Yet another question about the SX40

[freeradical]

Panning is useful when you want to show motion blur, as in the background is blurred, but the subject is not. Set the shutter peed to something like 1/30 or 1/60 sec.

[JoeM]

freeradical wrote:
[quote=voodoopenguin]


I saw this photo the other day:



and thought I would never be able to get a shot like that but would I have a chance with the SX40? Ignoring being in the right position and clicking at the right time, if I was and I did, is the SX40 capable?

Paul

I would say maybe, depending upon how much you're zooming. The SX40 has a top shutter speed of 1/3200 of a second, which is very good for this type of camera. However, this is very high speed sports, and this shot was probably taken with a pro camera that has a top shutter speed of at least 1/8000 of a second.

To stop the motion of a race car moving across the frame with a "normal" focal length lens, you need a shutter speed of 1/2000 of a second, and head on, you need 1/500 of a second. Every doubling of the focal length requires ever faster shutter speed. So, with a 100mm equivalent focal length, you'd need shutter speeds of 1/4000, or 1/1000 of a second. The photographer who took this show was probably also pretty close.


Since the background is also out of focus (intentionally), this was probably shot wih a camera that has at least an APS-C sensor.
I have the camera and while I don't shoot sports or fast action, I would have to say maybe as well. I think at that point a really good photographer that knows what he or she is doing will get the best results possible from that camera.

[Gutenberg]

I wonder if you can buy a DSLR on the used or refurb market that would serve you better? Or is the SX40 attractive in part because it's smaller and easier to carry?

[freeradical]

Gutenberg wrote:
I wonder if you can buy a DSLR on the used or refurb market that would serve you better? Or is the SX40 attractive in part because it's smaller and easier to carry?

People like the SX40 because of it's super zoom capabilities. There's no way you could that kind of zoom on a DSLR for what you pay for an SX40. Super long zoom lenses are available, but their price is exorbitant if you can even find them.

And yes, it is much smaller because of the small sensor.


Here's a 180-600mm Nikon Ais lens. It weighs 3600 grams, which is just short of 8 pounds.

[DP]

>People like the SX40 because of it's super zoom capabilities. There's no way you could that kind of zoom on a DSLR for what you pay for an SX40. Super long zoom lenses are available, but their price is exorbitant if you can even find them.

And yes, it is much smaller because of the small sensor.

I am very impressed with the small sensor-I think the DIGIC 5 processor is a great software advancement. The quality is excellent even to the point of not needing a RAW format.
The zoom is the "A" feature but the image quality is much better than cameras from just a couple of years ago and is an "A" feature as well. I have recommended the SX260 to some folks because it is a more pocket size camera still with a 500mm zoom equivalent and has the same sensor and DIGIC 5 processor as the SX40. An excellent choice for folks who would like that optical zoom capability but the "bridge" type camera is too big.

[JoeM]

I've got both the SX-40 and the T3i. They both take great photos and have their own pros and cons. That being said, I've shot with both at the same sessions just to be able to compare.

One time was in a park taking photos of a couple for their engagement announcement and the other was indoors in a dimly lit conference room for my company sales meeting. Outdoors the photos were close but the same shots with the T3i looked a bit better. The low light photos were not close, the T3i really out performed the SX-40.

For me the SX-40 is a great vacation camera. The zoom and image quality for the price is great. For action sports like the original shot posted, I'd bet you'd be better off with something else.