New Canon SX30 Superzoom

canny · #1 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 01:23 PM

For anyone interested in this new superzoom a review is just out on photographyblog.com
Still cant make my mind up!!

glsammy · #2 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 05:19 PM

They're not over impressed with the image quality, that CA looks pretty bad. However, the lens range is amazing!

NicolaB · #3 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 05:22 PM

It's a shame you can't shoot in RAW either.

glsammy · #4 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 05:32 PM

As I'm one of the idiots that hardly ever shoot in RAW, that detail never entered my head!

I'd be more concerned by the high noise at anything higher than ISO 400 and the CA.

NicolaB · #5 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 06:12 PM

I guess if you could shoot in RAW, you could tidy up the inevitable noisy pics taken at ISO 400 and above in photoshop!!

The CA looks pretty terrible to me too..I guess it would be an ok camera to have in your bag for ID shots of birds etc when you didn't want to carry a DSLR.

canny · #6 (**permalink**) 13-10-2010, 10:19 AM

You can't expect SLR quality but we still all look for perfection dont we.
It would be extremely interesting if anyone on this forum has one and can report back. I have come across one or two other reports from general users who claim it to be very good.
I use a Sony DSC H5 with a converter always attached to it. Its great and I do get good wildlife shots but trying to find your subject through the converter is a pain. The Canon has some neat features too.

NicolaB · #7 (**permalink**) 13-10-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

You can't expect SLR quality but we still all look for perfection dont we.

Absolutely!! I still dream of the day when they can produce a pocket sized camera that can do everything a top of range DSLR is capable of so I don't have to cart heavy kit around everywhere.....one day!!

It does seem like they're getting closer though, producing something with this sort of zoom range is a good start

Words · #8 (**permalink**) 13-10-2010, 11:47 AM

I'm thinking about this, or one of the latest panasonic FZ (45 or 100). The detraction for me on the Canon is the *very* slow frames per second rate which is a major drawback for wildlife, and lack of an option to shoot raw. Plus side is that zoom is massive. CA does seem poor, but I almost expect that.

Words · #9 (**permalink**) 13-10-2010, 03:59 PM

Well just back from the camera shop and ended up with the Panasonic FZ-45. Decision was based on a fairly personal set of needs. This isn't my main camera so controlling cost came into it slightly. The killer for me over the Canon is the availability of RAW recording in the Panasonic, a lithium battery provided, plus (to an extent) cost.

(Just to be clear, the Panasonic booklet does list a RAW setting so I suspect there is some misinformation about the supposed lack of RAW on the FZ-45. I'll confirm when the battery is charged up and I can take a proper look.)

I thought about the FZ-100, but it doesn't add a huge amount to the the 45 and is quite a bit more expensive. If it were to be my only camera I might have stretched to that for some of the high-speed recording, but realistically I'm going to be using this as an up-market p&s. The Canon does have two custom settings (which was tempting), and I've not bothered with an articulating screen (possibly a mistake as I may well end up missing it).

Will get some sample pictures, possibly tonight (if a friendly fox shows up) or certainly tomorrow. I have a couple of days to get to grips with it.

canny · #10 (**permalink**) 14-10-2010, 01:43 PM

Love to hear how you get on with the FZ-45. Do you know if you can get a tele converter for it as you could the older Panny cameras?

All we want now is someone to buy the FZ-100 and the Canon SX30!!