# Canon PowerShot SX70 HS Images and Specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 19, 2018)

> The Canon PowerShot SX70 HS images and specifications have leaked ahead of the official announcement. This PowerShot has been a long time coming for fans of Canon’s superzooms such as the PowerShot SX60 HS.
> *Canon PowerShot SX 70 HS Specifications*
> 
> 21mp 1 / 2.3 sensor
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## tron (Sep 19, 2018)

So same optical zoom, same sensor size, 5Mpixels more and 4K.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 19, 2018)

tron said:


> So same optical zoom, same sensor size, 5Mpixels more and 4K.



Quite a conservative update.


----------



## tron (Sep 19, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Quite a conservative update.


Exactly!
Unless the sensor is substantially improved which I doubt.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 19, 2018)

That's standard phone sensor these days, It has no place in a dedicated camera. 1/1.7" should be the bare minimum.

Oh and since this is Canon does the 4K come from a crop?


----------



## Camera Conspiracies (Sep 19, 2018)

That's actually a super intriguing update with 21mm on the wide end. This could be a fun all arounder for vlogs if they kept the mic jack. I'm used to 24mm on the sx50.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Sep 19, 2018)

4 years... almost 1500 days since the SX60 announcement, yet no change to the optics?

I suspect the sensor will be somewhat improved and if the additional 5MP resonates in terms of quality - and DIGIC 8 will be a welcome improvement, but this is a conservative announcement even by Canon's standards.

I note the inclusion of a barrel-mounted zoom control (in addition to one around the shutter button). Otherwise, they have relocated some buttons (sensible move for the video recording button) and the grip looks a little more substantial.

The SX60 stopped being my emergency spare when the G3x was released, but I will await the G3X MkII, rather than a slightly tweaked SX60!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2018)

I wonder if it wise upping the mpx to 21? I had the 12 mpx SX50 HS and liked it very much. I tried the SX60 HS but found that despite other improvements, the increase to 16 mpx didn't improve the images. Olympus has stuck with 12 mpx for its TG-5, which has been applauded by reviewers, and its fast lens has less DLA issues than the slower SX70 HS.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 19, 2018)

This is a spec sheet update. More MPx is fantastic news for the user without physical understanding.

I wrote before, that this style of system is diffraction limited towards the long end (and IS limited in practical use) so more MPx is almost useless. almost, because the resolution converges towards the diffraction limit when the sensor resolutions goes towards infinity and the lens tends to be perfect.


----------



## tron (Sep 19, 2018)

Camera Conspiracies said:


> That's actually a super intriguing update with 21mm on the wide end. This could be a fun all arounder for vlogs if they kept the mic jack. I'm used to 24mm on the sx50.


It was the same (21mm) with SX60. So it is not considered an update.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 19, 2018)

Egads! Canon is *******! ******* I say!


----------



## padam (Sep 19, 2018)

The new sensor and processor probably has more to do with 4k video than stills.


----------



## razorzec (Sep 19, 2018)

Mr Majestyk said:


> 1/1.7" should be the bare minimum.



A 60x zoom camera with that sensor size will be several times more expensive and several times bigger/heavier or,

it would only have 20-30x zoom for the same size.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 19, 2018)

Dedicated reach camera. 250-1500mm, or so. 6x zoom, or so with 1/1,7" sensor, shouldn't be an issue regarding size.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2018)

crashpc said:


> Dedicated reach camera. 250-1500mm, or so. 6x zoom, or so with 1/1,7" sensor, shouldn't be an issue regarding size.


And wouldn't sell in quantity either. People in the main buy the superzooms as an all purpose camera and use it for a range of distances.


----------



## Adelino (Sep 20, 2018)

That's a big camera for such a small camera. I understand the purpose of this type of camera and I am sure it will be great for some people but yeah, that diffraction starts closing down the benefits of the big lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> And wouldn't sell in quantity either. People in the main buy the superzooms as an all purpose camera and use it for a range of distances.



My Kayak has three hatches.... a big sealed hatch in the front, a big sealed hatch in the rear, and a little sealed hatch just in front of me that is just big enough to fit a SX-50... Because of the lens changing problem (one hand on paddle, one hand on Camera, one hand on lens..... followed by a splash and crying) I do not take my DSLR with me.... A superzoom gives me lots of range, in a small size, and if disaster strikes and it gets ruined it does not cause financial hardship...


----------



## Canedo (Sep 20, 2018)

boring camera...


----------



## Jethro (Sep 20, 2018)

I'm interested to see whether the inclusion of digic8 has an appreciable effect on IQ, and how the new (and worryingly high mp) sensor holds up - ie I'll wait for proper reviews. I have an interest in this sort of camera as an alternative to an expensive long set-up that I can't justify assembling for occasional use - but it needs to have decent IQ over (at least most of) that long range.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> And wouldn't sell in quantity either. People in the main buy the superzooms as an all purpose camera and use it for a range of distances.



Possibly. But nobody ever tried. If the quality was there, and one could use it instead of a telephoto lens of the same price ($1000 range), it could be interesting.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2018)

crashpc said:


> Possibly. But nobody ever tried. If the quality was there, and one could use it instead of a telephoto lens of the same price ($1000 range), it could be interesting.



Nobody has tried to market a 250-1500mm 1/1.7" camera for several very good reasons. Firstly, a 24-1500mm would be of the same size (it's the long end that governs the size) and about the same price to make as a 24-1500mm that would appeal to vastly more customers - so why limit your market? Secondly, the niche market, if any, that would use only the very long end would want very high quality, which they wouldn't get with a 1/1.7" sensor (crop factor 4.55, DLA etc) - otherwise why buy such a camera? Thirdly, a 1/1.7" sensor isn't that much of a leap larger than a 1/2.3" in size and quality but it would require a bigger body and lens than a 1/2.3" to give the same f-number and equivalent focal length, etc.


----------



## okaro (Sep 20, 2018)

Camera Conspiracies said:


> That's actually a super intriguing update with 21mm on the wide end. This could be a fun all arounder for vlogs if they kept the mic jack. I'm used to 24mm on the sx50.



SX60 HS already has 21 mm.


----------



## okaro (Sep 20, 2018)

This is quite a conservative update but I can see a point. It makes no sense to start competing with Nikon on the maximum zoom. If you put some 1500 mm those wanting the maximum would still buy Nikon. It is better to make a balanced package. This is slightly lighter than the SX60 HS at 610 g. Nikon's new P1000 is 1.4 kg.

Size comparison:

http://j.mp/2PVzAht 

That 1365 mm is enough for most cases. Air vibration prevents sharp images at very long distances anyway. I find increasing the megapixels strange if they provide cropped 4K.

1/2.3" sensor is 7.7 mm. 1/1.7 " is 9.5 mm. The difference is not that much, equivalent to 0.6 f-stops.1/1.7" sensors are rare now as nobody uses them.

The ratio to the longest pocket zoom is just 1.4x. This is surprisingly little. I recall when I was considering camera in 2011, the ratio was 2.1 x.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 20, 2018)

The actual SX60 has effectively 247mm at f6.5. This is equivalent to 1365mm at f36 with a crop factor of 5.5. 1500mm equivalent would need a 367mm lens, assuming the same f6.5 fastness would need a 56mm opening, like 300mm 5.6 lens. it would still have a FF equivalent f26.6 fastness and be way above the diffraction limit.

Of course, this camera would be better in by the ratio of the bigger opening and would be more heavy/big/expensive respectively. by reducing the zoom ratio it could maybe be compensated.

But yes, maybe a 6x zoom with 54mm opening and 77mm filter thread could be done, what none of us knows is, how big the market for a pure supertele camera would be, as far as I know, nobody ever offered something like this


----------



## scyrene (Sep 20, 2018)

crashpc said:


> Possibly. But nobody ever tried. If the quality was there, and one could use it instead of a telephoto lens of the same price ($1000 range), it could be interesting.



I don't think companies just launch products to test the market - or not the successful ones, anyway. They do market research first. If no company has done it, perhaps that tells us that their research informs them that it's not worth doing?


----------



## crashpc (Sep 20, 2018)

There are innovative and new things every day. Yet it is most probably covered by the market research...


----------



## scyrene (Sep 20, 2018)

crashpc said:


> There are innovative and new things every day. Yet it is most probably covered by the market research...



Lol, sure but I'm just trying to provide a reason why maybe it hasn't been done. Not every bright idea converts into a successful product. Things we may personally desire may be too niche to produce. That's life!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2018)

To put some numbers on the diffraction limit: the DLA of a 20.3 mpx 1" sensor is f/3.9; a 1.7", f/2.2; and 2.3", f/1.9. Accordingly, an f/6.5 lens will be 3.4x above the 2.3" DLA and the 1.7" 3x above. As far as resolution is concerned, a claimed 1500mm equivalent lens is, in fact, losing about 50-60% of its resolution and you would get just as detailed results with ~half of the focal length and upresolving by 2x in PS. It would be a waste of time have a 250-1500mm zoom on a 20 mpx 1.7" or 2.3" sensor unless you just want a large image for video or staring through the viewfinder. The SX70 HS is f/3.4 at the wide end, where diffraction will degrade the image less, and the wider aperture wide end is where the camera is best, and it would be crazy to market a 250-1500mm f/6.5 zoom on a tiny pixel camera.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 20, 2018)

AlanF
I know that you´re partially right, as With my powershot G15, I found that with f/4.5 or smaller, the detail was crippled. But not enough so the zoom could not bring more detail. There must be some math behind the zoom vs diffraction function saying that the zoom gains more than what diffraction takes. Otherwise there would be absolutely NO REASON to have many, if not most zoom cameras. That´s not how it works in real life. 
P900 still kills those powershots. The specification of diffraction limit must be quite vague...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2018)

crashpc said:


> AlanF
> I know that you´re partially right, as With my powershot G15, I found that with f/4.5 or smaller, the detail was crippled. But not enough so the zoom could not bring more detail. There must be some math behind the zoom vs diffraction function saying that the zoom gains more than what diffraction takes. Otherwise there would be absolutely NO REASON to have many, if not most zoom cameras. That´s not how it works in real life.
> P900 still kills those powershots. The specification of diffraction limit must be quite vague...



I am afraid you have it quite wrong, the math is absolutely clear, once you go over the diffraction limit there is no gain in resolution if you increase the focal length without increasing the aperture. This has been known to every astronomer using a telescope since the time of Rayleigh, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

For example, suppose once you have reached the diffraction limit, you double the focal length and keep the same diameter of lens, the image will be twice as large but the size of what you can resolve doubles so you end up with the same overall resolution.

The good zoom cameras and lenses are designed so that they operate within the Rayleigh criterion. For example, the Sony RX10 III and IV have an f/4 lens that matches the ~f/3.9 theoretical DLA of the sensor. The Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm zoom was panned by Lenstip because its widest aperture is f/6.3, which means that it is over the diffraction limit for M4/3 and has poorer resolution than an f/4 lens. The smaller the pixels on the sensor, the wider the lens has to be, which is why your iPhone X has an f/1.8 wide angle lens. Regarding, the P900 and now the P1000, ePhotozine has just reviewed the P1000 and emphasised how the quality of the image drops as the lens extends beyond an effective 2000mm focal length equivalent. There is no reason to have such a large zoom for the P900 or P1000 in terms of resolution. The reason it kills those Powershots is because the diameter of its lens is much larger than the Powershot's and so its diffraction limit is much better. It would be much better still if it had an even much wider lens and was f/2.4.


----------



## jsyrovat (Sep 21, 2018)

Finally, 4K, WiFi+BT. Any idea, if the video will be still limited to 15/30 mins? The only reason, I don't use my current Canon for video, is this odd limit. Filming a 10k race (running) doesn't make it to finish with Canon camera ...


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 22, 2018)

Any touchscreen or hotshoe?


----------

