Does anyone here have a SX10?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by scarumcreek@gmail.com, Dec 22, 2008.

  1. Guest

    I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...

    Any help is greatly appreciated.

    -=] RiverMan [=-
    , Dec 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stephen Henning wrote:
    []
    > Here are some of the specs:
    >
    > Image Sensor: 1/2.3" CCD, 10 MP
    > EVF Viewfinder: .44", 235,000 pixels
    > LCD Monitor: 2.5", 230,000 pixels, vari-angle
    > Continuous Shooting: 1.4 shots/sec
    > Highest Movie Resolution: 640 x 480, 30 fps, 1 hour max. (4GB)
    > Battery Life: 600 shots
    > Size and Weight: 124 x 88 x 87 mm, 560 grams
    > Lens: 28-560mm equiv, f/2.8-f/5.7
    > Formats: 4/3


    Thanks for that report, Steve, most encouraging.

    One minor point is that, like many cameras, the LCD and EVF is "dots", not
    RGB pixels. So each is around 77K RGB pixels.

    Sounds like you will have a lot of fun with that camera - I know how much
    I enjoyed my FZ5.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Cohen Guest

    Stephen Henning wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...

    >
    > I have had my SX10 IS for about 2 months now. It is actually better than
    > I expected. The focus is extremely precise, even in low light when it
    > uses the built in focus lamp for the flash. The antishake has worked
    > remarkably well. It is fast. The exposures are perfect with and
    > without flash. The image stabilization seems to work flawlessly. It is
    > amazing to handhold a 560 mm-equiv shot and have it come out crystal
    > clear. I mainly use the EVF. I only use the LCD screen when I can't
    > use the EVF do to holding the camera high over my head and holding the
    > camera down low to get a closeup. Then is when the articulated LCD
    > screen is extremely handy. It swivels to just about any position.
    >
    > I came from a Minolta Z5. The SX10 has a much more powerful flash. The
    > SX10 comes with a lens hood which can be stored on the camera when not
    > used. The SX10 has almost twice the zoom range. The image
    > stabilization is a little better, the Z5 was good also. The SX10 is
    > easier to use for close-ups. The SX10 has excellent near-macro
    > capability without using macro mode.
    >
    > The one area that I am having some difficulty is knowing when to use
    > macro mode. All of my pictures are good. I am going to put my camera on
    > a copy stand and test the macro capability so I know what is optimum for
    > macro photography. In macro mode, it seems to like fairly low focal
    > lengths. With macro off, it will use longer focal lengths, but you have
    > to watch that you don't get too close.
    >
    > I bought the SX10 because:
    >
    > It has a hot shoe for an external flash
    > It is focuses quickly for close-ups
    > It has great zoom range, 28-560 mm-equiv
    > It has great image stabilization
    > It has super macro capabilities
    > It has fast operation
    >
    > There is an Olympus that has similar specs. It had a lot of trouble
    > locking in the focus when doing close-ups. That is what convinced me to
    > get the SX10. The SX10 worked flawlessly.
    >
    > Several of my friends with DSLR's are looking at my SX10. Most don't
    > change their lenses very often, especially in the field because they
    > can't afford to take a chance of getting dust on their sensor. It is
    > their dream to have a digital camera where they have the full range of
    > zoom without changing lenses and with super antishake performance. I
    > already have that.
    >
    > Here are some of the specs:
    >
    > Image Sensor: 1/2.3" CCD, 10 MP
    > EVF Viewfinder: .44", 235,000 pixels
    > LCD Monitor: 2.5", 230,000 pixels, vari-angle
    > Continuous Shooting: 1.4 shots/sec
    > Highest Movie Resolution: 640 x 480, 30 fps, 1 hour max. (4GB)
    > Battery Life: 600 shots
    > Size and Weight: 124 x 88 x 87 mm, 560 grams
    > Lens: 28-560mm equiv, f/2.8-f/5.7
    > Formats: 4/3
    >

    As far as I can tell (and I haven't done much of this), on my A95 the
    macro mode is bypassed when you use manual focus. I'm not sure what
    macro mode does on a p&s. On a dslr lens I believe it actually moves an
    element. Play with manual focus mode and see what you think.
    Right now, if I had to replace my camera, it would most likely be the
    sx10-is, good luck with yours. I've no interest in getting involved in
    the p&s vs dslr discussion. Different strokes for different folks.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Dec 22, 2008
    #3
  4. GregS Guest

    In article <>, Stephen Henning <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...

    >
    >I have had my SX10 IS for about 2 months now. It is actually better than
    >I expected. The focus is extremely precise, even in low light when it
    >uses the built in focus lamp for the flash. The antishake has worked
    >re


    I held one in the store. Could't figure out the small LCD screen. Can you use it without
    flipping it out ? Strange crosshatch and other strange stuff on display. Too technical
    for me. How can I go wrong for $230 on a Fuji S2000 ??

    greg
    GregS, Dec 23, 2008
    #4
  5. GregS Guest

    In article <gir04e$nqo$>, (GregS) wrote:
    >In article <>, Stephen
    > Henning <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...

    >>
    >>I have had my SX10 IS for about 2 months now. It is actually better than
    >>I expected. The focus is extremely precise, even in low light when it
    >>uses the built in focus lamp for the flash. The antishake has worked
    >>re

    >
    >I held one in the store. Could't figure out the small LCD screen. Can you use
    > it without
    >flipping it out ? Strange crosshatch and other strange stuff on display. Too
    > technical
    >for me. How can I go wrong for $230 on a Fuji S2000 ??
    >
    >greg


    SD2000HD

    Today $223 at Best Buy order. I looked at images on Imaging Resource and it
    was half decent for the money I think.

    greg
    GregS, Dec 23, 2008
    #5
  6. GregS Guest

    In article <gir3as$ofa$>, (GregS) wrote:
    >In article <gir04e$nqo$>,
    > (GregS) wrote:
    >>In article <>, Stephen
    >> Henning <> wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...
    >>>
    >>>I have had my SX10 IS for about 2 months now. It is actually better than
    >>>I expected. The focus is extremely precise, even in low light when it
    >>>uses the built in focus lamp for the flash. The antishake has worked
    >>>re

    >>
    >>I held one in the store. Could't figure out the small LCD screen. Can you use
    >> it without
    >>flipping it out ? Strange crosshatch and other strange stuff on display. Too
    >> technical
    >>for me. How can I go wrong for $230 on a Fuji S2000 ??
    >>
    >>greg

    >
    >SD2000HD
    >
    >Today $223 at Best Buy order. I looked at images on Imaging Resource and it
    >was half decent for the money I think.


    I just looked again at the images at IR with the side by side comparison shots.
    The Fuji actually lookes better than the SX10 on a number of shots. The Fuji
    has high chromatic distortion on macro. I read these other reports on how
    poor the ISO is and then it does not look too bad to me, better than the Canon
    in some areas. ?

    greg
    GregS, Dec 23, 2008
    #6
  7. ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:29:18 GMT, GregS wrote:

    >>I have had my SX10 IS for about 2 months now. It is actually better than
    >>I expected. The focus is extremely precise, even in low light when it
    >>uses the built in focus lamp for the flash. The antishake has worked
    >>re

    >
    > I held one in the store. Could't figure out the small LCD screen. Can you use it without
    > flipping it out ? Strange crosshatch and other strange stuff on display. Too technical
    > for me. How can I go wrong for $230 on a Fuji S2000 ??


    The difference in image quality is probably very slight. Similar
    sensors, 10mp 1/2.3", but many of Fuji's cameras have reputations
    for good low light performance, so there's a chance that the S2000
    might have a stop or so better high ISO image quality. For video,
    Canon's cameras are usually superior, and the SX10 records audio in
    stereo vs. mono for the S2000. Weight (with batteries installed)
    has the SX10 about 50% heavier than the S2000. Canon's previous
    version, the S5 IS is approximately the same weight as the S2000.
    The SX10 has a wider range of shutter speeds, 15 sec. to 1/3,200
    sec. vs 4 sec. to 1/1,000 sec. for the S2000. DPReview has 8.8m for
    the S2000's flash range vs 5.2m for the SX10. If the SX10's flash
    was twice as powerful it would have a range of 7.4m, and if it was
    four times as powerful the range would extend to 10.4m, so all else
    being equal, the S2000's flash (possibly due to the S2000's ISO
    performance) performs like an SX10 with about three times more
    output from its flash. This type of comparison usually identifies
    cameras that have better sensor performance at higher ISOs. For
    what it's worth, the SX10 goes up to ISO 1,600 and the S2000 up to
    ISO 3,200 at full resolution and ISO 6,400 at 5mp resolution. These
    high ISOs are pretty much for emergency use in cameras such as these
    that have small sensors. If low light performance is important for
    you and you can test the cameras in a store, bring an SD card to
    take pictures at various ISOs for later comparisons at home.

    If you really are able to test the cameras, compare the quickness
    and accuracy of their focusing, particularly in lower light areas of
    the store, and also see how comfortable or clumsy they feel in your
    hands, as well as how clumsy their menu systems are. Many of the
    settings on the SX10 are changed by spinning a ring that surrounds a
    center button while most other cameras have a similar four way (up,
    down, left, right) controller ring also surrounding a central
    button. Some people have no problem with the SX10's rotating
    control ring. Many others feel that Canon's implementation needs to
    be improved, as fine, sensitive control just isn't there. To make
    small changes the ring needs to be spun quickly over a greater
    angular distance than seems reasonable, or nothing will happen.
    Maybe an SX10 II will get it right, but despite this, the SX10 is a
    very nice camera, and some people will prefer it, and others will
    prefer the S2000.
    ASAAR, Dec 23, 2008
    #7
  8. GregS Guest

    In article <>, ASAAR <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:29:18 GMT, GregS wrote:
    >
    >>>I have had my SX10 IS for about 2 months now. It is actually better than
    >>>I expected. The focus is extremely precise, even in low light when it
    >>>uses the built in focus lamp for the flash. The antishake has worked
    >>>re

    >>
    >> I held one in the store. Could't figure out the small LCD screen. Can you use

    > it without
    >> flipping it out ? Strange crosshatch and other strange stuff on display. Too

    > technical
    >> for me. How can I go wrong for $230 on a Fuji S2000 ??

    >
    > The difference in image quality is probably very slight. Similar
    >sensors, 10mp 1/2.3", but many of Fuji's cameras have reputations
    >for good low light performance, so there's a chance that the S2000
    >might have a stop or so better high ISO image quality. For video,
    >Canon's cameras are usually superior, and the SX10 records audio in
    >stereo vs. mono for the S2000. Weight (with batteries installed)
    >has the SX10 about 50% heavier than the S2000. Canon's previous
    >version, the S5 IS is approximately the same weight as the S2000.
    >The SX10 has a wider range of shutter speeds, 15 sec. to 1/3,200
    >sec. vs 4 sec. to 1/1,000 sec. for the S2000. DPReview has 8.8m for
    >the S2000's flash range vs 5.2m for the SX10. If the SX10's flash
    >was twice as powerful it would have a range of 7.4m, and if it was
    >four times as powerful the range would extend to 10.4m, so all else
    >being equal, the S2000's flash (possibly due to the S2000's ISO
    >performance) performs like an SX10 with about three times more
    >output from its flash. This type of comparison usually identifies
    >cameras that have better sensor performance at higher ISOs. For
    >what it's worth, the SX10 goes up to ISO 1,600 and the S2000 up to
    >ISO 3,200 at full resolution and ISO 6,400 at 5mp resolution. These
    >high ISOs are pretty much for emergency use in cameras such as these
    >that have small sensors. If low light performance is important for
    >you and you can test the cameras in a store, bring an SD card to
    >take pictures at various ISOs for later comparisons at home.
    >
    > If you really are able to test the cameras, compare the quickness
    >and accuracy of their focusing, particularly in lower light areas of
    >the store, and also see how comfortable or clumsy they feel in your
    >hands, as well as how clumsy their menu systems are. Many of the
    >settings on the SX10 are changed by spinning a ring that surrounds a
    >center button while most other cameras have a similar four way (up,
    >down, left, right) controller ring also surrounding a central
    >button. Some people have no problem with the SX10's rotating
    >control ring. Many others feel that Canon's implementation needs to
    >be improved, as fine, sensitive control just isn't there. To make
    >small changes the ring needs to be spun quickly over a greater
    >angular distance than seems reasonable, or nothing will happen.
    >Maybe an SX10 II will get it right, but despite this, the SX10 is a
    >very nice camera, and some people will prefer it, and others will
    >prefer the S2000.
    >


    Thanks for giving the info. I thought the SX 10 would be a cool camera.
    I decided on buying a Nikon D40 two months ago, but nothing
    happened, I got money shy. Great ISO performance over these two.
    Good idea to take a memory into the store !

    greg
    GregS, Dec 23, 2008
    #8
  9. TheRealSteve Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:12:17 -0500, Stephen Henning <>
    wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...


    Don't have one. But I have 2 SX-70's. One, the original brushed
    metal and the other, a white Model 2. I have no idea what I'm going
    to do with them though. At least they don't take up much space.

    Steve
    TheRealSteve, Dec 23, 2008
    #9
  10. Paul Furman Guest

    TheRealSteve wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:12:17 -0500, Stephen Henning <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...

    >
    > Don't have one. But I have 2 SX-70's. One, the original brushed
    > metal and the other, a white Model 2. I have no idea what I'm going
    > to do with them though. At least they don't take up much space.


    That's a groovy old Polaroid, I had lots of fun with one when I was a
    kid. I just checked recent sales on ebay and one sold for $200 though
    most for around $30 and a package of 100 pieces of film sold for $456 !

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 24, 2008
    #10
  11. TheRealSteve Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:07:29 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >TheRealSteve wrote:
    >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:12:17 -0500, Stephen Henning <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...

    >>
    >> Don't have one. But I have 2 SX-70's. One, the original brushed
    >> metal and the other, a white Model 2. I have no idea what I'm going
    >> to do with them though. At least they don't take up much space.

    >
    >That's a groovy old Polaroid, I had lots of fun with one when I was a
    >kid. I just checked recent sales on ebay and one sold for $200 though
    >most for around $30 and a package of 100 pieces of film sold for $456 !


    Is that 100 pieces or 100 packs? If it was 100 packs, that's quite a
    deal. 100 pieces? Forget it.

    I have a few older Polaroids I don't use anymore so the SX-70's can
    join the collection. A Model 135 that was my parent's, a Colorpak II
    that I used as a kid, and a really old one that was my grandfather's
    but I'd have to dig it out to look at the model number. It uses roll
    film.

    Steve
    TheRealSteve, Dec 24, 2008
    #11
  12. Paul Furman Guest

    TheRealSteve wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >> TheRealSteve wrote:
    >>> Stephen Henning wrote:
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>>>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...
    >>> Don't have one. But I have 2 SX-70's. One, the original brushed
    >>> metal and the other, a white Model 2. I have no idea what I'm going
    >>> to do with them though. At least they don't take up much space.

    >> That's a groovy old Polaroid, I had lots of fun with one when I was a
    >> kid. I just checked recent sales on ebay and one sold for $200 though
    >> most for around $30 and a package of 100 pieces of film sold for $456 !

    >
    > Is that 100 pieces or 100 packs? If it was 100 packs, that's quite a
    > deal. 100 pieces? Forget it.


    Collector's film. Keep it in your freezer with Elvis' sperm. :)

    "Up for auction are 10 packs (100 photos total) of Polaroid SX-70 / time
    zero film. This film expired in OCT 2006, which makes it some of the
    last SX-70 film Polaroid made before discontinuing it. It has been
    stored in the fridge.

    Since it is expired, I am selling it as is. I tested a pack from the
    same batch, and the pictures still look great.

    This is a great chance to buy some rare film."

    > I have a few older Polaroids I don't use anymore so the SX-70's can
    > join the collection. A Model 135 that was my parent's, a Colorpak II
    > that I used as a kid, and a really old one that was my grandfather's
    > but I'd have to dig it out to look at the model number. It uses roll
    > film.


    The interesting thing is they are all basically medium format cameras.
    <g>

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 24, 2008
    #12
  13. TheRealSteve Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:10:41 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >TheRealSteve wrote:
    >> Paul Furman wrote:
    >>> TheRealSteve wrote:
    >>>> Stephen Henning wrote:
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>>>>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...
    >>>> Don't have one. But I have 2 SX-70's. One, the original brushed
    >>>> metal and the other, a white Model 2. I have no idea what I'm going
    >>>> to do with them though. At least they don't take up much space.
    >>> That's a groovy old Polaroid, I had lots of fun with one when I was a
    >>> kid. I just checked recent sales on ebay and one sold for $200 though
    >>> most for around $30 and a package of 100 pieces of film sold for $456 !

    >>
    >> Is that 100 pieces or 100 packs? If it was 100 packs, that's quite a
    >> deal. 100 pieces? Forget it.

    >
    >Collector's film. Keep it in your freezer with Elvis' sperm. :)
    >
    >"Up for auction are 10 packs (100 photos total) of Polaroid SX-70 / time
    >zero film. This film expired in OCT 2006, which makes it some of the
    >last SX-70 film Polaroid made before discontinuing it. It has been
    >stored in the fridge.


    You can stil get the 600 film, which is usable with a filter, for way
    less. The Time Zero film is outragous. I can think of better things
    to do with my money than spend $4.56 per shot for expired film.

    I don't mind adding all the polaroids to the box of cameras I have
    that I'll never use again. A Canon EOS Rebel (original Andre Agassi
    advertised model), a Kodak pocket instamatic 10 with a flash cube
    extender, an old Minox that I still have an 8x11mm cartridge for with
    film that's probably 40 years expired, an old Kodak Duaflex IV 620
    twin lens reflex box camera, a Brownie box camera...

    These have more value to me than I could ever get by selling them
    because they're cameras of my childhood and my parents and
    grandparents But they'll all never take another picture. Which for
    most of them isn't such a bad thing.

    >> I have a few older Polaroids I don't use anymore so the SX-70's can
    >> join the collection. A Model 135 that was my parent's, a Colorpak II
    >> that I used as a kid, and a really old one that was my grandfather's
    >> but I'd have to dig it out to look at the model number. It uses roll
    >> film.

    >
    >The interesting thing is they are all basically medium format cameras.
    ><g>


    True. Which just goes to show that saying a camera is "medium format"
    doesn't necessarily mean it takes great pictures.

    Steve
    TheRealSteve, Dec 24, 2008
    #13
  14. Paul Furman Guest

    TheRealSteve wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:10:41 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> TheRealSteve wrote:
    >>> Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>> TheRealSteve wrote:
    >>>>> Stephen Henning wrote:
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>>>>>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...
    >>>>> Don't have one. But I have 2 SX-70's. One, the original brushed
    >>>>> metal and the other, a white Model 2. I have no idea what I'm going
    >>>>> to do with them though. At least they don't take up much space.
    >>>> That's a groovy old Polaroid, I had lots of fun with one when I was a
    >>>> kid. I just checked recent sales on ebay and one sold for $200 though
    >>>> most for around $30 and a package of 100 pieces of film sold for $456 !
    >>> Is that 100 pieces or 100 packs? If it was 100 packs, that's quite a
    >>> deal. 100 pieces? Forget it.

    >> Collector's film. Keep it in your freezer with Elvis' sperm. :)
    >>
    >> "Up for auction are 10 packs (100 photos total) of Polaroid SX-70 / time
    >> zero film. This film expired in OCT 2006, which makes it some of the
    >> last SX-70 film Polaroid made before discontinuing it. It has been
    >> stored in the fridge.

    >
    > You can stil get the 600 film, which is usable with a filter, for way
    > less. The Time Zero film is outragous. I can think of better things
    > to do with my money than spend $4.56 per shot for expired film.
    >
    > I don't mind adding all the polaroids to the box of cameras I have
    > that I'll never use again. A Canon EOS Rebel (original Andre Agassi
    > advertised model), a Kodak pocket instamatic 10 with a flash cube
    > extender, an old Minox that I still have an 8x11mm cartridge for with
    > film that's probably 40 years expired, an old Kodak Duaflex IV 620
    > twin lens reflex box camera, a Brownie box camera...
    >
    > These have more value to me than I could ever get by selling them
    > because they're cameras of my childhood and my parents and
    > grandparents But they'll all never take another picture. Which for
    > most of them isn't such a bad thing.


    I gave my old dead Canon AE1 to a 10 year old autistic boy that I work
    with, he's very enthusiastic about photography and has a good eye, his
    dad studied cinematography so he's being groomed... I had second
    thoughts, thinking he probably doesn't even play with it but when I
    asked he said 'no, don't take it back, I want it' <grin>. I showed him
    how to open the film door & dismount the lens... it's very cool looking
    with a big bright viewfinder where you can really see the DOF effects.
    The foam seals on the mirror are toast, battery dead, lens mount
    wobbly... I have a photo of the camera on my web site and it has somehow
    attracted comments from a series of 13 year old girls who really want a
    cool camera like that <g>. Maybe you've got a grandkid or something who
    could enjoy them.


    >>> I have a few older Polaroids I don't use anymore so the SX-70's can
    >>> join the collection. A Model 135 that was my parent's, a Colorpak II
    >>> that I used as a kid, and a really old one that was my grandfather's
    >>> but I'd have to dig it out to look at the model number. It uses roll
    >>> film.

    >> The interesting thing is they are all basically medium format cameras.
    >> <g>

    >
    > True. Which just goes to show that saying a camera is "medium format"
    > doesn't necessarily mean it takes great pictures.
    >
    > Steve



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 24, 2008
    #14
  15. TheRealSteve Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:17:24 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >TheRealSteve wrote:
    >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:10:41 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> TheRealSteve wrote:
    >>>> Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>>> TheRealSteve wrote:
    >>>>>> Stephen Henning wrote:
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I am planning to buy a new digital camera this week but wanted to see
    >>>>>>>> what current owners had to say about the Canon SX10...
    >>>>>> Don't have one. But I have 2 SX-70's. One, the original brushed
    >>>>>> metal and the other, a white Model 2. I have no idea what I'm going
    >>>>>> to do with them though. At least they don't take up much space.
    >>>>> That's a groovy old Polaroid, I had lots of fun with one when I was a
    >>>>> kid. I just checked recent sales on ebay and one sold for $200 though
    >>>>> most for around $30 and a package of 100 pieces of film sold for $456 !
    >>>> Is that 100 pieces or 100 packs? If it was 100 packs, that's quite a
    >>>> deal. 100 pieces? Forget it.
    >>> Collector's film. Keep it in your freezer with Elvis' sperm. :)
    >>>
    >>> "Up for auction are 10 packs (100 photos total) of Polaroid SX-70 / time
    >>> zero film. This film expired in OCT 2006, which makes it some of the
    >>> last SX-70 film Polaroid made before discontinuing it. It has been
    >>> stored in the fridge.

    >>
    >> You can stil get the 600 film, which is usable with a filter, for way
    >> less. The Time Zero film is outragous. I can think of better things
    >> to do with my money than spend $4.56 per shot for expired film.
    >>
    >> I don't mind adding all the polaroids to the box of cameras I have
    >> that I'll never use again. A Canon EOS Rebel (original Andre Agassi
    >> advertised model), a Kodak pocket instamatic 10 with a flash cube
    >> extender, an old Minox that I still have an 8x11mm cartridge for with
    >> film that's probably 40 years expired, an old Kodak Duaflex IV 620
    >> twin lens reflex box camera, a Brownie box camera...
    >>
    >> These have more value to me than I could ever get by selling them
    >> because they're cameras of my childhood and my parents and
    >> grandparents But they'll all never take another picture. Which for
    >> most of them isn't such a bad thing.

    >
    >I gave my old dead Canon AE1 to a 10 year old autistic boy that I work
    >with, he's very enthusiastic about photography and has a good eye, his
    >dad studied cinematography so he's being groomed... I had second
    >thoughts, thinking he probably doesn't even play with it but when I
    >asked he said 'no, don't take it back, I want it' <grin>. I showed him
    >how to open the film door & dismount the lens... it's very cool looking
    >with a big bright viewfinder where you can really see the DOF effects.
    >The foam seals on the mirror are toast, battery dead, lens mount
    >wobbly... I have a photo of the camera on my web site and it has somehow
    >attracted comments from a series of 13 year old girls who really want a
    >cool camera like that <g>. Maybe you've got a grandkid or something who
    >could enjoy them.


    Actually, I used to have a Canon AE1 Program and a Minolta SRT-101
    that I gave away. I got my first digital camera about 8 years ago and
    second one 5 years ago. After I got the 2nd one, I realized I'd
    probably never use a film camera again so I gave away those two
    cameras to friends. The AE1 was in poor shape, might not even have
    worked. The Minolta was still useable. But 5 years ago, film was
    still in widespread use. I don't think I'd be able to give them away
    today and have someone actually appreciate what they can do.

    Steve
    TheRealSteve, Dec 24, 2008
    #15
  16. RiverMan Guest

    Thanks to everyone for your response! I never thought that question
    would generate that much interest. I finally settled on the SX10 and
    am now the proud owner! Bought it at Best Buy for $359.00 plus another
    $15 for a 4Gb card.

    So far I am quite happy... this camera seems very complex after using
    a Kodak EasyShare but the pictures and phenomenal! I am trying to
    study my manual a few pages at a time and making some progress. This
    camera is not that user friendly and you really have to have the
    manual nearby.

    One thing I either have not figured out or is a flaw in the camera
    (probably me) is when trying to shoot video in lower light I found the
    focus goes in and out over and over. I will have to do some more
    research I suppose

    Anyways... Thanks for the help!

    -=] RiverMan [=-

    You can see some examples of my sx10 picture's at:

    http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind....viewPicture&friendID=43996487&albumId=455347
    and
    http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind...viewPicture&friendID=43996487&albumId=2144775

    The SX10 shots are the last pics on those two pages. are marked as
    such and were taken in Auto mode.
    RiverMan, Dec 31, 2008
    #16
  17. ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:33:46 -0800 (PST), RiverMan wrote:

    > Thanks to everyone for your response! I never thought that question
    > would generate that much interest. I finally settled on the SX10 and
    > am now the proud owner! Bought it at Best Buy for $359.00 plus another
    > $15 for a 4Gb card.
    >
    > So far I am quite happy... this camera seems very complex after using
    > a Kodak EasyShare but the pictures and phenomenal! I am trying to
    > study my manual a few pages at a time and making some progress. This
    > camera is not that user friendly and you really have to have the
    > manual nearby.


    Congratulations, it's a very nice camera. The first comparable
    camera I bought (Fuji's S5100 in 2004) was similarly complex.
    Unlike the Canon Powershot S1 & S2 I bought several years earlier,
    it took a while before I could get it to do what I knew it was
    capable of doing unless I had a manual nearby. Practice and
    re-reading make perfect, and those that don't, soon hear "RTFM!" :)


    > One thing I either have not figured out or is a flaw in the camera
    > (probably me) is when trying to shoot video in lower light I found the
    > focus goes in and out over and over. I will have to do some more
    > research I suppose


    A quick look in the PDF manual turned up something on page 90,
    explaining how to get AF lock before or while shooting movies by
    pressing the MF button. You can also use the [+/-] button to get AE
    lock. Most P&S cameras hunt in dim light or when they can't find
    anything with sufficient contrast or sharply defined vertical or
    horizontal edges. If you want to take a picture that has a lot of
    fur, hair or smoke, try focusing on something else that's close and
    about the same distance from the camera. DSLRs focus much more
    quickly and accurately in dim light because they don't use the
    contrast detection method used by P&S cameras, but even they'll hunt
    a bit depending on the light, the subject and the lens used.

    There's also a comment on page 92 that indicates that while
    shooting movies you can simultaneously (sort of) take still pictures
    by half-pressing the shutter button to focus and then you press
    fully to take the picture. Perhaps the half-press might help deal
    with the focus hunting? And if you don't actually take the still
    shot you probably won't see a short interruption in the movie that
    usually comes with taking stills. Can't guarantee that this will
    work, but it's worth a try.

    I just discovered something interesting on page 190. Sound only
    recording is possible for up to two hours at a time, with space for
    up to just over 50 hours on an 8GB card. That's much better than
    the max. 4 hours of audio that would fit on the same card using
    320x240 movie mode. For long recordings you'd probably want to get
    Canon's Power Adapter or a similar one from Radio Shack.


    > Anyways... Thanks for the help!
    >
    > -=] RiverMan [=-
    >
    > You can see some examples of my sx10 picture's at:
    >
    > http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind....viewPicture&friendID=43996487&albumId=455347
    > and
    > http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind...viewPicture&friendID=43996487&albumId=2144775
    >
    > The SX10 shots are the last pics on those two pages. are marked as
    > such and were taken in Auto mode.


    You're welcome. Nice pictures, both pre and post SX10. I'll bet
    they induce more smiles than the pix most other people put online.
    A happy new year to you, Sneaky and your other pals!
    ASAAR, Dec 31, 2008
    #17
  18. GregS Guest

    In article <>, RiverMan <> wrote:
    >Thanks to everyone for your response! I never thought that question
    >would generate that much interest. I finally settled on the SX10 and
    >am now the proud owner! Bought it at Best Buy for $359.00 plus another
    >$15 for a 4Gb card.
    >
    >So far I am quite happy... this camera seems very complex after using
    >a Kodak EasyShare but the pictures and phenomenal! I am trying to
    >study my manual a few pages at a time and making some progress. This
    >camera is not that user friendly and you really have to have the
    >manual nearby.
    >
    >One thing I either have not figured out or is a flaw in the camera
    >(probably me) is when trying to shoot video in lower light I found the
    >focus goes in and out over and over. I will have to do some more
    >research I suppose
    >
    >Anyways... Thanks for the help!
    >
    >-=] RiverMan [=-
    >
    >You can see some examples of my sx10 picture's at:
    >
    >http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=
    >43996487&albumId=455347
    >and
    >http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=
    >43996487&albumId=2144775
    >
    >The SX10 shots are the last pics on those two pages. are marked as
    >such and were taken in Auto mode.
    >


    I got the Fuji S2000HD for $233 at Best Buy and am really pleased with it. I bought it
    just before Christmas, and got some family shots and HD and regular movies.
    I would think its definately a best buy.

    greg
    GregS, Jan 2, 2009
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Xxxxx

    Canon SX10 IS shipping yet?

    Xxxxx, Oct 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    1,613
    Xxxxx
    Oct 20, 2008
  2. Canon G10, SX10 IS and SX1 IS

    , Oct 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,813
    Dudley Hanks
    Oct 23, 2008
  3. Dudley Hanks

    Powershot SX10

    Dudley Hanks, Dec 14, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,955
  4. Nick

    Any thoughts/comparisons on Canon SX1 and SX10

    Nick, Feb 28, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    644
    83LowRider
    Mar 3, 2009
  5. ymg200

    Sunpak PZ42X does not work with Canon SX10 IS

    ymg200, Jul 9, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    957
    ASAAR
    Aug 6, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page