[raider]

Hi guys,

I know that many of you do birding with a 400mm lenses (some with even more elaborate gears) but assuming I don't have the cash and means to spent that much and I want to be able to zoom in a bit closer, would spending $400 on a Canon SX40 HS be just as good? The Canon SX 40 can optical zoom to 840mm (35mm equivalent). This is equivalent to a 560mm lens on my K-7. To get this kind of zoom, I will need to either use a mirror lens (cost reasons) or an older manual focus 400mm lens + teleconverter. This is not necessarily a less expensive option.

What do you guys think? Do u guys shoot with the the SX40?

Thanks
raider

[twitch]

Cropping your photos in PP is also a way to gain reach, effectively this is what the SX40 is doing anyway. Look at the SX40 picture, it's a 150mm f/5.8 lens at the long end. You have a 300mm f/5.8 lens already.

[luftfluss]

Cropping your photos in PP is also a way to gain reach, effectively this is what the SX40 is doing anyway. Look at the SX40 picture, it's a 150mm f/5.8 lens at the long end. You have a 300mm f/5.8 lens already.

Except that when you crop a photo, you are also reducing the number of pixels involved. The SX40 is not doing that.

[twitch]

Except that when you crop a photo, you are also reducing the number of pixels involved. The SX40 is not doing that.

Yes true. But you are starting with a longer and higher quality lens. Wonder which would "win"?

[luftfluss]

Hi guys,

I know that many of you do birding with a 400mm lenses (some with even more elaborate gears) but assuming I don't have the cash and means to spent that much and I want to be able to zoom in a bit closer, would spending $400 on a Canon SX40 HS be just as good? The Canon SX 40 can optical zoom to 840mm (35mm equivalent). This is equivalent to a 560mm lens on my K-7. To get this kind of zoom, I will need to either use a mirror lens (cost reasons) or an older manual focus 400mm lens + teleconverter. This is not necessarily a less expensive option.

What do you guys think? Do u guys shoot with the the SX40?

Thanks
raider

Each individual pixel K-7 produces is much better than each individual pixel the SX40 produces, because the K-7's sensor is so much larger. In most cases, even the K-7 + a DA 55-300 @ 300mm, cropped, will produce an image that's as good as the SX40 @ 840mm.

Here's a camera sensor comparison chart:



There are advantages to the SX40, of course, primarily that it's easy to carry around and unobtrusive, and also at 840mm you can see your subject much better. The downsides include slower AF at longer focal lengths, and the lag associated with not using an OVF.

[luftfluss]

Yes true. But you are starting with a longer and higher quality lens. Wonder which would "win"?

I've done some informal comparing over the years on DPR's forums, and my personal opinion is that a camera like the SX40 will need to be at least 2x as long as the 35mm "equivalent" focal length of a DSLR. That is, my K-x + DA 55-300 lens = 450mm 35mm equivalent FOV, would need an small-sensored bridge camera to have a focal length of approx 900mm 35mm equivalent to match it.

That's just an opinion, though.

And, of course, there's no OVF on the bridge camera. AF is pretty bad at extreme focal lengths on all the super-duper zoom bridge cameras, too.

[raider]

Thanks guys for the input.

I was in fact looking thru flickr's gallery

Flickr: Canon SX30 / SX40 content tagged with bird

and find that a lot of the shots at full 840mm is pretty incredible. Maybe it is the lack of skills on my part but i find that even if cropping the picture using my DA 55-300 on my K-7 and my wife's K-x, we can never achieve this kind of shots.

[jogiba]

I have the SX30 IS with the same 24-840mm eqiv zoom that could do stuff that is not possible with a DSLR and has much better OIS than my Nikon P500 with 22.5-810mm eqiv lens.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/191967...eqiv-lens.html

Vimeo

Vimeo

Vimeo

[luftfluss]

Thanks guys for the input.

I was in fact looking thru flickr's gallery

Flickr: Canon SX30 / SX40 content tagged with bird

and find that a lot of the shots at full 840mm is pretty incredible. Maybe it is the lack of skills on my part but i find that even if cropping the picture using my DA 55-300 on my K-7 and my wife's K-x, we can never achieve this kind of shots.

Well, you still have to get within range to take the photo. I only looked thru a few of the Flickr shots, but it's pretty easy to get that kind of quality when posting typical web-sized photos.

But you know, it's always different tools for different people. You could buy an SX40 at a store that has a decent return policy, and if it doesn't work as well as you'd like, you could return it. There's a lot to recommend it, considering how small and easy to handle it is.

Here's a full frame from my K-x + DA 55-300...

[traderdrew]

That little camera seems to produce some impressive work for its size. Judging by the flickr photos two of them are almost as good as they get for the size of the photos. I don't know how much editing is behind them as I have noticed exif info has been hidden in the shots I saw.

After looking at thousands of bird photographs and taking a bunch myself, you may get to notice flaws and minor problems with them. Things such as out of focus body parts and over/underexposures, shadows etc. I agree with the above that just blowing up the photos to large size can reveal a lot more. I figure in about five years those little cameras might be good enough for me to consider not using my 500mm F/4.5 much anymore.

[raider]

Thanks again for your comments.

@jogiba: your youtube clips are really awesome. Hard to believe these are from the small sensor SX30.

@luftfuss: great shot. I can never get this kind of shots with my setup which is the same as yours....so skills matter!

I might just buy the SX40 to try out.

[luftfluss]

If you do get one, I'd be really interested in reading your thoughts and seeing some pics in the field. Most of the good bird pics I see with the camera are from areas with high bird/human population densities, so the birds are less flighty and easier to photograph.

There are times when I hate lugging my Sigma 170-500 around, primarily because it is so conspicuous.

[pingflood]

The one thing nobody has mentioned yet is that the continuous autofocus (tracking) is not going to be anywhere near a phase detect DSLR setup. For photos of static subjects (birds sitting still) I think the SX40 can produce quite impressive results, but if you ever want to catch birds in flight you need to look elsewhere.

[raider]

Thanks pingflood. I haven't consider that before.

[jogiba]

The one thing nobody has mentioned yet is that the continuous autofocus (tracking) is not going to be anywhere near a phase detect DSLR setup. For photos of static subjects (birds sitting still) I think the SX40 can produce quite impressive results, but if you ever want to catch birds in flight you need to look elsewhere.

Vimeo