SX120 as point and shoot
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: All image stabilization created equal?
Next: Is there any chance of recovering images from a formatted memory card?
From: Eric on 5 Aug 2010 14:08 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:44:00 -0400, Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote: >I was actually considering a subject line: "SX120 vs G11" but that may >have sounded a bit provocative. <g> Actually, it's not. I need >something roughly that size (so the SX20 is out). I've gone through >specs for both the SX20 and the G11. G11 looks more pro, and has some >nice features but I don't think I'd use most of them. > >Mostly what I end up doing is just quick, spontaneous point/shoot >shots of wildlife and landscapes for ideas for paintings--I'm not >likely to turn into a photographer, and don't normally need 'raw', >etc. Upate: I missed one--the SX210. Not sure how that got by me, but the sales people and Canon techs didn't mention it either, for some reason. And I didn't see any "SX210" threads here. Not sure why, unless there are problems that aren't apparent from specs. The SX210 has 14x zoom vs the SX120's 10x. The 210 is smaller, and looks like it may have better low-light operation. The only tradeoff that I've noticed, mentioned in my recent reply to Wolfgang in this thread, is that the 210's rated macro focal length is 5cm vs 1cm for the 120. Anyone know of any drawbacks with the SX210?
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 6 Aug 2010 19:32 Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote: > 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? It means nothing. Thought experiment: Take a 10x zoom, starting at 28mm (35mm equivalent, yes, one can dream). One camera can do 1cm, the other 5cm. However, the 1cm macro is at 28mm, the 5cm is at 280mm. Which gives the larger image? Or, in other words, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro has 15cm working distance (space between the end of the lens and the object at 1:1), the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro has just 9cm and the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro has 24cm working distance. The image delivered is of identical size (1:1, as big on the sensor as in real life). (Note the background is different, though.) -Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 6 Aug 2010 19:48 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. And it still usually does for DSLRs. (Though there are some 1:2 or 1:3 'Macro' lenses.) > 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). And here I thought it just meant 'close focussing distance' today. At least it feels like that. -Wolfgang
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 6 Aug 2010 23:00
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 01:32:31 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: >Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >It means nothing. Thought experiment: Take a 10x zoom, starting >at 28mm (35mm equivalent, yes, one can dream). One camera can >do 1cm, the other 5cm. However, the 1cm macro is at 28mm, the >5cm is at 280mm. Which gives the larger image? > >Or, in other words, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro has 15cm >working distance (space between the end of the lens and the >object at 1:1), the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro has just 9cm >and the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro has 24cm working >distance. The image delivered is of identical size (1:1, as >big on the sensor as in real life). (Note the background is >different, though.) > >-Wolfgang We'd like to forgive you about not knowing of, and never having used any camera in, tele-macro configurations, but .... you're just too much of a loser idiot pretend-photographer troll. Maybe next time. LOL! |