Prev: All image stabilization created equal?
Next: Is there any chance of recovering images from a formatted memory card?
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 4 Aug 2010 17:31
Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote:

> One of the store sales guys said the SX120 would drain batteries very
> quickly, and that the built-in Li ION in the G11 was vastly superior.
> Not sure if that's correct about the life of the SX, but I was of the
> same opinion as you--I prefer to be able to buy AA's on the spot if I
> forget to recharge.

You'll want some eneloop or similar low discharge rechargeable
batteries and a reasonable charger.

According to
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx120_is?selectedName=Specifications
you get 130 shots on the SX120 with AAs and 370 with NIMH
rechargeables. So you really want rechargeables.

According to
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_g11?selectedName=Specifications
the G11 gets 390 shots with the LiIon and 1000 shots (similar
to a DSLR) with the LCD off.

-Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 4 Aug 2010 17:14
Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote:

> The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
> capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
> Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
> able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
> selected (if there is one).

Focussing at a closer range doesn't imply macro quality.
Obviously, with macro photography, you want small things large.
Also obviously, if you need to be very close, you'll just make
insects flee and block light from those things that don't flee.

For defining macro capability, I'd see which camera gave a larger
view of, say, a coin[1], and how the image quality was.

-Wolfgang

[1] With (D)SLRs, I'd look at the lens and see if it was 1:1
(same size on the sensor as in reality) or better (the
MP-E macro speciality lens comes to mind). Then I'd
check how far away the lens can be for 1:1 (working
distance) --- the farther, the better usually.
From: Ofnuts on 5 Aug 2010 03:52
On 04/08/2010 03:16, Eric wrote:

> The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
> capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
> Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
> able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
> selected (if there is one).

"macro", in the years BD (Before Digital), usually meant a 1:1 ratio or
better between the film and the subject. In other words, the camera/lens
would focus close enough to have a final image with a field of view less
than or equal to 24x36mm.

Keeping the 1:1 sensor/subject ratio on P&S with their small sensors
(typically 8.9mm diagonal, vs 43.3 for 35mm film) would mean being able
to focus almost 5 times closer, with all the constraints this puts on
the lens design. So in the digital aga the "macro" definition is relaxed
quite a bit, and just means to be able to produce the same picture as a
35mm "macro" camera/lens (which is only a 1:5 ratio from the lens design
perspective).

On some P&S the "macro" setting can be only an indication of the
distance range that can be searched to reduce focus hunting.

--
Bertrand
From: Eric on 5 Aug 2010 13:02
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:52:05 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net>
wrote:

>On 04/08/2010 03:16, Eric wrote:
>
>> The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
>> capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
>> Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
>> able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
>> selected (if there is one).
>
>"macro", in the years BD (Before Digital), usually meant a 1:1 ratio or
>better between the film and the subject. In other words, the camera/lens
>would focus close enough to have a final image with a field of view less
>than or equal to 24x36mm.
>
>Keeping the 1:1 sensor/subject ratio on P&S with their small sensors
>(typically 8.9mm diagonal, vs 43.3 for 35mm film) would mean being able
>to focus almost 5 times closer, with all the constraints this puts on
>the lens design. So in the digital aga the "macro" definition is relaxed
>quite a bit, and just means to be able to produce the same picture as a
>35mm "macro" camera/lens (which is only a 1:5 ratio from the lens design
>perspective).
>
>On some P&S the "macro" setting can be only an indication of the
>distance range that can be searched to reduce focus hunting.

Thanks for the lucid explanation. That makes sense of some things that
I was wondering about, especially re how 'macro' relates without a
lens swap.

There's still the mystery (well, to me) of what Canon regards as
"macro capable" wrt their P&S cameras. I seem to get a different
answer depending on who I talk to. The SX20, for example, refers to
"Super Macro capability", and Canon techs have said that "macro
capability" is one of the differences between the SX20 and lower end
cameras.
From: Eric on 5 Aug 2010 13:55
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 23:14:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:

>Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote:
>
>> The other odd thing: Canon techs said that the SX120 has good macro
>> capability, and that the G11 does not. But pressing the normal
>> Flower/Macro button on the SX120 seemed to do nothing. And the G11 was
>> able to focus from slightly closer range, even with no macro setting
>> selected (if there is one).
>
>Focussing at a closer range doesn't imply macro quality.
>Obviously, with macro photography, you want small things large.
>Also obviously, if you need to be very close, you'll just make
>insects flee and block light from those things that don't flee.

Don't want to make the fleas flee. <g> Good point about blocking
light. I guess the thing I was looking for is the just occasional bug
or expanded detail of one of my paintings.

>For defining macro capability, I'd see which camera gave a larger
>view of, say, a coin[1], and how the image quality was.

Originally I didn't think I'd be able to discern differences in image
quality, but in my brief tests at the camera store, I did think the
G11 looked better than the SX120.

Latest thing though: For some reason I had missed the SX210, and so
did the sales droids and Canon techs. Costs around $330 vs $200 for
the SX120, but looks like it could be better for what I'm doing
(mostly quick on-the-fly 'impression' photos to get scenes for my
paintings).

Function-wise, the only place where the SX210 looks like it's not up
to the SX120 is in 'macro capability', as the 120 rates min focal
length as 1cm, with the 210 at 5cm. Your points above may render that
less relevant, but I'm not sure what the spec means in practical
terms. 5x difference in usable image size for extreme closeups?

Other than that, it seems like the 210 will do anything that the 120
will do, unless I'm missing something.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: All image stabilization created equal?
Next: Is there any chance of recovering images from a formatted memory card?