More on Image Quality
Of course, the tiny sensor of the Canon has some hard limitations, but let’s put these in perspective: If you haven’t followed my blog, let me explain that I’ve been looking for the close-to-perfect pocket camera for a while now. Last year, I bought a Panasonic GF-1 and sold it soon after because I found its dynamic range too limiting, and because it didn’t fit into any of my pockets, not even with the pancake lens.
The Olympus option was bigger still, and more expensive at the time, and the sensor was the same. Even the new E-P3 still uses the same sensor, ‘essentially the same one as that which we first saw in the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 almost three years ago,’ as dp.review notes, ‘and in the face of rapid progress from other manufacturers, it's now looking distinctly dated.’ http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep3/page24.asp .
As the DxO comparison shows, dynamic range is still the Achilles heel of the M43 sensors.
When I gave up the idea of a ‘good-enough’ pocket or EVIL camera, I bought a used Nikon D40x. http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2011/03/back-to-basics-photography.html. The lenses I mostly use on the D40x are the tiny 35mm f1.8 prime and the 18-135mm zoom, and the lot fits into a small bag and doesn’t weigh too much. The dynamic range of the D40x (D80) sensor is far superior to any M43 sensor yet made. http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2011/02/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gf1-evil-fun-part-2.html
The D40x option may not make a lot of sense until you accept that EVIL cameras aren’t pocket cameras but compact ‘systems’ cameras, i.e. you buy the bodies and add lenses and an external flash and so on. That means you need a carry bag, however small, to take them with you on your travels. The carry bag needed for the D40x might be a touch bigger, but we’re arguing about fine details now. The upside is that the D40x is a responsive DSLR with a built-in viewfinder and flash. And terrific image quality:
SX230 Image quality
The Canon has the same issues with dynamic range as every other digicam ever made. Here’s a shot where dynamic range was a real challenge, and it shows exactly what I mean: blown out light areas and dense dark areas that won’t reveal any more detail no matter which photo editor you use – the info just isn’t there.

What about that lens? Even with DSLRs, serious 14x zooms are compromised from a design point of view, so what about this dinky little number? Frankly, it’s a real surprise. Yes, there’s a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end, and some purple fringing on occasion, but it’s consistently sharp right across the long zoom range.
Obviously, the DIGIC IV processor has a lot to do with that, sharpening, reducing the ever-present noise and filling in the blanks. The images look sharpened, but the sharpening isn’t overdone. You can see the artefacts when you take a close look, though. This is a 100% crop (click on the image) of a shot taken at full zoom:
On the whole, the IQ of the SX 230HS is almost on the same level as the Canon IXUS 300HS I reviewed a few weeks ago. The IXUS 300HS has a slight edge, to my eye, at least, with the images looking just a tad less processed. Is it the different sensor? Fewer pixels? Who knows. I've said before, the images produced by these cameras show far more similarities than differences.
One thing is for sure, Canon's new CMOS back-lit sensors do job very well. And, apart from fitting in your pocket, the SX230 has another advantage over EVIL cameras: it costs around $300. Given its price, compact size and the inbuilt 18-260mm DX equivalent lens, image quality really leaves little to pick on. This shot was taken before sunrise at ISO 800 with the lens fully extended:
The colours are quite true as a rule, with the image settings turned off or switched to neutral. It depends on your subject, of course.
Here's the dynamic range issue again, pretty bad blow-outs:
In less bright light, the SX230 does very well.
The next image speaks for itself: A long shot in the dark, almost.
Build and Handling
A few issues here: With a camera this size and this capable, why did Canon not give the body a more user-friendly shape? Or at least a small grip on the right-hand side? As it is, the body lacks any kind of grip or grippy surface, and that’s annoying. As with the IXUS 300 HS, function has taken a back seat to form, a very pretty form in this case but Canon would’ve made more friends if it had given this competent camera a more functional body.
It’s a chunky camera, with the body made of solid metal. Only the silver rim - also metal but quite thin - looks a bit flimsy where it opens for the flash and the ports. Apart from that, this camera is very well-constructed. The MASP/modes dial is very solid, so are the other buttons, and the screen is gorgeous. The lens makes no noise when zooming in and out. The size and weight of the SX230 actually help you hold the camera steady, which can be a challenge with smaller digicams.
The layout of controls is well done, from the shutter on top and the zoom ring around it to the crisp 16x9 display and the big MASP mode dial. And navigation is pretty good too: unlike the IXUS 300HS, the SX230’s body has enough buttons on the back despite the same size wide screen, so it’s not hard to set this camera up for shooting exactly how you want it. If you don’t know how you want it, a large collection of scene modes and special effects is provided.
Performance
The flash spoils the show by popping up when you turn the camera on – Canon, what is this stupid feature doing on a camera like this? The best way to stop it is to keep a finger on it, but it doesn’t answer the question.
The camera starts in a instant, and focusing is pretty snappy as well. Shot to shot times are a bit more tardy but choosing continuous shooting mode is a simple way to get around that problem. 2.5 frames/sec isn’t all that fast but it’s fast enough - you don't buy a camera like this to shoot sports action. The zoom ring has a smooth enough action and is well-judged for the long range, and the best news is that the Image Stabilisation works really well.
Anytime you shoot at less than 1/30 of a second, the orange shaking hand warning will come on, but the camera copes with slower speeds OK most of the time. With a usable option of ISO 800, that makes it a versatile little machine that you can use in a variety of situations without problems. The range is F/3.1 - 5.9 so it gets a bit slow at the tele end.
The battery is barely good enough for 200 shots which is not exactly generous. The only positive here is that, for reasons I can't fatheom, the SX230 uses the same battery as my old IXUS 960IS, so I have a spare already.
Final thoughts
As an all-round, take-anywhere, all-in-one camera, the SX230 is hard to beat. The IQ is not serious challenge to low-end DSLRs, but it can come surprisingly close as this shot shows:
On the whole, I agree with DP Review whose reviewers said: ‘Images from the SX230 are amongst the sharpest and most consistently well-exposed of the cameras in this group test. … considering the breadth of its zoom range, sharpness is impressively uniform.’ They added: ‘The new sensor and processor deliver excellent image quality in just about any situation we tested the camera in, and when you add excellent optical quality and video performance into the mix, the SX230 HS is a very compelling camera.' http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q311travelzoomgrouptest/page3.as
It’s almost ridiculous to find a huge zoom range like this in a pocket camera, and it would be just as ridiculous to pick on some of the obvious compromises that follow - slightly bigger size and more body depth, for example. If size is a big issue, Canon's new IXUS 510HS provides 12x zoom in a smaller package but you'll lose the MASP controls.
That there are so few nits to pick is an indication that the SX230 does most things pretty well. Sure, it doesn’t break records in any particular discipline, but then it’s really more an accomplished pentathlon champion than a sprinter.
Kim