Canon SX40 HS Picture Quality Vs S90 Just pick up the sx40 today, compare sx40 vs s90, I still think s90 has little better picture quality, but not bad for the sx40 (zoom camera), this is my first zoom camera, so I don't have any other zoom camera to tell the difference, any thought?
There are a great many adjustments available on the SX40, and proper settings will result in better photos.
I've never used an S90, so I can't comment on the relative quality of the photos produced by the two cameras, but based on my limited use of the SX40 (I've had the camera only a few days, and the weather around here has been lousy), I'd say it produces excellent photos -- extremely well focused, superb detail, excellent color. What more do you want from a camera?
One caution: do NOT judge the quality of the camera's output by the photos posted on Amazon's site; they're extremely compressed and bear little relation to the original photos.
And remember-- (paraphrasing the Marines here) it's the photographer, not the camera.
The s95 and s90 have a larger sensors and produced amazing images. I was very impressed by the images from the s2, s3 and sx10 I own. The S95 produces excellent images for a subcompact camera and I use it a lot on vacations. The superzooms I think are the versatile camera. I was torn between upgrading my superzoom to the SX40 or FZ150 and chose the FZ150 for the feature set. The images are very good and look a little different from the Sx40 mainly from the internal processing. SX40 seem to have a warmer-brighter color and a little smoother look. The Panasonic may have more edge processing. The images are both excellent but look different. The main difference in the newer cameras is better low light, higher speed, more zoom, better video. I think the basic image quality at lower iso is about the same. The superzooms are so good now, I've retired my DSLR except for special occasions where image quality is most important. It is just too much trouble changing lenses.
Thanks for the comments guys, I do notice different brand camera have different color tone, as you mention, "Canon have a warmer-brighter color and a little smoother look", I think Nikon have a cooler but sharper look, I'm using SD870, S90, T2i and now SX40, my S90 takes really good pictures and just little noise at ISO800, not far vs T2i, I was hoping the SX40 up to S90 picture quality, so I don't have to bring it 2 cameras all the time.
The SX40 1/2.3" CMOS sensor VS S90 1/1.7" CCD sensor, F2.0-F4.9 VS F2.7-F5.9, 28mm-105mm VS 24mm-840mm, these are 2 totally different camera, I shouldn't compare them at all, there is no camera like all in one :)
I can't imagine that the SX40 couldn't take a better picture (sharper, better detail and colors in a range of lighting) than the s90, 95 or 100. The only thing you give up with the SX40 (and for some people, I know this is a deal breaker) is pocketability. But for those who don't care about that, it is an amazing (and very fun) camera.
Hi Morris. The S95 and S90 are unique. As a subcompact it can be carried in your pocket....SX40 no..no in the pocket. The S95 has incredible low light at wide angle and F2. I used it today to document and help identify some piping in the wall with available light. It was too awkward with the super zoom. This is why you need to bring 2 cameras when traveling. I actually carry 3 including a camcorder which I think is better for video then either super zoom or S95. Many people swear by the DSLR and that works for them
I think so, but SX40 has better picture quality because the higher ISO but lower nosie, I also found this interestng, I can take 1080p video on a 4 years old class 6 transcent SDHC on new SX40, my T2i won't take any card less than class 10 and sometime just stop recording (depand on witch brand), so I checked the video file type and size, using SX40 1080p 24 vs T2i 1080p 25, the data size are about the same, the only explanation.. I guess is the new "DIGIC 5 Processor", that really makes all the difference.
I also found the new SX40 has better Auto White Balance than T2i.. Rare!
SX40 vs SX230 SX40 better zoom, higher usable ISO because the lower noise, better low light, faster on everything, SX230 packetable, cheaper price, mostly same futures but slower.
I own both the SX30is and S95. Of course the 95 can do RAW and the 30is can't so that is one thing to take into consideration if you do a lot of Photoshop work. Even with it's fantastic zoom tests (see this test I've posted elsewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C1e05eKoiE
I still like the sharpness and versitility of the 90 - and end up using that for most of my friends and neighbors shots, parties etc. Both cameras have their place and Canon has done a great job.
I spent many years hauling around an F1 and various lenses. It's so nice to have these two cameras, both of which fit in one bag, to do almost everything my old films SLRs did. I am very pleased.
Does anyone have experience with model and close-up shot quality? I need it for photographing my oil paintings for competitions and websites, but I'd also like it for travel shots. Is it too much to ask for both capabilities in one camera? Thanks