I would like to hear more on the subject. I see an SX500 is waiting in the wings. Steve
The SX500 is not an upgrade. It's a no-frills version of the SX30, with no viewfinder.
The price of the SX500 is pretty close to the SX40. If you're going to get one, get the SX40. Or wait to see if they release an improved version of the SX40 next month.
I actually went to "shortcourses.com" and bought their SX40 Guide Book. Well worth the cost, now I am just needing to get it printed to use for my bed-time reading.....
That looks pretty good. I think I'll get one, too.
Unfortunately I can't figure out the instructions to get it to start recording in RAW. I need a dear dummy step one step two step three instruction manual.
The Quick Start Guide is here. Skip to the section headed "RAW Parameters".
Would be nice if the next version includes the capabilities of the CHDK to allow RAW, remote release, additional ISO and speed capabilities, etc.
Nice, and expensive.
CHDK is free to ANYONE! The capabilities are there, the programming has been done, all Canon has to do is include it and with NO OTHER CHANGES, they can add value without changing the cost. It would NOT be expensive to do.
They would have to customize it to the specs of the new camera before they could release it, and do all the testing and documentation that goes along with software changes. Plus the time involved would delay getting the cams out to market, which delays that money coming in.
I'd love to see that happen, but realistically, I think it's too much to expect.
I didn't see a request from another member in the thread.
The OP's request was jumbled with respect to English and meaning.
I asked a valid question regarding the meaning of Ann's post as it appeared to be a request for others to post process her photo and not as a challenge to UHH members with her participation.
No, I'm not having an early Monday and offer no apology for my post.
I posted a link to the original thread a couple of hours ago. If you'd read it, all your questions would have been answered.
I checked out both cameras and they each have some nice features. But they are both built on a hobby platform. That means they have plastic bodies and cheap lenses. I have seen cameras like this in the stores. They look like their big brothers that cost $1,000 or more but they are really very cheap cameras. They may have fantastic specs when it comes to zoom but you know as well as I do that Canon and Nikon cannot build a quality lens for that much money. It just can't be done. These are cheap knockoffs for people who want to shoot Canon and Nikon on a budget. You would be very sorry if you bought one of these cameras and thought it would perform like the big boys.
I checked out both cameras and they each have some... (show quote)
And yet it's rated better than the FZ200 that you recommended earlier.
Don't know why you feel the need to post irrelevant stuff here, but if you'd like to discuss that particular camera, please start your own thread.
If there's an answer to that question, I'd like to see it.
The best solution I've found is to get the camera as close to the fence as possible, but you need the subject to be as far back as possible. If the distances are right, the fence will almost completely disappear.
I asked a Canon Rep at a tent sale at a camera store about the SX50 on Friday and he said they haven't told them anything about it yet. He said they usually try to clear out inventory of the previous models before they come out with a new one. So, it probably depends on how many SX40's are out there for sale. Both the local salesman and the Canon Rep. said they have heard nothing but good reports about the SX40HS.
There are lots of rumors swirling around about the SX40 successor, it might be called the SX500. But unless they can dramatically improve shot-to-shot speed over the SX40, I'll be giving it a pass.