SX120 as point and shoot

I was actually considering a subject line: "SX120 vs G11" but that may
have sounded a bit provocative. g Actually, it's not. I need
something roughly that size (so the SX20 is out). I've gone through
specs for both the SX20 and the G11. G11 looks more pro, and has some
nice features but I don't think I'd use most of them.

Mostly what I end up doing is just quick, spontaneous point/shoot
shots of wildlife and landscapes for ideas for paintings--I'm not
likely to turn into a photographer, and don't normally need 'raw',
etc. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize
budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. g Here are my current focal
points on both cameras:

The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X.

The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's
....errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently
does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the
SX120 will do macro.

Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4"
mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with
motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it
looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect
either.

Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I
do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom,
macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color
accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable,
non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks
from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:44:00 -0400, Eric
wrote:

I was actually considering a subject line: "SX120 vs G11" but that may
have sounded a bit provocative. g Actually, it's not. I need
something roughly that size (so the SX20 is out). I've gone through
specs for both the SX20 and the G11. G11 looks more pro, and has some
nice features but I don't think I'd use most of them.

Mostly what I end up doing is just quick, spontaneous point/shoot
shots of wildlife and landscapes for ideas for paintings--I'm not
likely to turn into a photographer, and don't normally need 'raw',
etc. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize
budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. g Here are my current focal
points on both cameras:

The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X.

The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's
...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently
does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the
SX120 will do macro.

Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4"
mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with
motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it
looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect
either.

Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I
do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom,
macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color
accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable,
non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks
from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter.

Followup: I just got to do a quick in-store test of both cameras, and
even I could tell the difference. I loved the G11. Tough to justify
with 5X zoom though. I was looking for a step up from what I currently
have. If the G11 had 10x zoom, I'd definitely go for the extra $250 or
so.

The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
selected (if there is one).

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:16:13 -0400, Eric
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:44:00 -0400, Eric
wrote:

I was actually considering a subject line: "SX120 vs G11" but that may
have sounded a bit provocative. g Actually, it's not. I need
something roughly that size (so the SX20 is out). I've gone through
specs for both the SX20 and the G11. G11 looks more pro, and has some
nice features but I don't think I'd use most of them.

Mostly what I end up doing is just quick, spontaneous point/shoot
shots of wildlife and landscapes for ideas for paintings--I'm not
likely to turn into a photographer, and don't normally need 'raw',
etc. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize
budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. g Here are my current focal
points on both cameras:

The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X.

The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's
...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently
does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the
SX120 will do macro.

Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4"
mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with
motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it
looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect
either.

Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I
do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom,
macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color
accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable,
non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks
from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter.

Followup: I just got to do a quick in-store test of both cameras, and
even I could tell the difference. I loved the G11. Tough to justify
with 5X zoom though. I was looking for a step up from what I currently
have. If the G11 had 10x zoom, I'd definitely go for the extra $250 or
so.

The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
selected (if there is one).

It depends on how you did the test. Did you keep the SX120 within the same
focal-length ranges as the G11? If not it wasn't a fair test. Longer focal
lengths will magnify your tremors. The amount your hands shake at 5x zoom
might be just fine and dandy, well within the range of the amount of shake
both cameras can easily remove. But at 10x zoom the amount of shake might
be beyond the level that any camera could compensate well.

You will also probably find more differences between IS performance on the
same camera from changes in your own ability to keep it steady on different
days and for different subjects requiring different postures, than you
would in differences between different cameras on the same day (when both
are used within the same focal-lengths).

(Super-macro mode on Canon cameras is usually engaged by holding in the
macro button for more than a second. I'm not going to download the manual
and read it for you to find out if it's also true on the SX120.)

Eric wrote:
I was actually considering a subject line: "SX120 vs G11" but that may
have sounded a bit provocative. g Actually, it's not. I need
something roughly that size (so the SX20 is out). I've gone through
specs for both the SX20 and the G11. G11 looks more pro, and has some
nice features but I don't think I'd use most of them.

Mostly what I end up doing is just quick, spontaneous point/shoot
shots of wildlife and landscapes for ideas for paintings--I'm not
likely to turn into a photographer, and don't normally need 'raw',
etc. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize
budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. g Here are my current focal
points on both cameras:

The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X.

The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's
...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently
does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the
SX120 will do macro.

Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4"
mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with
motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it
looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect
either.

Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I
do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom,
macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color
accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable,
non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks
from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter.

Both will yield very good pics. The G11 shows same spec for macro as the
SX (.4")
However, the G11 is superior. Faster and better lens, optical
viewfinder, larger sensor. It also has other features that may be less
important to you, like raw.
My guess is a good image shot with the G11 at full zoom and blown up
will be every bit as good as one from the SX at it's 10x.
Personally I like a camera that uses AA's, but I just picked up a small
canon p&s that doesn't, no big deal either way. I do miss the viewfinder
though.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:02:13 -0400, Dave Cohen
wrote:

Eric wrote:

The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X.

The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's
...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently
does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the
SX120 will do macro.

Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4"
mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with
motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it
looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect
either.

Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I
do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom,
macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color
accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable,
non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks
from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter.

Both will yield very good pics. The G11 shows same spec for macro as the
SX (.4")
However, the G11 is superior. Faster and better lens, optical
viewfinder, larger sensor. It also has other features that may be less
important to you, like raw.
My guess is a good image shot with the G11 at full zoom and blown up
will be every bit as good as one from the SX at it's 10x.

You know, that's a very interesting point that never occurred to me.
There may be some psychological impact of physical appearance, weight,
and price tag, but it seemed like I could actually see a difference in
pics snapped in my brief in-store test, via the LCD viewfinder (I
would not have thought that possible). And yeah, there's a feeling of
power in the G11--press the button and the thing responds right away.

The optical viewfinder is not as important to me, though I could
probably get used to it.

The larger sensor -may- mean that it is better at gathering light--
ie, less image stabilization required. Not sure how much bearing that
would have.

BTW, I just spoke to a good Canon tech who straightened out the
question of image stabilization--it apparently is not done by the
Digic 4 chip itself, so it could indeed be different for each camera.
Still, I didn't notice a huge difference in IS between the SX120 vs
the G11.

Personally I like a camera that uses AA's, but I just picked up a small
canon p&s that doesn't, no big deal either way. I do miss the viewfinder
though.

One of the store sales guys said the SX120 would drain batteries very
quickly, and that the built-in Li ION in the G11 was vastly superior.
Not sure if that's correct about the life of the SX, but I was of the
same opinion as you--I prefer to be able to buy AA's on the spot if I
forget to recharge.

Eric wrote:

The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
selected (if there is one).

Focussing at a closer range doesn't imply macro quality.
Obviously, with macro photography, you want small things large.
Also obviously, if you need to be very close, you'll just make
insects flee and block light from those things that don't flee.

For defining macro capability, I'd see which camera gave a larger
view of, say, a coin[1], and how the image quality was.

-Wolfgang

[1] With (D)SLRs, I'd look at the lens and see if it was 1:1
(same size on the sensor as in reality) or better (the
MP-E macro speciality lens comes to mind). Then I'd
check how far away the lens can be for 1:1 (working
distance) --- the farther, the better usually.

Eric wrote:

One of the store sales guys said the SX120 would drain batteries very
quickly, and that the built-in Li ION in the G11 was vastly superior.
Not sure if that's correct about the life of the SX, but I was of the
same opinion as you--I prefer to be able to buy AA's on the spot if I
forget to recharge.

You'll want some eneloop or similar low discharge rechargeable
batteries and a reasonable charger.

According to
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...Specifications
you get 130 shots on the SX120 with AAs and 370 with NIMH
rechargeables. So you really want rechargeables.

According to
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...Specifications
the G11 gets 390 shots with the LiIon and 1000 shots (similar
to a DSLR) with the LCD off.

-Wolfgang

On 04/08/2010 03:16, Eric wrote:

The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
selected (if there is one).

"macro", in the years BD (Before Digital), usually meant a 1:1 ratio or
better between the film and the subject. In other words, the camera/lens
would focus close enough to have a final image with a field of view less
than or equal to 24x36mm.

Keeping the 1:1 sensor/subject ratio on P&S with their small sensors
(typically 8.9mm diagonal, vs 43.3 for 35mm film) would mean being able
to focus almost 5 times closer, with all the constraints this puts on
the lens design. So in the digital aga the "macro" definition is relaxed
quite a bit, and just means to be able to produce the same picture as a
35mm "macro" camera/lens (which is only a 1:5 ratio from the lens design
perspective).

On some P&S the "macro" setting can be only an indication of the
distance range that can be searched to reduce focus hunting.

--
Bertrand

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:52:05 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 03:16, Eric wrote:

The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
selected (if there is one).

"macro", in the years BD (Before Digital), usually meant a 1:1 ratio or
better between the film and the subject. In other words, the camera/lens
would focus close enough to have a final image with a field of view less
than or equal to 24x36mm.

Keeping the 1:1 sensor/subject ratio on P&S with their small sensors
(typically 8.9mm diagonal, vs 43.3 for 35mm film) would mean being able
to focus almost 5 times closer, with all the constraints this puts on
the lens design. So in the digital aga the "macro" definition is relaxed
quite a bit, and just means to be able to produce the same picture as a
35mm "macro" camera/lens (which is only a 1:5 ratio from the lens design
perspective).

On some P&S the "macro" setting can be only an indication of the
distance range that can be searched to reduce focus hunting.

Thanks for the lucid explanation. That makes sense of some things that
I was wondering about, especially re how 'macro' relates without a
lens swap.

There's still the mystery (well, to me) of what Canon regards as
"macro capable" wrt their P&S cameras. I seem to get a different
answer depending on who I talk to. The SX20, for example, refers to
"Super Macro capability", and Canon techs have said that "macro
capability" is one of the differences between the SX20 and lower end
cameras.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 23:14:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Eric wrote:

The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
selected (if there is one).

Focussing at a closer range doesn't imply macro quality.
Obviously, with macro photography, you want small things large.
Also obviously, if you need to be very close, you'll just make
insects flee and block light from those things that don't flee.

Don't want to make the fleas flee. g Good point about blocking
light. I guess the thing I was looking for is the just occasional bug
or expanded detail of one of my paintings.

For defining macro capability, I'd see which camera gave a larger
view of, say, a coin[1], and how the image quality was.

Originally I didn't think I'd be able to discern differences in image
quality, but in my brief tests at the camera store, I did think the
G11 looked better than the SX120.

Latest thing though: For some reason I had missed the SX210, and so
did the sales droids and Canon techs. Costs around $330 vs $200 for
the SX120, but looks like it could be better for what I'm doing
(mostly quick on-the-fly 'impression' photos to get scenes for my
paintings).

Function-wise, the only place where the SX210 looks like it's not up
to the SX120 is in 'macro capability', as the 120 rates min focal
length as 1cm, with the 210 at 5cm. Your points above may render that
less relevant, but I'm not sure what the spec means in practical
terms. 5x difference in usable image size for extreme closeups?

Other than that, it seems like the 210 will do anything that the 120
will do, unless I'm missing something.