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 3 Aug 2010 16:44 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. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. <g> Here are my current focal points on both cameras: The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X. The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's ....errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the SX120 will do macro. Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4" mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect either. Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom, macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable, non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter.
From: Eric on 3 Aug 2010 21:16 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. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize >budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. <g> Here are my current focal >points on both cameras: > >The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X. > >The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's >...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently >does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the >SX120 will do macro. > >Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4" >mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with >motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it >looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect >either. > >Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I >do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom, >macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color >accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable, >non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks >from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter. Followup: I just got to do a quick in-store test of both cameras, and even I could tell the difference. I loved the G11. Tough to justify with 5X zoom though. I was looking for a step up from what I currently have. If the G11 had 10x zoom, I'd definitely go for the extra $250 or so. 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).
From: Jeff Jones on 3 Aug 2010 23:20 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:16:13 -0400, Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote: >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. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize >>budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. <g> Here are my current focal >>points on both cameras: >> >>The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X. >> >>The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's >>...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently >>does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the >>SX120 will do macro. >> >>Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4" >>mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with >>motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it >>looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect >>either. >> >>Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I >>do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom, >>macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color >>accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable, >>non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks >>from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter. > >Followup: I just got to do a quick in-store test of both cameras, and >even I could tell the difference. I loved the G11. Tough to justify >with 5X zoom though. I was looking for a step up from what I currently >have. If the G11 had 10x zoom, I'd definitely go for the extra $250 or >so. > >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). It depends on how you did the test. Did you keep the SX120 within the same focal-length ranges as the G11? If not it wasn't a fair test. Longer focal lengths will magnify your tremors. The amount your hands shake at 5x zoom might be just fine and dandy, well within the range of the amount of shake both cameras can easily remove. But at 10x zoom the amount of shake might be beyond the level that any camera could compensate well. You will also probably find more differences between IS performance on the same camera from changes in your own ability to keep it steady on different days and for different subjects requiring different postures, than you would in differences between different cameras on the same day (when both are used within the same focal-lengths). (Super-macro mode on Canon cameras is usually engaged by holding in the macro button for more than a second. I'm not going to download the manual and read it for you to find out if it's also true on the SX120.)
From: Dave Cohen on 4 Aug 2010 12:02 Eric 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. Obvious difference in price (2x), but I manage to rationalize > budgetary concerns when I'm inspired. <g> Here are my current focal > points on both cameras: > > The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X. > > The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's > ...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently > does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the > SX120 will do macro. > > Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4" > mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with > motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it > looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect > either. > > Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I > do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom, > macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color > accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable, > non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks > from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter. Both will yield very good pics. The G11 shows same spec for macro as the SX (.4") However, the G11 is superior. Faster and better lens, optical viewfinder, larger sensor. It also has other features that may be less important to you, like raw. My guess is a good image shot with the G11 at full zoom and blown up will be every bit as good as one from the SX at it's 10x. Personally I like a camera that uses AA's, but I just picked up a small canon p&s that doesn't, no big deal either way. I do miss the viewfinder though.
From: Eric on 4 Aug 2010 15:45
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:02:13 -0400, Dave Cohen <user(a)example.net> wrote: >Eric wrote: >> The SX120 has 10X zoom, the G11 has 5X. >> >> The SX120 seems to have some kind of macro capability (though Canon's >> ...errr... tech didn't know anything about it). The G11 apparently >> does not. This could be a really great feature at times, if indeed the >> SX120 will do macro. >> >> Both apparently use the same image processor chip: the "Digic 4" >> mentioned in the previous post. Most failed shots have to do with >> motion blur, so image stabilization would be my #1 concern. But it >> looks like the G11 doesn't bring anything better in that respect >> either. >> >> Any comments welcome. I know many of you are pro photographers, and I >> do value the finer points when there are no tradeoffs (like zoom, >> macro above). And keep in mind that I'm a painter. -Reasonable- color >> accuracy would be nice, but I'd even trade that for getting a stable, >> non-motion-blurred image. Lots of my shots are just spontaneous clicks >> from a slow-moving train, or of a moving forest critter. > >Both will yield very good pics. The G11 shows same spec for macro as the >SX (.4") >However, the G11 is superior. Faster and better lens, optical >viewfinder, larger sensor. It also has other features that may be less >important to you, like raw. >My guess is a good image shot with the G11 at full zoom and blown up >will be every bit as good as one from the SX at it's 10x. You know, that's a very interesting point that never occurred to me. There may be some psychological impact of physical appearance, weight, and price tag, but it seemed like I could actually see a difference in pics snapped in my brief in-store test, via the LCD viewfinder (I would not have thought that possible). And yeah, there's a feeling of power in the G11--press the button and the thing responds right away. The optical viewfinder is not as important to me, though I could probably get used to it. The larger sensor -may- mean that it is better at gathering light-- ie, less image stabilization required. Not sure how much bearing that would have. BTW, I just spoke to a good Canon tech who straightened out the question of image stabilization--it apparently is not done by the Digic 4 chip itself, so it could indeed be different for each camera. Still, I didn't notice a huge difference in IS between the SX120 vs the G11. >Personally I like a camera that uses AA's, but I just picked up a small >canon p&s that doesn't, no big deal either way. I do miss the viewfinder >though. 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. |