Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

&&&&&& UPDATED, December 21, 2014 &&&&&&& (Upgraded from 1-star to 2-stars, due to a sudden, very large, price drop in the Canon SX400 from $199 down to $149. That reflects my slightly-improved opinion of its relative "value" when compared to other similar Canon cameras. I still don't recommend it to anyone, but to be fair I have updated my review of it accordingly. Best wishes - John) The Canon SX400 is an orphan camera stuck in among several other superior Canon cameras, all of them at very close to the same price, and all of them with far more features than the SX400. Basically the only noteworthy thing the SX400 has to offer is a 30X zoom (and about half of the other Canon cameras of this compact-type and price-range have the equivalent of that feature, too.) The Canon SX400 is like a very bulky, auto-mode-only Canon ELPH135, with a 30X zoom instead of an 8X zoom. It is being advertised as "an upgrade to the Canon SX170." It isn't. And it isn't nearly as good of a camera as the older-model Canon SX510 (same 30X zoom,) either. The new SX400 is actually a stripped-down version of the older-style SX510, using the even older-style SX170 sensor. There is nothing new or original on the whole camera. It's like Canon had a lot of spare parts and a small battery. It has no manual controls. It has no manual focus. It has no special features. And it has a very small battery. The SX400 is simply a bulky, auto-mode-only, point-and-shoot camera with a 30X zoom, that shoots lower-resolution video, in mono sound, and has a very short battery life. The newer model SX520 and the older model SX170 are compared below to the new Canon SX400. &&&&&&&.... The Canon SX400 vs. the Canon SX170 .... &&&&&&& The shooting specs for the SX400 and SX170 are essentially identical. They both have the same 16 Megapixel CCD sensor, the same quality images - exactly - and same camera performance, except as follows: PROS: The SX400 has a 30X zoom. The SX170 has a 16X zoom. CONS: The SX170 has full manual controls - aperture, ISO, shutter speed. The SX400 does not. The SX170 creates stereo sound in videos. The SX400 creates mono sound in videos. The SX170 has more scene modes that the SX400. The SX170 has manual focus. The SX400 does not. (Used in low-light photographs. Please see my Comment #9 for details.) The SX170 is lightweight, slimline, and will fit in a coat pocket. The SX400 is heavier, bulkier, and will not fit in a coat pocket. Battery life for the SX170 is 300 shots. Battery life for the SX400 is 190 shots. &&&&&&&.... The Canon SX400 vs. the Canon SX520 .... &&&&&&& The SX400 and the SX520 are both virtually the same shape and size. Other than that.... The SX400 has a 30X zoom. The SX520 has a 42X zoom. The SX400 uses an (older style) 1/2.3" CCD sensor (16 megapixels) The SX520 uses a (newer-style) 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS sensor (16 megapixels) PROS: The SX400 weighs less than the SX520 - 313g vs. 441g. (But all of that extra weight in the SX520 is for the longer zoom, and the longer-lasting battery.) CONS: The SX520 has full manual controls - aperture, ISO, shutter speed. The SX400 does not. The SX520 creates stereo sound in videos. The SX400 creates mono sound in videos. The SX520 creates full 1920 HD movies. The SX400 creates standard 1280 HD movies. The SX520 shoots faster (1.6 fps) than the SX400 (0.8 fps.) The SX520 has manual focus. The SX400 does not. (Used in low-light photographs. Again, please see my Comment #9 for details.) The SX520 has 461,000 screen dots on the LCD. The SX400 has 230,000 screen dots on the LCD. Battery life for the SX520 is 210 shots. Battery life for the SX400 is 190 shots. &&&&&&&.... (Updated) Amazon prices (as of Dec. 21, 2014.) ....&&&&&&& Canon ELPH135 - $79. (8X zoom) ... (auto-mode-only) Canon SX160 - $150. (16X zoom) ... (Same specs as the newer SX170, but still runs on 2-AA batteries.) Canon SX170 - $159. (16X zoom) Canon SX400 - $149. (30X zoom) ... (auto-mode-only) Canon SX510 - $209. (30X zoom) Canon SX520 - $199. (42X zoom) &&&&&&&.... A very bulky auto-mode-only camera ....&&&&&&& The Canon SX400 is simply an auto-mode-only camera, with features exactly like the Canon ELPH135 (8X zoom - Amazon price $79,) but with a 30X zoom (Amazon price $149.) It is much heavier and bulkier than the ELPH135, and it has a much shorter battery life. The ELPH135 will fit easily in your shirt pocket. The SX400 won't. How much extra is that 30X zoom worth to you on a camera with features exactly like the ELPH135, but is so bulky that you can't easily carry it around with you like the ELPH135? Only you can decide the answer to that question. Best wishes on your decision. - John &&&&&&&& UPDATE, Dec. 2, 2014 - IDENTICAL IMAGE QUALITY ON THE ELPH135 &&&&&&&& One poster here (see comment #4) has offered his opinion that the "optics on the [ELPH135] are terrible," and "more like 2 generations back of smartphones," and that it is a "poor comparison" to the SX400. This poster is blatantly mistaken. One professional camera-review-and-comparison website - Snapsort - specifically tests and compares "image quality" of digital cameras. Based on the results of their testing, Snapsort has concluded that both cameras - the SX400 and the ELPH135 - produce identical quality images. (Please see my response for details, comment #5.) When considering a buying decision about a digital camera, Amazon readers would be well advised to rely on quantifiable facts, actual camera specs and professional camera testing, rather than on uniformed opinions, blatant nonsense, and elitist snobbery. &&&&&&&& Best wishes to all, John