Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 7, 2009, 9:19 PM   #21
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I still agree about low light that the FZ28 is the way to go, just wanted to encourage more when we all post photos when talking about a cameras quality that we really show the quality not only the full image reduced down to web size.

I'm not sure how much better the SX1 is over the SX10 and looking at places like cameralabs they seem similar, but I pretty much only purchased the SX1 for video until I get a 5D mkII hopefully later this year.

It is a pain that the SX1 can't be purchased there and I've no idea why, this is the first time that I've seen things happen this way around, usually it is us who has less options.

As for the image size, the SX1 and SX10 are both the same size 1/2.3" and same pixel density, it is only the difference in technology.

Anyone who is interested to see the results of the video please check out http://www.vimeo.com/2722280this has been reduced to 720p rather than the full 1080p full HD that it records in, also the bit rate was a little low making it more jerky then it should be.

I really love the fact that you can use 2 different options on video with the 2nd being a 2x zoom but still with native pixels but all in the middle of the sensor. This means I can shoot full HD with and equivalent of 1120mm with noloss of quality. If this feature wasn't there then choosing this over the far cheaper FZ28 would have been harder but I still know for video that the Panasonic range is not as strong. Another reason I went Canon was that I could use my 580EX and 430EX flash guns.

I don't really mind what camera someone shoots with as long as they can produce the images they want with the features they want from a camera.

So although I have over $10,000 of dSLR kit I'm getting to the stage where having the convenience of a superzoom with great video is very appealing for non paid work and where I don't want ultimate quality or creative control.


Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2009, 2:07 AM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Default

Kind of old thread but SX10 has a better quality picture than SX1 according to the new SX1 review on dpreview

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx1is/

SX10 is also much cheaper than SX1

Both SX10 and FZ28 shared first in ultrazoom camera reviews

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q109superzoomgroup/

In fact, SX10, according to that review, does better than FZ28 in low light (and image quality in general).

SX10 has another advantage over FZ28. THE VIDEO. Yes, FZ28 (unlike SX10) has HD video but the sound is pretty pathetic. SX10 records in stereo so the videoswith sound look/sound better. The VGA quality is fine for 20-inch monitor. Moreover, SX10 takes AA bateries and therechargeable AA nimh can last 600 pictures (much more than FZ28 ).

Sincemajority in this thread (and most other threads on this forum), favor FZ28, I thought I should make the case other way: SX10 is pretty decent p&s.


evilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2009, 4:46 AM   #23
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

evilt wrote:
Quote:
Both SX10 and FZ28 shared first in ultrazoom camera reviews

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q109superzoomgroup/

In fact, SX10, according to that review, does better than FZ28 in low light (and image quality in general).
There is one thing that this and most reviews don't take into consideration unfortunately which pertains to low light shooting which is the brightness of the lens. So a review might decide that very slightly the image is better at a certain ISO on the Canon over the Panasonic however what is not mentioned is that the FZ28 can actually get the same shutter speed at a lower ISO than with the Canon which makes quite a lot of difference.

I agree that the sound on most of the panasonic's when doing video doesn't live up to that of the Canon series so for those wanting to shoot video that could be a consideration, however for me I would rather shoot in wide screen HD than standard 4:3.

I'm sure anyone ordering either camera would be very happy with the results they were able to get.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2009, 6:59 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

MaryRose wrote:
Quote:
.....One reviewer of the SX10 wondered why no one was talking abouthow thecolorsare washed out on the SX10...
On rereading this old thread, that bit about colour caught my eye. Albeit at the bottom end of the superzoom market, I found on both my Kodak Z712 and the newer Z1012 that the saturation straight from the camera was by default much less than I'd become used to on thefive previous digicams I've purchased (not all mine!).

On the Kodaks, I got back to what I expected, i.e., similar to my own eye's perception at the time of the colours in front of me, by turning up the saturation to 'High Color'. The mid-point of its 3-point scale is 'Natural Color', which isn't natural.

Do these more upmarket cameras like the SX10 have such an adjustment ?

BTW I find that both the Kodaks overexpose by about 0.3EV to my taste, but I see the same on other new digicams that I try. Is this a fashion trend? Have the algorithms changed to cope with a popular preponderance of brightly lit holiday scenes which tend to close down the exposure too much when used fully automatically?

Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2009, 7:05 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

Alan T wrote:
Quote:
MaryRose wrote:
Quote:
.....One reviewer of the SX10 wondered why no one was talking abouthow thecolorsare washed out on the SX10...
On rereading this old thread, that bit about colour caught my eye. Albeit at the bottom end of the superzoom market, I found on both my Kodak Z712 and the newer Z1012 that the saturation straight from the camera was by default much less than I'd become used to on thefive previous digicams I've purchased (not all mine!).

On the Kodaks, I got back to what I expected, i.e., similar to my own eye's perception at the time of the colours in front of me, by turning up the saturation to 'High Color'. The mid-point of its 3-point scale is 'Natural Color', which isn't natural.

Do these more upmarket cameras like the SX10 have such an adjustment ?

BTW I find that both the Kodaks overexpose by about 0.3EV to my taste, but I see the same on other new digicams that I try. Is this a fashion trend? Have the algorithms changed to cope with a popular preponderance of brightly lit holiday scenes which tend to close down the exposure too much when used fully automatically?
Yes Alan i just bought the SX10 and you can adjust the color if you want, i find the SX10 to be a great superzoom with pretty good IQ
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2009, 4:49 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Thanks, Hercules.
Alan T 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 1:36 AM.