Finally Done
Now that the camera is hitting North American shores, a review of the SX1 IS has come out from DPReview. This is a landmark camera as it uses Canon’s own CMOS sensor for a PowerShot for the first time.
From DPR
“In the last few months there have been a number of new superzoom cameras announced; all feature fast capture times, more and more new features, and wider and wider zoom ranges. It is too early to say how the SX1 IS stands up against these new cameras, and it will be interesting to see how this market segment shapes up. As it stands the SX1 – whilst interesting – offers too little to justify its high price, and while I’m sure that as its price falls it will become more attractive to a wider range of potential buyers, at the moment it’s impossible to see why you would buy one over the SX10 IS.”
It’s not an overly positive review. Probably for good reason.
Read more at DPR: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx1is/
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Hej, there is no reason to continue with these CMOS sensors, unless they come up with a new CMOS sensor technology with better IQ. You can’t sacrifice image quality over frame/s or HD video.
But as they make those sensors themselves, surely there is a way : use a bigger sensor or with less Mpixels, now they don’t have the old excuse anymore (buying others’ sensors).
How about a link the DPR article?
If you see the ISO 80 test, the camera is full of compression and low level noise even at that low sensitivity, end of the road in the MP race.
If the camera was 7MP-8MP tops it would be a much better IQ. The sensor is so petite with so many MP it’s laughable.
The camera does sound disappointing for the cost. We really need better light sensitivity and lower noise more than additional MP. If the price were lower, it might compete nicely.
“You can’t sacrifice image quality over frame/s or HD video.”
Sure you can. Canon is in the business of selling cameras and making money. Most buyers have no idea of the things that concern posters at canonrumors, but they sure as heck know that 18 MP is more than 15, which is more than 10.
What really surprised me is that people (and DPR) say you can’t get any details back from blown out high lights. With CHDK on my old 710IS P&S the RAWs give me almost as many stops of recoverable detail as a DSLR. The apparent lack of CA-correction in DPP for the SX1 (so far), doesn’t exactly help.
on the other hand, it’s got 1080/30p and stereo sound, which somehow the 500D isn’t capable of.
(yawn …) I just preordered my sigma dp2. I wish canon or nikon would make such a unique camera like that.
Forget about what’s inside the camera. Just look at the thing! It’s the Super Ugly! This is one of the ugliest cameras I have ever seen.
Hej, G cams arn’t IXUS’, people who would buy G-MOS do care about image quality more than average compact users.
I’m even surprise they released these twin cams with just different sensors, it’s like a benchmark prooving CCD is better than CMOS for this pixel density.
Dude.
I can assure you that 85% of Canon customers (point & shooters and DSLR newbies) don’t even know what’s the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors, all they care about is owning a camera that take pictures, that’s it, simple.
(10% are gearheads and 5% are full time photographers, the last 15% knows the difference)
Define “ugly”.
Google this, Leica S1
THAT is ugly, the one and only camera that totally (bleep)ed up Leica.
It’s not particulary suited as a replacement for a superzoom.
I can’t help but think a lot of people are missing the point here. Image quality vs. fps or HD video is just a choice. There’s no right or wrong answer; it depends upon what you want. I personally think the SX-1 is a brilliant camera.
I bought an SX-1 before it was announced in the US. I paid what I consider to be a fair price for it ($570 or so). Yes, that’s $200 or so more than the SX-10 without “a lot of” new features. I see it as giving me good video quality with a lot of flexibility with the option for HD in addition to serviceable image quality in good light (or with my 550EX flash). I don’t shoot HD clips all that often, but when I want it, VGA is a poor substitute. Would I have preferred something more like 6 MP and, say, a 20-400 equivalent zoom range (or even 20-300)? Absolutely. But my old S3 can’t use my flash and needs an adapter lens to get below 36 mm equivalent, both of which are significant restrictions. The SX-1 gives me a good camcorder and a good camera in one compact (I’m 6’5″, and if I say it’s compact, it’s compact!) package.
I also have a 20D with a decent set of lenses — 3 zooms (Sigma 12-24, Canon 28-135, and Canon 70-300) and some primes (28, 50 — the old style f/1.8, 85, and 200L). No, those zooms are not the best image quality (although the 70-300 makes a pretty good run at it, compared to the execrable 75-300 I previously had). When I want image quality, or low light performance, I use the 20D. Eventually I’ll upgrade, to what, I haven’t decided (I’m even thinking a used 5D mk I, potentially).
Personally, I’m not terribly enamored of the 5D mkII as a video camera (even ignoring the price, and I’m not really a pro). While the image quality runs rings around the SX-1, the 5D doesn’t strike me as a particularly good form factor for shooting video on the fly, which is my shooting style. Having a wide zoom range is more important for video, since you can’t change lenses in the middle of a clip, and the power zoom is smoother than manual zoom. The 5D also doesn’t have a stereo mike, and the USM on the SX1 is much quieter than that on even the 85 f/1.8 and 200 f/2.8 — again, completely irrelevant for still photography, but possibly relevant when shooting video with an on-camera mike.
Would I use the SX-1 at a wedding? Yes, for video clips or as a backup. An HD clip of the groom breaking the glass at a Jewish wedding, quickly zooming way out to catch a shot of the couple, would be well worth it even if the quality’s not as good technically as the 5D. Likewise, throwing the bouquet or the garter if there’s enough light. Would I use it for formal shots? No, but that’s what the 20D is for. I think DPR missed the boat on this — HD video in a compact camera *is* a disruptive feature.
I like image quality also, but I also like the shot I get vs. the one I don’t, and I also don’t have an unlimited budget for a hobby. The SX-1 fills a lot of niches very well, and I think Canon made a good set of tradeoffs.
its still going to beat out any compact in terms of image quality.
not as ugly as your face!
Thanks for good article. Hope to see more soon.