Super-zoom Love: Canon sx40hs

My first digital camera with manual controls was a Panasonic Lumix FZ20, and I loved it.  It had a 35mm-430mm F2.8 (35mm equivalent) lens with image stabilization and all that glass was "Leica" glass, YEAH!  Ok, so it probably wasn't the same as a Leica Vario Elmarit it was named after but it was sharp edge to edge, and it was fast, and it was a pretty awesome little camera. I used it a lot, and when I upgraded to a DSLR I missed many things about it, I really did. Which brings me to the point of this post.  This is my mini-review (with a subjective emphasis on why super-zooms are super-great) of my new Canon sx40hs.

So why do I want a super-zoom?  After all, I have a Canon 5DMkii, the dream of every photographer, and a Canon 60D the latest addition to the Canon Prosumer DSLR lineup.  I've also got an Android phone with a decent little camera in it.  What do I need a super-zoom camera for?  Here are the reasons that I wanted a superzoom:

1. The swiss army knife lens: all the focal lengths, small, light, and no lens changing.  This is the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot in some cases. 

2. The huge depth of field: there are times when you don't want your band of focus to be a couple of millimeters thick.  How-to photos and videos benefit from having everything, or most everything in focus.  DSLR video is bokehlicious, but sometimes seeing stuff in context is better.  The bottom line on depth of field (focus) is that compact digital cameras and super-zooms in particular are different than DSLRs,  and their lens is just another and different tool for exploring the world.  Sometimes it is definitely not the right tool, other times it is the right tool.  This doesn't replace the DSLR it just augments it.

3. Video autofocus: right along with the depth of field above is the ability to auto-focus and zoom smoothly in video.  This helps you follow a story, or capture action, that can be a big challenge for a DSLR, especially without a full-blown shoulder rig. 

4. Mechanical shutter for high speed sync with flashes: the shutters in compact cameras are different than the curtain shutters used in DSLRs.  The DSLR curtain shutter has a limitation when synchronizing with strobes that the mechanical shutter doesn't.  My DSLR's sync up to about 1/200th of a second.  My new Canon sx40hs syncs up to 1250th of a second even when fired by radio remote.
5. Size matters: I have five kids and travelling light is a definite advantage in many circumstances.  The super-zoom is not small compared to pocket cameras, but it is very small compared to a DSLR kit with similar focal length lenses. 

So that's why I "needed" a super-zoom.   Now lets take a look at my new Canon sx40hs.  The sx40 is a really just an updated sx30.  Key features are a 35x optical zoom with a 35mm focal length equivalent of 24-840mm (just, wow), with image stabilization, of course.  It does that by having a tiny a 1/2.3 inch CMOS sensor.  The sensor in the sx40 is the new "backlit" sensor with the circuitry moved to the back of the sensor to make the sensor cleaner and more efficient. It has a tilty-flippy screen (thank you, digitalrev tv), a rather tiny EVF (electronic view finder), and a pretty decent set of controls.  This camera also has an outstanding video mode which, while lacking manual controls, does a great job auto-focusing, auto-exposing, and zooming in and out during video recording.  Canon's control systems are consistently good but not quite perfect, and this camera fits well into their general trend.  Let's look at some sample images to show what this camera is about.

Zoom Range
I wanted to show the zoom range inside.  Most example show you how your zoom range brings distant objects nearer, but zoom also has more compositional function of either giving context or isolating objects.  That is what I find most compelling about the zoom range of super zooms.


wide:




zoom:


Why this matters, really:
The ability to compose images exactly the way you want without any focal length friction.  The chances are you have the focal length to do what you want to, with the flick of a zoom lever.


Wide angle for context:

Zoom to isolate and compose:




New Sensor and Image Stabilization
The sx40hs has the new CMOS sensor, and I think the high ISO performance is really quite good on this camera.  It is not a Canon DSLR, however, it does remind me quite a lot of the Lumix LX3 I used to own, and even a bit of the the Olympus EPL-1 I had for a while (that is in sensor performance, not senor size: Bokeh is much harder to get with the sx40 than the Olympus).

I am not presenting the super scientific review here so I combined my ISO and my Image Stabilization tests. All photos are hand-held. The 100% crops are listed below. The focal length on this about 300mm equivalent and is close to the minimum focus distance.  The image stabilization on this camera is about what I've seen in other image stabilization systems, and that is remarkable because of the increased focal length in this camera and the sx30.  And the image stabilization in video is really good as well--usable hand-held video at 840mm equivalent is real, and quite amazing.

ISO 100 at 1/5 second shutter

ISO 200 at 1/6 second shutter

ISO 400 at 1/20th second shutter

ISO 800 at 1/30th second shutter

ISO 1600 at 1/80th second shutter

ISO 3200 at 1/160th second shutter

White balance and color transitions:
I have not fully explored the white balance and the color controls in the sx40.  I'm used to working with RAW files where white balance is something I figure out afterwards.  The two images below show the difference between auto white balance and the custom white balance.

Compared to the 5D MKii
5D Mkii image using the AWB to compare to the sx40 image above (minimal RAW editing)

5D Mkii Portrait edited in ACR

sx40hs Portrait edited in ACR

Conclusions
The Canon sx40hs has everything necessary to renew my Super-zoom Love. A super-zoom is just another kind of camera, a different tool.  It is not a DSLR, and it isn't supposed to be.  The comparison photos are put in not to show how the sx40 can replace my 5D, but how it contrasts with my 5D, and why I really want to have both cameras, and want to shoot pictures with both cameras.

The contrasts are really the reasons I gave at the beginning for why I like super-zooms.  There are some weaknesses of the camera such as the data depth/tonal behaviors (especially in skin) and of course things like the lack of bokeh at most focal lengths is both a feature and a fault depending on what you are doing.  Like so many things, at the end of the day, you need to basically understand what you are going to do with this tool, and whether it fits your needs and your desires.

The bottom line is that these tools are really quite remarkable and I think that sometimes they get a bad rap as being merely cameras for "birding" enthusiasts.  They are certainly good for "birding" but the are for a lot more than that.  For proof I definitely commend much of the fine photographic work of Phil Douglis also in my "Resources" links at the side.

As far as I can tell the Canon sx40hs is the best camera in this category. And I definitely recommend it, and this category overall.  Give the super-zoom a try.  They are very fun little cameras, and really can do things that only "Supers" can.


Sample Images




Personal Video Samples

Panasonic Lumix LX3 Personal Report

Now I know that no one needs me to tell them that the Lumix LX3 is a pretty cool compact digital camera. I don't think you even need me to point out that it's small and quiet and can be added to the photographic tool-bag in a position kinda like the Rangefinder used to occupy. However, I have seen a few discussions about the LX3 that, I think, miss the point; and I also think that some who have gotten or are considering getting the LX3 might like to hear how another person has found it fitting into his photographic efforts. So here's my personal report on the LX3. I do heartily recommend the camera.

Let me say, by way of background, that my first two real digital cameras (we did have a Sony Mavica with VGA resolution before that) were Lumix cameras (LC33 and FZ20) and I've been a big fan all along, even though now I shoot Canon DSLRs most of the time. I've toyed around with getting back into Lumix cameras at a number of different times but couldn't ever quite justify it--that is, until the LX3.

The mere announcement about this camera on Digital Photography Review convinced me it was a camera I needed to own. So I sold my Canon 30D backup camera (which I rarely used since it was so similar to my 40D) and I bought a Lumix LX3 to take its place. I bought it for the change of pace, and because the specs were interesting and unique. From an econmic perspective, a 24-60 F2.0-F2.8 Leica lens all by itself would easily cost me $1000, so the price looks reasonable, even though I know the sensor is smaller and noisier than my DSLR.

But really, the differences were exactly why I wanted this camera. I don't want it to be my SLR, or better than my SLR, or even like my SLR in most respects. I'm interested in the differences. The idea that one camera is "THE BEST," is just a mistake--the question always needs to be asked "best for what?" My 40D is best for formal wedding portraits and groups. My LX3 is best for carrying in my pocket on an evening out, and for being unobtrusive, and has the biggest depth of focus even at low aperture. I also think there is something about the compact digitals that makes them better for exploring different angles and unusual photo ideas.

Of course, the lists of which is better for what don't stop there--in fact, there were three main differences that attracted me to the LX3. First, the fact that it can sync with strobes at a higher shutter speed because of its different shutter; second, the fact that it takes HD (720p) video, and finally, the fact that it is small and quiet. It does go with me places I wouldn't have taken the DSLR and has given me some great photos (and videos), that I'm glad to have. And, with decent quality video that is easy for me to work with (it shows up and previews flawlessly in Adobe Bridge), I am becoming a videographer as well as a photographer. I have yet to do too much with the high-speed sync, but I expect to use that more this summer.

Here are the technical highlights from my perspective, so far:

The LX3 syncs just fine with my Elinchrom Skyports and my external Quantaray and Promaster flashes. I can sync up to 1/1000 without darkening. 1/1300 is darker, 1/2000 is too dark. On the other hand if you use a hotshoe flash as a trigger for optical slaves you can sync up to 1/2000 (max shutter) no problem. I found a smallish $.49 flash at Goodwill (and I checked the voltage ***WARNING*** ALWAYS CHECK THE VOLTAGE OF AN UNKNOWN FLASH BEFORE YOU USE IT ON YOUR DIGITAL CAMERA) and made a little paper diffuser/director for it and it's working well as a trigger for my optically triggered flashes. It worked great even outside in overcast weather. Can't say whether it will work in broad daylight, although of course that has nothing to do with the LX3, since we're talking about the slave flash and trigger flash.

I recommend taking the the ISO decision away from the camera. The LX3 is still a compact camera and the noise can still look pretty bad at higher ISO. However, at ISO 200 the images are smooth, and with the fast lens and OIS, ISO 200 covers most situations.

One other comment--I haven't settled into using RAW format yet because of the lack of support in ACR and because I don't want to mess with Silkypix. I have used RAW Therapee a bit, but am still not comfortable enough with it to give a full report. On paper RAW Therapee offers even more control than ACR and apparently better algorithms. Workflow seems to be more difficult than Adobe (big surprise) but getting better with each new version (I'm on my second version), I'm definitely going to keep RAW Therapee around and use it more. For now, though, I'm shooting JPG and editing in ACR, and it's working great. I've been pleasantly surprised while working on some ISO 200 JPGs. The image doesn't seem brittle or inflexible like JPGs can sometimes be. I'm very happy with the results even adding as much as 1.5 stops to the exposure, and using Recovery and Fill Light to increase dynamic range.

Here's an example I was especially pleased with. It was a difficult photo to expose properly and as you can see I exposed for the slide that was being shown.
Using Adobe ACR on the Lumix LX3 JPG I was able to achieve the version below. It is also worth noting that in this meeting a DSLR would have been distracting and disruptive, where my little LX3 was discreet enough to get by.

The video files are no problem to work with in Adobe Premiere Elements 4, Premiere Pro, and Corel Video Studio, but will not work in Windows Movie Maker. I'm not an expert with video, but I do know that I much prefer dealing with precompressed video from a workflow/ease-of-use standpoint. The HD video (720p) is about 5min 15sec per 1 GB. The audio quality on the LX is improved from earlier Lumix models but is still pretty bad. To try to cope with this problem I purchased an Olympus audio recorder which I use to record audio seperately when I need a higher quality audio track. The LX3 mic helps with syncing the tracks in post production.

The video below doesn't show the full quality resolution of the LX3, but it does demonstrate how the LX3 can be used as a makeshift but rather capable video camera. You can follow this link to a full resolution video--although it has been formatted by SmugMug's uploading process.

So, there's my two cents on the subject. I hope you find it useful. Please feel free to comment, ask questions, or even buy the LX3 through the amazon link to the right. ;)