FZ 200 VS SX 40: I've read quite a bit on these two and am going to buy one or the other soon. Although the SX 40 has 840 max zoom and the FZ 200 has 600 at f2.8, isn't it true that...

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

I've read quite a bit on these two and am going to buy one or the other soon. Although the SX 40 has 840 max zoom and the FZ 200 has 600 at f2.8, isn't it true that with the FZ 200 you can double the max zoom to 1200, making it longer than the 840 of the SX 40?

Donwitz Loc: Virginia Beach, VA

I did a quick internet search, and the Canon wins. See

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-SX40-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ200

AND, its cheaper!

User-P510 Loc: Wales

tdklex wrote:

isn't it true that with the FZ 200 you can double the max zoom to 1200, making it longer than the 840 of the SX 40?

Optical Zoom - Canon wins!....Digital Zoom - Canon wins!

FZ200=48X Max Zoom v SX40=140x Max Zoom

sarge69 Loc: Ft Myers, FL

I have the SX40HS and it is great. Except for the annoying buttons too near the thumb rest.

Sarge69

DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

I love my SX40.

DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

I love my SX40. See what others are saying by viewing the thread "How many SX 40 owners are there?"

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

Look at the scores on snapsort before you think it is a clear win the only thing that the Canon wins in is zoom and popularity they have not even tested the Panasonic yet.
Snapsort is very misleading unless you look at how they come up with the score and see what features it scores higher in and see if they are the features that are important to you.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-SX40-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ200/score

Panasonic shoots RAW shoots more frames per second has a hot shoe for external flash has better LCD more focus points I would not judge it to quickly since it was just released and not many hands on reviews to compare it to.

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

User-P510 wrote:

tdklex wrote:

isn't it true that with the FZ 200 you can double the max zoom to 1200, making it longer than the 840 of the SX 40?

Optical Zoom - Canon wins!....Digital Zoom - Canon wins!

FZ200=48X Max Zoom v SX40=140x Max Zoom

Maybe i'm doing something wrong, o.k ? So i'm looking at all the photos i've seen with the SX 40 as well as the video. The shots i've seen with the zoom all the way out are incredible.

I mean, it looks like you can get a close up from at least 12-1500 feet and still be sharp. Trouble is, when i test one at the store, it dosen't even come close.

Is it because it's not set to Digital Zoom, which the clerk said it was, or is it because i only have so much room to zoom in the store? I must say, i'm a little confused.

Thanks for any help.
Tom

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

hangman45 wrote:

Look at the scores on snapsort before you think it... (show quote)

Good advice, thanks!

tramsey Loc: Texas

I was waiting for the FZ200 to come out, hoping that it would have a bigger sensor. Since I have a FZ20 the learning curve wouldn't be much. But no, it has that tiny, weeny one they have had for ever. So I got a Nikon Coolpix P510. It has a 1000mm, HDR and panoramic. There is some other whistles and bells to that I'm not too sure about yet. The FZ200 has a couple of things going for it, less noise then some of the others at higher ISO and a constant 2.8. Maybe that's not exactly right but the reviews talk about it. If it had a little larger sensor I would've gotten one and hang the zoom. It takes pictures so sharp you can crop them right down to the nub.

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

tdklex wrote:

quote=User-P510 quote=tdklex isn't it true that... (show quote)

I guess what i'm asking is, if i were to use, say a T3i with a crop factor of 1.6 and say, a 500mm lens which would equal 800mm, would i get the same magnification with a SX40 at full zoom, 840?

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

hangman45 wrote:

Look at the scores on snapsort before you think it... (show quote)

SX40 has a HOT shoe, can shoot RAW by using the CHDK program.
Panasonic is too expensive for what it does. SX40 has the articulating LCD that makes it possible to eliminate glare in most all situations and when it doesn't use the viewfinder!

Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

tdklex wrote:

I've read quite a bit on these two and am going to buy one or the other soon. Although the SX 40 has 840 max zoom and the FZ 200 has 600 at f2.8, isn't it true that with the FZ 200 you can double the max zoom to 1200, making it longer than the 840 of the SX 40?

The FZ200 has a IS (intelligent Auto) mode which increases the zoom to 48X

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Millismote wrote:

tdklex wrote:

I've read quite a bit on these two and am going to buy one or the other soon. Although the SX 40 has 840 max zoom and the FZ 200 has 600 at f2.8, isn't it true that with the FZ 200 you can double the max zoom to 1200, making it longer than the 840 of the SX 40?

The FZ200 has a IS (intelligent Auto) mode which increases the zoom to 48X

Using that IS would be equivalent to the SX40 using the internal 2x teleconvert to get 1640mm or the digital zoom that allows you to get out to 3360mm equivalent. (140x total zoom)

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

tdklex wrote:

quote=User-P510 quote=tdklex isn't it true that... (show quote)

Digital zoom probably turned off. When in Auto Mode, look at the top of the LCD while zooming. Does it have a little white line about 2/3 of the way from left to right? If it does not have that the digital is not active. Also when zooming with Digital Zoom activated, there will be a 'stop' at the end of the optical zoom so you have to release the zoom lever and start it again to go into the digital zoom range. Then be sure to hold it REAL STEADY because it will be difficult to really hold steady!!