Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Melvins Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Discussions > Photography forum

Canon SX40 HS or Panasonic FZ150

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 145 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 9, 2011 8:46:04 PM PDT
Roger James says:
Can't decide on which camera to replace my Sx10is. Any suggestions? Both cameras seem to be top notch EVF cameras, which ones takes take best all around photo in regular and low light. Video is probably less important for me.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2011 10:15:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2011 10:31:12 PM PDT
Neo Lee says:
Due to its tiny little sensor, P&S camera and "low light" don't belong in the same sentence.

If low light capability is important to you, you may want to consider a DSLR or a Sony SLT.


Just saw your other post that you owned a DSLR and lenses, but still why would you think a P&S perform well in low light?

A M4/3 mirrorless camera could be a great complement to you. I use this compact Olympus E-PL2 and the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens whenever I don't feel like taking my DSLR with me. Its sensor is 6-8 times the size of SX10IS's. On a side note, a friend of mine who owns a SX10IS got blown away with the results of my Olympus E-PL2 that he is now ordering one too.

Posted on Oct 10, 2011 1:19:30 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 16, 2011 12:45:34 AM PDT]

Posted on Oct 11, 2011 4:11:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 11, 2011 4:12:45 AM PDT
S. Hock says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 7:16:37 AM PDT
Roger James says:
It's difficult enough to learn and use one camera to it's fullest potential, with two impossible; buying 2 and returning one while technically possible is wrong. If too many abuse the return privilege, than returns will not be allowed. While Amazon is generous in its return privilege, people who abuse this privilege will ruin for all. Returns should be only for defective or I hate the product. If you were ever a merchant you would understand!

Posted on Oct 11, 2011 8:49:12 PM PDT
According to shortsharpreviews, canon has slightly better image quality but the panasonic is a better all around camera. You may want to go to their website and look at their reviews for each.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 9:49:55 PM PDT
Roger James says:
I decided to get the Panasonic because this camera has most of the features one would expect in a DSLR. And performance that comes close to what you might expect from a DSLR with a built in wide angle to telephone zoom lens at a price and weight well below a mediocre SLR lens($500 plus). The sacrifice is in the smaller sensor and less exotic glass in the lens. Most of my DSLR lenses weigh more than the total camera weight. The sacrifice in image quality is very small for normal everyday photography. The Canon, Sony, Nikon and Panasonic all have great superzooms that will satisfy most buyers, which certainly makes it hard for most buyers to chose. When I travel, such as on a cruise, weight is everything. I usually carry 3 cameras, S95 in my pocket, superzoom for most pictures and vidiocamera, hopefully I can't omit the vidiocamera this time. I will post a review after using it for a while and compare it to my Canon SX10 which I find is an excellent superzoom. The Canon sx40 is probably an excellent choice too but missing raw and mike input which I wanted.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:34:54 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2011 7:25:27 AM PDT
Roger James says:
I can't disagree with your opinion. Of course you are right about image quality. But there are millions of people who want to document little and big memories of their life and travels. I own several great DSLR's and multiple nice lenses but they are too bulky and heavy to carry everyday or on travels. The big zoom cameras are a nice compromise between versatility and image quality. Most of the time even that is too big to bring places that is where my subcompact S95 is always with me. I truly treasure the pictures from these cameras even if the image isn't perfect. That is why people are very happy with the quality of their cellphone pictures which of course leave a lot to be desired and don't match the quality of a cheap digital camera. Are DSLR and 4/3 pictures better, of course. If a DSLR could be made like a subcompact, I would be the first in line to buy it.

Posted on Oct 12, 2011 12:36:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2011 12:42:29 AM PDT
JCUKNZ says:

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2011 1:28:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 12, 2011 6:19:19 PM PDT
Sometimes I'm actually surprised by the number of DSLRs I see people walk around with when I'm on vacation or an event. Just a few weeks ago I was at a beer festival: I saw a ton of Canon or Nikon DSLRs around people's necks. My first experience with digital was back when I had an internship at The New England Journal of Medicine. They let me fidget with a Kodak DCS digital back (on a Nikon F5). Boy that thing was a dinosaur compared to even most digital cameras that came out just 3 years later. For my critical photography, I was still using film SLRs...but then got a Sony DSC-717. IQ wise, it was pretty good and doesn't show too much noise at ISO 400 at 5MP. Over the next few years I tried out different compacts and noticed some had way too much noise to be useful. The straw that broke the camel's back for me to go ahead and invest in a FF DSLR: is that when I'm on vacation, I also like to take pictures indoors and of paintings in art museums. No matter how good the manual controls or the resolution of a small sensor compact is, I can't get "the shot you 'see'" because it would be littered with motion blurr or noise in indoor situations without flash. That's what makes JCUKNZ's point absurd about "capturing meaningful images". I don't mind toting a DSLR and a shoulder pack because I've got more versatility to be able to take whatever photos I want in any situation (I don't feel hampered and can focus on the elements I want to be most expressive). It looks like JCUKNZ doesn't like to be close to the subject if he only likes x12 zooms (except pray tell if it's a x24, then it's inferior). I use 28mm-135mm most the time with my DSLR for walking around. It's fewer situations I find myself needing larger telephotos.

RE: Roger. You're entitled to your opinions over how close image quality is compared to a DSLR...and it might be so in the situations that you're in. If you feel that you'd rather tote the Panasonic and/or pocket camera and/or videocam all on your trip...then hope the Panasonic stays with you for a long time! I was merely stating my own experiences over why I haven't found it a hassle to carry the DSLR around (because I am in situations where I'd like the versatility of the DSLR).

And to further sum things up with JCUKNZ: it's a good thing Ansel Adams didn't think he was being a "masochist" by hiking through the Sierras with a view camera instead of a compact rangefinder.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2011 4:18:51 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 13, 2011 7:19:05 AM PDT
Add me to the "ultrazoom's work fine for me" group. I am mostly interested in wildlife photography and for that particular specialty, A DSLR and assorted lenses are just way too heavy for me. If I was a professional photographer, absolutely I would make the effort and haul all of the extra equipment. But 30-40 lbs is like a third of my body weight. As much as I love photography, I like to travel light and go hiking without feeling like a pack mule. Also, the majority of my photos come when I volunteer at our local botanical garden and riparian wildlife park. While volunteering, I don't always have alot of time to set up and rifle through lenses when the shot appears. That being said, lately I've begun to be interested in starry night photography so I will absolutely invest in a DSLR for that purpose, but I will still use an ultra zoom for day to day.

Also, might I just say it's mildly insulting to constantly hear people say, "you can only take good pictures with a DSLR so don't bother to try with anything else." I first got into photography when I had a cheap kodak camera and then moved to a gently used Canon Rebel XT and a Panasonic FZ-35. I have been studying photography and honing my skills the entire time and I've taken some shots I am truly proud of with all of these cameras. In addition, some of my favorite photographers on flickr-the ones who continually inspire me-make beautiful pictures without a DSLR. Equipment is absolutely important when it comes to photography, but the photographer is the MOST important element, not the camera.

Posted on Oct 13, 2011 9:56:40 AM PDT
Another thing to consider is while an entry level DSLR camera with a kit lense will be about the same price as an ultrazoom, a DSLR with the equivalent zoom range in lenses, while adding image qualitys could add $1000 in price.

Posted on Oct 13, 2011 12:20:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2011 12:43:28 AM PDT
JCUKNZ says:

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 13, 2011 1:04:45 PM PDT
AH-1Z says:
I want to echo what Roger James said about abusing the return privilege like S. Hock recommended. Costco and Sam's club used to have unlimited return privileges for products bought from them. But because some people abused this and it ended costing them so much money, they've killed that benefit for all, and now only offer 90 days or less on electronics

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 13, 2011 1:31:45 PM PDT
What "advertising campaigns"...

I have yet to see a TV commercial for a Canon SLR -- the only things I see on TV are P&S models being shown in very suspiciously staged usages.

Canon does run 1-page ads in National Geographic. You never see a camera in those ads -- just some rare/endangered/hard-to-get-to critter with statistics about the animal, and a short blurb about what camera was used to capture it... And a generic text block that is as informative as a real-estate flier.

Okay, there may be more camera oriented ads in the photo magazines -- but most of those split time with P&S and esoterica (the magazines, not the ads).

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 13, 2011 6:09:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 13, 2011 6:10:21 PM PDT
I'm starting to learn not to take JCUKNZ seriously. From contradictions to any superficial arguments and insults to try to maintain that only his bridge cameras are the only superior cameras. My arguments on this thread have mainly to address opinions that small sensor compacts can compete with DSLRs in low light situations. Whether you want to save money, want a lighter camera, or want a compact superzoom...then that's your opinion and might suit your own needs. Skills and the eye of the photographer is a key element on good photography: but so is picking a camera system that will not hinder your sensibilities. For my own sensibilities and situations where I like taking photos in low light...I don't find any problem with the weight and size of a FF DSLR. That is not to say I would always advise FF DSLRs or even DSLRs for everyone. I have heard some photographers will say that you do need such and such a camera in order to take good photos. I think that's probably the worst advice I've ever heard...every system has its advantages and disadvantages, and it's up to the photographer to decide what suits them.

With the issue of DSLRs: the reason they're mainly Canon and Nikon shooters is that both companies are the most competitive in that market. They obviously don't have huge ad campaigns for these systems.

Posted on Oct 13, 2011 8:54:22 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 16, 2011 12:44:10 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 13, 2011 9:21:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 13, 2011 9:28:50 PM PDT
It only appears to JCUKNZ that I'm overtly trumpeting DSLRs...because I'm usually responding to all his posts where he goes off on how superior bridge cameras are to anything. You're again ignoring that DSLRs (especially full frame) will have better IQ at ISO 400+ and their AF performs better in low light (when using phase detect). Not every shot in low light conditions can be shot with 1 sec exposure at ISO 100 while trying to leave that bridge camera on a table. You have previously shown misconceptions about how your x12 f2.8-3.7 zoom somehow magically has a better aperture per focal length then a x24 f2.8-5.2. Normal physics such as that or the differences between contrast AF vs phase detect AF, or what a pentaprism is has shown that you should do some more reading on digital photography...before forming your mis-conceptions on how great bridge cameras are and how DSLRs are somehow considered because of "advertising campaigns".

Posted on Oct 13, 2011 9:41:31 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 16, 2011 12:44:41 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 13, 2011 9:44:14 PM PDT
Maybe not as much as you JCUKNZ ;)

Posted on Oct 13, 2011 9:54:14 PM PDT
I agree with David in that which camera is the best for you depends on what your major prioritird. If your main concern is image quality and low light photograpy, sacrifice the money (and muscle strength) and get a DSLR. You just aren't going to get any better. If you are willing to sacrifice some IQ for portability, get one of the micro four thirds models. Much better low light performance than any point and shoot, but still very portable. A monetary investment, though and out of the box zoom is only about 3x. You can get more lenses with better zoon, though. If you want a camera that has very good (though not the best) image quality and more versitality out of the box without major $$while remaining portable, get an ultrazoom. None of the ultras are really good after ISO 400, so keep this in mind. What you pick depends on what you plan on shooting and what you can afford to invest. Back to the original question, between the canon and panasonic, the canon has slightly better IQ and performs better @ high ISO's than the panasonic but the panasonic has more features.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2011 1:55:41 AM PDT
Neo Lee says:
Once a photographer, you're expected to be a photographer no matter what, and thing is as a guest and a photographer, you seldom appear in photos even if you really want to.

Posted on Oct 14, 2011 12:44:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 16, 2011 12:47:33 AM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Photography forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
The best SLR lens for Flower photography? 24 14 days ago
who is dbroth? 43 15 days ago
Jewelry Videos 2 May 18, 2016
Mirrorless vs superzoom 3 Mar 28, 2016
Best "overall" point and shoot 5 Mar 25, 2016
Macro lens for D5000 9 Mar 25, 2016
cannon 60d and 70d 1 Feb 24, 2016
Canon 70d - budget portrait lens? 2 Jan 4, 2016
Best camera for concert video? 764 Dec 9, 2015
Need help picking lenses for Canon T3 44 Dec 5, 2015
old darkroom equipment 69 Dec 2, 2015
is ebay better than amazon? 17 Nov 13, 2015

This discussion

Discussion in:  Photography forum
Participants:  37
Total posts:  145
Initial post:  Oct 9, 2011
Latest post:  May 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions