Canon SX40 HS I really want to buy this camera, but my experience with the SX30 (poor image quality) left me with a bad taste in my mouth. For those that have purchased this camera, is the IQ really substantially improved? I don't expect DSLR quality (i have one for those occassions), I just want a nice quality long distance shooter that turns out acceptable images. If you're willing to post some samples (especially low light) and share the link, I would be very greatful!
asked by UG on October 4, 2011
Sort: Most Helpful first | Newest first | Oldest first
Showing 1-10 of 18 answers
A
the SX40 HS is a huge improvement over the older SX30, it has a new cmos sensor and new digic5 processor and what i have read in a few reviews is that the SX40 has the best image quality among all the superzooms, indeed the panasonic FZ 150 can only match the SX40`S image quality if you first shoot in raw then convert to j-peg meaning mor editing time which is totaly no use to me, my SX40 HS has fantastic picture quality not far off the look of a digital slr, buy this camera, sure the FZ 150 is a bit faster in performance than the SX40 but at the end of the day its `PICTURE QUALITY` THAT COUNTS, NOT SPEED OR GIMMICKS, PICTURE QUALITY, and in this regard the SX40 blows all the competition out of the water including the FZ 150.
Mr. A. R. Templeton answered on October 13, 2011
Comment | 8 of 8 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
Great camera if there's enough light, zoom is awesome and burst mode is a blast.
KOPA answered on October 16, 2011
Comment | 3 of 3 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
I just bought this camera and I used it at a wedding. I shot most of the pictures with available light because I like the ambience they provide. I didn't used a tripod (I didn't had one). Because I just got his camera I shot all the pictures in the "AUTO" mode. I am amazed at the quality of the pictures taken. Most of the pictures were taken under low, slightly colored light using 40-80mm zoom and the abscense of noticeable noise was amazing even though some of the pictures used ISO-1600 (and, remember, hand held, so the stabilizer worked wonders). Maybe it is because I still don't know the camera well enough yet but shutter lag is, perhaps, the only thing (for me) that could be improved. The typical picture was taken at f/5, 1/60 sec, ISO-800, focal length 75mm. I recommend this camera 100%.
M. Varela answered on January 5, 2012
Comment | 3 of 3 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
Do you find the SX40 over-exposes shadow and highlight areas?? I've notice this in some of the images on dpreview.com, but I can't tell if its settings just need adjustment?? Also in ISO over 400 detail seems to be smeared away, have you looked much at those settings? Just trying to decide:(
MyTwoCents answered on October 14, 2011
Comment | 1 of 1 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
hi,
i find the SX40 HS overexposes in standard metering mode quite often, i now compensate by setting the camera meter to slightly underexpose my images and in most cases the results are better as to iso at 400 i have not seen any picture problems, indeed i have had it on 1600 iso with great results, hope this helps,
Allan.
Mr. A. R. Templeton answered on October 15, 2011
Comment | 1 of 1 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
I also have the S5. It's worth the upgrade if you want double the reach. As an added bonus, it performs well at higher ISO's.
William B. Green answered on January 29, 2012
Comment | 1 of 1 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
In bright light you are not going to get a huge improvement. At lower light levels, without flash, it is a considerable upgrade. The extreme reach of the SX40 was the deal-breaker for me.
William B. Green answered on January 29, 2012
Comment | 1 of 1 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
I want to know the same thing? I went back to my old canon S5, as the sx30 was just short of horrible. it now sits on the shelf. I will say I saw a post on dpreview.com in the canon talk forum with low light pictures from the sx40. Interesting as he was comparing images from the s5 to the sx40. He was saying how much better the pictures looked, but to me they looked heavily smeared. On the s5 you saw heavy grain on anything over 400iso, but you could clearly see the detail in the building. On the sx40 parts of the buildings were smeared away??? Was it just the way he took the picture?? I don't know, but it's made me look more closely at panisonic fz150.
MyTwoCents answered on October 6, 2011
Comment | Do you find this helpful?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
I have the powershot s5 si and like it very much..is it worth going to the sx40?
Margaret D. Robb answered on October 13, 2011
Comment | Do you find this helpful?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
I would love that answer. I have the S5 and regret getting the SX30. Which I stop using a few months back and went back to the S5. From what I hear the SX40 is a huge improvement over the SX30. BUT is it better then my trusted S5??? I'm refering only to IQ (and low light).
MyTwoCents answered on October 13, 2011
Comment | Do you find this helpful?  Yes No | Report abuse
‹ Previous   1   2   Next ›

See all questions about this product