Detail of SX30/40 vs Compact SLR

[sixone]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4110039430/detail-of-sx3040-vs-compact-slr

Very interesting article comparing lens resolution and sensor resolution, separately and together.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Ha!
Thank you for posting this.

I've been a fan of the Canon hybrid cameras (starting with the S3) since 2006. I now have an SX40, and while it has its strange limitations (no ISO control for long exposures, no exposures over 15 seconds - which prevents me from using it for astrophotography), I'm very pleased with its capabilities. So I have to learn to work around the limitations.

My only SLR is a Canon XS, and is getting a bit long in the tooth. I can't afford one of the newer SLRs, and this article makes me feel so much better

 

[corkyg]

I share Anita's thoughts. I have the old S3 (has excellent super macro for tech shois). Had the SX10 and SX30, and now an SX40. The 10 and 30 have been passed on to grandkids. My DSLR is a 5D MKII, with a good family of lenses. The SX40-IS is my preferred tool for work where I don't care to lug the DSLR and lenses. I use the SX40 with a monopod and it works for me.

Good article - but it did not influence me on what I had already discovered. Thanks for the link!

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Monopod! Hmmm, I need one of those....

 

[sixone]

Ha!
Thank you for posting this.

I've been a fan of the Canon hybrid cameras (starting with the S3) since 2006. I now have an SX40, and while it has its strange limitations (no ISO control for long exposures, no exposures over 15 seconds - which prevents me from using it for astrophotography), I'm very pleased with its capabilities. So I have to learn to work around the limitations.

My only SLR is a Canon XS, and is getting a bit long in the tooth. I can't afford one of the newer SLRs, and this article makes me feel so much better

Have you looked at CHDK for the SX40? link

It adds RAW capability, ISO and shutter overrides, and a super-fine jpg option. Saving RAW images (in .dng format) slows down the shot-to-shot times, but is well worth it, IMHO.

I've been using it for several months, with no problems at all.

 

[corkyg]

Thanks for the link. RAW is of no use to me - most all my shots are for my church's website (1024x768 standard.) But, the ISO and shutter overrides could be useful. BTW - that is one persistent link - hard to close!

 

[sixone]

Thanks for the link. RAW is of no use to me - most all my shots are for my church's website (1024x768 standard.) But, the ISO and shutter overrides could be useful. BTW - that is one persistent link - hard to close!

You're very welcome. I haven't had any issues with the link, maybe we're using different browsers? FF here.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Whoa! Didn't know CHDK exists for SX40! Thanks a million!

 

[sixone]

You're welcome a million!

 

[Munky]

Seems to me like the article is simply a plug for the SX30/40. I especially like how there's no sample photos to compare actual image quality and only a bunch of theoretical numbers.

 

[sixone]

Seems to me like the article is simply a plug for the SX30/40. I especially like how there's no sample photos to compare actual image quality and only a bunch of theoretical numbers.

The article doesn't make any claims about image quality. He's specifically addressing resolution and detail.

 

[Munky]

The article doesn't make any claims about image quality. He's specifically addressing resolution and detail.

Resolution and detail are aspects of image quality. I can tell from comparing sample images that even at base ISO the SX40 does not produce nearly the same amount of detail as a Nikon D3100, for example.

 

[sixone]

Resolution and detail are aspects of image quality. I can tell from comparing sample images that even at base ISO the SX40 does not produce nearly the same amount of detail as a Nikon D3100, for example.

With which lens?

Please share these sample images.

 

[Munky]

You can see for yourself here http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

For example, look at the still life shot at ISO 100. The D3100 has visibly more detail on top of the bottle caps, in the dark and light jars, and in the hairs of the brush. Also, looking closely at the bottle labels, the SX40 shot has obvious sharpening artifacts in the form of halos around high contrast edges, whereas the DSLR image has a more natural look.

 

[sixone]

You can see for yourself here http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

For example, look at the still life shot at ISO 100. The D3100 has visibly more detail on top of the bottle caps, in the dark and light jars, and in the hairs of the brush. Also, looking closely at the bottle labels, the SX40 shot has obvious sharpening artifacts in the form of halos around high contrast edges, whereas the DSLR image has a more natural look.

With which lens? If they're using a +400mm focal length, then you've just proven the author's claims.

 

[Munky]

They used a 60mm prime lens according to the exif data.

Regardless of what theoretical numbers based on some "perfect lens" may say, the premise that a small sensor superzoom can match the detail of a DSLR is wishful thinking. Even if there was such a thing as a perfect lens, I know for a fact the large DSLR sensor has vastly superior S/N performance than the tiny P&S sensor, which is manifested in the images themselves.

 

[sixone]

They used a 60mm prime lens according to the exif data.

Regardless of what theoretical numbers based on some "perfect lens" may say, the premise that a small sensor superzoom can match the detail of a DSLR is wishful thinking. Even if there was such a thing as a perfect lens, I know for a fact the large DSLR sensor has vastly superior S/N performance than the tiny P&S sensor, which is manifested in the images themselves.

His calculations are also based on specifically listed zoom lenses, not a 60mm prime lens. You're trying to argue a claim no one has made.

 

[corkyg]

There are times when practicality and mission realities override technical specs.