Canon PowerShot A series · marketed in 2005
The Canon PowerShot A520: a 4x zoom and full manual control on two AA batteries
We found no other regional name for it: Canon's museum lists the same name for Japan, the Americas and Europe.1
In 2005 Canon cut the A85's four AA cells to two and shrank the body, yet kept the manual exposure modes. Imaging Resource made it a Dave's Pick, while Reviewed.com's lab found it noisier than its 3.2-megapixel sibling.
- Launched
- March 2005
- Launch price
- $299 (Imaging Resource)3
- Sensor
- 4 MP CCD
- Lens
- 35–140 mm, 4×
- Card
- SD, MultiMediaCard
- Battery
- AA
Canon PowerShot A520 specs: sensor, lens, battery, memory card and cable
The Canon PowerShot A520 is a 4 MP CCD compact camera with a 35–140 mm (35 mm equivalent) 4× zoom lens, launched in March 2005 at $299. It uses SD and MultiMediaCard and runs on AA batteries. Sources
- Sensor
- CCD, 1/2.5", 4 MP source
- Lens
- 35–140 mm equivalent, 4× zoom source
- Memory card
- SD, MultiMediaCard source
- Battery
- AA source
- USB / A/V cable
- IFC-400PCU, AVC-DC300 Confirmed · all Canon cables
Meet the camera
Canon's museum calls the A520 a new generation of PowerShot A-series compacts: a 1/2.5 inch CCD with 4.0 million effective pixels, a newly developed retractable 4x zoom, and the DIGIC processor.1 It records to SD or MultiMediaCard and runs on two AA batteries, which Canon says gives it a compact, lightweight body.1 The listed size is 90.7 by 64.0 by 38.4 millimetres and about 180 grams without batteries or card; Imaging Resource lists 238 grams with batteries and a card.13 Reviewed.com said it was 13 percent smaller and 20 percent lighter than the A85 it replaced, and Photo Review put the saving at about 70 grams.57 Opinions on pocketability differed: Imaging Resource found it a little too large for a shirt pocket but fine for a coat, and Macworld called it too bulky to count as a pocket camera.36
The dates and prices do not line up neatly. Imaging Resource gives availability as February 2005 and a suggested retail price at introduction of $299,3 while Canon's museum gives March 2005 as the marketing date.1 Imaging Resource's data sheet lists the date available as 1 March 2005 and a retail price of $300.12 DPReview, whose review is dated 31 March 2005, says Canon announced the camera just before the PMA show in February.4 Reviewed.com called the list price $300.5 Photo Review, an Australian site, gave $499 and said that was what the A85 had launched at; its page names no currency, so we do not read it as a US price.7
- Sensor
- 4.0 MP CCD, 1/2.5"1
- Lens
- 4x, 35–140 mm equiv., f/2.6–5.51
- ISO
- Auto, 50, 100, 200, 4001
- Screen
- 1.8", about 115,000 dots, plus optical viewfinder1
- Batteries
- 2 × AA; alkaline in the kit, NiMH (NB4-200) sold separately1
- Card
- SD / MultiMediaCard1
- Size
- 90.7 × 64.0 × 38.4 mm, about 180 g, body only1
- Launch price
- $299 (Imaging Resource)3
Why this one was interesting
Four AA cells down to two
DPReview called the changes evolutionary rather than revolutionary: a smaller, lighter body, a 4x zoom in place of 3x, a zoom-linked flash, SD cards instead of CompactFlash, and two AA batteries instead of four.4 Imaging Resource said the move to SD was a large part of how Canon fitted the same feature set into a smaller body.3 Sources disagree about which camera it replaced. Imaging Resource's news item, DPReview, Reviewed.com, and the CNET and PCMag excerpts all name the A85,245108 but Imaging Resource's own review names the A80 in its introduction, the A75 in its conclusion and the A85 in two other places.3 Photo Review also names the A85.7 We follow the majority; for the family, see our PowerShot A80 and A75 reviews.
Manual control at about $300
Imaging Resource listed manual, aperture-priority and shutter-priority modes beside auto, program and scene modes, and said that range suited novices and experienced users alike.3 Reviewed.com went further: manual control was what set the camera apart, and for anyone who wanted it, it said there was no greater value in the price range.5 The CNET excerpt made the same trade against Canon's own Digital Elph SD300: less pocketable, but the full manual controls enthusiasts need, more scene modes, a longer zoom and a lower price.10 Macworld agreed on the controls but not on the handling, and suggested paying a little more for Olympus's C-5500 SportZoom.6
A near twin
Imaging Resource said the A520 was nearly identical to the A510 in features, with slightly higher resolution and better skin tones on the A520 and slightly better noise on the A510.3 Reviewed.com's lab was harsher: apart from the sensors it called the two virtually identical, and it scored the A510 better on noise at both auto and manual ISO.5 The A520 is a CCD camera: see our glossary entry on CCD sensors. For later AA-powered A-series Canons, see our A570 IS and A640 reviews.
The AA question: what each source said
Two AA cells instead of four was the headline change, so we collected what each source said about them. The numbers come from different kinds of test and should not be read as one scale.
| Source | What it said about batteries |
|---|---|
| Canon | Lists AA alkaline batteries as included in the kit, NiMH NB4-200 cells and the ACK800 AC adapter kit as sold separately. The page gives no shot count.1 |
| Imaging Resource | Called battery life very good for a two-cell camera. On 1600 mAh NiMH cells it projected 136 minutes in record mode with the screen on, 348 minutes of playback and 12.8 hours in record mode with the screen off; it expected about 170 minutes with newer high-capacity cells. Two alkalines were in the box, and it advised buying rechargeables.3 |
| DPReview | Noted that two AAs help keep size and weight down and that no NiMH cells are supplied. It said Canon quotes 300 shots with the screen on using NiMH cells, and called battery life superb.4 |
| Reviewed.com | Listed long battery life among the things the A520 lacked, noted that the NiMH cells it needs are not supplied, and said the supplied alkalines lasted no more than an hour or two in its testing.5 |
| Photo Review | Said power consumption was lower than the A85's and that two AAs replaced four; it gave no battery-life measurement.7 |
Imaging Resource and DPReview rated the endurance highly while Reviewed.com counted it as a weakness, and none of them ran the same test. The practical reading, which is ours, is to budget for a set or two of NiMH rechargeables.
The dark, on a budget
The sources agreed that noise climbed quickly with sensitivity but not on how usable the camera was at night. Digital Camera Review's excerpt called ISO 50 and 100 images consistently superb, ISO 200 a bit noisy and ISO 400 noticeably too noisy.9 Macworld saw noise at ISO 200,6 and Imaging Resource said noise was present even at ISO 50 but not visible until ISO 200, and objectionable at ISO 400.3 DPReview listed high noise at ISO 400 among its cons and said the noise reduction removed too much fine detail there.4 Reviewed.com's lab scored manual-ISO noise 3.77 against 6.0 for the A510, calling images unavoidably flawed from ISO 200.5
In the dark itself the verdicts split. Imaging Resource found usable, good-coloured images down to the 0.67 lux limit of its test at ISO 100 to 400, and autofocus working down to about a quarter of a foot-candle with the assist light on.3 Reviewed.com tested in Program Auto at 60, 30, 15 and 5 lux, scored low-light performance 5.5, called the pictures unflattering with muddy colour, and advised a tripod and exposures of up to 15 seconds.5 Photo Review found 15-second exposures at ISO 100 easy, with noise at ISO 400 visible only in long exposures,7 and DPReview said focus could be slow in low light at the long end of the zoom.4
Real photographs taken with this camera. The A520 does not record its ISO in EXIF, so we show the shutter speed and aperture from each file's EXIF data instead.
Like that look? See what A520s have recently sold for on eBay ↗
On eBay right now
Live listings for this camera, supplied by eBay and updated automatically. We earn a commission if you buy through them.
The little wins
A few small things made it better to live with than its price suggested.
The lens ring detached. · Luis Dantas · Public domain · CommonsA lens ring that comes off
A small button under the lens releases the outer ring so that wide, tele or macro adapters can be fitted, according to Imaging Resource; DPReview said the same about converters, and the PCMag excerpt added filters.348
How it drew the picture
The colour drew the warmest comments. Imaging Resource found it pleasing, brighter than the subjects, with cyans nudged toward blue, which it took to be the reason for excellent sky colours;3 Macworld rated colour accuracy excellent and detail very good;6 DPReview called colour bright and vivid yet natural and said the camera's output was contrasty.4 Imaging Resource also found contrast high, with no way to adjust it, while Photo Review, in contrast, found contrast and saturation generally modest.37 On sharpness, Imaging Resource found strong detail to at least 1,100 lines vertically and 1,200 horizontally;3 DPReview praised edge-to-edge sharpness and very little purple fringing;4 Photo Review found it sharp edge to edge with minimal fringing,7 and Digital Camera Review's excerpt said the new zoom was not as sharp as the A85's 3x.9 Reviewed.com's lab, though, measured 2.69 megapixels of resolved detail, which it put at 69 percent of the marketed resolution, just short of what it called good.5 Imaging Resource measured about 0.9 percent barrel distortion at wide angle (DPReview measured 1.2 percent) and found the prints looked good to about 11 by 14 inches.34
.jpg){kind=link}
_001.jpg){kind=link}
Photos taken with this camera, from Wikimedia Commons, credited under each picture.
Where it let you down
The optical viewfinder drew the most agreement. Imaging Resource measured it at 81 percent of the frame, DPReview said it showed around 80 percent with no dioptre adjustment, and Reviewed.com scored it 3.5 and called it puny and useless.345 The flash came next: DPReview listed flash recycling as way too slow, with about seven seconds between shots when the flash fired,4 and Reviewed.com disliked the flash sitting so close to the lens, because it throws shadows to one side and invites red-eye.5 The screen was bright but hard to see in daylight for DPReview, while Reviewed.com said a 1.8 inch, 115,000-dot display should be bigger.45 Handling split the reviewers: Imaging Resource found the body solid and DPReview called the build excellent for a budget camera, but Macworld thought it felt slightly cheap, with a plastic tripod socket, stiff dial and awkward buttons needing both thumbs, and Reviewed.com saw uneven seams and a rocking battery door.3465 Macworld also missed a live histogram. Photo Review said histograms were available in capture and playback modes, while Canon, DPReview and Imaging Resource mention one only for playback.67143
Speed was the second complaint, and the stopwatches disagree:
| Source | Start-up | Shot to shot | Shutter lag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imaging Resource | 2.6 s from power-on to first shot11 | 2.5 s single shot; 1.47 frames a second in burst | 0.88 to 0.94 s with autofocus |
| DPReview | 2.5 s to record mode | 2.1 s without flash; about 7 s with | About 0.9 s from a full press without a half-press, wide angle |
| Reviewed.com | Nearly 3 s | A little under 1 s | 0.71 s |
| Photo Review | Under 2 s | 3.5 to over 5 s | 0.95 s, just under 0.2 s pre-focused |
| Macworld | "A couple of seconds" | Eight top-quality frames in about 6 s, then stuttering | Not timed |
The spread is wide enough that we would not trust any single figure.3114576 Reviewed.com said the older DIGIC processor held the speed back.5
What the reviewers said
| Outlet | Date | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Imaging Resource | 22 Mar 2005 | Dave's Pick: approachable for novices, interesting for experienced users; faults were an inaccurate viewfinder and ISO 400 noise.3 |
| DPReview | 31 Mar 2005 | Carries DPReview's Recommended badge; called it hard to find a more suitable first digital camera. Cons: ISO 400 noise, slow focus at full zoom, slow flash recycle, two-second shot-to-shot, slow start-up.4 |
| PCMag (excerpt) | 13 Apr 2005 (post) | Called the body a compressed A85; was still not keen on the zoom ring around the shutter button.8 |
| Digital Camera Review (excerpt) | 27 Apr 2005 (post) | Images as good as or better than anything in its class, though ISO 400 was too noisy.9 |
| Macworld | 19 May 2005 | Full manual controls and very good images, but disappointing handling.6 |
| CNET (excerpt) | 22 Jun 2005 (post) | Less pocketable than the SD300 but cheaper, with full manual controls and a longer zoom.10 |
| Reviewed.com | Undated (page metadata says July 2004, before the camera was announced, so we ignore it) | Value 7.5; no better value if you want manual control, but criticised the viewfinder, screen, low light and video.5 |
| Photo Review | Undated | Rated 8.5 out of 10 for build, ease of use, image quality and value, and 6.5 for storage with the supplied card.7 |
The timeline
- February 2005Announced just before PMA per DPReview; Imaging Resource lists availability as February.43
- March 2005Canon's museum lists the camera as marketed.1
- 22 and 23 March 2005Imaging Resource's review date, and its news item about it.32
- 31 March 2005DPReview publishes its review.4
- 13 and 27 April 2005PhotographyBLOG posts the PCMag and Digital Camera Review excerpts.89
- 19 May 2005Macworld's review.6
- 22 June 2005PhotographyBLOG posts the CNET excerpt.10
Should you buy one now?
Buy one if you want a simple AA-powered compact with a real zoom and manual modes, and you can live with a poor viewfinder and ISO 400 noise. It launched at $299;3 what it sells for now is a question for the sold listings, not for us. Before you bid, check these:
- The batteries and the clock cell. It takes two AAs;1 a set of NiMH rechargeables is the sensible choice, and the small clock cell (a CR1220, per Imaging Resource) holds the date while the AAs are out, so check the date is still right after a battery swap.3 A set is cheap on Amazon ↗.
- The card. Canon lists SD and MultiMediaCard only and says nothing about SDHC, and a 16 MB MMC card came in the box.13 Imaging Resource advised at least 64 MB.3 See our memory card guide.
- The cables. Imaging Resource lists a USB cable (IFC-400PCU) and an AV cable (AVC-DC300) in the box, and Canon lists a USB mini-B port.31
- The lens ring and dial. The lens extends on power-up and the ring should come off; check the extension, and that the stiff mode dial and Record/Playback switch still click through their positions.36
- The battery door. Reviewed.com found it rocked a little even when latched,5 so check that the door closes firmly and the battery contacts are clean.
If you are wondering why cameras like this are being hunted down again, we tell that story once, in Pictures that never left the card.
See recent sold prices on eBay ↗Shop on eBay ↗AA batteries ↗
Sources
- Canon Camera Museum: PowerShot A520 (specifications, power sources, interface, marketing date March 2005)
- Imaging Resource news, Canon PowerShot A520 review posted, by Dave Etchells (23 March 2005; names the A85 as the model it replaces)
- Imaging Resource, Canon PowerShot A520 review (review date 3/22/2005; availability February 2005; suggested price at introduction $299; in-the-box list; lab-style test results)
- DPReview, Canon PowerShot A520 Review by Simon Joinson (31 March 2005; read page by page: intro, body elements, timings, image quality, conclusion)
- Reviewed.com, Canon PowerShot A520 digital camera review (undated page; lab tests including resolution and noise against the A510)
- Macworld, Canon PowerShot A520 by Robert Ellis (19 May 2005)
- Photo Review (Australia), Canon PowerShot A520 (undated page; ratings, test notes, specifications)
- PhotographyBLOG news item quoting PCMag's review (13 April 2005; an excerpt, not the full review)
- PhotographyBLOG news item quoting Digital Camera Review's review (27 April 2005; an excerpt, not the full review)
- PhotographyBLOG news item quoting CNET's review (22 June 2005; an excerpt, not the full review)
- Imaging Resource, Canon PowerShot A520 "Picky Details" page (timings, power drain, storage; part of the same review)
- Imaging Resource, Canon PowerShot A520 data sheet (retail price, date available, timings)
Camera photos by Luis Dantas (public domain); other photographs are credited under each one, all via Wikimedia Commons. Links to eBay and Amazon are affiliate links.