About
All feedback (40)
- knifearsenal (4514)- Feedback left by buyer.More than a year agoVerified purchaseHope to deal with you again. Thank you.
Reviews (3)
Feb 10, 2011
SX10 IS in context
11 of 11 found this helpful Reviews means little without knowing to what you're comparing the camera. I'll assume that in 2011 you're deciding among superzooms (Canon SX series) and perhaps between these and the exemplary G series. Cost must be a factor or you'd go buy the latest since that will likely last longest. I chose the SX10 because it's old enough to be cheap, new enough to incorporate almost everything worth having in this category. Incremental improvements continue, with pixel count and zoom range being touchstones, but 10MP is plenty in a sensor this size and 20X zoom is fabulous. Go back to the S5 and you get 12X zoom and 8MP. The SX10 offers a much broader zoom range, it's the first genuine wide angle lens in the series, and significantly its extra pixels are distributed over a larger sensor (more area is better, more pixels is not necessarily better). Adding the DIGIC IV processor makes the SX10 a big jump up. The contemporary iteration, SX30, sports a 35X zoom lens, which might be amazing but hand-holding such a beast, not to mention image-holding at full throttle, is something of a trick. Its extra 4MP are jammed onto the same miniature sensor and fed to the same processor. It abandons AA cells, which is a shame and a half. I'm not saying it's a lesser camera, but its enhancements are mostly marketing and the price is twice.
The SX10 lacks HD video capability. If that's important to you, it arrives on the SX20, which is virtually the same camera otherwise, and the SX1, which is exactly the same camera with a CMOS sensor instead of a CCD sensor. (Again: debatable upgrade for a steeply higher price.) The entire S/SX series has dominated superzooms with only Panasonic seriously contesting the image quality and functionality of Canon. Within the series, I believe currently the SX10 and SX20 represent the wisest balance of capabilities to cost. There's close to nothing you can't do with these.
RAW image capture is not supplied. (You can download replacement firmware to reprogram your camera if you're brave. It lives on the SD card; removing it returns your camera to factory configuration. Canon cameras are generally if not always more capable than Canon firmware permits.) For RAW capture and intuitive controls, G's are tops. Instead of box-score stats, Gs bristle with solid, visible, palpable photographic capability. For me a monster zoom and flip-up flash count more, but Gs are point & shoot royalty.
Two things worth mentioning: flip-up flash ≠ pop-up flash. SX10 built-in flash is negated by simply leaving the snorkle down. I *love* that. Built-in flash is fine in a few situations but it's ugly, ugly light. Unless you're taking mug shots, you're almost always better off without full-frontal-nude flash. Unexpected flash is the worst; switching among modes and turning the camera off and on, it's easy to lose track of whether the auto flash remains disabled. With SXs, until you deliberately lift the snorkle, the camera suggests flash but calculates without it. These lenses' optical image stabilization is remarkable but in my opinion a camera needs two things: a sturdy tripod and a powerful external bounce flash. Through-the-lens hot shoe control is simply essential.
Also, the viewfinder is an electronic display. A flip LCD is a beautiful thing, you'll use it constantly, but sometimes a viewfinder is necessary. This one is head and shoulders above optical viewfinders. It's among my favorite features: a fully-functional peep.
Dec 19, 2017
It is what it is
12 of 13 found this helpful Washing machine agitation patterns have gotten more sophisticated and efficient over the years, and gentler on clothes in the process. This machine looks modern with its lack of a paddle agitator, but it makes no attempt to float and separate clothes, it merely whirls everything around forcefully, stops to let it settle, then whirls it around in the opposite direction. That works, given sufficient time and water, but it's neither efficient nor gentle.
There's a limit to how little water can clean clothes. In even the most efficient machines, clothes won't get cleaner than the water in which they're washed. (Which is why rinsing is as important as washing.) But this machine requires proportionally more water than a full-sized machine simply because it agitates so clumsily. That means, practically speaking, small loads of mostly small items in plenty of water work best, and since the intense whirly action limits the volume of water that will stay in the tub, in real life the load limit is considerably less than advertised.
Incidentally, the gentle setting uses exactly the same blender action, just of shorter duration during each reversal. That tangles and flagellates the clothes slightly less, but not appreciably less than simply washing them fewer minutes. It's not useless, but leaving the timing alone and reducing the cyclonic speed by half would be more effective.
Don't take this as scathing criticism. It's a reasonable machine for its intended purpose and I will use it. (Carefully, because the powerful motors and sturdy tubs are housed in incredibly flimsy plastic shrouding.) I'm only cautioning against thinking this is a miniature version of a modern washing machine. It's more like PTO attachments for KitchenAid® mixers: simple, powerful, space-saving, but fussier, more limited and only slightly less expensive than full-sized stand-alone corollaries.
For me, the advantage is gravity draining, which means this can safely freeze (unlike any modern automatic washer). It's also light enough to carry outdoors, or in the dead of winter set on a rubber mat in the bathtub. In my opinion, it's not so much an alternative to a full-size washer as it is an alternative to hand washing.
Jun 26, 2017
Stable Stainless Steel
The wing design is conventional, inherently far more stable, functional and adjustable than expanding-diamond racks. Steel rather than plastic hubs sets this one apart. It is lightweight, which of course means the steel is little thicker than foil, but strength through structure and balanced stress means this could easily outlast wood racks with no mildew, warping, cracking or rust (from staples). I did wax it straight from the package, which may seem excessive on stainless far from the ocean, but all steel rusts eventually* and waxing is the work of a moment. (Remember when we used to wax our cars? Get out your old tin of Simoniz and have at it. Unless you need a mirror finish, waxing sheet metal is silly simple.) Of course, wood also benefits from wax, but applying it thoroughly isn't as easy.
This is subjective but I'll call this rack strong enough. The tubing is welded, naturally, but seams are practically invisible and probably at least as strong as the material. Round bars are firmly swaged into rectangular beams and struts, fastened with machine screws, while legs are straight, square, rigid and separate. (This is in contrast to the usual bent tubing and wire structural elements, or flimsy plastic joints, in racks of this design.) Struts are critical and these are studly, with large fork-ends and even little plastic locks in case you're hanging laundry during a hurricane. I wouldn't stand on this rack, but I don't think wet clothes can bend it. My opinion: stainless steel is the ideal material for a drying rack and this is the best one I found $100.
* I have a dive knife that seems immune to rust, but drying racks aren't likely to be made of H-1 zero-carbon steel any time soon.