suresa wrote:
Have not tried continuous shooting as yet, but the speed of focus has been substantially increased. Much less "hunting" for focus, and this translates into fewer missed shots
Thanks! I wasn't sure if the SX50 offered enough improvement to make me give up the SX40, but it sounds like it does. :)
I wish I could. Maybe next year... :(
I'd love to see your pics, though!
suresa wrote:
I had a SX40 for a year, then sold it to get the new model. Unless you are really into avian photography, you might as well save the extra cash and go with the SX40. They are both excellent cameras, and the SX40 will give better performance in low light conditions.
As to how well the hand held stabilization works, see the attached photos, taken at max wide angle, then around 50 power magnification, and finally at 200 power digital. The final photo is the very top of the center tree. Not bad for hand held. The SX40 will give similar results, but with just a bit less magnification.
I had a SX40 for a year, then sold it to get the n... (
show quote)
What about speed - for focus and continuous shooting? Is the SX50 noticeably faster than the SX40?
They really improved the SX40's ability to counter CA, over previous models. But they'll never get rid of it completely, when you've got a dark object against a light background.
Auto-focus works best on the SX40. The only time I've used manual focus is to set it to infinity, for taking pics of an eclipse. It's a PITA, to say the least. But it's nice to have, when you absolutely need it.
I use a bag that was designed to be used to carry food. It's insulated and padded, and I can leave it in my car if I need to make a quick run to the grocery store or the like, because it doesn't look like a camera bag.
It ain't elegant, but it gets the job done. :)
dickhrm wrote:
It would appear that, due to its great zoom and IS. the SX40 would be great for taking wildlife pix when you cannot get very close, such as taking bears in our national parks or lions in Africa, where use of a tripod might be impractible. Has anyone had such experience and could comment? Thanks.
It sure is. I use mine at the local zoo, though. The SX40 is great for zooming past fences and glass.
It also got some great pics of the recent solar eclipse and the transit of Venus.
I am waiting for more sample pics and hands-on reviews, before I decide. The SX30 is still fresh in my mind - looked good on paper, but in practice...not so much.
If it proves to be measurably faster than the SX40, and doesn't lose any IQ, I'll be getting one. Gotta be convinced, first.
The only thing that will get me to upgrade is faster focus and faster shot-to-shot.
50X zoom is sure impressive, though.
Foggy wrote:
What is CHDK?
It's a software program that overrides some features and adds features to Canon's firmware.
Read more here.
If you're not in a big hurry to buy something, wait two weeks before you decide.
Canon will be announcing the successor to the SX40 in the next ten days or so. It might be a month after that before you can get your hands on one, though.
Vic. wrote:
OK I done some reading on there site and they said it could cause problems like the lens extending to far and several other things. Said hadn't had any reports but several things could happen to your camera so think I will pass until it is more stable.
It's definitely possible. But highly unlikely. I've been using CHDK on four different cameras over the last four years, and have never had a problem like that. The software is written by people who use these cameras themselves, so they have just as much interest as you do in protecting their equipment.
BigD wrote:
Wow seriously your getting so far off topic its really amazing. He parked it like many people do. He carries expensive things for his job like many people do. It got broken into and stuff was taken like happens all the time. Several other cars were also broken into according to the Police so its amazing that they were all followed to the same place. Apparently Lex Luther was waiting for my friend and several others who don't even know each other along with his henchmen in an old ice creme truck, damn man. I am forced to park wherever all the time and with way more than that sometimes in my car. A box that would require a plasma cutter to get into would probably raise some suspicion from people as they worked on it with the car alarm blaring don't you think? Now do us all a favor and please stop your not convincing me of anything and your point is moot. This thread is about some sort of secure box for camera equipment not whatever you want it to be about. Start your own if you wish but leave mine to what it was intended for.
Wow seriously your getting so far off topic its re... (
show quote)
Well, let's just think about that for a second. Did the alarm blaring get ANYONE'S attention this time? It's a bit more noticeable than a plasma cutter, don't you think? So if it didn't get the thief caught this time, why do you think it's going to be different next time?
And what happens if they steal the car with the box inside?
You don't need a box to solve this problem. Just a little common sense.
BigD wrote:
Because he arrived late and parked off site. No one was around when he left his car. And to be quite honest I am tired of sparring with you. You have lectured me on what he should or should not carry, on what he should or should not leave in his car, about how he should leave it and even a little moral turpitude lesson about the evils of the world. No one asked for your approval or assistance, we are doing quite well on our own thanks move on while you are way behind.
So you don't know, you're just assuming. If you're wrong, no box is going to keep his stuff safe.
You mean he didn't SEE anyone around, when he left his car. I rather doubt many "random punks" would jump out and wave as he walked away.
And you're going to tell us that your buddy parked an expensive Range Rover with $20,000 worth of stuff in it in a lot with no security whatsoever? Does that seem real bright to you?
If he's not willing to take a few easy steps to protect his livelihood, making it complicated isn't going to help much. Sounds like you want it to FEEL safe, rather than to BE safe.
BigD wrote:
What? I said he left stuff in his car that he did not need or could not carry into the stadium. This was just some random punk smashing in the window who got lucky not some crime ring following him around. Clearly you are not a pro shooter moving from event to event so I will give your ignorance a pass. As for what we carry and what we decide to leave in our cars I guess that's up to us huh? Now I have an idea, hows about we talk about what the original post was about huh?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
What? I said he left stuff in his car that he did ... (
show quote)
How do you know it was "some random punk"? How do you know that your friend wasn't targeted by someone who saw his equipment?