SX40 Super Zoom (1 Viewer)

[Biancone]

I moved from an FZ45 (which I found almost impossible to get good BIF shots with) to an SX40 and although it is a definite improvement, it is still very hit and miss IMHO.

Andy & MonkeyPrince, thanks for response to my question...the harrier and buzzard images look good to me, I'd certainly have been pleased with them, but it does seem that many (not all) of the most impressive images here are of perched birds, which I guess can mitigate some of the limitations of compact cameras (lack of detail, focus). Strongly tempted by the SX40 (but may wait & see pricing on FZ200!).
Cheers
Brian

 

[AndyM]

Andy & MonkeyPrince, thanks for response to my question...the harrier and buzzard images look good to me, I'd certainly have been pleased with them, but it does seem that many (not all) of the most impressive images here are of perched birds, which I guess can mitigate some of the limitations of compact cameras (lack of detail, focus). Strongly tempted by the SX40 (but may wait & see pricing on FZ200!).

Hmm.. Maybe I should have waited for the FZ200. That 'Buzzard' is supposed to be a 2cy male Marsh Harrier! |:d|

Seriously though, I wasn't overly concerned at the lack of BIF images taken with the SX40. Images of perched birds are always going to be more numerous (and steal the show) as shooting opportunities present themselves far more often than do flying birds (too far, too near, too fast)! I'm sure that many people are put off by their early stage efforts and give up prematurely.

But yeah, FZ200 'light speed' focusing does sound mighty appealing..

Andy.

 

[Biancone]

Whoops! Sorry - no reflection on your image, just me lazily assuming big brown sort of hovering bird = CB!
One of the frustrating things about the FZ45 & possibly most compact s/zooms (?) is the unpredictability: sometimes it'll focus spot on and stabilize the image well, sometimes it won't, and it isn't entirely explained by extent of zoom. Never mind - still got many decent shots and no hassle to press delete on the rest!
Brian.

 

[MonkeyPrince]

Whoops! Sorry - no reflection on your image, just me lazily assuming big brown sort of hovering bird = CB!
One of the frustrating things about the FZ45 & possibly most compact s/zooms (?) is the unpredictability: sometimes it'll focus spot on and stabilize the image well, sometimes it won't, and it isn't entirely explained by extent of zoom. Never mind - still got many decent shots and no hassle to press delete on the rest!
Brian.

I was really happy with the perched bird shots from my FZ45 when I owned it, but looking back at them they seemed to look quite processed and the colours weren't very natural. Focus was ALWAYS a problem (I used to get loads of shots of perfectly focussed background leaves etc) :C

I paid £210 for my SX40HS new from ebay 6 months ago, and it is WAY better in my opinion. I sold my FZ45 for £180 so it was only a £30 changeover) Very natural colours, much better in low light, longer zoom, faster more accurate focus, articulated screen, better video, CHDK to name a few.

I've definitely not looked back. The SX40HS is coming down in price (under £300 on Amazon UK now).

Although the FZ200 looks good, I wouldn't give up the 35x zoom I love on the Canon and the natural looking results.

I dabbled with the 2x teleconverter today (I don't usually use it). I tried to get my Little Owl to oblige, but couldn't catch him in flight.

Here's a perched 2x from this morning (1709mm equiv), subject was approx 40 metres away (120ft in old money)



There's obvious mushiness in the feathers etc, but for a sub £300 camera at 1700mm I think it's acceptable (at least for an ID shot).

Lord knows what a DSLR with 1700m range lens would cost me :eek!:

I programme C1 for birds, so will flip the tele button shortcut above every now and then for fun :t:

 

[njlarsen]

From reading a number of other threads on birdforum, I don't think BIF shots are ever going to be easy no matter which equipment you use. Yes, there are differences in HOW difficult, but not to the extent of them becoming easy.

Niels

 

[AndyM]

Whoops! Sorry - no reflection on your image, just me lazily assuming big brown sort of hovering bird = CB!

Hey! No need to apologise. My fault for accidentally getting it stuck in a big brown Buzzard-like pose! :-O

Nevertheless, if you have further problems, I'm sure I remember someone posting in this thread that regularly signs off with a link to Buzzard identification... :t:

Andy.

 

[Ben Markham]

I took these photos today, the Wren shot turned out pretty well.

I'm not an expert when it comes to identifying birds, could someone tell me what the last bird is? The red is throwing me off, and my own internet research is inconclusive. The closest I could find is the House Finch, many thanks.

Ben

 

[MonkeyPrince]

I took these photos today, the Wren shot turned out pretty well.

I'm not an expert when it comes to identifying birds, could someone tell me what the last bird is? The red is throwing me off, and my own internet research is inconclusive. The closest I could find is the House Finch, many thanks.

Ben

Lovely Wren shot Ben, haven't they got massive feet for their size :eek!:

 

[Keith Dickinson]

I took these photos today, the Wren shot turned out pretty well.

I'm not an expert when it comes to identifying birds, could someone tell me what the last bird is? The red is throwing me off, and my own internet research is inconclusive. The closest I could find is the House Finch, many thanks.

Ben

Last bird is a linnet:t:

 

[Roy C]

Roy you are posting some great shots on here, just wondered if you could post some comparison shots of the range of the camera zooms on something static with a tripod.

Regards

John

John, here are a couple of snaps taken this morning while out on my bike ride. Handheld but shows the zoom range. You have to look hard for the target house in the first shot which must have been a good mile away if not more. First shot is 24mm then 840 mm then the two digital tc.'s 1260mm and finally 1680mm.

 

[Roy C]

From reading a number of other threads on birdforum, I don't think BIF shots are ever going to be easy no matter which equipment you use. Yes, there are differences in HOW difficult, but not to the extent of them becoming easy.

Niels

I fully agree with this, using a contrast based AF system is never going to be fast enough for BIF apart from slow flyers and the odd lucky shot.
Even with DSLR's and fast focussing lenses like the 400/5.6 BIF was never easy on the non 1 series cameras until the 7D came along with ZoneAF and variable AI servo sensitivity.

 

[Ben Markham]

Thanks Keith. I don't think I'd have ever worked that out, and it seems so obvious now that I've looked at pictures of linnets.

Also thank you MonkeyPrince, and yes they do seem to have unusually large feet.

It be not be relevant to taking photographs but I've uploaded a 1080p video of a Grey Heron in case anyone 'on the fence' is taking video recording into consideration.

You can find the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCGb7djNC-4

 

[draycotebirding]

There is a review here - http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX40_HS/ - which compares the zoom range both as still shots and as a short video of the zoom in action. It's pretty impressive.

Thanks Tim, I have seen this review but not quite what I am looking for.

John, here are a couple of snaps taken this morning while out on my bike ride. Handheld but shows the zoom range. You have to look hard for the target house in the first shot which must have been a good mile away if not more. First shot is 24mm then 840 mm then the two digital tc.'s 1260mm and finally 1680mm.

Thanks Roy, now this is exactly what I am looking for. Excellent and can't believe hand held too, the only thing left is do I get it now or how much lower is the price going to get?

Regards

John

 

[Moocher]

Ben, that Wren shot is awesome!

 

[AndyM]

View attachment 395749

There's obvious mushiness in the feathers etc, but for a sub £300 camera at 1700mm I think it's acceptable (at least for an ID shot).

Nice! - and personally I'd be happy to call that more than just an ID shot. The mushiness is only really there because you told me it was! You have to get past the superb clarity of the eyes first...

Andy.

 

[AndyM]

From reading a number of other threads on birdforum, I don't think BIF shots are ever going to be easy no matter which equipment you use. Yes, there are differences in HOW difficult, but not to the extent of them becoming easy.

I fully agree with this, using a contrast based AF system is never going to be fast enough for BIF apart from slow flyers and the odd lucky shot.
Even with DSLR's and fast focussing lenses like the 400/5.6 BIF was never easy on the non 1 series cameras until the 7D came along with ZoneAF and variable AI servo sensitivity.

I also think it comes down to what each individual regards as an acceptable capture from within the physical limitations of each camera. I constantly remind myself that it's a Bridge camera - it is what it is. If it's a high BIF hit rate someone's after, it looks like that person could really do with a 7D with ZoneAF and variable AI servo sensitivity (not that I even pretend to know what one of them is but it sounds very expensive and possibly just as capable of disappointment in the wrong hands - namely mine)

The Swifts I put up in post #399. Not brilliant like I said but with such a fast moving subject, a fast panning operator and in pretty poor light, it does make you wonder what could have been had everything come together at the right moment. All the ingredients are available. With care, and a level teaspoon of luck, you should have recipe for knocking something up that tastes a bit like the real thing...

Andy.

 

[Biancone]

I paid £210 for my SX40HS new from ebay 6 months ago, and it is WAY better in my opinion. I sold my FZ45 for £180 so it was only a £30 changeover) Very natural colours, much better in low light, longer zoom, faster more accurate focus, articulated screen, better video, CHDK to name a few.

I've definitely not looked back.

Many thanks for this further info. Could be a change to the SX40 for me! I'm well impressed by the Little Owl - they are quite Little after all...

All the ingredients are available. With care, and a level teaspoon of luck, you should have recipe for knocking something up that tastes a bit like the real thing...Andy.

Well, that's it in a nutshell!! It is funny stuff - luck isn't it?

Cheers, Brian.

 

[MonkeyPrince]

I went out to the garden and the Little Owl was in his usual spot, this time he gave me time to take a few more photos :t:

The first is full optical zoom only (875mm equiv.)



The second is 2.0x tele converter (1708mm equiv.)



The final one is full digital zoom (3497mm equiv.)



All I did to the pics is resize to 35% to allow web upload - no other adjustments (I would usually crop and boost contrast - I seldom do anything else).

The little fella was approx 120ft away

Hope this helps :t:

ps file sizes reduced as a smaller part of the sensor was used each time I guess

 

[Wildmoreway]

I was actually very pleased with some of the results from my FZ45 such as these
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildmoreway/5529369898/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildmoreway/5529215962/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildmoreway/5531141733/in/photostream/
However as I have said the camera itself proved to be less than robust. So far as the quality of the pictures is concerned no camera that I have owned since has been better.

 

[MonkeyPrince]

Don't get me wrong, I thought (and still think) the FZ45 is a terrific camera.

I've got some lovely shots from it, and lots of nice comments from friends and family.

However I wanted a longer zoom, and the other benefits that came with the SX40 were just a bonus.