Powershot SX10

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:10:41 -0800, SMS wrote:

Dudley Hanks wrote:
Has anyone seen any pics from the new Canon Powershot SX10 IS?

I'm just wondering how that lens is performing, what the noise level is
like, how good the video is, etc...

Is it worth $420?

No.


Dear Resident-Troll,

Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
resident-troll bull****. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't
read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.


1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one
bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens
increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality
teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also
added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's
slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG
output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those
finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's
processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the
net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera
(downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any
in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more
powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture
achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs
suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters
work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular
fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for
far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera
which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a
super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or
even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the
camera's own lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with
DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a
DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc.
The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit
would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large
tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger
DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some
of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent
results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert
all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your
DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is
that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any
shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off
some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity
of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the
case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster
than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's
duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to
1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S
cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any
of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive
slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions.
Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any
image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on
the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that
can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love
these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

"BobB" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:06:23 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

Has anyone seen any pics from the new Canon Powershot SX10 IS?

I'm just wondering how that lens is performing, what the noise level is
like, how good the video is, etc...

Is it worth $420?

Thanks,
Dudley


Here's a good example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

The SX10 clearly beats the 450D DSLR in most every way. Higher resolution,
less
chromatic aberration, more features, more convenience, quiet operation,
etc.,
etc., etc.

In order to get comparable (still-frame only) performance out of the DSLR
you'd
have to spend in excess of $6,500 for at least two new lenses that would
come in
at over 9 lbs. Not counting the 6-12 lb. tripod required to make the
longer zoom
range lens useable on the DSLR. I've already done all the math and the
SX10
makes any DSLR look like a money-hungry black-hole mass that provides
little to
nothing extra in return.


Actually, I've read most of the reviews and test reports, and I've been
fairly impressed by what I've read.

While I don't agree with everything you've stated above, I have to admit
that the SX10 rates pretty good -- which is one reason why this is a
difficult decision for me.

That is why I'm hoping to hear from somebody who actually owns one and can
give me the low-down on how it performs in his / her real life situation.
My main concern is low-light. I have no doubt I'd be pretty happy with the
pics from daylight shots, but I do a lot of work in low-light, and I am more
than a bit curious how the SX10 does there.

Take Care,
Dudley

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
A couple of addenda:

Mark Thomas wrote:
Low light capability - the dslr will walk all over the SX10 when light
levels fall.
...*especially if you stick a 50/f1.4 lens, or similar, on it. If you
have never used an slr with a good, bright prime on it, you haven't lived.

DOF control - you get much more dof control on the dslr.. In particular
if you get that 50/1.4, or even just use the 75-300 at its larger
apertures, you will see it is much easier to isolate your subject by
blurring the back-/fore-ground, because of the larger sensor. If however
you want *everything* in your image sharp, the SX10 is the way to go..

Responsiveness...

Thanks for your thoughts, Mark.

I haven't shot digital with a fast prime, but I used to do a lot of concerts
in my younger days with some pretty nice Canon gear. Back then, I'd shoot
400 ISO film and run back to my lab where I'd push it to 1600.

You're definitely right when you say a photog hasn't lived if he / she
hasn't slipped a fast piece of glass onto their favourite camera.

One point you raised kind of pushes me towards the DSLR: the DOF issue.

Truth be told, I doubt I'll ever run that 20X lens to it's full length; I
just won't find myself out tromping around in the bush shooting birds and
bears very often. And, I've got my A720 for those quick family snap shots
where detail is the thing, not special effects. However, my limited
attempts with the A720 to get a shallow DOF were REALLY disappointing.

Since shallow DOF was one of the things I routinely produced running around
stages and tripping over cables, it's the one thing I miss with my P&S. It
would be nice to get a camera capable of producing at least a minimally
blurred background.

Until reading your post, I have been more concerned about the low-light
performance. The A720, while able to get some shots when the lights go
down, isn't exactly the most responsive beast I've ever shot. Test reports
seem to indicate a bit of an improvement in this area with the SX10, but I
think it'll still take a lot of patience.

Obviously, the XSi or the XS won't hold a candle to the D3's and 5D Mk.
II's, but it should be a pretty substantial step up from the compact arena.

Thanks for mentioning that,
Dudley

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:02:45 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"BobB" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:06:23 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

Has anyone seen any pics from the new Canon Powershot SX10 IS?

I'm just wondering how that lens is performing, what the noise level is
like, how good the video is, etc...

Is it worth $420?

Thanks,
Dudley


Here's a good example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

The SX10 clearly beats the 450D DSLR in most every way. Higher resolution,
less
chromatic aberration, more features, more convenience, quiet operation,
etc.,
etc., etc.

In order to get comparable (still-frame only) performance out of the DSLR
you'd
have to spend in excess of $6,500 for at least two new lenses that would
come in
at over 9 lbs. Not counting the 6-12 lb. tripod required to make the
longer zoom
range lens useable on the DSLR. I've already done all the math and the
SX10
makes any DSLR look like a money-hungry black-hole mass that provides
little to
nothing extra in return.


Actually, I've read most of the reviews and test reports, and I've been
fairly impressed by what I've read.

While I don't agree with everything you've stated above, I have to admit
that the SX10 rates pretty good -- which is one reason why this is a
difficult decision for me.

That is why I'm hoping to hear from somebody who actually owns one and can
give me the low-down on how it performs in his / her real life situation.
My main concern is low-light. I have no doubt I'd be pretty happy with the
pics from daylight shots, but I do a lot of work in low-light, and I am more
than a bit curious how the SX10 does there.

Take Care,
Dudley


I've been an available-light photographer all my life. I have yet to find a
situation in which I can't use a small-sensor camera to achieve the same results
as when using a larger-sensor camera.

Proper exposure in low-light at low ISOs has no more noise on a sensor than
those taken in daylight at low ISOs. This is a given for any digital camera. I
can easily get noise-free 65 second exposures on a 1/2.5" sensor. If the sensor
receives enough light during the exposure than it's the same as if taken in
daylight at the same ISOs. The cumulative number of photons on that sensor are
no different if collected for 2 hours or 1/2,000th of a second. This is
something that the DSLR-Trolls always seem to never understand nor know.

Some ISO800 images are also very useful from that size of sensor if you require
higher shutter speeds in low-light. A P&S camera with an EVF that auto-increases
sensor gain in the viewfinder in low-light will also allow you to focus in
levels so low where it would make an optical viewfinder in a DSLR totally
useless. This is another reason that I gave up on optical-viewfinder cameras in
lieu of the more useful EVF cameras for low-light performance. It all depends on
your own photography skills (and use of noise-removal editing tools if using
higher ISOs) for low-light situations. This too is a given for any digital
camera and is relative to the situation at the time. A larger sensor only gives
you about a 2-stop ISO advantage. That's hardly any kind of selling point for an
experienced photographer. For a point and shoot novice? Yes, they need all the
help they can get.

Now, if you're just a novice point and shoot photographer and require 2 stops
faster shutter speeds from 2 stops higher ISOs in low-light because you lack the
skills and abilities to do things like pan with your subject or know how to hold
a camera steady then, by all means, dish out the $6,500 needed to try to make up
for what you lack as a photographer. Just remember, it will come with its own
set of even greater drawbacks. Like not being allowed into many public events,
nor even shopping malls, due to the clattering noise that your dslr makes; crud
on your sensor ruining all your photos until you find out later when you get
home and you can't go back and re-shoot those photos; lost shots from changing
lenses; and a hundred other drawbacks to using today's dslrs.

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message ...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
Has anyone seen any pics from the new Canon Powershot SX10 IS?

I'm just wondering how that lens is performing, what the noise level
is like, how good the video is, etc...

Is it worth $420?

Thanks,
Dudley
You could buy a proper camera for that! G

David

I know...

But, that 28mm - 560mm lens is kinda tempting...

I'm really torn between the SX10 and a XSi or XS DSLR. Dell's got a nice
package with the XS and two lenses (the 18 - 55mm and the 75 - 300mm).

But, the small package of the SX10 plus that 20x lens, plus video, plus
flash hotshoe, plus Digic IV processor ...

And, the local camera shop has good rep (I've dealt there for a number of
years).

It's going to be a tough decision.

Take Care,
Dudley


I presume the camera is for you, Dudley? From what I know of your
circumstances and what you shoot, I think you are right to be torn between
the two. Firstly I would suggest, controversially, that the extra zoom
range is meaningless. The 75-300 + better sensor will probably give you
an image sufficiently better that you could crop and equal the SX10's
extra range. So the only real difference is the fact you will have to
change lenses occasionally.

I presume you are aware of the Cameralabs review:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...rShot_SX10_IS/
It's a good review, but other than a daylight test against the Canon kit
lens, they don't really compare it in any useful detail to a dslr. Then
read:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...tal_Rebel_XSi/
(If you wish to obsess over ratings, you'll note that the SX10 gets 86%,
versus 88% for the XSi and of course those ratings are relative to the
class of camera.. The XSi is therefore a clear winner! (O

So then it comes down to:

'Aesthetics' - like how the camera feels to you (I imagine that is more
important to you than most!), eg how well you can use/discern the
screen/viewfinder/controls, whether you can manual focus, etc.

Low light capability - the dslr will walk all over the SX10 when light
levels fall.

Responsiveness - again, the dslr will be much better at capturing fleeting
moments.. are you going to shoot much sports, action, kids?

Lens quality - the SX10 has a 'nice' lens, but not as good as some of the
Panasonic's (worse CA and lower contrast), and the dslr kit lenses will
equal or better it at most focal lengths and will be less prone to flare.
(Plus you can buy more/better lenses (even if it is only the inevitable
and very useful 50/1.4), and then continue to completely destroy your
finances following the quest for better IQ..)

The SX10 has video, but the dslr will also have slightly better dynamic
range (but not much) and it will offer much more flexibility/expandability
with respect to lens and flash systems...

I think I've talked *myself* out of the SX10.. But back to you Dudley.

You're right Mark, the big thing for me is the feel of the camera, not the
lens. And, quite frankly, that's probably the main reason I'm contemplating
a new camera.

My A720 IS is just the thing for pocketing when I'm out for a stroll and I
encounter something I need to document for later review with somebody
sighted, but I just can't seem to find my groove with it when I set out to
take a real picture. It just doesn't feel like my old 35mm SLRs; it
doesn't seem to get me going creattively.

The flash hot shoe on the SX10 is what started me thinking about a new
camera. With it, I could pull out my old flashes and do a bit of bounce
lighting, or I could pull out those horribly expensive Canon TTL flash
cables and do some truely side-lit work (with the A720, the camera's flash
has to fire a minimal pulse to activate the remote slave). And, I was
thinking I could do some neat stuff with this minor upgrade.

But, then I checked the price of the Rebel XS and XSi bodies, and my stomach
quickly got tied in a knot.

Now, I think I need to approach the problem from two directions. I have to
delineate between utility type shots I take for more mundane reasons; the
A720 is adequate for that purpose. (I'm starting to realize that that is
not why I want a new camera.)

On the other hand, to truly get back into photography, I think I need
something a bit more versatile, something that will feel a bit more like the
cameras I've done the bulk of my shots with over the years.

The DSLR is looking better by the minute...

Thanks, Mark, your thoughts have helped a lot.

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:31:43 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message ...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
Has anyone seen any pics from the new Canon Powershot SX10 IS?

I'm just wondering how that lens is performing, what the noise level
is like, how good the video is, etc...

Is it worth $420?

Thanks,
Dudley
You could buy a proper camera for that! G

David

I know...

But, that 28mm - 560mm lens is kinda tempting...

I'm really torn between the SX10 and a XSi or XS DSLR. Dell's got a nice
package with the XS and two lenses (the 18 - 55mm and the 75 - 300mm).

But, the small package of the SX10 plus that 20x lens, plus video, plus
flash hotshoe, plus Digic IV processor ...

And, the local camera shop has good rep (I've dealt there for a number of
years).

It's going to be a tough decision.

Take Care,
Dudley


I presume the camera is for you, Dudley? From what I know of your
circumstances and what you shoot, I think you are right to be torn between
the two. Firstly I would suggest, controversially, that the extra zoom
range is meaningless. The 75-300 + better sensor will probably give you
an image sufficiently better that you could crop and equal the SX10's
extra range. So the only real difference is the fact you will have to
change lenses occasionally.

I presume you are aware of the Cameralabs review:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...rShot_SX10_IS/
It's a good review, but other than a daylight test against the Canon kit
lens, they don't really compare it in any useful detail to a dslr. Then
read:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...tal_Rebel_XSi/
(If you wish to obsess over ratings, you'll note that the SX10 gets 86%,
versus 88% for the XSi and of course those ratings are relative to the
class of camera.. The XSi is therefore a clear winner! (O

So then it comes down to:

'Aesthetics' - like how the camera feels to you (I imagine that is more
important to you than most!), eg how well you can use/discern the
screen/viewfinder/controls, whether you can manual focus, etc.

Low light capability - the dslr will walk all over the SX10 when light
levels fall.

Responsiveness - again, the dslr will be much better at capturing fleeting
moments.. are you going to shoot much sports, action, kids?

Lens quality - the SX10 has a 'nice' lens, but not as good as some of the
Panasonic's (worse CA and lower contrast), and the dslr kit lenses will
equal or better it at most focal lengths and will be less prone to flare.
(Plus you can buy more/better lenses (even if it is only the inevitable
and very useful 50/1.4), and then continue to completely destroy your
finances following the quest for better IQ..)

The SX10 has video, but the dslr will also have slightly better dynamic
range (but not much) and it will offer much more flexibility/expandability
with respect to lens and flash systems...

I think I've talked *myself* out of the SX10.. But back to you Dudley.

You're right Mark, the big thing for me is the feel of the camera, not the
lens. And, quite frankly, that's probably the main reason I'm contemplating
a new camera.

My A720 IS is just the thing for pocketing when I'm out for a stroll and I
encounter something I need to document for later review with somebody
sighted, but I just can't seem to find my groove with it when I set out to
take a real picture. It just doesn't feel like my old 35mm SLRs; it
doesn't seem to get me going creattively.

The flash hot shoe on the SX10 is what started me thinking about a new
camera. With it, I could pull out my old flashes and do a bit of bounce
lighting, or I could pull out those horribly expensive Canon TTL flash
cables and do some truely side-lit work (with the A720, the camera's flash
has to fire a minimal pulse to activate the remote slave). And, I was
thinking I could do some neat stuff with this minor upgrade.

But, then I checked the price of the Rebel XS and XSi bodies, and my stomach
quickly got tied in a knot.

Now, I think I need to approach the problem from two directions. I have to
delineate between utility type shots I take for more mundane reasons; the
A720 is adequate for that purpose. (I'm starting to realize that that is
not why I want a new camera.)

On the other hand, to truly get back into photography, I think I need
something a bit more versatile, something that will feel a bit more like the
cameras I've done the bulk of my shots with over the years.

The DSLR is looking better by the minute...

Well, there's no accounting for stupidity and lack of talent.

Now would be a good time to learn to free yourself up from the many drawbacks
you've labored under in the past. But ... (as said above)

Can't teach a tired old dog new tricks.


Thanks, Mark, your thoughts have helped a lot.

Take Care,
Dudley

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message ...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
[]
I know...

But, that 28mm - 560mm lens is kinda tempting...

I'm really torn between the SX10 and a XSi or XS DSLR. Dell's got a
nice package with the XS and two lenses (the 18 - 55mm and the 75 -
300mm).
But, the small package of the SX10 plus that 20x lens, plus video,
plus flash hotshoe, plus Digic IV processor ...

And, the local camera shop has good rep (I've dealt there for a
number of years).

It's going to be a tough decision.

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley,

I would imagine that handling the two cameras in the shop might be the
clincher. Is it easy for you to change the lenses - to see the correct
alignment to insert the lens?

You'll get similar zoom range from the DSLR, at the cost of having to
change lenses. No video on the DSLR - how important is that? I like to
take a small compact along with my DSLR to capture short movies as - for
me at least - it adds to the memory of the event. The DSLR will have the
faster reaction time and faster auto-focussing, and will work much better
in lower light. It may capture an image quality more suitable for
cropping, but the SX10 will have greater depth of field, which may help
focus on shots which are not perfectly composed.

Considering the DSLRs - I would recommend one with built-in sensor
cleaning - do they both have that? Both the Canon DSLRs have Live View -
is this what you would be mostly using? I would be slightly tempted
towards the one with the larger LCD and higher pixel count. Is that deal
with both lenses having image stabilisation?

I've used similar Panasonic cameras to the SX10, and Nikon D40 and D60
DSLRs - similar to the Canon, so I have no axe to grind one way or the
other.

Cheers,
David

Thanks, David, you make a strong case for the DSLR's. And, quite frankly,
I'm starting to lean that way.

Yes, I can change lenses on Canon bodies, though not by sighting the pin. I
use a tactile method which, while it works pretty well with my old A2 and
the like, I worry more with the DSLR that I will get dirt inside. But, with
a bit of practice and being careful to only switch lenses in clean areas
after giving the camera a good wipe, I don't think swapping glass will be a
problem. And, yes, both the XS and XSi have the same sensor cleaning
mechanism (at least as far as I've been able to determine).
Video is one thing that attracted me to the SX10, only slightly less
attractive to me than the flash hot shoe. My A720 does a good job with
picture quality in video mode, but the sound gets a bit mushy in places. I
am anticipating a better sounding clip with the SX10's stereo mic. But,
video isn't a deal breaker; My attempts at video photography amounts to
setting up the camera on a tripod in a spot that easily catches most of a
room and then pressing the record button. My particular shooting method,
while increasingly becoming more accurate in the stills department, doesn't
translate well to video.

When it comes to \Live View, I have mixed feelings about it. The size
doesn't matter to me since what little "useful" vision I have is restricted
to an area equivalent to about 1 cm squared when looking at either display.
Hence, I can't take in the whole display at once; rather, I have to scan it
several times to make sure things are layed out the way I want. And, the
detail taken in during those scans is very crude -- no fine detail, just
semidiscernable blotches of contrasting whites, greys and blacks. While I
have taken a few shots this way, my best work has been simply "blind" point
and shoots. Also, even if I could rely on my residual vision, my sight is
still deteriorating, and the pace of that deterioration seems to be steadily
increasing. I don't anticipate having any functional vision for more than a
couple of years.

Having said that, some displays are better than others. I can actually make
out more on my son's A570's display than I can on my A720's -- not because
it is bigger, more because it appears crisper. So, I'll check out the demos
in the store and see if there is any difference between the cameras.

You noted that DOF and cropping ability are kind of a trade-off. That got
me thinking, especially since I've just responded to a post by Mark Thomas
where he got me thinking about the more shallow DOF capability of the DSLR.
What I've been missing with my pocket cam is the DOF control of my old
35mms, and the creative effects that can be achieved with a more versatile
setup. But, given my particular shooting style, I also need room to crop.
The DSLR wins in both categories. Increasingly, I find myself working with
my subjects at my fingertips, and I arrange things in a fairly limited area.
Thus, I don't really work with any sweeping vistas, so a large DOF isn't as
important as the ability to limit DOF.

Regarding image stabilization, I think the smaller lens had it but the 75 -
300mm didn't. But, that's not a deal breaker either. As I've noted in the
past, "IS is nice," but I've spent too many years shooting without it to
worry whether or not I've got it. I've hand-held some fairly long lenses
down to 1/30 second with pretty good results. And, let's not forget that
the internet is fairly forgiving when it comes to camera shake. Small
images tend to hide some flaws that can be rather glaring in larger prints.
Besides, as you and Mark pointed out, I'll most likely find myself using
shorter focal lengths than the extended telephoto. I'm pretty sure a quick
check of the shots I've taken over the past year will not net more than a
very few taken at anything more than a moderate use of the A720's full
210mm; I know I've never taken a shot fully zoomed in. I'm just not that
accurate when I point at a single object at any kind of a distance.

Well, thanks for the input, David. It's interesting how bouncing ideas
around can help one clear things up. While I'll probably think about that
SX10 for a few more days, I'm thinking a lot more favourably about the XS
and the XSi. I think the issue now is which of those two is the one to
purchase....

If I didn't already have a few Canon accessories that will work on the
budget DSLR's, I'd be tempted to check out the Nikon and Sony lower end
units as well. But, I don't think I can afford to go with either of those
product lines at the moment.

Take Care,
Dudley

I have both the SX10 IS and the XSi. The SX10 is noisier, but it lets me
capture shots that the XSi can't quite match, due to the added zoom and the
image stabilizer. I use a Tamon 28-300 most of the time on the XSi (the
75-300 that came with the camera is still in the box, gathering dust), and
its zoom can't compare with that of the SX10. The 18-55 gets used much less
often. (The XSi + 75-300 + 18-55 was $750 at Costco. The SX10 IS was $349
via Amazon.)

Weight and size are definitely factors. When I'm out on an 8 mile hike, the
SX10 IS is decidely more portable and more flexible. When I need quality,
speed, or a wider angel however, I'll yank out the XSi (with the 18-55
attached).

For the SX10 IS, I was replacing my S1 IS. My only disappointment was that
the SX10 IS does not have an intervelometer feature.

--
nadie
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:cc41l.753$O53.4@edtnps82...

But, that 28mm - 560mm lens is kinda tempting...

I'm really torn between the SX10 and a XSi or XS DSLR. Dell's got a nice
package with the XS and two lenses (the 18 - 55mm and the 75 - 300mm).

Dudley Hanks wrote:
[]
Thanks, David, you make a strong case for the DSLR's. And, quite
frankly, I'm starting to lean that way.

Oh! I was trying to think of the pros anc cons of each, from my
experience, but tyring to consider your needs!

Yes, I can change lenses on Canon bodies, though not by sighting the
pin. I use a tactile method which, while it works pretty well with
my old A2 and the like, I worry more with the DSLR that I will get
dirt inside. But, with a bit of practice and being careful to only
switch lenses in clean areas after giving the camera a good wipe, I
don't think swapping glass will be a problem. And, yes, both the XS
and XSi have the same sensor cleaning mechanism (at least as far as
I've been able to determine).

Check changing lenses when you get a chance to be hands-on. The built-in
cleaning should take care of a lot of the dirt, or if money is less
important, get the 18-200mm zoom.

Video is one thing that attracted me to the SX10, only slightly less
attractive to me than the flash hot shoe. My A720 does a good job
with picture quality in video mode, but the sound gets a bit mushy in
places. I am anticipating a better sounding clip with the SX10's
stereo mic. But, video isn't a deal breaker; My attempts at video
photography amounts to setting up the camera on a tripod in a spot
that easily catches most of a room and then pressing the record
button. My particular shooting method, while increasingly becoming
more accurate in the stills department, doesn't translate well to
video.

Some of my video is at the widest angle, and panning round to show the
current view. A living ultra-wide-angle, if you like. At other times,
it's to capture motion and sound - typically at a motor race or at the
zoo, with the camera pointing in a fixed direction.

[]
Well, thanks for the input, David. It's interesting how bouncing
ideas around can help one clear things up. While I'll probably think
about that SX10 for a few more days, I'm thinking a lot more
favourably about the XS and the XSi. I think the issue now is which
of those two is the one to purchase....

If I didn't already have a few Canon accessories that will work on the
budget DSLR's, I'd be tempted to check out the Nikon and Sony lower
end units as well. But, I don't think I can afford to go with either
of those product lines at the moment.

Take Care,
Dudley

You got me thinking as well - thanks.

Cheers,
David

Thanks, I appreciate your comments.

Have you taken any video with the SX10? If so, how would you rate the sound
quality?

Take Care,
Dudley



"Xxxxx" wrote in message
...
I have both the SX10 IS and the XSi. The SX10 is noisier, but it lets me
capture shots that the XSi can't quite match, due to the added zoom and the
image stabilizer. I use a Tamon 28-300 most of the time on the XSi (the
75-300 that came with the camera is still in the box, gathering dust), and
its zoom can't compare with that of the SX10. The 18-55 gets used much less
often. (The XSi + 75-300 + 18-55 was $750 at Costco. The SX10 IS was $349
via Amazon.)

Weight and size are definitely factors. When I'm out on an 8 mile hike,
the SX10 IS is decidely more portable and more flexible. When I need
quality, speed, or a wider angel however, I'll yank out the XSi (with the
18-55 attached).

For the SX10 IS, I was replacing my S1 IS. My only disappointment was that
the SX10 IS does not have an intervelometer feature.

--
nadie
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:cc41l.753$O53.4@edtnps82...

But, that 28mm - 560mm lens is kinda tempting...

I'm really torn between the SX10 and a XSi or XS DSLR. Dell's got a nice
package with the XS and two lenses (the 18 - 55mm and the 75 - 300mm).