SX40 HS vs. DSLR - Zoom vs. clarity

[altendky]

I have been using a Panasonic DMC-FZ15 since way back when and purchased it for it's telephoto (420mm was big at the time). I am considering a new camera and although the Canon SX40 HS is quite a unit (especially with CHDK) I have also tried to talk myself into a DSLR for years. I know perfectly well that a decent DSLR will give far superior image quality, auto-focus speeds, etc... but i'm not going to spend $15k on a 840mm tele lense nor would I want to carry one around.

So I end up with this dilemma. What will the relative image quality be if I were to compare similar crops from the two cameras (at full telephoto) after adjusting them to similar size? Perhaps another way to ask it is: How much missing zoom can a DSLR compensate for by it's superior clarity?

My first guess is that it would be around 3x, as in a DSLR at 280mm could compare to a point and shoot at 840mm... but I really have no basis for that. :[

I do realize that this is an extremely vague question for quite a number of reasons, but I'm hoping that someone has been similarly curious before and can share their experiences. Thanks for any info or references you can offer.

Cheers,
-kyle

 

[Lee Jay]

Have a look at these:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=40249584

I took this with a Canon 100-400L (1/10th of the price you mentioned) and a 2x teleconverter on a Rebel T2i.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Olga Johnson]

Very difficult to quantify. Following shots were both handheld and cropped, taken at completely different times and different locations. Give me the dSLR over the SX40 any time.

Here is a moon shot with SX 40:





And here is one captured with my old T1i/500D and 55-250 cheapie zoom lens, ISO 800 1/800s, f/8, 250mm:



--
Olga

 

[BosPhotoMan]

I own the SX40 as well at a Canon 60D with a 55-250 zoom.

I can't give you side-to-side comparison's, but I can say as a practical matter the SX40 holds its own under most circumstances. In fact, I rarely use the 60D any longer. The SX40 is so versatile and telephoto reach is so much longer I carry it with me all the time. I had the SX30 prior to the SX40 and the low light performance was a problem and that's once of the reasons I continued to shoot with the 60D. With the sensor on the SX40 I am completely satisfied with the low light performance. The 60D still has faster autofocus and faster shot-to-shot speed, but not enough to make it worthy carrying all the extra weight.

I highly recommend the SX40 and I think as long as you don't insist on pixel peeping the output you'll be quite satisfied.

 

[Steen Bay]

I took this with a Canon 100-400L (1/10th of the price you mentioned) and a 2x teleconverter on a Rebel T2i.

Looks good, but not really surprising that a 18mp DSLR with a 1280mm equivalent lens beats a 12mp superzoom with a 840mm (equiv.) lens. T2i with the bare lens (640mm equiv.) vs. SX40 would probably be a more 'fair' comparison, but guess that the T2i still would be a bit better.

 

[Tinu_ch]

So I end up with this dilemma. What will the relative image quality be if I were to compare similar crops from the two cameras (at full telephoto) after adjusting them to similar size? Perhaps another way to ask it is: How much missing zoom can a DSLR compensate for by it's superior clarity?

Really difficult to guess. I usually prefer mathematics.
On the sensor of the SX40 there are about 650 pixels on a lenght of 1mm.
On the sensor of the 7D/60D/600D there are about 230.

So we get a linear factor of 650 / 230 = 2.83 in favour of the SX40 against the 7D/60D/600D.

The real maximum focal lenght of the SX40 is 150mm. So to get the same pixel density on your target you would need 150mm x 2.83= 425mm on a 7D/60D/600D.

Without getting to anal about it: a 60D with a 400mm lens gives you about the same "reach" as the SX40 but with much better pixels that gather about 8x as much light. In theory that should be worth 3 full f-stops. You could use ISO 800 with the DSLR and get (at least) the same IQ as with ISO 100 on the SX40. Being a pixelpeeper at times I would say this is not too far off.
Well, that's all just juggling numbers and real world results might vary.

My first guess is that it would be around 3x, as in a DSLR at 280mm could compare to a point and shoot at 840mm... but I really have no basis for that. :[

After the numbers crunching above you are quite close with your guess. Sacrifizing the better sensor performance you might get comparable results with 300mm on APS-C.

Tinu

--
If the text above reads like real English, it must be a quotation
Some of my pictures: http://www.pbase.com/tinu

 

[Jorginho]

Why not this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40336445

You could do the same and have the same result with a Panasonic G3 and that lens. It will set yo back not 15000 euro, but more like 1000 dollars (I think).

I bought my dad a SX40 at Christmas because he is a zoomfreak. It is a nice cam! But even my dad notes that at 840 mm pictures are not very sharp. And he is not that critical.

 

[altendky]

Thanks to all for the quick replies. Although $2k+ (t2i+400mm+...) isn't anything I would considering spending at the moment, it would seem that the performance is likely in the 2-3x range (very roughly, so many factors) as I initially guessed. Heck, even that crazy math stuff came up with that number :] (thanks Tinu, I'm an engineer and appreciate the numbers for what their worth). Overall, it does sound like I should be seriously considering a DSLR instead given all the other benefits. Now I just have to weigh the myriad of features (hi-speed video, etc) against entry DSLR offerings and see how cost and image quality trade off with them.

 

[mikeshomes]

Check out pictures taken with SX40

http://www.photobucket.com/mikesphotosense

 

[mikeshomes]

Check out pictures taken with SX40 hand held:

http://www.photobucket.com/mikesphotosense

 

[zZJollyGreenZz]

I found these videos of the moon on youtube, they seem to verify the math :
SX40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrupNqLZeO0

GH2 + 70-300mm Lens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdKUB6fi2I

600D + 75-300mm Lens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJW1_Btumi4

They are all essentially within the same ballpark. I like the movie crop feature option of the 600D/T3i, if I get really good results and want to expand I can get the 400 L lens with teleconverter (that first picture is amazing) for even better quality.

 

[IchiroCameraGuy]

superzoom cameras are nice and they fit in with a lot of people but you really can't compare the photo quality on a serious level. Macro photography along with the continuous auto focus in video for family/travel is the best features of superzooms.

most go into diffraction once you leave wide angle and have a very small sweet spot range. There is a very good reason you do not see DSLR superzoom lens designs being used by professional photographers. convenience/versatility, affordable price, and top quality rarely ever go together when it comes to lens designs.

 

[Bobby Handal]

Well, I think it depends on the serious level - really means.

For example, if you want that 800mm focal length and you really want absolute perfection (count every feather, every hair on the animal), then by all means you must look at 600mm upwards with DX format crop, this alone costs over $8000 even with Sigma (300-800mm).

If you want absolute perfection a TC then is not the route to go. I am talking about absolute perfection, no matter what.

at full focal length 800mm+ the SX40 compared to m4/3 is about the same, it has the same issues of focusing, birds in flight difficulty, etc. , with m4/3 the longest reach available is 600mm equivalent. again focus leaves a lot to be desired - so the extra reach on the canon sx40 is quite nice.

now, on the principle that the user knows what is doing (watching exposure, watching shutter speeds based on the focal length in use, etc) the SX40 output at close distances is very good quite close the DSLR quality with say a good TC on a 400mm lens - having said this, a DSLR, 400mm plus a good TC can run quite expensive !!. With a subject Further away , I feel that the DSLR with 400mm+TC is a slightly better IQ (But at a price).

For bird watchers, biologists and people that want to document or simply capture wildlife this Canon sx40 will be a valuable asset. For photographers that want to go light and still have great tele capabilities, this is a great camera. For video , this telephoto ability is priceless, and very few cameras can allow this coverage and IQ at this price level.

Here is my first video where I am also using the digital teleconverter on the SX40 (Oh no sacrilege !!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW30VAo8wYQ&list=UUvhiGiYWaetRPwZuX_oREGg&index=1&feature=plcp

superzoom cameras are nice and they fit in with a lot of people but you really can't compare the photo quality on a serious level. Macro photography along with the continuous auto focus in video for family/travel is the best features of superzooms.

most go into diffraction once you leave wide angle and have a very small sweet spot range. There is a very good reason you do not see DSLR superzoom lens designs being used by professional photographers. convenience/versatility, affordable price, and top quality rarely ever go together when it comes to lens designs.

--
http://www.photoexpedition.net
http://www.fotoclubhonduras.com

 

[gary0319]

I'm a nature photo guy and now routinely carry 2 cameras. 1) Canon 7D with 100-400L attached (I shoot RAW with the 7D), and 2) the SX 40. Since I got the SX40 I feel comfortable that I can get publishable shots with either camera and often use both on any given subject.

I think the SX40 Digic 5 processor with i-Contrast on gives me more keepers in harsh light conditions than the 7D. But, l give the edge to the 100-400 in clarity if I can hold the weight steady (even with the IS I still need shutter speeds above 1,000/sec). But, that is a really small edge.

This all applies to stationary subjects. Once the movement starts, the SX40 goes back in the bag. The focusing/tracking and high speed shooting of the 7D cannot be matched by the SX40.

 

[Dale Buhanan]

I second Gary's comment here. The SX40 is closer to the 7D in image quality for stationary scenes and in good light than you might suppose.

I did some tests about a week ago where I photographed the same 3 scenes with the SX40 and the 7D. The SX40 was at default settings, the 7D was set to Camera Standard and was using the 15-85 at f6.3 in AV mode. ISO 100 on both cameras. Normal daylight mid-afternoon.

I cropped the ends off the 7D images to get a 4:3 aspect ratio, just like the SX40, and compared the shots. This made the 7D image about 14 MP (like a G1X) and the SX40 image was 12 MP, so they were fairly close in size. The sharpness from the two cameras was very similar OOF this way and the amount of fine detail I could see pixel peeping was very similar. The 7D did not have as big an advantage in extra detail as I had imagined it might, although the 7D image right OOC was more appealing.

The main difference I could see between the images was that the 7D image had more Dynamic range and contrast. But sharpness and image detail was very, very similar.

So next I took both sets of images and ran them through Elements Auto-contrast and Auto Sharpness just to put them on more equal footing. This made both of the images look more similar, and gave them both the same amount of pop. Just looking without knowng, it would have been hard to tell which camera took which images. Now the only difference I could obviously see was that the color balance was slightly different, with the 7D being a little warmer and the SX40 being a little cooler. This could have been matched with another trip into elements... but I didn't bother. There was a bit more blue in the SX40 images, and the sky was a bit bluer. While the dead lawns were a little 'browner' looking in the 7D images. The lawns in the SX40 images were more a dead-grass yelllow.

I hadn't expected these shots to compare so closely, but it let me know that in really good light with ISO 100, the SX40 is very close to a 7D. Of course at high ISO and dimmer light, and indoors, and action, etc. The 7D owns the game.

I would post these shots, but I didn't save them, since it was just a test for personal information and curiosity.

I'm a nature photo guy and now routinely carry 2 cameras. 1) Canon 7D with 100-400L attached (I shoot RAW with the 7D), and 2) the SX 40. Since I got the SX40 I feel comfortable that I can get publishable shots with either camera and often use both on any given subject.

I think the SX40 Digic 5 processor with i-Contrast on gives me more keepers in harsh light conditions than the 7D. But, l give the edge to the 100-400 in clarity if I can hold the weight steady (even with the IS I still need shutter speeds above 1,000/sec). But, that is a really small edge.

This all applies to stationary subjects. Once the movement starts, the SX40 goes back in the bag. The focusing/tracking and high speed shooting of the 7D cannot be matched by the SX40. On the other hand, since I don't have any long primes for my 7D, for long zoom shots the SX40 owns the game.

--
kind regards
Dale

 

[Dale Buhanan]

That moon shot looks really teriffic Lee Jay! Great work.
--
kind regards
Dale

 

[james s. kennedy]

The information found on this thread was wonderful and my thanks and congratulations to all responders. My SX40 revived my photo enthusiasm and I already own 150+ cameras, 90% of them film.
--
Jim Kennedy

 

[Dale Buhanan]

Wow! That is a BUNCH of cameras! I only own 14... what a small fry I am.

The information found on this thread was wonderful and my thanks and congratulations to all responders. My SX40 revived my photo enthusiasm and I already own 150+ cameras, 90% of them film.
--
Jim Kennedy

--
kind regards
Dale

 

[c.hammett]

And I thought I was at over-kill with 12 , six of which are film SLR"s.

Cheers - carolyn

The information found on this thread was wonderful and my thanks and congratulations to all responders. My SX40 revived my photo enthusiasm and I already own 150+ cameras, 90% of them film.
--
Jim Kennedy

--
kind regards
Dale

carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

 

[Dale Buhanan]

Ahhh, Carolyn, I see that you and I are as nothing compared with a true afficiando and collector Grand Master, like James. Now there is a camera collector few can match! Heck, that's more cameras than I have ever owned in all my life, or even dreamed of owning, let alone own now.

But, I'm impressed that you own as many as you do. I thought I was over the top also. I've got to run out and buy another camera I see...

Cheers - carolyn

The information found on this thread was wonderful and my thanks and congratulations to all responders. My SX40 revived my photo enthusiasm and I already own 150+ cameras, 90% of them film.
--
Jim Kennedy

--
kind regards
Dale

carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

--
kind regards
Dale