steven_k: I purchased 2 of them hoping the first one I got was a dud, but it wasn't.I shot the lens at F4 optimal setting for this lens at infinity focus for landscapes on my OMD and I can tell you hands down this is not a good lens for landscapes.No where near as good as the 12, 25, 45 or 75mm lenses. My opinion is that this lens is probably a good street shooter lens. Not what I has hoping for.I guess the problem is at the end of the day it is a 17mm lens, and to make a tack sharp 17mm lens for 500.00 is probably almost impossible.Though the Oly 12 which is by far not perfect, I feel does perform better over all yet again a 700.00 lens.
SnapHappy32, of course FF is arbitrarily taken as standard. It was the most popular for years so it was chosen. We could pick anything else just as well, for example 43 format, then FF would have 0.5x focal length multiplier.
What you've just said is right, but previously you were wrong calling it "very wide angle". The term "wide angle" applies to the angle of view and takes the intended format into account, not only the absolute focal length. Otherwise, you would call all the p&s lenses "fisheye".We all know 17mm would be very wide on FF, but FF isn't a magical format, just an arbitrary reference point.
fed2man: In terms of telephoto zoom capacity, the review overlooks the fact that because of the considerably larger sensor and more megapixels, you can crop to get the same coverage as a 200mm and still be ahead of all the others.
How did you calculate that?
h2k: Well, would be great if we soon could compare the main ambitious compacts (esp those with vari-angle screen) including- Nikon P7700- Samsung EX2- Olympus XF-2- Powershot 15 (no vari-angle, but interesting)
No vari-angle but equally ambitious is Panasonic LX7
The next one has to be 45-125
Greynerd: I think this is more of a marketing excercise of mega megapixels in a mega sensor in the smallest box. The cost is the slower aperture at maximum zoom which would put me of buying it. A 2/3 sensor with a lower pixel count and a fast lens throughout the focal length range would seem a much more sensible design.
I really think it might change. Haven't MILCs gained popularity for having bigger sensors?. Most users stick to kit lenses. Notice also how Pentax Q failed. It seems people are starting to know what does sensor size mean.
MichaelSpotts: Looks like a solid compact. For daytime shooters, why get the S100 over this? I expect this camera to cost 40% less and it seems more robust in terms of focal reach, 25-500mm. Looks good, too.
Judging from dpreview studio shots it is not. SX230 gets slightly more detail. Does real world performance differ dramatically from what you get in studio? Or maybe you are taking dynamic range into account, then I don't know.
geoffire: Nice improvements, looks like canon fixed most of the issues I have with the wife's SX230. Add raw and trade some reach for a faster apertures and It would be the perfect pocket camera.
What do you want to bet the flash still pops up whether it's needed or not...
There already is some control of sharpening in mycolors.Raw mode is avaiable from chdk.
One bad decision here was to go for longer reach instead wider aperture. The intended use is for travel so how is anyone going to hold it at 500mm while it's f/6.8? If you are travelling with a tripod then it would not be SX260 that you would place on that tripod.
ezradja: the noise reduction is quite aggresive. But probably the raw would do justice to the image. Is there any option on noise reduction on jpeg?
It's a matter of taste. I would prefer more details. Hopefully they will emerge with the "low" NR setting or in RAW.
I took a look at the available samples. They are not in full resolution as claimed. I don't know about the skin of the model in second picture. It may be the makeup but it does not look natural. There is almost something like a posterize effect.
whtchocla7e: Without a fast prime lens, this is not exactly what 'I' wanted.
Isn't X100 what you wanted then?
andersf: Looks awesome. What I don't understand is why they decided on a 4:3 sensor? 3:2 or even 16:9 would have made more sense.
Why not round? People rarely want round or square pictures and would only use a crop from such sensor. So it would be a waste most of the time. Making even even slightly larger sensor is much more expensive.
Menneisyys: Did anyone notice the absolutely awful foliage (trees) right in the first shot (in the backgroun)? As it's not an issue of bad lens (it's not an extreme corner), it must be the NR kicking in. Is NR THIS strong even at ISO 125?
Arent they simply out of focus?
Linus M: What I really want to know: Who dared to crack open the Maritini bottle!After all those years someone could not restrain himself ; )
jaykumarr, are you confusing SX230 with other cameras? SX30? That would explain your earlier comment about Canon having more zoom. But SX30 still isn't 2 years old so maybe SX20 also? That one premiered in 2009. SX230 is not SX30 neither SX20. Guessing from your statements about its IQ you are looking at SX230 sample in the comparison tool.
morepix: IMO, the Canon SX230 images in this studio scene knock the socks off the Panny camera at ISO 400. I didn't look at any higher ISO because I wouldn't buy either camera with the intention of shooting at over ISO 400.
I agree that SX230 resolves more detail. But you are wrong about zoom, it is FZ150 that has much more (24x vs 14x for Canon).