Images & Specifications for PowerShot SX730 HS Leak Ahead of Launch

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,507
1,229
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
Sadly, the new SX PowerShot camera we told you was coming isn’t a replacement for the PowerShot SX60 HS, and a lot of people are going to wish it was.</p>
<p>Instead we get the PowerShot SX730 HS, a compact 40x zoom camera. There is something pretty cool about a 1000mm equivalent camera that will fit in your coat pocket.</p>
<p><span class="goog-text-highlight">PowerShot SX 730 HS Specifications (Google Translated0</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Number of effective </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">pixels: </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">approximately 20.3 </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">million pixels </span></li>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Focal length: 4.3-172.0mm (24-</span><span class="goog-text-highlight">960mm in terms of 35 mm)</span></li>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Lens Speed: F3.3 – </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">6.9</span></li>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Color: Black / Silver</span></li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-29008 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_bk_001.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_bk_001-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver003.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver003-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver004.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver004-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver005.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver005-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 

hendrik-sg

EOS RP
Apr 21, 2011
247
25
so maybe this has a 1/2.3 sensor is my guess, is 20MP and has a 6.9 lens at the long end.

For this pixed density the system is clearly diffraction limited, which means it has no possibility to take sharp pics even with a really good lens.

Maybe less rang with more opening would have delivered better IQ, specially if taking camera shake into consideration

BUT more is better, more MP and more zoom range :). Diffraction is less imporatant to understand
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,434
1,423
hendrik-sg said:
so maybe this has a 1/2.3 sensor is my guess, is 20MP and has a 6.9 lens at the long end.

For this pixed density the system is clearly diffraction limited, which means it has no possibility to take sharp pics even with a really good lens.

Maybe less rang with more opening would have delivered better IQ, specially if taking camera shake into consideration

BUT more is better, more MP and more zoom range :) . Diffraction is less imporatant to understand
Its a entry level super zoom and sells very well. If you are going to produce a camera the masses want for the price they want, there will be compromises. I'm sure that most who buy one will be very happy. Those who want a $20,000 rig for a few hundred --???
 

hendrik-sg

EOS RP
Apr 21, 2011
247
25
i did not tell that canan should not produce what the masses want. The masses want specs. I am joking that the masses not understand the physical limitaions, even some reviewers may write that the lens is soft at the long end :) the lens has FF equivalent opening of F39.

Maybe a camera with 15MP, 600mm max lengh and a F20 equivalent opening lens would give better results, taking into account that it would allow 2x shutter speed, and have less motion blur. Sure the specs would sound less spectacular
 

ExodistPhotography

Photographer, Artist & Youtuber
Feb 20, 2016
225
3
42
Phillippines
www.youtube.com
I have owned a number of these little jewels. People can say they will not get you great images. But IMHO they are still a heck of a lot better then the latest smart phone/camera on the market. And smartphones are what are taking over the market these days..
 

tmroper

EOS 90D
Sep 22, 2016
166
63
I have an old (10 years or so) PowerShot I use just for backpacking (which is probably only once or twice a year now), and for the size and weight and price, I'm always amazed at the photos. I could use my smartphone these days, but it's a cheapish one, and I want to preserve the battery anyway (emergency use only). And I'm sure others have similar, specific uses, making this more than just something for the mindless "masses."
 

Nininini

EOS RP
Sep 21, 2015
289
0
hendrik-sg said:
For this pixed density the system is clearly diffraction limited, which means it has no possibility to take sharp pics even with a really good lens.
You don't understand how diffraction works in the real world.

The amount of detail you gain from adding more pixels more than makes up for the small detail you lose due to diffraction.

It reminds me of those people who complain that "lenses can't resolve that amount of pixels". These people don't understand that even the worst lens in the world will be able to capture more detail, regardless how bad the lens you put in front of the sensor is.
 

Nininini

EOS RP
Sep 21, 2015
289
0
ExodistPhotography said:
I have owned a number of these little jewels. People can say they will not get you great images. But IMHO they are still a heck of a lot better then the latest smart phone/camera on the market. And smartphones are what are taking over the market these days..
And, most people don't have that 1200mm full frame lens costing and weighing the same as a car.

Sometimes it's not about how great the image will turn out, but if you can capture it in the first place!

This little camera can capture things a full frame camera will never be able to capture without a massive lens that 99% of users can't afford.

All cameras have their purpose. These little things have their purpose, they offer range in a tiny affordable package, and you turn in some image quality in return.

(and no you can't crop your 70-200 image and get the same detail, you're going to need that 600mm sigma at the very least)
 

bedford

EOS M50
Apr 15, 2015
44
0
Nininini said:
The amount of detail you gain from adding more pixels more than makes up for the small detail you lose due to diffraction.

It reminds me of those people who complain that "lenses can't resolve that amount of pixels". These people don't understand that even the worst lens in the world will be able to capture more detail, regardless how bad the lens you put in fron of the sensor is.
Would it (in theory) be possible to use deconvolution to (partly) compensate for diffraction?

There's more and more processing power in digital cameras available, so why not use it?

Oliver
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,063
341
Vancouver, BC
Personally, I think these things are really useful and under-appreciated.

I have an S120 in my pocket quite often, because if I'm walking around with 2 DSLR bodies, I can't capture the entire useful focal range without using a crappy lens (and even then, I can't go nearly as wide, unless I dedicate one body to wide).

Having a pocket camera lets me take that quick shot of something that's otherwise not in my focal range, without having to swap lens. I briefly considered a mirrorless for this role, but really, they're still too big for a 3rd body because of lens protrusion (it's not comfortable to stick it in a pocket).

Oh, and another thing -- they'll let you take these into almost any concert.
 

Nininini

EOS RP
Sep 21, 2015
289
0
bedford said:
Would it (in theory) be possible to use deconvolution to (partly) compensate for diffraction?

There's more and more processing power in digital cameras available, so why not use it?

Oliver
Don't see why not. They used to think the human eye was the most detail one could ever resolve with electronics, it was assumed human eyes were diffraction limited and our eyes were perfect.

Until a biologist invented a trick to test how much detail birds were resolving. He used 2 panels, one with a grating and one without, and switched them around. The one with the grating had food behind it. The grating was made 5 times smaller than a human eye could see, yet the bird still managed to choose the grated panel with the food behind it, proving some birds can resolve 5 times more detail than human eyes. This test has become quite popular, there are most likely birds who can resolve 20x times what humans can. We are not even close to that with current sensors.

Birds can see things from miles away, yet they don't have a telephoto lens, they just resolve an enormous amount of detail and manage to overcome any diffraction limits.
 

IglooEater

EOS R
Nov 15, 2014
904
0
ExodistPhotography said:
I have owned a number of these little jewels. People can say they will not get you great images. But IMHO they are still a heck of a lot better then the latest smart phone/camera on the market. And smartphones are what are taking over the market these days..
I would not dislike to have one of these. Something more versatile than a cellphone but still fits in my pocket.
 

photonius

EOS RP
Jul 13, 2013
239
17
Canon Rumors said:
Sadly, the new SX PowerShot camera we told you was coming isn’t a replacement for the PowerShot SX60 HS, and a lot of people are going to wish it was.</p>
<p>Instead we get the PowerShot SX730 HS, a compact 40x zoom camera. There is something pretty cool about a 1000mm equivalent camera that will fit in your coat pocket.</p>
<p><span class="goog-text-highlight">PowerShot SX 730 HS Specifications (Google Translated0</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Number of effective </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">pixels: </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">approximately 20.3 </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">million pixels </span></li>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Focal length: 4.3-172.0mm (24-</span><span class="goog-text-highlight">960mm in terms of 35 mm)</span></li>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Lens Speed: F3.3 – </span><span class="goog-text-highlight">6.9</span></li>
<li><span class="goog-text-highlight">Color: Black / Silver</span></li>
</ul>

<style type='text/css'>
#gallery-1 {
margin: auto;
}
#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
float: left;
margin-top: 10px;
text-align: center;
width: 25%;
}
#gallery-1 img {
border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
}
#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
margin-left: 0;
}
/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
</style>
<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-29008 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_bk_001.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_bk_001-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver003.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver003-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver004.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver004-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver005.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PowerShotSX730_Silver005-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
probably again no GPS. These cameras are made for light travel/hiking, where GPS could be useful (sometimes no obvious landmarks). No, don't want to use the phone gps hooked up to camera, save it's batteries for other things.
 
May 19, 2016
6
0
If the given specifications for the SX 730 are correct, then I don’t understand the reasoning behind them:

From the numbers shown, and assuming a 4:3 aspect ratio, we can conclude that the camera’s sensor is approximately 6.5 mm wide with 5200 pixels across. This means the size of the pixels is 1.3 µm. With an aperture of f/3.3 to f/6.9 at the short and long ends of the zoom range diffraction prevents the lens from resolving details smaller than 2.2 to 3.6 µm, or 1.7 to 3.3 pixels. The effective image resolution will be on the order of 4 Mpixels for wide-angle and 1.5 Mpixels for telephoto shots.

Image processing might improve the resolution somewhat, but with pixels as small as in this device photon shot noise will make recovering real detail very difficult except in situations with very bright light. Aggressive edge enhancement can make photos look sharper, but the apparent detail will be an illusion.

Note that high end cellphones such as the Google Pixel or the iPhone 7 have sensors as large as the one in the SX 730, but with fewer pixels, and the phones have lenses with an aperture around f/2 in order to make the optical resolution of the device match the sensor resolution.

Unless you really need that superzoom, you will most likely get better images with a cellphone. Even a 2x digital zoom picture on a 12 MPixel cellphone camera is close to the resolution you’ll get out from an equivalent SX 730 shot.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,063
341
Vancouver, BC
anchorage said:
If the given specifications for the SX 730 are correct, then I don’t understand the reasoning behind them:

From the numbers shown, and assuming a 4:3 aspect ratio, we can conclude that the camera’s sensor is approximately 6.5 mm wide with 5200 pixels across. This means the size of the pixels is 1.3 µm. With an aperture of f/3.3 to f/6.9 at the short and long ends of the zoom range diffraction prevents the lens from resolving details smaller than 2.2 to 3.6 µm, or 1.7 to 3.3 pixels. The effective image resolution will be on the order of 4 Mpixels for wide-angle and 1.5 Mpixels for telephoto shots.

Image processing might improve the resolution somewhat, but with pixels as small as in this device photon shot noise will make recovering real detail very difficult except in situations with very bright light. Aggressive edge enhancement can make photos look sharper, but the apparent detail will be an illusion.

Note that high end cellphones such as the Google Pixel or the iPhone 7 have sensors as large as the one in the SX 730, but with fewer pixels, and the phones have lenses with an aperture around f/2 in order to make the optical resolution of the device match the sensor resolution.

Unless you really need that superzoom, you will most likely get better images with a cellphone. Even a 2x digital zoom picture on a 12 MPixel cellphone camera is close to the resolution you’ll get out from an equivalent SX 730 shot.
The SX720 has similar specs: f/3.3-6.9, 5184x3888, 4.3-172mm (35 mm equivalent: 24-960mm), and it takes WAY better pictures than an iPhone 6 or Galaxy S7 when you compare it in a variety of situations.

The most obvious is zoom. You can't have a wide focal range without having moving glass elements, and you can't have great magnification if you can't put separation between the lenses. So even if you don't need the full superzoom, at most levels of magnification, you're just going to get better IQ out of larger lenses. It's just way easier to do.

The second is the size of the sensor. Just like a FF camera takes much better pictures at low ISO than an APS-C, smartphones get stomped on low light. Pretty much all low light shots have to be taken with the phone camera flash, which is joke if you want to get a good picture beyond happy memories. There is no way to remedy this on a smartphone, other than build a bigger sensor, and that's not going to happen for all sorts of reasons.

So, if you're taking pictures on a boat while sipping margaritas, yeah, the smartphone will take as good a photo as anything. But if you're trying to take photos in darker conditions or catch your kid closer up during a soccer game, the SX is going to win out every time.

Having goofed around with the current model, the SX720 -- I think it's a pretty nice point and shoot. I prefer the Sxxx because it's a little smaller and easier on the pocket (especially in the summer, when I don't have a coat on), but if I didn't so often have a DSLR within grabbing range, I'd consider an SXxxx. Either way... I'll take the camera with the lenses that extend a few inches to give me a better shot over my cell phone.