canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

robermalek

11

canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« on: 16 / September / 2012, 20:39:53 »

Advertisements

hi all. I have been using the s3is with the chdk for several years and have been very happy. However, the sx 40 and pana fz 200 are at this point, certainly better cameras than what I have so its time to upgrade. On the web, unfortunately, comparisons are done with jpeg where canon wins and then pana raw against canon jepg where then the pana fz 200 wins. So the big question is, what happens when chdk raw goes up against the new fz 200 !? Now, with the pana, i believe you are limited to the silkypix whereas with the s3is, you can convert to dng and then you can use pretty much any raw conversion software you want. But hold on now,,,, the dng4ps conversion is not avail able for the sx 40 at this time so you have to work with raw therappe, etc. The difficult matter at hand for me is which in your opinion is a better way to go, sx 40 raw or pana fz 200 raw ?? I know the pana is better at focusing and speed but when it comes to the best color accuracy of people at 400-800 iso, and backgrounds of various colors where you just cant have any color bleeding ( a major problem with the s3is. you have to have a black background for killer photos ) i believe the canon may the better choice. I dont expect anyone to have a definitive answer though very interested in opinions. I would think many others are considering this very matter at this time in reference to upgrading from the camera they have. - robert

Logged

reyalp

14036

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #1 on: 16 / September / 2012, 20:53:37 »

CHDK can now shoot DNG on camera, so you aren't limited by conversion programs. Shooting DNG is slightly slower than CHDK raw.

If you do want to use dng4ps2, it's possible to create a profile for sx40, described here: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/SX40#DNG4PS-2_Settings

In general Canons jpegs are pretty good. You should expect to put quite a bit of effort into your raw workflow to get better results, and even so the gains aren't likely to be dramatic in most cases.

Logged

Don't forget what the H stands for.

waterwingz

12138

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #2 on: 16 / September / 2012, 21:04:07 »

Did some testing outdoor today of an inexpensive P&S (A1200) shooting CHDK DNG/RAW.

As expected, the DNG picture needed a lot of work and even after about 30 minutes it did not look as good as the JPG. Maybe someone with lots of photoshop experience could do better but playing with GIMP and having the DNG side by side with the JPG I was unable to even get close.

I think the issue here is that what people really want - and what I think you get with DSLR's and the more expensive P&S like the G series and S90/95/100 - is for the camera to do all the correction but not compress the result. Its the JPG conversion process that it would be good to skip.

So CHDK RAW/DNG gives you the RAW sensor information. Building a workflow that converts that image nicely is tough. If only we could actually capture the image after Canon had processed it but before it was compressed. But most of that probably happens in the DSP and not the ARM chip so hacking into that would be really tough / impossible.

I'll probably repeat the test next weekend with a 3 way comparision on my G10 - CHDK DNG, Canon CR2 and JPG.

Logged

Ported : A1200 SD940 G10 Powershot N G16

robermalek

11

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #3 on: 16 / September / 2012, 23:23:22 »

First of all, I would like to thank both you you GENTLEMEN, waterwings and rey for your replies. Like most forums, and even this forum ( not this particular subforum )from 3 years ago, I figured someone was going to call me an idiot somewhere, no one else would say anything on my behalf and I'd just leave. I wonder what happened to those bad people. Maybe they left or are on a different subforum here. It's been three years and maybe, hopefully, they are gone...
Anyway.... you both make some excellent points. The jpeg results from my s3is are pretty awesome. I do concert photography and henceforth the raw ability comes into play when you want to tweak that great picture as good as possible. When you are shooting people, the color of their skin has to be perfect, though if a blue light is one the persons face, I don't think it is my responsibility to make it as if wasnt there.What it is my responsibility to do is to make the shots that should be perfect, perfect. One big problem with the s3, like I had said is it bleeds the color of the background into the foreground. I don't believe the sx 40 does this from what i've seen online, but only the true test conditions will tell. Furthermore, the s3 has an overexposure problem which necessitated me to shoot only in manual mode for the concert photography. Unlike nature photography where auto was sometimes okay.
When I went online though and looked at the specs of the sx40, I was perplexed to find that the jpeg sizes were no more than 4 mp. Now.... my 6 megapixel s3 produces 3 megapixel jpegs, so why or how would the sx40 produce sizes that are only a little larger ? More jpeg compression ? I hope not. Better jpeg compression ? I hope so. Why can't manufacturers use lossless compression anyway, huh ?! I mean, the jpeg format has been around since the 90's. I believe even the jpeg 2000 format isn't lossless, so why wouldn't it be used ? Yeah. I know. To protect the dslr's and their lenses. Unfortunately, not everyone can use a dslr and their are many many situations where you don't want to use one. Our bunch of photographers are a bit of a sorry, unsung lot without any attention until the mini dslr cameras came out. Even still though, some photographers cant use em cause the lens is too long.
I understand what both of you have been saying with the raw. I have thousands and thousands of raw chdk files that I have not processed yet, though plan to, to improve upon the images I have or to save some.
On the images that are only one stop off, so for example, i manually chose the exposure to be 1/80 rather than 1/100, I think I will be able to use software to handle that even though they are jpegs already processed.
I know this is a pretty much a canon forum but in reference to what was said, while it is difficult to get a good raw profile going for your photos for the canon, though certainly possible, it seems from what I have read online is the silkypix raw converter pretty much does everything automatically with all that is required is some presets and then voila, you have great pictures, just like a canon jpeg?

ONe thing is for sure though, I will never get a pana over canon if im going to shoot jpeg. the image comparisons online clearly prove the canon is better in my opinion. Now if I am going to shoot jpeg, I could also consider the sx 50 but it seems from what I have read, they have upped the zoom and pixels and i don't know if they increased the sensor size. prob not.

Logged

reyalp

14036

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #4 on: 17 / September / 2012, 00:12:48 »

Quote from: robermalek on 16 / September / 2012, 23:23:22

When I went online though and looked at the specs of the sx40, I was perplexed to find that the jpeg sizes were no more than 4 mp.

Huh ? SX40 is a 12MP camera. Full size jpegs are ~4000x3000

Quote

Now.... my 6 megapixel s3 produces 3 megapixel jpegs, so why or how would the sx40 produce sizes that are only a little larger ? More jpeg compression ? I hope not.

I guess you are talking about file size, but this isn't MP. In many recent cameras, Canon has removed the "superfine" jpeg option. CHDK allows "superfine" as an override on some of these cameras (including SX40, I believe), but in practice you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference without looking at the files sizes. Very likely the reason Canon removed the option is that it has little practical benefit on these cameras.

Logged

Don't forget what the H stands for.

robermalek

11

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #5 on: 19 / September / 2012, 03:57:24 »

Hi rey. Well, I mistakenly said megapixel when I meant mb. Oh well. Then you had to waste your time correcting me. Sorry bout that.
After spending about 2 days analyzing the fz 200 and sx 40. I decided when I saw sample photos that canon with the chdk was the way to go. It's canon color that really makes the difference to me.
Now that the sx 50 has come out, and it has the superfine jpeg option with raw, etc. I plan on getting it. I'll try to wait to see how the reviews go but I have some photography to do at the end of october and have to make my decision soon.
Right now, I'm looking into data encryption for my drives and wonder why it isn't spoken about more often. I have multiple drive back ups but no security. I am looking into pkwares protection and am making sure that it doesn't compress the data unless I choose to do so. Im also considering norton and am thinking I should have two or three different brands of encryption software for my drives so that in case one encryption software causes a problem, I can always go to the other drive and hopefully open it up with the different software.

Logged

lapser

1093

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #6 on: 19 / September / 2012, 18:11:53 »

Canon G1X
If you're really after the best quality photos in a CHDK camera, the leader by far at the moment is the G1X. I bought the FZ150 awhile back, and love it, but the G1X blows it out of the water in photo quality and low light sensitivity. The 5X zoom is adequate for most photography. The only advantage of the SX50 is the zoom.

The SX40/50 uses a 1/2.3 inch sensor compared to the 1.5" G1X, which makes a huge difference. This is a test time lapse I made right after getting the G1X. It also includes a SX260 time lapse (1/2.3 sensor), and ends with a video taken with the Pansonic ZS20 (video mode 10X speed).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYwcBKNGptE#ws

Logged

EOS-M3_120f / SX50_100b / SX260_101a / G1X_100g / D20_100b
https://www.youtube.com/user/DrLapser/videos

robermalek

11

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #7 on: 19 / September / 2012, 20:45:44 »

hi lasper. thank you for the video. very nicely done. what software did you use to put in the music ?
I wish I could use the g series cameras but I do need the zoom. quite frankly, I wish I could use a dslr but you cant if you do concert photography.
i'm hopeful the hasselblad sony relationship will produce a large sensor superzoom one day. i sent them an email about it.
i hope the sx 50 lens is okay. all that zoom makes me worry.
- robert

Logged

lapser

1093

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #8 on: 20 / September / 2012, 02:55:54 »

It sounds like the SX40 will work best for what you're doing. There's already a CHDK port working for it, if that's a factor for you. Getting the SX50 means waiting for CHDK (and more money).

I use this program for encoding the video, and it also has a timeline editor that can add the music.

Logged

EOS-M3_120f / SX50_100b / SX260_101a / G1X_100g / D20_100b
https://www.youtube.com/user/DrLapser/videos

robermalek

11

Re: canon sx 40 chdk raw vs panasonic fz 200 raw

« Reply #9 on: 20 / September / 2012, 06:01:59 »

hi lasper. I didn't see the program name in your post. i think im going to try the sx 50 and buy it from staples at the end of october. if it doesn't work out, I have two weeks to return it and pray there are any sx 40 cams left from b and h. don't know if thats a good decision, but ill keep my fingers crossed.

Logged