel (with a pixel pitch of 1.33μm versus 2.13μm for the XZ-1). However, it should be noted that the SX520 is much more recent (by 3 years and 6 months) than the XZ-1, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that make it possible to gather light more efficiently. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the SX520 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.

The resolution advantage of the Canon SX520 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the SX520 for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 23 x 17.3 inches or 58.5 x 43.9 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 18.4 x 13.8 inches or 46.8 x 35.1 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 15.4 x 11.5 inches or 39 x 29.3 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus XZ-1 are 18.3 x 13.8 inches or 46.5 x 35 cm for good quality, 14.7 x 11 inches or 37.2 x 28 cm for very good quality, and 12.2 x 9.2 inches or 31 x 23.3 cm for excellent quality prints.

The Canon PowerShot SX520 HS has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 3200. The corresponding ISO settings for the Olympus XZ-1 are ISO 100 to ISO 6400 (no boost).

In terms of underlying technology, the SX520 is build around a BSI-CMOS sensor, while the XZ-1 uses a CCD imager. Both cameras use a Bayer filter for capturing RGB colors on a square grid of photosensors. This arrangement is found in most digital cameras.

Consistent information on actual sensor performance is available from DXO Mark for many cameras. This service determines an overall sensor rating, as well as sub-scores for low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and color depth ("DXO Portrait"). The table below summarizes the physical sensor characteristics and sensor quality findings and compares them across a set of similar cameras.

Sensor Characteristics

		Camera Model	Sensor Class	Resolution (MP)	Horiz. Pixels	Vert. Pixels	Video Format	DXO Portrait	DXO Landscape	DXO Sports	DXO Overall
1.		Canon SX520	1/2.3	15.9	4608	3456	1080/30p	20.1	11.5	672	46
2.		Olympus XZ-1	1/1.7	10.1	3664	2752	720/30p	18.8	10.4	117	34
3.		Canon 1200D	APS-C	17.9	5184	3456	1080/30p	21.9	11.3	724	63
4.		Canon 1300D	APS-C	17.9	5184	3456	1080/30p	22.0	11.7	781	66
5.		Canon 4000D	APS-C	17.9	5184	3456	1080/30p	21.9	11.4	695	63
6.		Canon SX60	1/2.3	14.2	4608	3072	1080/60p	19.2	10.8	127	39
7.		Canon SX510	1/2.3	15.9	4608	3456	1080/24p	20.0	11.3	586	45
8.		Canon SX530	1/2.3	15.9	4608	3456	1080/30p	20.2	11.6	712	47
9.		Canon SX540	1/2.3	20.2	5184	3888	1080/60p	20.3	11.7	806	48
10.		Canon SX700	1/2.3	15.9	4608	3456	1080/60p	20.1	11.4	629	45
11.		Canon SX710	1/2.3	20.2	5184	3888	1080/60p	20.2	11.6	712	47
12.		Nikon B600	1/2.3	15.9	4608	3456	1080/30p	20.7	12.2	1095	52
13.		Olympus E-PL1	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.5	10.1	487	54
14.		Olympus E-PL3	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	1080/60i	20.9	10.3	499	52
15.		Olympus E-PM1	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	1080/60i	21.0	10.3	499	52
16.		Olympus XZ-2	1/1.7	11.8	3968	2976	1080/30p	20.4	11.3	216	49
17.		Panasonic LX5	1/1.7	10.0	3648	2736	720/60p	19.6	10.8	132	41
Note: DXO values in italics represent estimates based on sensor size and age.

Many modern cameras cannot only take still pictures, but also record videos. Both cameras under consideration have a sensor with sufficiently fast read-out times for moving pictures, but the SX520 provides a higher video resolution than the XZ-1. It can shoot video footage at 1080/30p, while the Olympus is limited to 720/30p.

Feature comparison

Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. The SX520 and the XZ-1 are similar in the sense that neither of the two has a viewfinder. The images are, thus, framed using live view on the rear LCD. That said, the XZ-1 can be equipped with an optional viewfinder – the VF-2. The following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Canon SX520, the Olympus XZ-1, and comparable cameras.

Core Features

		Camera Model	Viewfinder (Type or 000 dots)	Control Panel (yes/no)	LCD Specifications (inch/000 dots)	LCD Attach- ment	Touch Screen (yes/no)	Max Shutter Speed *	Max Shutter Flaps *	Built-in Flash (yes/no)	Built-in Image Stab
1.		Canon SX520	none	n	3.0 / 461	fixed	n	1/2000s	1.6/s	Y	Y
2.		Olympus XZ-1	optional	n	3.0 / 614	fixed	n	1/2000s	2.0/s	Y	Y
3.		Canon 1200D	optical	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	n
4.		Canon 1300D	optical	n	3.0 / 920	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	n
5.		Canon 4000D	optical	n	2.7 / 230	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	n
6.		Canon SX60	922	n	3.0 / 922	swivel	n	1/2000s	6.4/s	Y	Y
7.		Canon SX510	none	n	3.0 / 461	fixed	n	1/1600s	3.8/s	Y	Y
8.		Canon SX530	none	n	3.0 / 461	fixed	n	1/2000s	1.6/s	Y	Y
9.		Canon SX540	none	n	3.0 / 461	fixed	n	1/2000s	5.9/s	Y	Y
10.		Canon SX700	none	n	3.0 / 922	fixed	n	1/3200s	8.5/s	Y	Y
11.		Canon SX710	none	n	3.0 / 922	fixed	n	1/3200s	6.0/s	Y	Y
12.		Nikon B600	none	n	3.0 / 921	fixed	n	1/4000s	7.4/s	Y	Y
13.		Olympus E-PL1	optional	n	2.7 / 230	fixed	n	1/2000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
14.		Olympus E-PL3	optional	n	3.0 / 460	tilting	n	1/4000s	5.5/s	n	Y
15.		Olympus E-PM1	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	n	1/4000s	5.5/s	n	Y
16.		Olympus XZ-2	optional	n	3.0 / 920	tilting	Y	1/2000s	5.0/s	Y	Y
17.		Panasonic LX5	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	n	1/4000s	2.5/s	Y	Y
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one.

The Olympus XZ-1 has an intervalometer built-in. This enables the photographer to capture time lapse sequences, such as flower blooming, a sunset or moon rise, without purchasing an external camera trigger and related software.

Both the SX520 and the XZ-1 have zoom lenses built in. The SX520 has a 24-1008mm f/3.4-6 optic and the XZ-1 offers a 28-112mm f/1.8-2.5 (focal lengths in full frame equivalent terms). Hence, the Canon provides a wider angle of view at the short end, as well as more tele-photo reach at the long end than the Olympus. The XZ-1 offers the faster maximum aperture.

Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the SX520 and the XZ-1 write their files to SDXC cards.

Connectivity comparison

For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS and Olympus XZ-1 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

Input-Output Connections

		Camera Model	Hotshoe Port	Internal Mic / Speaker	Microphone Port	Headphone Port	HDMI Port	USB Port	WiFi Support	NFC Support	Bluetooth Support
1.		Canon SX520	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
2.		Olympus XZ-1	Y	mono / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
3.		Canon 1200D	Y	mono / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
4.		Canon 1300D	Y	mono / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	Y	Y	-
5.		Canon 4000D	Y	mono / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	Y	Y	-
6.		Canon SX60	Y	stereo / mono	Y	-	mini	2.0	Y	Y	-
7.		Canon SX510	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	Y	-	-
8.		Canon SX530	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	Y	Y	-
9.		Canon SX540	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	Y	Y	-
10.		Canon SX700	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	-
11.		Canon SX710	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	-
12.		Nikon B600	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	-	Y
13.		Olympus E-PL1	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
14.		Olympus E-PL3	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
15.		Olympus E-PM1	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
16.		Olympus XZ-2	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
17.		Panasonic LX5	Y	mono / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-

It is notable that the XZ-1 has a hotshoe, which makes it possible to easily attach optional accessories, such as an external flash gun. The SX520 does not feature such an accessory-socket.

Both the SX520 and the XZ-1 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The XZ-1 was replaced by the Olympus XZ-2, while the SX520 was followed by the Canon SX530. Further information on the features and operation of the SX520 and XZ-1 can be found, respectively, in the Canon SX520 Manual (free pdf) or the online Olympus XZ-1 Manual.

Review summary

So how do things add up? Which of the two cameras – the Canon SX520 or the Olympus XZ-1 – has the upper hand? Is one clearly better than the other? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.

Reasons to prefer the Canon PowerShot SX520 HS:

• More detail: Offers more megapixels (15.9 vs 10.1MP) with a 26% higher linear resolution.
• Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
• Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (1080/30p vs 720/30p).
• Wider view: Has a wider-angle lens that facilitates landscape or interior shots.
• More tele-reach: Has a longer tele-lens for perspective compression and subject magnification.
• More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced segment (20 percent cheaper at launch).
• More modern: Reflects 3 years and 6 months of technical progress since the XZ-1 launch.

Arguments in favor of the Olympus XZ-1:

• Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
• More framing options: Can be equipped with a hotshoe-mounted accessory-viewfinder.
• More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (614k vs 461k dots).
• Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (2 vs 1.6 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
• Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
• Better light gathering: Has a lens with a wider maximum aperture (f/1.8 vs f/3.4).
• More compact: Is smaller (111x65mm vs 120x82mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
• Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 166g or 38 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
• Longer lasting: Gets more shots (320 versus 210) out of a single battery charge.
• Better lighting: Features a hotshoe and can thus hold and trigger an external flash gun.
• More heavily discounted: Has been around for much longer (launched in January 2011).

If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the XZ-1 is the clear winner of the contest (11 : 7 points). However, the pertinence of the various camera strengths will differ across photographers, so that you might want to weigh individual camera traits according to their importance for your own imaging needs before making a camera decision. A professional wildlife photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a family photog, and a person interested in architecture has distinct needs from a sports shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Canon SX520 and the Olympus XZ-1 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Superzoom Camera and Best Travel-Zoom Camera listings whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

In any case, while the comparison of technical specifications can provide a useful overview of the capabilities of different cameras, it says little about, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance of the SX520 and the XZ-1 in practical situations. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased.

Expert reviews

This is where reviews by experts come in. The following table reports the overall ratings of the cameras as published by some of the major camera review sites (amateurphotographer [AP], cameralabs [CL], digitalcameraworld [DCW], dpreview [DPR], ephotozine [EPZ], photographyblog [PB]). As can be seen, the professional reviewers agree in many cases on the quality of different cameras, but sometimes their assessments diverge, reinforcing the earlier point that a camera decision is often a very personal choice.

Expert Camera Reviews

		Camera   Model	AP   score	CL   score	DCW   score	DPR   score	EPZ   score	PB   score	Camera Launch	Launch Price (USD)	Street Price
1.		Canon SX520	..	+	..	..	3.5/5	3.5/5	Jul 2014	399	ebay.com
2.		Olympus XZ-1	4/5	..	..	74/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jan 2011	499	ebay.com
3.		Canon 1200D	3/5	+	..	..	4/5	4.5/5	Feb 2014	449	ebay.com
4.		Canon 1300D	4/5	o	4/5	73/100	4/5	4/5	Mar 2016	449	ebay.com
5.		Canon 4000D	2.5/5	o	3/5	..	3.5/5	3.5/5	Feb 2018	399	amazon.com
6.		Canon SX60	3/5	+ +	..	75/100	4/5	4.5/5	Sep 2014	549	ebay.com
7.		Canon SX510	..	+ +	..	..	4.5/5	4/5	Aug 2013	249	ebay.com
8.		Canon SX530	..	+ +	..	..	4/5	4/5	Jan 2015	429	ebay.com
9.		Canon SX540	..	..	..	..	..	..	Jan 2016	399	ebay.com
10.		Canon SX700	..	+ +	..	..	4/5	4/5	Feb 2014	349	ebay.com
11.		Canon SX710	..	+	..	..	4/5	3.5/5	Jan 2015	349	ebay.com
12.		Nikon B600	..	+	..	..	3.5/5	3/5	Jan 2019	349	ebay.com
13.		Olympus E-PL1	..	86/100	..	69/100	4/5	4.5/5	Feb 2010	599	ebay.com
14.		Olympus E-PL3	3/5	+ +	..	72/100	4.5/5	4/5	Jun 2011	599	ebay.com
15.		Olympus E-PM1	..	86/100	..	71/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jun 2011	499	ebay.com
16.		Olympus XZ-2	4/5	+	..	..	4.5/5	4.5/5	Sep 2012	599	ebay.com
17.		Panasonic LX5	4/5	+	..	73/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jul 2010	499	ebay.com
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available.

The review scores listed above should be treated with care, though. The ratings were established in reference to similarly priced cameras that were available in the market at the time of the review. Thus, a score needs to be put into the context of the launch date and the launch price of the camera, and comparisons of ratings among very different cameras or across long time periods have little meaning. Also, kindly note that some of the listed sites have over time developped their review approaches and their reporting style.

Check SX520 offers at
ebay.com
Check XZ-1 offers at
ebay.com

Other camera comparisons

Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? If you would like to see a different side-by-side camera review, just make a corresponding selection in the search boxes below. As an alternative, you can also directly jump to any one of the listed comparisons that were previously generated by the CAM-parator tool.

~

Check SX520 offers at
ebay.com
Check XZ-1 offers at
ebay.com

Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.