• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

The new SX30 IS (2 Viewers)

Keith Reeder said:
That's sort of the direction that the Four Thirds system takes, I guess - although a Four Thirds sensor isn't very small, like a superzoom sensor, it's still an attempt to get maximum bang for the buck from a smaller sensor.

But then you get into the downsides of small sensors too, the main ones being reduced DR and increased noise.

You do get benefits as well, thanks to the increased "crop factor" (if you subscribe to that argument) that small sensors provide.

And the cameras themselves are splendidly compact.
Click to expand...

I think you've summed it up there Keith. The current crop of "superzoom" cameras cannot offer the zooms they do without the small sensor. I'm not sure of the technical details, but if they started offering larger sensors, then the magnification factor would drop. My figures might be quite wrong here, but I'm sure the principle is correct. Take for example a superzoom that had a zoom equivalent of 24 - 600mm in a 35mm camera. If you doubled the size of the sensor, then the zoom would probably become the equivalent of 12-300mm in a 35mm camera. So, if you want great zooms and compact dimensions you are stuck with small sensors. The only hope of improved images with small sensors is that the technology may/will improve. By the way, I have a Panasonic FZ100 (14mp) a Panasonic FZ18. The FZ18 has an 8mp sensor and it was criticised when it came out for the "noise", so I don't know how small a sensor you need to get a cleaner picture. One thing I have noticed is that the FZ100 image has more detail when magnified (compared to the FZ18), so the larger number of megapixels does seem to have some advantages.
 
Keith Reeder said:
People said that about the Canon 7D/550D/60D and about the new Nikon D7000 - and they've been proven plain wrong about that.

More pixels does not inherently mean a drop in IQ. It's the size (surface area) of the sensor that matters, not how many pixels it has. But technology improvements from one generation to the next pretty much guarantee that the SX30 will have better IQ than the SX20, even with more mps.
Click to expand...

At least one review said it went the opposite direction for panazonic between fz35/38 and fz40: same sensor type, 2 additional mpix, poorer images :-C

Niels
 
scodgerott said:
One thing I have noticed is that the FZ100 image has more detail when magnified (compared to the FZ18), so the larger number of megapixels does seem to have some advantages.
Click to expand...
I have got both the FZ18 and the FZ38 and there is certainly more detail in the magnified shots from the FZ38. At its best icture quality is good but getting a good shot is much more hit and miss than with a DSLR, this I mostly put down to the lens and the focussing system rather than the sensor.

I still hold the view that these small sensors are much better than we give them credit for and that sensors such as in the FZ38 and FZ100 combined with an interchangable lens system and DSLR type focussing systems would give results that are more comparable and closer in quality to the results from large sensor DSLRs. What I would invisage is a DSLR camera compable in size to the Pentax 110 SLR of 30 years ago with a small range of lenses. say a 5 to 20, a 20 to 100 and with something like a 30 to 150 lens offering an equivilent to the lesser (170 to 500) Bigma. True it would not match the quality of a large sensor camera, but it would meet the needs of many people.
 
Last edited:
Hidden Gambia said:
I'm not so sure that's fair... If you're talking about the previous model the SX20IS then yes, I agree the EVF is terrible - it's awfully pixelated and was enough to put me off the camera entirely. But I just had a look through the new SX30IS today and in my view (no pun intended) the EVF is fine.

As for the IQ, michael23's link above was interesting and shows some pretty decent shots. If you want to see video quality have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EKMg1gnjnk

I've been looking to replace my Panasonic FZ38 + TCON17 which I liked very much, but sadly got stolen on my return to the UK earlier this summer. Together they had a zoom ability equivalent to 826mm on a 35mm camera. I haven't been convinced by the image quality of the FZ100, although I am considering whether to go for the FZ45 + TCON17 which gets up to 1020 mm. The Canon gets up to 840 mm without the hassle of carrying around the extra lens.

For a portable, affordable and versatile camera which allows me to take wide angle photos of the interior of a safari lodge one minute and a distance shot of an African Fish Eagle the next, I must say I'm quite tempted by the Canon SX30is ...
Click to expand...
Sorry but thats how it is-the images at 840mm,at iso 100,were nowhere near the quality of my old fz50,and i used all the manual modes.I have been taking bird photographs for 30 years,so i know a good image when i see one,in fact many websites and magazines have my images in them.
Another reason it went back was the landscape side of it as well,that was even worse,at iso 100 trees loOked like green blobs in the distance.These cameras are great carry round cameras,but im afraid 14m pixels,on that sensor coupled with the long lens means very soft if not totally out of focus images.
Maybe its being used to the viewfinders on the nikon dslr's,but when you look through that tiny viewfinder on the sx30,i daupt anyone would find a warbler on a bush,a grey heron yes,but small fast moving birds,would be almost impossible,and try following a bird when after the first shot the viewfinder goas black for a second,by the time it comes back on the bird has gone.
 
JON_T said:
baught one yesterday-took it back today-worst evf ive ever seen-disposable camera has better-no chance of picking any birds in flight up,and pretty awfull images even at iso 100.Sorry but the cheapest slr with a 200mm lens would get better pictures than this at 840,ive never seen pictures has bad from any bridge ive had.
was going to use it has a lightweight alternative to my d90 and sigma 150- 500 but this was not it
Click to expand...

Disappointed to read this as I expected it to be something special.
On a side note-where did you buy it from that allowed to you return it on the basis you thought it was so bad ?
 
JON_T said:
,but small fast moving birds,would be almost impossible,and try following a bird when after the first shot the viewfinder goas black for a second,by the time it comes back on the bird has gone.
Click to expand...

I have read similar about the Fuji HS10 but people do still manage to get good pictures, to be honest few of the current EVFs are much use for tracking moving birds large or small. My feeling is that with a 35x zoom there will be a learning curve with the SX30 and people will need to have it for more than a few hours before they are able to get the best out of it. Much th same applied a few years ago when people got "blurry" images from the Fuji 9600 (I had one and had blurry images at first), its more a matter of learning how to use the camera.
 
speckled wood said:
I have read similar about the Fuji HS10 but people do still manage to get good pictures, to be honest few of the current EVFs are much use for tracking moving birds large or small. My feeling is that with a 35x zoom there will be a learning curve with the SX30 and people will need to have it for more than a few hours before they are able to get the best out of it. Much th same applied a few years ago when people got "blurry" images from the Fuji 9600 (I had one and had blurry images at first), its more a matter of learning how to use the camera.
Click to expand...

I have a belief that the Fuji, Canon, and Panazonic models all take good pictures in good light, i.e. when it is possible to use iso 100. My personal need is such that I would really like to have the best possible images at iso 400 to 800 from a camera that focuses as well on birds among leaves and branches as my FZ18, and preferably with enough megapixels that I can crop the image a bit and still get a good result.

Maybe I need to pick up a FZ35/38 soon while they still exist if that really is the camera that has the best performance at iso 400 in this bunch. I just wonder how many gimmick things need to be turned of in the camera to get the best performance, and if anyone really knows that yet; on the FZ18, it was mainly about setting the noise reduction as low as possible.

Niels
 
Putting 14 megapixels in these type of cameras is too much, its done for marketing at the lower end consumer.

They dont want to make these cameras too good or they will start to eat into their lucrative DSLR market so they know high megapixel will appeal to those who would not consider buying a DSLR whereas the more experienced photographer knows megapixels arent everything.

To proove my point cameras like the canon S90 which are designed for best image possible and despite having larger sensors are still only on 10 megapixels. Again perhaps targeted at the DSLR user wanting a compact they know that despite there image quality the lack of focal range means they will never threaten DSLRs.

Think Panasonic are going down same route increasing megapixel but not neccessarily image quality as they have to protect there four thirds sales
 
Steven Astley said:
Putting 14 megapixels in these type of cameras is too much
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. I'll say it again: more megapixels does not automatically mean more noise - it's the surface area of the sensor that matters, not the number of megapixels.

You need only think of a window to realise the truth of this: whether a window is made of a single pane of glass or (say) 4, or 10, or 50, it still lets in the same amount of light.

Obviously if said window's multiple panes of glass were held in place by thick frames, less light would pass through: but modern sensors - and I've no reason to believe that this technology has not reached "bridge" cameras - have gapless microlenses, which in "window analogy" terms is like having no window frames.

So one pane or several, the same amount of light reaches you. Want more light? You put in a bigger window.

This article (and the DPReview discussion it links to) is right on the money.

Not only is the logic compelling, I can say with absolute certainty that it bears out my personal experiences perfectly: my 8 mp Canon 30D has more noise than my 10 mp 40D, which has more noise than my 18 mp 7D - this simply could not be if there was any inherent truth in the argument that more megapixels equals more noise.

Or look at Nikon: the new D7000 has very impressive high ISO images compared to the D300 (which is itself no slouch); and the D300 is head and shoulders better than the D200.

And the fact that the S90 (and S95) happen to have 10 mp sensors really doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Keith
Before going off on one read what I have said
Where did I mention noise :-O

My argument is based on increasing megapixels doesn't automatically increase image quality overall.

Your argument is rubbish anyway and goes against an endless list of websites and why cameras at high iso often switch to lower megapixels . I studied coding theory at university the larger the code word, ie the larger the pixel the less prone it is to errors.
 
simplistically put

00000 is no
11111 is yes
on a big sensor

00010 with an error 1 is easily read as no

whereas on a smaller pixel
0 is no
1 is yes

its more prone to errors ie digital noise as it only has one chance to get it right.

Another way of looking at is to say yes 10 times to somebody far away and somebody say yes once, which one is more prone to error
 
Last edited:
Keith Reeder said:
No, it isn't. I'll say it again: more megapixels does not automatically mean more noise - it's the surface area of the sensor that matters, not the number of megapixels.
Click to expand...

True but its the surface area and the number of megapixels, its the pixel density


Keith Reeder said:
You need only think of a window to realise the truth of this: whether a window is made of a single pane of glass or (say) 4, or 10, or 50, it still lets in the same amount of light.

Obviously if said window's multiple panes of glass were held in place by thick frames, less light would pass through: but modern sensors - and I've no reason to believe that this technology has not reached "bridge" cameras - have gapless microlenses, which in "window analogy" terms is like having no window frames.

So one pane or several, the same amount of light reaches you. Want more light? You put in a bigger window.
Click to expand...

Again you are incorrect, the more panes of glass you put in the more light lost through reflection and other means. Although your analogy doesn't really relate to how sensors work anyway.

Keith Reeder said:
Not only is the logic compelling, I can say with absolute certainty that it bears out my personal experiences perfectly: my 8 mp Canon 30D has more noise than my 10 mp 40D, which has more noise than my 18 mp 7D - this
Click to expand...

That's because of technological advances and I will say this with certainty, that if you use the same technology of the 10mp 40d and put in a 8mp camera it will show less noise.
 
Last edited:
Steven Astley said:
simplistically put

00000 is no
11111 is yes
on a big sensor

00010 with an error 1 is easily read as no

whereas on a smaller pixel
0 is no
1 is yes

its more prone to errors ie digital noise as it only has one chance to get it right.

Another way of looking at is to say yes 10 times to somebody far away and somebody say yes once, which one is more prone to error
Click to expand...

If this holds true then we had best all go back to 1 megapixel sensors
 
Keith Reeder said:
No, it isn't. I'll say it again: more megapixels does not automatically mean more noise - it's the surface area of the sensor that matters, not the number of megapixels.

You need only think of a window to realise the truth of this: whether a window is made of a single pane of glass or (say) 4, or 10, or 50, it still lets in the same amount of light.

Obviously if said window's multiple panes of glass were held in place by thick frames, less light would pass through: but modern sensors - and I've no reason to believe that this technology has not reached "bridge" cameras - have gapless microlenses, which in "window analogy" terms is like having no window frames.

So one pane or several, the same amount of light reaches you. Want more light? You put in a bigger window.

This article (and the DPReview discussion it links to) is right on the money.

Not only is the logic compelling, I can say with absolute certainty that it bears out my personal experiences perfectly: my 8 mp Canon 30D has more noise than my 10 mp 40D, which has more noise than my 18 mp 7D - this simply could not be if there was any inherent truth in the argument that more megapixels equals more noise.

Or look at Nikon: the new D7000 has very impressive high ISO images compared to the D300 (which is itself no slouch); and the D300 is head and shoulders better than the D200.

And the fact that the S90 (and S95) happen to have 10 mp sensors really doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

to compare 40d/50d & 7d with these bridge cameras,is madness,there is no comparison in a sensor the size of your small fingernail and a sensor thats over an inch across in the 7d-if you own these you must be able to see how poor the images are from the sx30?
Anyone coming from a £80 p & s will im sure be quite happy snapping with the sx30,and be good for id or poor record shots,but anyone coming from a 7d,would not be able to cope with the iq of these cameras,but try id if you wish,id love to be proved wrong and that my copy was a poor one.
 
I always found on these small cameras and compacts like my Sony DSC N2 if backed off abit from max zoom your images were much better.
 
Steve Babbs said:
Not a full review but a bit more here

http://www.digitalphotographywriter.com/2010/09/canon-powershot-sx30-is-review-35x.html

Jon

If you're ever in Ipswich come and look at my study wall and tell me which pictures were taken with a bridge camera and which with a SLR. It's surprisingly difficult if the picture was taken in good light. I agree that once you have to start whacking up the ISO it's a different ball game.
Click to expand...
my old fz50 was a beltin bridge camera,and i had some fantastic shots with it,but theres no way the sx30 would match it,and you are right in good light some bridge cameras are great,thats why i have had about 5,but the last 3 canons,have definately not matched the panasonics.
I would love to find a way of stoping carrying the big sigma,but until one of the companies ,puts a bigger sensor in the cameras,instead of bigger pixel number,I think I will stick with the DSLR:t:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

A
Using Canon R6 in full frame versus cropped mode?
Replies
3
Views
5K
Aliks
A
Oregon John
What I think would be the perfect birding (rather than bird photography) camera
Replies
10
Views
2K
robinlanark
R
J
Help pls Which phone/ compact camera?
Replies
0
Views
723
Jhanlon
J
J
Which camera or phone for digiscoping?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Luca1970
L
T
Camera choice for birding around 3000 Euros with lens?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tsvetan
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top