1
\$\begingroup\$

See the comparison here
Mostly in every aspect Powershot SX150 is superior to A4000, why is A4000 priced higher than SX150?

Comparing the features its should be priced way lower than SX150 but its priced more than it. Why so?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ On Amazon it is the other way around. The A4000 is priced about 3% less than the SX150. The list price also suggests that the MSRP of the SX150 is considerably higher. I think you are missing the very important feature to many people of cameras in this range, size. \$\endgroup\$
    – dpollitt
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 12:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ amazon may give offer on price,, but size is one feature I didn't consider of much importance before, \$\endgroup\$
    – vivek_jonam
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 13:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ On Canon's Canadian site, the SX150 is more expensive than the A4000 ($200 vs $150); I have no idea why it would be different in India. And yes, the A4000 is something one can imagine being a permanent guest in a purse or coat pocket; the SX150, at nearly two inches thick, is a whole lot less likely to be the "always there" accessory. Like the man said, the best camera is the one you have with you. \$\endgroup\$
    – user2719
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 20:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

The difference is not that big, and you are right, the SX150 is a much better camera.

The main advantage of the SX150 is that it has full manual controls with a rear control dial and makes it much better for creative photography. It also has 50% more zoom. Plus, it has twice the battery-life with 320 shots per charge instead of 175. If you do the comparison on my site, most differences are automatically highlighted.

This brings us back to your question. Why would the better one by cheaper? It is hard to guess but the main difference is that the A4000 comes with a battery included, since its a proprietary one and goes for about $40 USD. It also comes with a charger which also costs money. With the SX150 IS, you need to buy your own AAs (Good ones cost $16 for 4, so you get two sets!) and charger or you may use ones you already have.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ You get +1 for telling us it is your site! Also, because you are right! \$\endgroup\$
    – dpollitt
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 15:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ The A4000 is WAY smaller and lighter. Miniaturization isn't free. Also, from what I've seen, the A4000 IS gets far better battery life with it's LION battery. \$\endgroup\$
    – camflan
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 22:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Not that I had an A4000 in hand but I doubt that about the battery life and AAs get better all the time. While 2000mAh were the norm when the SX150 was launched, you can use 2500 or 2700 and get 25%-30% more shots. Proprietary batteries rarely ever improve for the same model. \$\endgroup\$
    – Itai
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 22:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Smaller and half-the-weight actually. It's harder to make it small, so that's probably why the zoom is shorter and battery smaller. \$\endgroup\$
    – Itai
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 22:58
3
\$\begingroup\$

Most likely because the A4000 is smaller, almost half the weight of the SX150 and uses a proprietary lithium-ion battery.

The only real improvement the SX150 seems to have is much better video recording.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.