SX40 Super Zoom (5 Viewers)

lmans66 · May 27, 2012

Good photos for a superzoom...'noise' though...even on the web photos. But that is okay for not really noticeable. Superzooms have a lot going for em...need to pick up one so when I go on a small trip, I don't have to lug around the large camera plus lens and can still get a 'ID photo' to boot!

njlarsen · May 27, 2012

AndyM said:
I've been using the P500 for a few months now and look forward to putting the 42x zoom of the P510 through its paces in a year or so when they are virtually giving them away ;-)

I'm no expert, but I can't really see why the Nikon's appear to have fallen by the wayside.

Seriously, the attached images were all taken with a P500, hand held using full zoom and I am more than happy with the results. Take a good look and tell me where Nikon are going wrong?

AndyM

I have neither a Nikon or Canon superzoom so no personal experience. However, try look at post 17 in this thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2443335 for one user frustrated with focusing on the nikon. I think the nikon got a bad reputation in BF during an earlier period (see post 9 in this thread) and has a difficult time convincing us that the focus is right yet? (your own kite picture seems sharper on the rocks behind the bird than on the bird itself)

Niels

AndyM · May 27, 2012

njlarsen said:
I have neither a Nikon or Canon superzoom so no personal experience. However, try look at post 17 in this thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2443335 for one user frustrated with focusing on the nikon. I think the nikon got a bad reputation in BF during an earlier period (see post 9 in this thread) and has a difficult time convincing us that the focus is right yet? (your own kite picture seems sharper on the rocks behind the bird than on the bird itself)

Niels

Thanks for the comments/links. I generally agree with most of the comments regarding the autofocus but have read similar gripes within this thread about the Canon. Sure, the P500 can be a bit of a pig when there is a lot going on within the shot. The attached is a good example of a busy background, bits & pieces in the foreground and a stick-thin subject. However, with a bit of patience, a fairly reasonable result can be obtained (no competition winner).

The Black-headed Gull is probably the best flying bird I've got from the P500...

AndyM

MikeJenx · May 27, 2012

AndyM said:
I've been using the P500 for a few months now and look forward to putting the 42x zoom of the P510 through its paces in a year or so when they are virtually giving them away ;-)

I'm no expert, but I can't really see why the Nikon's appear to have fallen by the wayside.

Seriously, the attached images were all taken with a P500, hand held using full zoom and I am more than happy with the results. Take a good look and tell me where Nikon are going wrong?

AndyM

Your photoraphs are very impressive and I particularly like the night heron shot. My decision to opt for the SX40 was influenced by the positive feedback from bird forum users and the lack of feed back from P510 owners at the time.

I am very pleased with the results I have obtained from the SX40 but that is not to say I would not have felt the same way about the Nikon. As I was upgrading from a Panasonic FZ28, either camera would have presented an oppurtunity to improve on my previous efforts at bird photography.

AndyM · May 29, 2012

MikeJenx said:
I am very pleased with the results I have obtained from the SX40 but that is not to say I would not have felt the same way about the Nikon. As I was upgrading from a Panasonic FZ28, either camera would have presented an oppurtunity to improve on my previous efforts at bird photography.

You probably made the right choice and I am wondering if the SX40 might actually be the better bet.

Before I make a decision, can any experienced SX40 owners tell me if the following is a common problem with the Canon or no not really...

The attached images were taken from exactly the same spot and appear here straight from the camera. These birds were 'together' with the female being the closest. The P500 flatly refused to focus on the female and I had to focus on a lower part of the post, bring it back up and hope for the best. I then swung across to the male, slightly further away, and it focused fine. If I can eliminate this situation with the SX40, I might be persuaded to make the shift over..

Cheers,

Andy.

Neil · May 30, 2012

AndyM said:
I've been using the P500 for a few months now and look forward to putting the 42x zoom of the P510 through its paces in a year or so when they are virtually giving them away ;-)

I'm no expert, but I can't really see why the Nikon's appear to have fallen by the wayside.

Seriously, the attached images were all taken with a P500, hand held using full zoom and I am more than happy with the results. Take a good look and tell me where Nikon are going wrong?

AndyM

Andy,
Your night heron photo shows that you can get very good results with the Nikon. They are both very good cameras ( I have both ) , but the SX40HS has the very useful "Teleconverter" mode which gives you a built in 1.5 and 2.0x tele. The Canon IS is much better than the Nikon's VR. To test try and hand hold for video at full zoom on the Nikon.
In the end though it comes down to a preference for one brand over the other for some people. A bit like the Apple/Windows debate.
Neil

scodgerott · May 30, 2012

There's nothing wrong with those two pictures. The gull shot is as good as any shot you could possibly hope to get with any camera. There has been a lot of past discussion (as Niels pointed out) about the Nikon's inability to focus. Hopefully they are improving in this area and maybe the new one is as good as its rivals. It certainly has an impressive zoom.

Saltwater Cowboy · May 30, 2012

I just got mine a couple of weeks ago and I love it. I could have spent a small fortune on a DSLR and 800mm zoom lense, but the SX40 does everything I need it to!

Malcolm Stewart · May 30, 2012

AndyM said:
You probably made the right choice and I am wondering if the SX40 might actually be the better bet.

Before I make a decision, can any experienced SX40 owners tell me if the following is a common problem with the Canon or no not really...
...

Having only had my SX40 for a few weeks, I'm not sure if I count as "experienced", but anyway, two days ago I was surveying the Manor Farm site in Milton Keynes which following some gravel extraction, is now being planted, and I got this shot of a heron.

I've attached a full frame shot, as well as a sharpened crop of the heron. Between me and the heron there was a fence, the top strand just visible across the image as well as the tubes in which the saplings are growing. I'm pleased that the SX40 focused on the more contrasty heron, but I have other shots where it's guessed wrongly. Maximum zoom, 840mm equivalent and hand held.

AndyM · Jun 2, 2012

Neil said:
Andy,
Your night heron photo shows that you can get very good results with the Nikon. They are both very good cameras ( I have both ) , but the SX40HS has the very useful "Teleconverter" mode which gives you a built in 1.5 and 2.0x tele. The Canon IS is much better than the Nikon's VR. To test try and hand hold for video at full zoom on the Nikon.
In the end though it comes down to a preference for one brand over the other for some people. A bit like the Apple/Windows debate.
Neil

Once again, thanks to all for commenting. I tried an SX40 'in the shop' and apart from anything else, the speed at which the focus locked, in comparison with the P500, was staggering to say the least! I also got the impression that the EVF showed a little more detail. The smaller, 230k-dot LCD is a minor concern but obviously just something to get used to.

I tried Neil's hand-held, full zoom video test with the P500 and the results were, to put it mildly, not brilliant. Also the comments about the 1.5 & 2.0x tele were interesting and I wondered if this would offset/match the 42x optical zoom of the P510. I was pretty much convinced of the merits of the tele option when I saw images 8 & 9 in the following link:

http://ps4wild.lightshedder.com/category/canon-powershot/

I pick up an SX40 HS this morning...|:$|

The step-up in IQ & IS is really what I'm after but I must stress that the P500 represents excellent VFM and for anyone on a tight budget, or thinking about starting out, I'd thoroughly reccommend it. I'll keep mine for the 'Easy Panorama' function alone which is totally awesome!

So, prepare yourselves for yet more questions - you only have yourselves to blame. :t:

Finally, a couple more recent shots from the P500 that did actually make me wonder if I was doing the right thing. I think they are pretty good even if I do say so myself....

Andy.

scodgerott · Jun 3, 2012

I agree Andy, they do look pretty good. However, it sounds like there are other issues in regards to performance that don't measure up to the Canon, so you've probably done the right thing.

AndyM · Jun 3, 2012

First of all. MikeJenx - You certainly did do the right thing. No doubt about it!

Well, it's all set up how I think it should be. First impressions (in comparison to the P500 cause' that's all I've ever had):

Feels nice in the hand. Solid. Slightly heavier but I see this as a good thing. The first few shots of the obligatory Collared Doves were impressive - good image quality and a distinct lack of noise despite the gloomy conditions. Little or no loss of quality using 1.5 & 2.0x tele zoom and all incredibly well stabilised.

Autofocus is quicker, cleaner and not far off instantaneous - no internal 'chattering' whilst dozing in and out.

The LCD, in my opinion, is actually better. This may sound daft when comparing the 230k-dot of the Canon to the 921K-dot of the Nikon. The problem for me lies in the massive disappointment when you find out that what you actually see at 921K is nothing like what you actually get! :-@

One thing that bothers me slightly is this (Neil might be able to help me out here). The P500 knocks out images at around 4-5MB. The Canon, all at less than 2MB. Why should this be or am I missing something?

Many thanks to all,

Andy.

lmans66 · Jun 3, 2012

AndyM said:
The LCD, in my opinion, is actually better. This may sound daft when comparing the 230k-dot of the Canon to the 921K-dot of the Nikon. The problem for me lies in the massive disappointment when you find out that what you actually see at 921K is nothing like what you actually get! :-@

This is what has really stood out for me when seeing bridge camera's in the field and playing with them in the store...I take shots in the store and look at the LCD and wonder, how can it get any better...but then, I see shots in the field by others who use these and can see the results are not nearly equal to the LCD... I wonder why Nikon (more so than Canon) do that? Is that a marketing ploy to sell the camera as you test it in the store?

Malcolm Stewart · Jun 4, 2012

AndyM said:
First of all. MikeJenx - ...

One thing that bothers me slightly is this (Neil might be able to help me out here). The P500 knocks out images at around 4-5MB. The Canon, all at less than 2MB. Why should this be or am I missing something?

Many thanks to all,

Andy.

My SX40, at its default settings, gives me 4:3 aspect ratio jpegs at between 2.3 and 4.35MB. I normally have the ISO set in the range 200 to 800. HTH

crazyfingers · Jun 4, 2012

Malcolm Stewart said:
My SX40, at its default settings, gives me 4:3 aspect ratio jpegs at between 2.3 and 4.35MB. I normally have the ISO set in the range 200 to 800. HTH

I have not done a real test but for a while I was using a Nikon P100 and the files were in the 4mb range. Then I switched to the Canon SX30 and now the Canon SX40 at best resolution the files are smaller than that. The large majority are in the 2mb to 3mb range but I sometimes get a 4mb. On average the Canon creates smaller files of better image quality than the Nikon P100.

AndyM · Jun 4, 2012

crazyfingers said:
I have not done a real test but for a while I was using a Nikon P100 and the files were in the 4mb range. Then I switched to the Canon SX30 and now the Canon SX40 at best resolution the files are smaller than that. The large majority are in the 2mb to 3mb range but I sometimes get a 4mb. On average the Canon creates smaller files of better image quality than the Nikon P100.

Thanks for the input guys. It's definitely producing smaller files than the Nikon and further shots are now up around the file sizes you would expect.

Anyway, many thanks to anyone who ever bothered to write anything about the SX40HS that made me see the light. I am truly chuffed to bits with this superb machine.

The attached images were taken without really trying in less than ideal conditions and I really thought I'd be wasting my time but the SX40 appears to have dealt with each situation admirably. So much so that were it not for the 'Easy Panorama' mode on the P500, I could quite happily stomp on it!

If I may, I would also like to change my advice on the P500 for anyone on a tight budget or just starting out. Wait longer, save more money, sell something (even if it's your granny) and buy a Canon SX40HS :t:

Andy.

Neil · Jun 5, 2012

AndyM said:
First of all. MikeJenx - You certainly did do the right thing. No doubt about it!

Well, it's all set up how I think it should be. First impressions (in comparison to the P500 cause' that's all I've ever had):

Feels nice in the hand. Solid. Slightly heavier but I see this as a good thing. The first few shots of the obligatory Collared Doves were impressive - good image quality and a distinct lack of noise despite the gloomy conditions. Little or no loss of quality using 1.5 & 2.0x tele zoom and all incredibly well stabilised.

Autofocus is quicker, cleaner and not far off instantaneous - no internal 'chattering' whilst dozing in and out.

The LCD, in my opinion, is actually better. This may sound daft when comparing the 230k-dot of the Canon to the 921K-dot of the Nikon. The problem for me lies in the massive disappointment when you find out that what you actually see at 921K is nothing like what you actually get! :-@

One thing that bothers me slightly is this (Neil might be able to help me out here). The P500 knocks out images at around 4-5MB. The Canon, all at less than 2MB. Why should this be or am I missing something?

Many thanks to all,

Andy.

Andy,
I just did a quick test to confirm and the P500 jpegs are about twice the size of the Canon SX40HS on average. Interesting.
I'll have to do some research to find out why this is.
Neil

crazyfingers · Jun 5, 2012

I've noticed that it's hard to get a good focus on a fuzzball.

Canon SX40

AndyM · Jun 5, 2012

Okay. Quick question. Saved all my settings from Program mode including full zoom at start up to C1 (at present I'm finding this best for perched birds).

For flyers, Scene mode at 10fps HQ. Is there any way of setting full zoom at start up using this mode?

Cheers,

Andy.

Roy C · Jun 16, 2012

Thinking of buying a sx40 and have a few questions:
1) Do you get a lens hood or is it extra?
2) Does it come with a battery charger?
3) What sort of memory cards do you guys use?

Thanks in advance :t:

SX40 Super Zoom (5 Viewers)

Out Birding....

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Out Birding....

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread