DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

Does anybody have an idea why the SX 30 has more megapixels than the SX 40? The SX 40 is the newer model, so it seems like Canon is moving backward. So far as I can tell, there is no other significant difference between the models.

iresq Loc: Annapolis MD

There are a few differences. One in particular that's significant (to me). But first, the question about megapixels. It is not at all accurate to equate pixel count with quality. In fact, all things being equal, a manufacturer can increase pixel count with firmware manipulation at the expense of noise.

Here are some key differences:

The SX 40 has a CMOS sensor vs CCD with new Digic 5 processor. Results in better picture quality.

ISO increases from 1600 to 3200

Standard burst shooting increases from 1.3 fps to 2.4 fps with short HD burst mode of 10.3 fps.

Great image stabilization system.

Ability to take 1080p 24 video with super slow motion (high speed) mode.

Here is one of the first shots I made with mine. Hand held. This was not cropped or touched in post. 1/100, 5.8, iso 400 (full auto). Focal length 150 mm, digital zoom 2.5 (does that equal an effective focal length of 375mm?)

BBNC

Read yesterday's thread on "Sensors, Mp and cost". Near the end you will find links to three good articles on Sensor size vs. Megapixels.

More Mp's are not necessarily better, contrary to what the press releases and advertising would have you believe. I have an SX30IS and I just read the specs on the SX40IS. It would appear that the SX40 is replacing the SX30 at the same price point, with pretty much the same features.

The SX40 uses the next generation of sensor processor Digic 5, instead of the Digic 4 of the SX30, and if it has the same size sensor as the SX30, it's 12Mp will be more efficiently utilized, with the potential for better images.

I would buy one if my SX30 were not so new.

Gidgette Loc: Boerne,Texas

iresq, love pic of squirrel. Great shot.

Ugly Jake Loc: Sub-Rural Vermont

Iresq, isn't a fact that f5.8 is the "sweet spot" of this lens? Almost all of my "Wow" pictures are at this aperture - gonna have to investigate further !!

DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

Thanks to all who shared their information. I have had an SX10 for about four years and there is absolutely nothing about it that I don't like. I think I'll bump up to the SX40 and enjoy the extra zoom and better sensor. My "purist" buddies still aren't talking to me because I don't have a DSLR. Oh well. Here is a look at Boise, Idaho, in the autumn.

Carioca

I think you'll enjoy it, djmills. The longer zoom is just amazing.

tad1937 Loc: Daytona Beach, Fl

I have the SX30IS and am quite pleased with it. I also have 2 Rebel XT's, but that 35x zoon is really great at times

WxGuesser Loc: Portland OR

Thanx, I couldn't figure out the differences from the mgfr's press releases so I went for the 30.

tad1937 Loc: Daytona Beach, Fl

Thanks for the info. If the conversion factor of 1.6x to get the 35mm comparison then at 150 it would convert to 240mm. Would love to see your photo but it did not come through.

WxGuesser Loc: Portland OR

My previous camera was/is a Canon S3IS, which I'm keeping. The one major drawback to the 30 is it will only shoot about 1 pict per sec (unless I drop to 2Mpx). The S3 will do 3 per second @6Mpx. So when I'm anticipating fast action I'll bring the S3.