Oh, hell yeah. :mrgreen:
http://www.digicamreview.com/wp-cont...non_sx30is.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvF1gY3dj8
Printable View
Oh, hell yeah. :mrgreen:
http://www.digicamreview.com/wp-cont...non_sx30is.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvF1gY3dj8
WOW.......
Just do it. :mrgreen:
unfortunately, my qualifications as a taker of pictures, does not allow me to justify such a coveted prize.:(
How hard will that little treasure kick you in the wallet?
A little over 4 bills. Be here on Monday. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by NA4BH
"Island beach cam." :snicker:
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by PA5COR
Bah. Kid's stuff. A real man uses one of these:
http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pub...N3SSZ2R2CmNhWb
Only $31K each, so buy two!
(Seriously, I've never even owned a car that was worth that much...)
You bastard. Now I have to order one.Quote:
Originally Posted by kf0rt
"Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"
Pretty nice Rob. You'll be able to count the unt hairs on the nudie beach from a mile away now.
And when I saw the thread title, I thought there was going to be a little T&A. :wall:
But, nice camera, Rob. ;)
I think he's building up to that...uhmmmm, now that he doesn't have to stand so close. :lol::lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by N5RLR
The first thing I thought of was this picture, which ran across earlier today while looking for a picture for something completely benign...Quote:
Originally Posted by N5RLR
http://th01.deviantart.net/fs21/PRE/...h_by_glooh.jpg
Looks like a H1. WAAAAY outta my league. I couldn't afford the lens. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ6BSO
Heh, heh, heh... :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ3N
Somebody PM Johnize and tell him kelli found his stiletto healed librarian.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by N2KKM
You and me both, Rob. I have a Panasonic that's more than adequate for my uses.Quote:
Originally Posted by kf0rt
4 bills. Not bad. Is it fast? SLR fast? Does it bulb?
Not very fast, I'm afraid. Lens is f2.7-5.8 and top ISO is 1600. Actually, 2.7 ain't bad for a P&S. No bulb, but I'm guessing CHDK will implement that "soon" along with RAW and other stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by KG4CGC
Really more of a "knock around" cam to my way of thinking.
Coupla back-yard grab shots from the SX30. This was on auto, set to "vivid color." Hand held; second shot at full zoom. Resized but otherwise untouched. If this turns out to be pretty rugged, it's going to be a great knock-around camera.
http://westton.com/misc/SX30-1.jpg
http://westton.com/misc/SX30-2.jpg
Mine should be here today. Can't wait.
I have one of these. Not as good as a DSLR but good enough for what I use it for. Excellent optics, in any case. I wish it had a bulb setting, though. I guess you have to go to a DSLR for that.
Diggin' the cam thus far (more to come). Went for a walk at work today and got a few shots that I'll probably post to my Flickr account.
Wife closed the garage door before I was ready, so I opened it back up and got this shot.
http://www.westton.com/misc/SX30-3.jpg
Me: "They wuz talking 'bout a picture takin' thang on them interwebs."
Her: "You bought it didn't ya."
Me: "Uhhh..Yep"
Should arrive 10/21.
:yes:
rot
Doin' my part to keep the economy running. :rofl:
'Course, I'll feel guilty if y'all don't like it a lot. So far, I'm pleased. A DSLR it ain't, but for a higher-end point-n-shooter, I'm not disappointed.
Took it out for an hour's walk at the Two Ponds Wildlife Refuge this morning. If you're looking for wildlife, I didn't see any -- Two Ponds is the smallest Wildlife Refuge in the system and the fun part is closed this time of year. Took my D80 too (70-300mm VR lens) for some comparison shots. D80 was underexposing, go figure. Posted a few to Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tatanka/ Flickr also has a growing SX30 group with some interesting shots (pretty good photo site - you can join for free).
Need to hear how Jim's doing with his.... ;)
Haven't had much time with it, but I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kf0rt
Now I can take just a camera with me to family gatherings. Before, I was always having to change the lens between the normal one and the telephoto. I would always seem to have the wrong one on the camera when an opportune shot would come along. This should fix that problem nicely.
There is one quirk to it that I haven't delved into just yet. It seems to not want to run in HD video mode (recording) for more than about 22 minutes at a time. I have a 16GB SDHC card in it, so I doubt it's a space problem.
I should probably spend some time with the manual....
Not to worry man. I had a Fuji that went dead on boot last spring so it just sits there. Been spending some time on Sunday shooting at the Iceplex during hockey practice. My son plays sled hockey and has a very expressive face..so maybe I can grab a moment of angst on his face through his gear.:lol:Quote:
'Course, I'll feel guilty if y'all don't like it a lot. So far, I'm pleased. A DSLR it ain't, but for a higher-end point-n-shooter, I'm not disappointed.
Anyway, I have been using the Minolta 303si. I shot the roll and some guy wanted me to shoot his son...out of film I felt like a POS.
Puck that.
:-D
rot
Here's what the book says:Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ3N
Recording will automatically stop when the clip file size reaches 4 GB, or when the
recording time reaches 29 minutes and 59 seconds when shooting in 1280, and
approximately 1 hour when shooting in 640 or 320.
Recording may stop even if the maximum clip length has not been reached on some
memory cards. SD Speed Class 4 or higher memory cards are recommended.
Your kid needs a helmet cam... that would be cool. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by rot
Yeah, read that this morning. I'll have to lower the resolution to get more time. Bummer....Quote:
Originally Posted by kf0rt
Or stop and restart once in awhile. Can't say I understand the reasoning behind that particular limitation, but I don't shoot video much. What are you shooting that requires 20+ minutes non-stop? <insert pr0n joke here>Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ3N
Knockin' out a nooner?
Cool stuff, but sorry about having to resort to film. Spent a lifetime in the celluloids, and don't miss it one bit. Very high regard for it still, but man, what work and expense.Quote:
Originally Posted by rot
Hope you'll share the good shots. ;)
I dicked around a bit on the test forum before going into an upload frenzy.
Q. Was this an impluse buy based on an 0rt thread? A. Yeppers..damn right.
Q. Do you know what you are doing? A. Well..the jury is still out on that.
Q. Could this be fun? A. Yep..damn right... up there with crankin up old r&r utoobs.
Have not had a whole lot of time with it yet, but it is damn cool from what little I know.
Screwed around with the ISO settings abit last evening. Pretty effin cool how much light the sob can find at dusk.
Got a book on digital cameras so I could be dangerous down the road a bit.
:-D
HappyCamper,NC
rot
3 Islanders with the same camera. Cool! How's the shutter lag?
Not too bad... But, not up to DSLR snuff. Manual claims 1.3 frames / sec which seems about right. The one problem I've seen so far is the autofocus -- in certain circumstances, it'll hunt and can fail completely. Low light and shooting through (dirty) glass seems to confuse it. I hope Terry doesn't have too much trouble with this on his hockey shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by KG4CGC
Spent yesterday at the Denver zoo with it -- the place was PACKED, so I didn't play as much as I would have liked, but I'll put some shots up on Flickr after I do some minor tweaking. Daughter had her D300 w/ 18-200 VR (she gets all the good stuff), so I'll have to borrow her card and see if we got any similar shots for comparison. That oughtta be depressing, eh? :lol:
I've binked around a bit in the sports mode and it doesn't seem to be a problem. They are still learning basic skills so we are not looking at blistering action photos. As far as the sled hockey goes the first demanding skill is uprighting yourself once you fall over...the kayak effect..lots of ice floundering and pissed off faces.
Hottest action shot so far.
Attachment 3475
:lol:
rot
:rofl:
Glad to hear it's working out! Would it be difficult to get above the glass? (Just wondering... that would probably put you farther away, but that lens should be able to handle it.)
Here's some "Boo at the Zoo" shots from yesterday:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tatanka...7625279240238/
Posted to Flickr in case anyone's into pixel peeping (full size shots posted). "Boo" is the Denver Zoo's annual Halloween deal and the place was really packed -- I think we parked about a mile from the entrance. They have a bunch of places set up so the kidaloos can do their trick-or-treating inside the zoo -- it's incredibly popular. I should have spent more time taking pictures of people. Some of the costumes were pretty outrageous.
Here's the SX30 compared (somewhat) to my daughter's Nikon D300 DSLR with a Nikkor 18-200 VR lens (~ $2,500 new, but she shoots weddings). We weren't attempting a shootout here -- these are just four similar pics that we both ended up with. SX30 was set to "Vivid color." No post-processing done on any of these; just resizing to fit the forum. If I did this right, you can click on the pictures to get the original (Caution - large files!). EXIF data should be intact.
Tiger, SX30:
http://westton.com/misc/sx30tiger.jpg
Tiger, D300:
http://westton.com/misc/d300tiger.jpg
Arctic Fox, SX30:
http://westton.com/misc/sx30fox.jpg
Arctic Fox, D300:
http://westton.com/misc/d300fox.jpg
Snake, SX30:
http://westton.com/misc/sx30snake.jpg
Snake, D300:
http://westton.com/misc/d300snake.jpg
Bird, SX30:
http://westton.com/misc/sx30bird.jpg
Bird, D300:
http://westton.com/misc/d300bird.jpg
I much prefer the more natural color of the Nikon shots from what I see here.
The "test" would have more validity were the shots all closer in framing -- much in the way the two shots of the snake are similar in subject size and framing. Both color and exposure are strongly influenced by the presence or absence of background. The first tiger is very contrasty and burned -- the second tiger is far more natural, with only one strong highlight on the shoulder in sun. The same with the foxes -- the first is properly exposed (Zones VIII and IX on the snout, but with sufficient latitude throughout) and the second far too gray (snow/beach syndrome) as a result of the differences in the background area included in each.
Both lenses seem to have a good image sharpness; the SX impressively so for such a wide ratio. I'd say it is a keeper, for sure. I would gladly trade my twenty-one pounds of bullshit in a sack for a single camera of that versatility. Will it take a remoteable flash?
I wish I'd thought of the comparisons before we went out -- could have come up with a better test with the things you mentioned and a few others like locking the ISO on both units to the same setting.
A big part of the color difference is due to having the SX30 set to "Vivid color" (in-camera processing) which saturates the color a little and shifts the color temperature slightly to the warm side.
I must admit though, if it weren't for the 35x zoom, the SX30 wouldn't be in the toy chest here. It's probably the best "superzoom" on the market today and while it does have a hot-shoe (Canon strobes preferred so they'll "talk" to each other), there is no RAW image capture. As much as I've shunned RAW in the past with good reason, the serious photo artisan really needs the capability. Ultimately, if there is no desire for the 35x zoom, the Canon G11 or G12 is the better tool (and a bit more compact to boot). The G series adds RAW capability, a less dense sensor (better image quality) and still has a hot shoe.
The fun part of this was just seeing how a $429 point-and-shoot stacks up against $2,500 worth of "pro" gear. In that, I'm well satisfied as a more casual user.