Canon - PowerShot SX40 HS ?
Anyone with any experience with the Canon Powershot sx40 hs?
I don't really want a DSLR personally as its just too much for the easy point and shoot stuff. But I admit I want most of the features offered by a DSLR. This looks like a good compromise.
If you want something more compact than a DSLR, but with full features, and that price point, also take a look at the Canon G12. It's got a little larger sensor than the SX40 and slightly less megapixels, which translates into larger photosites on the sensor. That'll give you much better detail in low light and less digital noise (grainy looking) in the pictures.
I got my wife a G11 when she basically had the same criteria. She was coming from a Canon S3 IS, which was a predecessor to the SX line I believe. The G12 has better manual control. It's really easy to shoot in aperture mode, which is how I usually use it. Most point and shoots I don't even bother b/c making the adjustment involves menu settings and stuff.
You can't go wrong with Canon's point and shoot cameras, either one will be great. I'd see if you can go somewhere and play with both of them. If you're looking for DSLR features, which for me means easy to do manual exposure adjustment, you may find that it's easier to tweak on the G12.
Canon G12 at Best Buy
We have a Canon G12. Takes pretty good photos, but it's pretty bulky. If we had it to do over we'd have gone with the S95. Same sensor, slightly better lens, much easier to carry. In fact, I've been thinking about trading in our G12 on a S100.
Both the S100 & G12 have only 5x optical zoom lenses. I don't see either replacing a DSLR. Those may have great image sensors but are basically really nice point and shoot units. I have that with my little Nikon.
The XS40 hs has a 35x optical or the equivalent of a 24-840mm old school lens. I can see this as a valid replacement for a DSLR in the terms of zoom capability. I'm sure there are other short comings but I want the "big Lens" feature. And then the ability to have aperture like controls or whatever they are called in the digital world.
I just don't want to be where I was with my old 35mm Cannon Rebel where I hauled around 3 lenses all the time with a dozen filters and all the other crap.
But if I have to go DSLR I will. I just don't want to deal with it. Especially the dirt in the camera part when changing lenses. That sucks.
If you want one lens that can do most shots, I suggest the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom Nikkor. This is what Treeroot shoots and it is one of the most versatile lenses ever made.
Canon probably has a similar lens if you want to stay in the Canon family.
This is a new, hot segment of the market: cameras that attempt to replicate the quality of an SLR without a mirror. I would take a look at the following:
The problem with these cameras is that they are still large. Honestly, if I was buying a non-DSLR camera, I would buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5. This is essentially the same camera as the Leica D-LUX5 at half the price. I have the predecessor (LX3), and it's almost impossible to take a bad shot.
In a DSLR the compromises involved in manufacturing a lens that sweeps more than 300-and-change millimeters, while covering an APS-C or full frame sensor, and not having heinous distortion or sharpness issues, make it nearly impossible to do a good quality wide to super-telephoto lens. About the only options are an 18-200, 28-300, or 80-400 from various manufacturers.
That said, the Nikon 18-200 is a fantastic lens, both in terms of absolute quality, as well as bang for the buck. I've had one for almost 4 years, and it is a rock solid performer. It sounds like you're looking for something a little longer though.
I don't "need" a lens that long. But definitely don't want a high end point and shoot and be left wishing I had more that a 5x zoom.
With my 35mm SLR I have 3 zoom lenses covering 14?-300 from memory. I'd like a little more on the long end with a point a shoot. But 820 is a little overkill. I'll take it but would not choose the cannon if another option presented at say 600+/- and had better features that appealed to me.
I've thought about getting a DSLR but that only really appeals if my old Cannon SLR lenses will work with a modern DLSR correctly. If not, I don't want to invest that much in new body/lenses. And in the end really don't want to have to carry multiple lenses anyway.
My former neighbor had an Cannon with the super zoom and liked it. But he is no longer around to pick his brain on any complaints or short comings of the camera.
I spent the other night reading some long winded camera reviews and most were pretty good on the Cannon. Panasonic, Nikon, and Sony had some good offerings too in the $400 range. In the end sounded like I can't go wrong with any of them. Each had their strong points. Only thing that bothered me on the Cannon is one reviewer felt the AF was the weakest of the three in his test. A lot of the reviews went into detail far beyond my knowledge level on the workings of a digital camera. 99% of the time I'm sure I will be in full auto mode taking pictures of the family. But I'd like the ability to take the "safety off" so to speak and shoot like I did in the old days with my 35mm having full control.
As usual I'm probably over thinking this purchase and should just get the Cannon and be done with it.
Depending on what lenses you have, your Canon film gear might all work with a Canon DSLR.
Plus, you'd get the 1.6x crop sensor factor, so your 14-300 would effectively cover 22.4 - 480.
That might get you where you want to go... not to confuse the issue any more, lol.
At the end of the day, you'd probably be pretty pleased with the ~$400 offering from Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Panasonic. They've all got good glass, and sensor technology these days is good enough that it's hard to pin one of those as the "best." Being the big 4 competitors in the P&S market, they all stay on top of product development pretty well.
I'd also add, it seems that all four companies are pouring R&D into high dollar point and shoot / mirrorless cameras. I suspect that the inexpensive P&S market is drying up due to camera phones getting beter and better, which in this case, is a great thing for the class of camera you're looking at.
Also, CES is this week. That may bring new product releases. If you can hold off a week or two, might be worth it. A) You might be able to pick up a previous year model for cheap, or B) there may be one with new features worth getting.
OK, I don't really know much about the compatibility of older 35mm lenses with new DSLR's so someone help me out a little here. I get that the old lenses are designed around projecting the image on 35mm film. And that the DSLR has an image sensor that may or not be the same size. But beyond that is where I get lost. So this is what I have, all Cannon based:
Sigma EX 17-35mm F2.8-4 aspherical
Cannon EF 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 ultrasonic
Cannon crap lens that came with my EOS Rebel G, 35-80mm
Assorted filters for all three lenses, all different sizes of course:rolleyes:
What would they do on a basic DSLR body? Looks like I could pick up a Rebel T2i body for $550ish More than I want to spend but if my old stuff would work with it...
You're correct about the difference in sensor size. 35mm lenses will have a larger coverage area, so you're fine using them on smaller sensors.
Canon's nomenclature for APS-C, crop sensor, digital, DX, whatever everyone else calls it, is EF-S. These lenses are specifically designed to only cover the smaller sensor.
You can use an EF lens on an EF-S camera, but you cannot use an EF-S lens on an EF camera. The only concern I might have is if the Sigma would work with AF and metering. Because Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc, basically reverse engineer the pin-out on the lens, and the communication protocol back to the camera, there is a very slight possibility that there would be a hiccup. I've got a Tamron lens that's 14 years old that I used on a Nikon film body, as well as 2 nikon digital bodies, and never had any trouble. However, caveat emptor. I would swing by a local camera store and take it in to make 100% sure. Any good store should let you take a memory card and your lenses and give the camera a test run out in the parking lot.
The consequence / benefit of having the smaller sensor, is that your effective focal length is magnified. Since you're projecting the same size image, but taking the middle area covered by a smaller sensor, you'll get a smaller field of view equivalent to a longer focal length. Your aperture ratings will be equivalent.
The other benefit of this, is that, typically with inexpensive lenses, the area of image quality that is the best is the center. By using a crop sensor, you're getting the best part of the lens, even with inexpensive ones. That 35-80 kit lens may look better than you think.
With the sensor Canon uses, you'll get a 1.6x multiplier on the 35mm length to come up with your effective focal length. So, given that, your existing lenses would all be pushed 1.6x more towards the telephoto range.
Sigma EX 17-35mm F2.8-4 aspherical (27.2 - 56, f2.8-4)
Cannon EF 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 ultrasonic (160-480 f4.5-5.6)
Cannon crap lens that came with my EOS Rebel G, 35-80mm (56-128)
All of your filters would still work just fine, which, depending on what you've got, I know can be quite an investment.
All in all, you'd have (nearly) seamless coverage from 27.2mm out to 480mm with your existing glass.
I know it's not pocketable, but that's a nice bit of investment to be able to leverage and only be out the cost of the body on the DSLR, all to end up with a nice kit that's pretty flexible.
Pick up a pelican case on Steep and Cheap, toss it in the back of the 80, and you're ready to go :)
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.