Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Canon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 14, 2010, 2:01 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 51
Default SX120 Quality Same as SD940?

I'm wondering if the quality of the pics from the SX120 would be the same as the SD940? I like the SD940 because of the size, but would like the SX120 for the zoom. Thank you!
akmontgomery is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 14, 2010, 4:06 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default The Canon SX-120 versus the SD-940

akmontgomery-

Both the Canon SD-940 and the SX-120 have very good image quality. The main difference between the two cameras is that the SD-940 offers a wide angle position within its zoom range. In contrast, the SX-120, to achieve the 10X optical zoom capability, does not have a wide angle position within its zoom range.

When you visit a camera retailer compare the two cameras side by side. The SX-120 is not overly large at all, and, at least for me, there is a very measurable advantage to having the 10X optical zoom. I have attached a Fall landscape from upstate New York to give you a glimpse of the Canon SX-120 image quality.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2010, 5:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 171
Default

nice shot - how does the sx120 compare with the sx200?
nech770 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2010, 6:03 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Nech-

Because the SX-120 uses just two AA batteries, most folks usually point to the shot to shot times. Yes, the shot to shot times as slowed down when you use alkaline batteries, or nearly dead NIMH batteries. With well charged NIMH or NIZN batteries the shot to shot times are 1.5 to 2 seconds, even when using flash.

The SX-120 also, as I noted in my post above, does not have a wide angle position within its zoom range. Here is a photo of the SX-110 (same size as the SX-120) side by side with the SX-200, to show you the size comparison.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2010, 9:52 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 171
Default

Sarah,
Thanks... I know it does not have the wide angle - I was wondering about IQ? How does it compare?
Are the only advantages to the sx200 - the wide angle, hd video and not using AA batteries?(not sure if the last is an advantage or not) I was reading somewhere that the sx200 has a slower lens... what does that mean in english? Something of the aperture... 2 vs 3 or something... how does that affect anything?
Nech
nech770 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2010, 10:02 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

if you are willing to now give up on the wide-angle, then why not go back to considering the H20 from Sony, it will do even better indoors.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2010, 10:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 171
Default

I don't want to go to ms, that is why I would consider the hx5 - although the price tag is more than I want to spend. I also really don't want to give up wide angle - just wondering about iq... i don't remember where but I read that the iq is worse on the sx200... just wanted to know from someone hands on..
nech770 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2010, 11:27 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

The image quality between the SX-120 and the SX-200 is relatively equal. Yes, the SX-120 has a very slightly wider aperture lens at the shortest focal length. The SX-120 is F 2.8 while the SX-200 is F 3.3. The same is true for the maximum focal length. On the SX-120, when it is at 280mm the maximum aperture is F 4.3, while when the SX-200 is at 332mm, the maximum aperture is F 5.3.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 8:36 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
The image quality between the SX-120 and the SX-200 is relatively equal. Yes, the SX-120 has a very slightly wider aperture lens at the shortest focal length. The SX-120 is F 2.8 while the SX-200 is F 3.3. The same is true for the maximum focal length. On the SX-120, when it is at 280mm the maximum aperture is F 4.3, while when the SX-200 is at 332mm, the maximum aperture is F 5.3.

Sarah Joyce
Ok what difference does that make that the apeture is 2.8 vs 3.3? or 4.3 vs 5.3? What does that mean?
Nech
nech770 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 12:41 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Nech-

It means this: If you arrive late for the school play and have to sit in the very back of the auditorium and you want to take photos of your daughter, and you cannot use flash because the distance is too far, you will see a difference in shutter speed that you can use.

If you zoomed both cameras out to 280mm, the SX-120 would have a shutter speed of 1/50th of a second available to you at ISO 800, while the SX-200 would have a shutter speed of 1/25th of a second available to you at ISO 800. Your daughter is walking on stage in a beautiful costume, the SX-120 would have a better chance of not blurring the photo of your daughter than gthe SX-200 camera.

Conversely, is you were shooting macro shots of the fish in your aquarium, and you had both cameras at ISO 800, because you were using the overhead lights in the aquarium tank only, the SX-120 would give you a shutter speed of 1/50th of a second, while the SX-200 would provide a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second. The fish are swimming quickly in the aquarium, that slightly faster shutter speed would allow you to stop the fish action better with the SX-120 than the SX-200 camera.

Is that a better explanation for you? The explanation is indeed involved, but it serves to illustrate that the more you know about photography, the better the photos that you can take. It is also the reason why a Panasonic FZ-35 will take better photos than either the Canon SX-120 or the SX-200.

Have a good day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:52 PM.