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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 30, 2012, 5:08 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

And here's one zoomed in a bit,inside Bangor Cathedral- handheld- iso 2500 1/20th sec f/4.(Taken with SX40)
Hardly shabby,I think- and light years ahead of what was achievable,say,4-6 years ago...
And yes- if you look at JC, you'll see where I zoomed into with the earlier shot.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by SIMON40; Apr 30, 2012 at 5:12 PM.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2012, 5:21 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

Dimming light in the evening as the sun sets- more of a test for dynamic range here- which the SX40 deals with pretty well,I think...
Attached Images
 
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2012, 6:47 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Have you read the thread that resized images are a poor way of showing image quality. If you are going to post samples, post 100% crop.
__________________
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.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 5:27 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

Shoturtle- most,if not all,owners of a bridge camera will not be printing images beyond sizes of say A4 or thereabouts- so,scrutinising images on a microscopic level is frankly,unnecessary and bordering on the ridiculous- and you will find fault with any camera's images- bridge,DSLR or whatever- if you look hard enough.
The original poster was trying to decide on a bridge camera in a given set of conditions- and I have supplied her with a set of images to give her an idea as to what she can expect in less than ideal lighting.
You may (or may not) have noticed that she was "not quite ready" for a DSLR yet- and that she was "not looking to get professional level pics in low light,but something decent..." "something that can de kept,instead of deleted..".
So,clearly,Sammita's expectations are realistic. I'm hoping that the images I've supplied may give some idea as to what can be expected of a bridge camera- and only Sammita can decide if they are adequate and fit for purpose.
No one is suggesting that a bridge camera can match the image quality of a DSLR or a mirrorless compact with larger sensor- but I'm suggesting that "decent" images can be had in less than ideal lighting with a bridge camera- if you know what you're doing- and at a fraction of the cost of a DSLR kit and appropriate lens/lenses to match the range of a bridge camera such as the SX40 Canon.
You're right about one thing though,shoturtle- resized images can be misleading- they can often make images look worse...!

Last edited by SIMON40; May 1, 2012 at 5:30 AM.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 5:41 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

And for all you pixel peepers out there- here's a small crop from a previous image,taken handheld at mid zoom, 1/20th sec,f/4 iso 2500....
Definitely passes as "decent" I think....
Bear in mind of course- I was shooting handheld here in poor light. If you were to use a tripod here and a lower iso/longer exposure time- a far higher quality of image could be achieved with the SX40.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by SIMON40; May 1, 2012 at 5:47 AM.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 10:51 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But you just took it for granted the op is okay with longer exposure. 1/20 is not usable if you are taking indoor photos of anything moving around, it works okay for static stuff. Also stage lighting really helped in the post of your band shot. Take a 2500iso shot of a non static subject where you are at 1/100 or better, and not of a reflective ceiling.

Unless I misread what the OP state, want great low light ability. Decent does not pass for great.
__________________
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; May 1, 2012 at 10:55 AM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 1:16 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

shoturtle- bearing in mind the OP hasn't mentioned subjects "moving around"- that is why I have not addressed it. Had sammita mentioned that,I'd suggest using a flash- be it the built in one or the use of a flashgun. And with regards using a longer exposure- I'm sure the OP is capable of learning...!
In addition, the use of the word "decent" was actually the OP's choice of words (see OP's second post)- not mine- and I did not see the use of the word "great" anywhere...
And believe me- the inside of Bangor Cathedral is hardly reflective- and yes- there is stage lighting around the band shots- but unless the OP wants to shoot in total darkness,there's usually some form of light source around..!
I'm not suggesting a bridge camera is not without it's compromises- and they cannot capture everything- but neither can a DSLR unless you have a bag of lenses to hand. Also, trying to capture a swiftly moving subject indoors,at anything other than close in, in poor lighting is a challenge for many camera's- not just a bridge camera. Even a decent DSLR will have to have a fast zoom lens attached- with the resulting cost- for example, close to 1000 for a canon 70-200 f/2.8 lens,or thereabouts- and with a body attached your looking at 4-5x the cost of a bridge camera. Yes the IQ will far surpass that of a bridge camera,but,boy,you pay for it...!!
But again- where possible,using a flash will alleviate this problem for the humble bridge camera- and you have a faster flash synch speed available from the bridge camera compared to the typical onboard flash in a DSLR.
So again,though not without compromise- a humble,inexpensive (compared to DSLR system) bridge camera (such as the SX40) is actually a fairly versatile tool, capable of catching "decent" shots in a variety of situations- even a glove flying past my dartboard...!!! (SX40, 1/400th sec,f/4.5 120mm at iso 320)

Make no mistake shoturtle- I'm not flying the flag for the SX40, nor do I pretend that it's perfect and without flaws- but it's a camera that the OP was/is looking at- and I've merely given a few examples of what can be expected in a number of situations/environments- which I hope is of some use to the OP.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by SIMON40; May 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 6:28 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Bearing in mind op said great low light, small sensor are not great low light, decent and is about it. That is the compromise you accept with megazoom camera. I just do not make them out to be more then they are. I have gotten a old Olympus pns to take decent night shot low light, but the conditions allo for it at 1600iso. Change the lighten and it is noise all over the place.
__________________
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.
shoturtle 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 6:14 PM.