Hi, I am going to study abroad this upcoming year in Europe, and I want GREAT pictures since I'll probably be visiting places I'll only get to go once, although I am not wanting to really upgrade to a dslr due to the huge bulk of lenses not to mention the huge price of the equivalent zoom (500-840mm). Anyways, I have a Canon elph 300 which works great, but has a fairly short zoom (5x), hence I am looking into a bigger zoom camera. Do you recommend sx40 or sx260? I am interested in photography, so I like the concept of a bridge camera (I really like all of the pictures on here from the sx40, so I know that takes great pics), but I don't know if there is a huge difference between the two in regards to image quality. Also, I know that sx40 isn't nearly as bulky as dslr since it has but one lens, but it still isn't something that I can just throw into a pocket...I don't know if others find that a hassle.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon powershot sx40 or sx260
- Thread starter rcf123
- Start date
I have an sx40 and sx230 . One huge disadvantage if the sx230/260 is the lack of a viewfinder. There are times when its impossible to see what you're shooting .
Another disadvantage is not being able to use filters. The sx40 allows bracketing and of course a hot shoe . These features alone will give you an edge on image quality when you need them. The sx230/260 is there in your pocket when you want it and thats a big advantage. You really need both.
Another disadvantage is not being able to use filters. The sx40 allows bracketing and of course a hot shoe . These features alone will give you an edge on image quality when you need them. The sx230/260 is there in your pocket when you want it and thats a big advantage. You really need both.
OpticsEngineer
Veteran Member
The picture you take is infinitely better than one you did not take because you left the big camera at home. If you can only get one, get the SX260 and get a small pouch that mounts on your belt and take it everywhere.
Due to the higher resolution, increased pixel level sharpness, and higher ISO abilities... you certainly don't need 840mm to match the detail captured by the SX40. 18-270mm lenses are probably similar (not proven, but there were some rough calculations made for me that suggest that). Of course, still more expensive, bigger, heavier, etc.
As to size, I rarely leave my SX40 home (or Panasonic FZ15 before) because of it's size. I'm content to sling it over my shoulder. On the other hand I do sometimes feel a bit excessively touristy.
Sorry I can't shed light directly on the differences between the two cameras.
Cheers,
-kyle
Since you have both, are there ever times when the sx230 is better suited to a certain situation, or is the sx40, in your opinion, better in all instances. Also, how big of a difference in IQ do you think there is if I do not use filters/external flash/etc. (just the camera bodies)?
Thanks!
Mr Justice Cocklecarrot
Active member
I had an SX10is and SX200, older versions of the ones you're considering.
They both have tiny sensors, so IQ will be roughly equal.
The SX40 has the huge zoom, a viewfinder, and the flip out screen.
The SX230 will fit in a pocket (no way will the SX40, it's huge in comparison).
You choose. The other differences are insignificant.
For me, I used the SX200 far more when travelling. If I thought it was worth taking the SX10, I usually took a dSLR instead.
They both have tiny sensors, so IQ will be roughly equal.
The SX40 has the huge zoom, a viewfinder, and the flip out screen.
The SX230 will fit in a pocket (no way will the SX40, it's huge in comparison).
You choose. The other differences are insignificant.
For me, I used the SX200 far more when travelling. If I thought it was worth taking the SX10, I usually took a dSLR instead.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum