Powershot SX10

measekite wrote:
[]
That is why I am thinking of an SD880. They say the controls are
better than other Canon P&S and the LCD is brilliant and visible
during the day in the sun. To gain those features and the 28mm eqv
wide I would be giving up on the tele end and giving up an optical
viewfinder that I like.

I carry a compact as well as the DSLR. I went for the Panasonic TZ3,
which has a good LCD viewfinder and a 28-280mm image stabilised lens. No
need to give up on the tele if you want 28mm wide. No optical finder (at
reasonable size, cost and size) is going to cover a 10:1 zoom range, and
your present S5 doesn't have one.

Cheers,
David

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:41:25 GMT, measekite wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:39:00 -0600, GSmythe wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:40:06 GMT, measekite wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:40:00 -0500, Stephen Henning wrote:

I have had my SX10 for almost 2 months now. It is actually better than
I expected. The focus is extremely precise, even in low light when it
uses the built in focus lamp for the flash. The exposures are also very
precise. The antishake has worked remarkably well. Macro shots still
give me fits. They always come out great, but I haven't yet figured out
when to use the macro on and off. I do know that with macro on, it
likes the wider angles of zoom. With the macro off, it focuses fairly
close even in telephoto. I am going to set up a test to see what the
best settings are for macro photography.

Several of my friends with DSLR's are looking at my SX10. Most don't
change their lenses very often, especially in the field because they
can't afford to take a chance of getting dust on their sensor. It is
their dream to have a digital camera where they have the full range of
zoom without changing lenses and with super antishake performance. I
already have that.


Having its predecessor the Canon S5 IS I do understand what you are
saying and I am sure it is a fine camera BUT:

When you desire to use higher ISO and/or less then optimal light and/or
crop quite a bit and print 11x14 and up and still require high resolution,
high dynamic range and razor sharpness you still need to put up with the
disadvantages of a DSLR. Even the lowly Digital Rebel (lowly when
compared to the 5D mark ii) can do these things. In this regard the SX
series has to take a back seat.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Can you list any more "if you ...." pigeon-hole requirements to make a DSLR win
out over a P&S camera? LOL!!!!!!!! Not only that, but nothing you have stated is
even remotely true.

This link already proves you dead wrong

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Give it up, troll.

I know this group occasionally has name calling idiot morons who cannot
stand others with different opinions. Maybe you know one.

But notwithstanding brands or models or even camera type it is a known
fact that larger sensors with the same number of pixels can produce better
images; especially when cropped and enlarged.

The only "known fact" of that exists only in your own mind and in the minds of
all those that have brainwashed themselves into believing so. Mostly in trying
to justify why they spent so much money and ignorantly locked themselves into
one line of lenses and still have to justify the cost to try keep all those
previous, but now sorely outdated, investments useful.

Self-induced ignorance based on financial justification is a marvelous thing, is
it not?

You and all others just like you should know.

measekite wrote:

That is why I am thinking of an SD880. They say the controls are better
than other Canon P&S and the LCD is brilliant and visible during the day
in the sun. To gain those features and the 28mm eqv wide I would be
giving up on the tele end and giving up an optical viewfinder that I like.

Try to find an SD800. You get both the 28mm _and_ the optical
viewfinder. Plus you get lower noise due to the lower pixel density.

Install CHDK on it, and you get some nice extra features like histogram.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:59:33 -0800, SMS wrote:

measekite wrote:

That is why I am thinking of an SD880. They say the controls are better
than other Canon P&S and the LCD is brilliant and visible during the day
in the sun. To gain those features and the 28mm eqv wide I would be
giving up on the tele end and giving up an optical viewfinder that I like.

Try to find an SD800. You get both the 28mm _and_ the optical
viewfinder. Plus you get lower noise due to the lower pixel density.

Install CHDK on it, and you get some nice extra features like histogram.

If a live-histogram is all that you get excited about when using CHDK, it proves
you've never even tapped into the basest of capabilities of CHDK. Ergo. you have
never used CHDK and you don't own any camera that you've ever talk about.

Self-evidence is a wonderful thing.

measekite wrote:

But notwithstanding brands or models or even camera type it is a known
fact that larger sensors with the same number of pixels can produce better
images; especially when cropped and enlarged.

That's one of the key issues that's important for buyers to understand.
Certainly there are occasions when you can get by just fine with a P&S,
i.e. good lighting, stationary subjects, somewhere in the sweet spot of
a very wide focal range lens, and when you don't need to do cropping and
enlarging (which highlights the problems with high-noise sensors, lack
of dynamic range, and lens problems). This is something I patiently
explain to every colleague, relative, and friend that asks me for advice
on which camera to purchase.

Using a table to show them what they can expect from each type of camera
is often helpful, i.e.:

Print Size versus Megapixels versus Camera Type

Mp Type 4x6 5x7 8x10 13x18 16x20 24x36
-- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
6 P&S Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor
6 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Fair Poor
8 P&S Good Good Fair Poor Poor Poor
8 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Fair
10 P&S Good Good Good Fair Poor Poor
10 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
12 P&S Good Good Good Good Fair Poor
12 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
14 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
16 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
20 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good

It's sometimes hard to explain to non-technical types the reasons why
they need to look at more than just focal length and megapixels, and why
they may want to consider spending more on a D-SLR. Explaining about why
the AF lag on the P&S is so bad is often easier than explaining about
sensor noise and dynamic range.

Explaining something like CHDK to a novice is like talking a foreign
language. Besides what they have to do to load it on the camera
(including putting it on every memory card they have), it's a challenge
to explain to them why they might want to use it. I really need to go
back and update some of the documentation that I wrote on CHDK in a less
technical way.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:59 -0800, SMS wrote:

measekite wrote:

But notwithstanding brands or models or even camera type it is a known
fact that larger sensors with the same number of pixels can produce better
images; especially when cropped and enlarged.

That's one of the key issues that's important for buyers to understand.
Certainly there are occasions when you can get by just fine with a P&S,
i.e. good lighting, stationary subjects, somewhere in the sweet spot of
a very wide focal range lens, and when you don't need to do cropping and
enlarging (which highlights the problems with high-noise sensors, lack
of dynamic range, and lens problems). This is something I patiently
explain to every colleague, relative, and friend that asks me for advice
on which camera to purchase.

Using a table to show them what they can expect from each type of camera
is often helpful, i.e.:

Print Size versus Megapixels versus Camera Type

Mp Type 4x6 5x7 8x10 13x18 16x20 24x36
-- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
6 P&S Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor
6 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Fair Poor
8 P&S Good Good Fair Poor Poor Poor
8 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Fair
10 P&S Good Good Good Fair Poor Poor
10 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
12 P&S Good Good Good Good Fair Poor
12 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
14 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
16 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
20 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good

It's sometimes hard to explain to non-technical types

"Non-technical types", like you? Meaning you got that off of some pay-for print
service that doesn't even realize how resolution relates to print quality? That
kind of "non-technical" types?

the reasons why
they need to look at more than just focal length and megapixels, and why
they may want to consider spending more on a D-SLR. Explaining about why
the AF lag on the P&S is so bad is often easier than explaining about
sensor noise and dynamic range.

Explaining something like CHDK to a novice is like talking a foreign
language. Besides what they have to do to load it on the camera
(including putting it on every memory card they have), it's a challenge
to explain to them why they might want to use it. I really need to go
back and update some of the documentation that I wrote on CHDK in a less
technical way.

So speaks a moron who has never even used CHDK and only bases his findings on
what he reads online.

Good, you do that. So it will be instantly deleted again just like last time
that you meddled into the documentation of CHDK because of your amazing amount
of stupidity and ignorance based on total lack of any real-life experience with
anything even remotely photography related.

measekite wrote:

But notwithstanding brands or models or even camera type it is a known
fact that larger sensors with the same number of pixels can produce better
images; especially when cropped and enlarged.

That is entirely true, but larger sensors also require much larger
pieces of glass, heavy glass and interchangeable lenses that allow dust
on the sensor.

So the tradeoff is lower ASAs, lower cost, and lighter weight versus
higher ASAs, higher cost and heavy weight.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net

Stephen Henning wrote:
measekite wrote:

But notwithstanding brands or models or even camera type it is a known
fact that larger sensors with the same number of pixels can produce better
images; especially when cropped and enlarged.

That is entirely true, but larger sensors also require much larger
pieces of glass, heavy glass and interchangeable lenses that allow dust
on the sensor.

Dust is not as much of a problem as in the past due to automatic sensor
cleaning systems.

SMS wrote:

Dust is not as much of a problem as in the past due to automatic sensor
cleaning systems.

Tell that to people who bought their DSLR's when they were very
expensive and didn't have sensor shakers. The sensor shaker doesn't
remove the dust, it just shakes it loose so that it can go somewhere
else for a while. It is still in your camera. If you don't need these
hight ASAs, you don't need a sensor shaker. You can get a camera like
the SX10 where you don't have to remove the lens between 28mm and 560mm.

Considering all the changes in cameras recently, more pixels, better
sensors, better computers, etc., a camera is becoming a through away
item like a computer. It is not like it was for 50 years when the camera
just held the lens and film and didn't really do much else. You could
upgrade by getting a new lens or new film. Those days are gone.
Cameras get obsolete in a couple years now.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net