[crazyfingers]

I love the colors.

[Froggy]

Originally Posted by Paul Jarvis

Just for comparison reasons here some shots with different crops from the 7D plus 400.

Difficult to make a comparison , can't tell if the forum limits are causing problems or those crops are at the limit of their respective cameras .

From those samples the bridge camera has done extremely well !

[Robert L Jarvis]

Both cameras were side by side on tripods all other factors being identical, light etc.. As my son points out he was limited to the magnification provided by the 400 prime and the crop factor of the 7D. The Sx40 was at max opt zoom of 840mm. Therefore the unprocessed image will be closer in than that of the 7D (smaller FOV).

As you comment the SX40 has done pretty well.

[Froggy]

Originally Posted by Robert L Jarvis

Both cameras were side by side on tripods all other factors being identical, light etc.. As my son points out he was limited to the magnification provided by the 400 prime and the crop factor of the 7D. The Sx40 was at max opt zoom of 840mm. Therefore the unprocessed image will be closer in than that of the 7D (smaller FOV).

As you comment the SX40 has done pretty well.

Confused me then for a minute until I saw the son part !

The optical difference makes sense now .
The 7/400 seems almost pixel sharp though , must be a killer combo within the right range .

These bridge cameras have really come a long way since I had one (dimage 7i) .
Thanks for the info and the shots :)

[Robert L Jarvis]

The 7/400 is a great combo, mnay on here use it. See my son's gallery, or website, sopme excellent images there.

PS I see you are in the Northwest, where? is a big place or PM me.

[BobCesme]

Originally Posted by Robert L Jarvis

Both cameras were side by side on tripods all other factors being identical, light etc.. As my son points out he was limited to the magnification provided by the 400 prime and the crop factor of the 7D. The Sx40 was at max opt zoom of 840mm. Therefore the unprocessed image will be closer in than that of the 7D (smaller FOV).

As you comment the SX40 has done pretty well.

Going off at a tangent and having seen the quality of your digiscoping in the past Robert,I would love to see a comparison digiscoped shot of this bird.
I think we would get an interesting result!!!!!

[lmans66]

Originally Posted by BobCesme

Going off at a tangent and having seen the quality of your digiscoping in the past Robert,I would love to see a comparison digiscoped shot of this bird.
I think we would get an interesting result!!!!!

This is a good question...I would like to see quality between digiscoping and these bridge cameras. I am thinking they would be close and the ease of the bridge cameras as opposed to taking the scope plus all along, might be worth it. But make it a fair comparison with all sorts of light, distance, size of bird etc...

But...nothing like a scope for sea birds and far away creatures. The bridge cameras can't do that so, not too sure I want to get rid of my scope just yet.

I do know that there is a difference between the older bridge cameras and the new crop coming out whether it is the Canon Sx40 or Fuji, the Nikon P510 etc as opposed to my older Canon SX10 which is really only 3 years old. I have not popped for the new Canon SX40 yet and still have to think about it considering the price but wow, it is tempting, I must admit.... jim

[BobCesme]

Originally Posted by lmans66

I have not popped for the new Canon SX40 yet and still have to think about it considering the price but wow, it is tempting, I must admit.... jim

I think you are right Jim.
Not sure which way to jump myself yet
SX40 or P510

[Roy C]

You never see many BIF shots with these superzooms, are they just not fast enough to focus or maybe they do not track a subject like a DSLR in AI servo mode?. Another thing I have noticed is that they tend to be very noisy at anything but lowish ISO's - guess this is down to the small sensor.
I suppose at the end of the day a £300 all in one Camera is never going to really compete with, say, a lens/DSLR combo costing over £2k, if it did the then likes of Canon would be shooting itself in the foot.

[Froggy]

Originally Posted by Roy C

You never see many BIF shots with these superzooms, are they just not fast enough to focus or maybe they do not track a subject like a DSLR in AI servo mode?. Another thing I have noticed is that they tend to be very noisy at anything but lowish ISO's - guess this is down to the small sensor.

The focus is normally a little slower , not sure about the ISO , you would think the smaller sensor is noisier at the higher ISO , but they are getting better .

The electronic viewfinder has an inherent lag (all evf do) and I should imagine that makes following the BIF very difficult .

[lmans66]

It all boils down to what you want from birding...do you want to just bird? (Binos or scope or eyes) Get a shot (Bridge Camera or digiscoping) or get a really great shot? ($2000 worth of cameras) ...

[Jaff]

Nothing will ever beat digiscoping for reach, especially when using a camera in combination with the scope eyepiece rather than connecting a camera directly to the scope. This was taken from the same site, from a completely different year though (well it is a juvenile if you look!) but at a likewise massive distance (easily 100m or more) and is full frame with no sharpening but had to give it a quick tweak for exposure. Purple fringing is a problem because of the white sky and the fact I was scoping at 60x on my zoom but that just translates into an insane amount of magnification. Not easy to do though and requires patience and good technique as scoping at 20x is tricky enough in itself but even that will give more detail than most DSLR's with 500mm's when used correctly.

Obviously digiscoping has still got it's niche but there are many more limitations than the other options as to when it can be used effectively.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Robert L Jarvis

Neil

What I want to try is scaling down to 720p as then the camera does video at 30fps. I wonder if that is better. Have you any experience of that Neil.

Robert,
I've been shooting with several cameras at all possible video settings.The Sony DSC HX 9V,Canon G1 X,Nikon P7000 and Nikon V1 and now the Nikon D800. There are settings on the Sony 9V that most programs can't handle ie 1920 x 1080/50p , and Vimeo doesn't like them either.
The best compromise setting is 720x1280/30 or 25. Gives good resolution and doesn't take up too much space on cards or hard drives.
There is also an iFrame format that some cameras have which is 960x540. Doesn't take too much space and fast to process. Good for iphones and ipads.
I'm tending to shoot at the highest rez of the camera though as I want this video as a permanent record for the future so it should be as good as I can get. I'm shooting more video these days than stills.
It's still a learning curve for me.
Neil

[BobCesme]

Originally Posted by Jaff

Nothing will ever beat digiscoping for reach, especially when using a camera in combination with the scope eyepiece rather than connecting a camera directly to the scope. This was taken from the same site, from a completely different year though (well it is a juvenile if you look!) but at a likewise massive distance (easily 100m or more) and is full frame with no sharpening but had to give it a quick tweak for exposure. Purple fringing is a problem because of the white sky and the fact I was scoping at 60x on my zoom but that just translates into an insane amount of magnification. Not easy to do though and requires patience and good technique as scoping at 20x is tricky enough in itself but even that will give more detail than most DSLR's with 500mm's when used correctly.

Obviously digiscoping has still got it's niche but there are many more limitations than the other options as to when it can be used effectively.

You done well there Jaff with that sky and at 60x as well.

[Robert L Jarvis]

Bobcesme

I rarely do digiscoping now as there gets to a point where I am carrying too much gear around and as I am like Roy C getting on in years the weight can get a bit much.

As for the SX40 I agree with Roy that BIF shots would not be easy. I think the focus to slow and the viewfinder very small. In fact I do not use it at all but go for the lcd screen with mid image zoom in to check focus. These cameras are very good but there are areas where a DSLR cann ot be challenged.

[BobCesme]

Originally Posted by Robert L Jarvis

Bobcesme

I rarely do digiscoping now as there gets to a point where I am carrying too much gear around and as I am like Roy C getting on in years the weight can get a bit much.

Yes,I know exactly how you feel Robert,I am getting to the stage when I hear myself subconsciously saying things like "this hill seems a bit steeper today" or "I did'nt realise it was this far".
Never mind it's usually worth it when you get that shot of that special bird.

[woody66]

This morning took this shot of a shellduck on a small island about 100 mtrs away , i used full zoom on my SX40 hs , by full zoom i mean the full 840 mm optical x 4 digital , to my surprise it turned out quite good , i didnt expect too much at that range especially using the x 4 digital as well , strangly the exif 150.5mm, anyway now i dont need to carry extra lenses anymore , this canon sx40 is one cool machine

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by woody66

This morning took this shot of a shellduck on a small island about 100 mtrs away , i used full zoom on my SX40 hs , by full zoom i mean the full 840 mm optical x 4 digital , to my surprise it turned out quite good , i didnt expect too much at that range especially using the x 4 digital as well , strangly the exif 150.5mm, anyway now i dont need to carry extra lenses anymore , this canon sx40 is one cool machine

Having never owned one of these super zooms I do not know much at all about them, am I correct in thinking that this shot would have been taken at 3360mm focal length equivalent (840 x 4)? If so then this must surely beat digiscoping hands down for ease of use and possibly IQ. In fact I would say it out resolves most DSLR tele's at this range (including some super teles costing many thousands of pounds).

[woody66]

Hi roy well the proof is in the pics , heres another shot from the same sort of distance but a different day and cloudy skies , iso 200 and 1/125thsec , full; zoom . 5 years ago i went for a superzoom simply because i was fed up of carrying all the lenses and gear around , so i bought a Canon powershot S2 is , which had 5megapixals and a zoom from 36mm to 432mm and this could be multiplied by 4 times using the digital zoom , it was a brilliant tool up to the 432 mm , nice and sharp but when you utilised the 4x digital you tendered to get vignetting around everything , i tried a 2x converter with it but still had the same probs ,a short while ago i saw the SX40 with even more optical zoom x4 digital 12.1 megapixels and all the latest updated spec , which included a far better image stabilisation system need for the zooming , ive had this camera a couple of months now and it really is all that im going to need , and a superb replacement for my old one .

[MikeJenx]

I posted these query on the Nikon forum but have yet to recieve a response. I wonder if any SX40 users have had the oppurtunity of comparing the two cameras or perhaps can advance a case for choosing the SX40?

"I am in the market for a "mega zoom" bridge camera and am struggling to decide between the Nikon P510 and the Canon SX40.

Factors like size, gps, battery life, number of features etc are not deal clinchers for me (although I do like the look of the P510's easy panarama function)

I am interested to know whether the extra x6 zoom of the P510 makes a significant difference in the field. Does the additional zoom come at the cost of a drop in image quality or focusing capabilitiy at full zoom?

I have read the comparison reviews of the two cameras but they don't realy address these issues.

I have to make a decision before a trip to Norfolk in early May. If anybody has had hands on experience with both cameras I would be interested to hear their views."

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by MikeJenx

I posted these query on the Nikon forum but have yet to recieve a response. I wonder if any SX40 users have had the oppurtunity of comparing the two cameras or perhaps can advance a case for choosing the SX40?

"I am in the market for a "mega zoom" bridge camera and am struggling to decide between the Nikon P510 and the Canon SX40.

Factors like size, gps, battery life, number of features etc are not deal clinchers for me (although I do like the look of the P510's easy panarama function)

I am interested to know whether the extra x6 zoom of the P510 makes a significant difference in the field. Does the additional zoom come at the cost of a drop in image quality or focusing capabilitiy at full zoom?

I have read the comparison reviews of the two cameras but they don't realy address these issues.

I have to make a decision before a trip to Norfolk in early May. If anybody has had hands on experience with both cameras I would be interested to hear their views."

Somehow, I have yet to see a happy Nikon Superzoom owner post on BF (I at least cannot remember any). Alternatives to Canon more come in Panasonic and Fuji from my impressions. (I still have a FZ18 which by now is an ancient superzoom, but have myself moved on to GH2 + 100-300)

Niels

[crazyfingers]

Former unhappy Nikon Superzoom user here. Now a happy Canon SX 40 user.

[woody66]

I actualy tried a Fuji SX30 EXR , didnt like it at all , just wasnt quick enough focussing for wild bird shooting , being used to my 5 year old canon powershot made me look at the SX40 simply because i thought it was my old S2is beefed up with better zoom stabilisation i was wrong infact it s a totally mor superior camera alltogether , after trying it out i couldnt wait to buy one , the P500 which has more or less the same zoom as the SX40 was a dissapointment , didnt hold a candle to the SX40 having said that the new Nikon P510 looks good zoom wise but its got a long way to go to beat the canon , why not get down to the camera shop with a memory card and put one through its paces , if it can focus quickly and shoot at full zoom x the digital and come up with a sharp shot no vignetting then its worth buying

[hinnark]

Does anybody know if it's possible to add a comment (voice or in written form) to a photo taken with the SX40? I'm asking because I try to learn the species at guided tours of plants and mushrooms and think it could be helpfull to assign the correct names to the images.

Steve

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by hinnark

Does anybody know if it's possible to add a comment (voice or in written form) to a photo taken with the SX40? I'm asking because I try to learn the species at guided tours of plants and mushrooms and think it could be helpfull to assign the correct names to the images.

Steve

You could always assign the correct name to the image name (e.g. mushroom.jpg) or write some text on the image itself.