No good figure compared to the Sony HX100V

At full zoom, the Sony verwäscht on greater distance fine details, such as grass, a little more than the Canon. This is with regard to the 16MP as well as no surprise.
This really can be seen only at 100% view of the Pc, in normal print up to A4 is no difference in the image quality to be discovered. Them from the looks also at the Canon does not look good, only just a bit less modest.

When feel that Sony is ahead, which already makes the first look at the cameras and the suspect is confirmed when you have both of them in his hand.
Sony has used a much handier wertigeres and material.

In focal range, we have the Canon 24-840mm and 27-810mm in Sony. Here, the Canon has to his nose, and the difference in the wide angle will be higher than in, for the most interesting, telephoto. The at first glance seemingly enormous difference between 30x and 35x optical zoom, in practice, if at all, only minimally visible. 30mm are in the area just nothing.
In wide angle Canon scores but clear here that are superior to the 24mm 27mm visible. Who wants to clarify all times, should something to play around with the focal length Simulator from Sigma.

Unfortunately, you can not post links here, but you're looking at Goolge for "Sigma Focal Length Comparison", it is equal to the first hit.

One hardly sees the simulator already at the anbebotenen focal lengths between 750mm and 800m difference in 810mm - 830mm, the difference is accordingly still a lot less.
The difference between 24mm and 27mm, however, is clearly visible.

In video mode, of course have both cameras Full HD, the Sony creates in this resolution, however, 50 frames / sec and the Canon, however, only 24th
The zoom operates more quietly when Sony and can if necessary also be operated manually.

For weight and dimensions, the Sony is slightly smaller and lighter, but there are both no pocket Amera and therefore the difference is not so serious for me.

Then we have to obvious differences still GPS, the Panorama function, 3D and HDR of Sony and the hot shoe of Canon. The hot shoe is indeed "nice to have" but I guess not very interesting for compact cameras for 90% of users. The one buys precisely because you want to lug no Accessories / pay.

The differences in features you can now talk nicely by saying you can cobble together the panorama on the PC and manage fumble the HDR mode on the camera, but that does not change the facts. The competitor offers these features to inherently and beyond even more. If one adds the "Stone Age" Monitor This must be said openly that the equipment is anything but contemporary, and certainly not in this price range.
Since we have a 2.7 inch display with a resolution of 230,000 pixels and Sony in a 3-inch display with 921,600 pixels, 4 times more in the Canon.
In direct comparison the looks really as a subject years of development time between monitors what Canon likes to have this well-intended.

Had the Canon I could 100 euros cheaper it still understand, but it is still expensive even after the radical drop in prices of the past few weeks.

Beginner, Intermediate and Gelegenheitsknippser run better with the Sony. Not because of greater ease of use, but because they have less of the small advantages of Canon, which are also found in very specific areas as the numerous and obvious of Sony.

So sorry the 600D owners do as an old Canon EOS fan and, more than 3 stars I can not enter here, unfortunately.