Steve'sDigicams

SIMON40 · Dec 8, 2011, 7:16 PM

Yes alonstr6- all taken with SX40HS. IQ is image quality.
I uploaded these shots(taken today) just to give you an idea of the IQ at very high iso settings,in low light- which I think are pretty decent.
These shots- all hand held- would have been impossible to take just a couple of years ago with a bridge camera. Using iso settings between 1250 and 3200 would have been unthinkable,resulting in horrific images.
Of course,these images could be bettered still by using lower iso's and a tripod....
I just thought I'd show what was possible using one of it's preset modes.

pcake · Dec 8, 2011, 7:25 PM

they look great - did you denoise the pics at all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIMON40

Yes alonstr6- all taken with SX40HS. IQ is image quality.
I uploaded these shots(taken today) just to give you an idea of the IQ at very high iso settings,in low light- which I think are pretty decent.
These shots- all hand held- would have been impossible to take just a couple of years ago with a bridge camera. Using iso settings between 1250 and 3200 would have been unthinkable,resulting in horrific images.
Of course,these images could be bettered still by using lower iso's and a tripod....
I just thought I'd show what was possible using one of it's preset modes.

shoturtle · Dec 8, 2011, 9:15 PM

Also do you have a 100% crop. The is a sticky if you want to show Image quality without the original size file, it does not give a honest example of the iq. I have some nice low light shots. But when view in large print of on my 30inch screen looks good, but when view in large format, you really see the short coming.
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ge...a-quality.html

SIMON40 · Dec 9, 2011, 5:06 AM

pcake- no de-noising done,just a touch of saturation adjustment.
shoturtle- most(probably all) who are considering purchasing a "bridge" camera will probably never print beyond A3- A4 even. Pixel peeping will reveal flaws on ANY digital camera- even an expensive DSLR,especially at high iso settings.
Obsessive pixel peepers should own a film/medium format camera- then they could see REAL resolution and quality- and even print an image the size of their living room wall if they so wish.
The purpose of these images posted here was to illustrate what the SX40 is capable of in less than ideal lighting conditions,without a flash,using crazy iso settings,handheld and displaying them at a size with which they're likely to be viewed or printed- in the vast majority of cases.
However- in the interests of completeness- here's a crop from the vaulted ceiling at a size which would roughly equate to a 66x48 inch print..!!
Bear in mind that this was taken at iso 3200- AND the image has been compressed to display here,which also deteriorates quality.
Using a tripod/self timer and lower iso settings would obviously result in far higher quality image from this camera- I was deliberately displaying it at its worst to show how far bridge cameras have progressed.

pcake · Dec 9, 2011, 9:00 AM

thanks. that's amazing for a p&s at such a high ISO. heck, there are larger sensor cameras that don't come close that that.

shoturtle · Dec 9, 2011, 10:17 AM

This is more in line with what I would expect in noise. It is pretty good for a small sensor. You can see the noise from the corp.

SIMON40 · Dec 9, 2011, 11:05 AM

Yep- all in all,a very decent effort from the SX40hs.
These shots were taken in "handheld nightscene" mode,which rattles off a couple of quick frames and combines them for a decent 12mp low noise/low-light image.
Ironically- the "Low-light" mode,which downsizes to 3mp is less effective- though still not too bad- and selecting iso 3200 in the manual exposure modes again,is not as effective as the "handheld nightscene" mode.
Of course,as already mentioned- for static subjects in low light,you would ideally use low iso's with a tripod and longer exposure times- for perfectly crisp,clean shots.
And for anything moving around indoors- pop up the flash,or stick a flashgun on the top if at range....

alonstr6 · Dec 11, 2011, 4:46 PM

first of all thank you very for helping, i was pretty sure that i was going to buy the canon SX 40 but then i saw some reviews about the panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 and i wanted to know which one do you recommend regarding IQ?
I dont think that there is much differnce in the optical zoom, X35 Vs X24

thank you

shoturtle · Dec 11, 2011, 8:02 PM

The reach is a big diffract with 24x vx 25x.

SIMON40 · Dec 12, 2011, 4:53 AM

To be honest- I'm not sure the SX40's extra reach is a big deal breaker- unless you shoot everything at 840mm..!
The FZ-150 is quite a compelling package- well built,probably handles better than the Canon,has RAW shooting capability,by all accounts a better video mode,lightning fast focusing,a 12 fps burst and an even more impressive 5.5 fps with auto-focus..!!
Purely a personal thing- but looks better too!!
These two cameras were in my radar when looking for an "all in one" and only swung the way of the Canon because I was offered one at a great price- and I do believe the Canon has the better IQ- but it's a close call on that score too...!

Dec 8, 2011, 9:15 PM	#13
shoturtle Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Frankfurt AM Posts: 11,348	Also do you have a 100% crop. The is a sticky if you want to show Image quality without the original size file, it does not give a honest example of the iq. I have some nice low light shots. But when view in large print of on my 30inch screen looks good, but when view in large format, you really see the short coming. http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ge...a-quality.html __________________ Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it. Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter. Last edited by shoturtle; Dec 8, 2011 at 9:17 PM.

Dec 9, 2011, 5:06 AM	#14
SIMON40 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Bangor,North Wales Posts: 3,766	pcake- no de-noising done,just a touch of saturation adjustment. shoturtle- most(probably all) who are considering purchasing a "bridge" camera will probably never print beyond A3- A4 even. Pixel peeping will reveal flaws on ANY digital camera- even an expensive DSLR,especially at high iso settings. Obsessive pixel peepers should own a film/medium format camera- then they could see REAL resolution and quality- and even print an image the size of their living room wall if they so wish. The purpose of these images posted here was to illustrate what the SX40 is capable of in less than ideal lighting conditions,without a flash,using crazy iso settings,handheld and displaying them at a size with which they're likely to be viewed or printed- in the vast majority of cases. However- in the interests of completeness- here's a crop from the vaulted ceiling at a size which would roughly equate to a 66x48 inch print..!! Bear in mind that this was taken at iso 3200- AND the image has been compressed to display here,which also deteriorates quality. Using a tripod/self timer and lower iso settings would obviously result in far higher quality image from this camera- I was deliberately displaying it at its worst to show how far bridge cameras have progressed. Attached Images Last edited by SIMON40; Dec 9, 2011 at 5:13 AM.

Dec 9, 2011, 10:17 AM	#16
shoturtle Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Frankfurt AM Posts: 11,348	This is more in line with what I would expect in noise. It is pretty good for a small sensor. You can see the noise from the corp. __________________ Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it. Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Dec 11, 2011, 8:02 PM	#19
shoturtle Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Frankfurt AM Posts: 11,348	The reach is a big diffract with 24x vx 25x. __________________ Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it. Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Dec 8, 2011, 7:16 PM	#11
SIMON40 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Bangor,North Wales Posts: 3,766	Yes alonstr6- all taken with SX40HS. IQ is image quality. I uploaded these shots(taken today) just to give you an idea of the IQ at very high iso settings,in low light- which I think are pretty decent. These shots- all hand held- would have been impossible to take just a couple of years ago with a bridge camera. Using iso settings between 1250 and 3200 would have been unthinkable,resulting in horrific images. Of course,these images could be bettered still by using lower iso's and a tripod.... I just thought I'd show what was possible using one of it's preset modes.

Dec 9, 2011, 9:00 AM	#15
pcake Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 601	thanks. that's amazing for a p&s at such a high ISO. heck, there are larger sensor cameras that don't come close that that.

Dec 9, 2011, 11:05 AM	#17
SIMON40 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Bangor,North Wales Posts: 3,766	Yep- all in all,a very decent effort from the SX40hs. These shots were taken in "handheld nightscene" mode,which rattles off a couple of quick frames and combines them for a decent 12mp low noise/low-light image. Ironically- the "Low-light" mode,which downsizes to 3mp is less effective- though still not too bad- and selecting iso 3200 in the manual exposure modes again,is not as effective as the "handheld nightscene" mode. Of course,as already mentioned- for static subjects in low light,you would ideally use low iso's with a tripod and longer exposure times- for perfectly crisp,clean shots. And for anything moving around indoors- pop up the flash,or stick a flashgun on the top if at range....

Dec 11, 2011, 4:46 PM	#18
alonstr6 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 5	first of all thank you very for helping, i was pretty sure that i was going to buy the canon SX 40 but then i saw some reviews about the panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 and i wanted to know which one do you recommend regarding IQ? I dont think that there is much differnce in the optical zoom, X35 Vs X24 thank you

Dec 12, 2011, 4:53 AM	#20
SIMON40 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Bangor,North Wales Posts: 3,766	To be honest- I'm not sure the SX40's extra reach is a big deal breaker- unless you shoot everything at 840mm..! The FZ-150 is quite a compelling package- well built,probably handles better than the Canon,has RAW shooting capability,by all accounts a better video mode,lightning fast focusing,a 12 fps burst and an even more impressive 5.5 fps with auto-focus..!! Purely a personal thing- but looks better too!! These two cameras were in my radar when looking for an "all in one" and only swung the way of the Canon because I was offered one at a great price- and I do believe the Canon has the better IQ- but it's a close call on that score too...!