PowerShot SX50 HS

[beechdale basher]

Hi Ladies and Gents,

What do you think of this as something to carry when birding and watching wildlife?

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Peter,

I recently bought a Nikon P510 for this very reason.
The IS is great
The AF is rubbish

Have a look at these recent threads;
Fun with new Canon SX50HS.
long zoom alternative, canon powershot sx50 hs?
Also I did a comparison here

I find the P510 can surpass the results of my D5000 with 450mm equiv of a 70-300mm lens, but only when the light is very good and I can shoot at 100 or 200iso and still maintain a shutter speed fast enough for subject movement (e.g. 1/1000s or higher).

AF is OK for perched birds, but useless for anything moving, especially against a contrasty background. The MF control is so finnicky it isn't any quicker than AF. If you have the camera on a tripod (or bean bag) and the bird is perched, then MF is an option.

I might yet try an SX50HS myself, since apart from a little extra focal length, the AF has to be better and it shoots RAW - another thing I find shooting jpg only is how accurate the exposure must be if not to lose detail in blooming.

Also, I don't know what the SX50HS is like in this respect, but the continuous mode on the Nikon P510 lets you shoot up to 5 images, but then nothing more until the buffer is completely empty - unlike DSLRs which let you say, half fill, top up, all while it is emptying at the same time.

Another possibility might be the Panasonic forthcoming DMC-FZ200, which I gather has a constant aperture f2.8 lens all the way to 600mm, unlike the Nikon and Canon which stop down to about f/5.9 at their maximum focal lengths (probably f/5.3 at 600mm). This wider aperture would be great for better shutter speed/lower iso at 600mm and don't forget the small sensor still gives 3-5 times more DoF (at f/2.8) than anything from micro 4/3 to FX formats.

That said, you cannot expect DSLR resolution from these smaller lenses and sensors, you cannot crop as aggressively as with DSLR images.

Cheers,

[ajohnw]

I spent a little time the other day looking for shots taken with this style of camera. I found some for the Fuji and there were downloadable raw files available as well. My usual raw software wouldn't cope with it so no real conclusion other than a feeling that dynamic range was very low in an odd sort of way. A bright white fountain was fine and fairly detailed but the background was very flat and lacking contrast. The jpg had overly dark areas as well.

On the canon at last this site has sample shots and raw files available

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...sample_images/

I would need a camera icc file to make sense of the raw file but it may be better than the Fuji. They also have full res jpg's that suggest that too. The site claims it's a viable alternative to a dslr but I can't see how it can be with such a small sensor. I have read other reviews stating suitable for smaller shots to post in web albums etc. All reviews I have seen are critical of the electronic view finder. The barrel distortion shown in some of the shots looks to be rather excessive and the shots shown make me wonder about dynamic range but it does seem to be better than the Fuji.

I'm contemplating buying a 100-300mm panasonic lens for my Pen. These and the other telephoto zoom are not what many would call high quality resolution wise for the price except perhaps the 45-200 which is much cheaper. The longer lens comes out at 200-600mm in 35mm terms and the question I was asking myself is if a 50% crop for 1200mm equivalent would be matched by the shots from the bridge cameras. Hard to say but I'm left with the feeling that they wouldn't despite the modest performance of the panasonic lens. It's well overpriced really for what it is which tends to put me off buying it,
-

[Melkus]

There seems to be alot of them being sold. I know if I was in the market for this kind of camera I pick the Canon over the Nikon if for nothing eles you can shoot RAW with it and it's around 90% faster in continuous shooting

[rpcrowe]

It also has a hotshoe flash and an eye level viewfinder which is important to me...

YouTube has some videos about the SX50-HS.

My son-in-law is debating over this camera and I will post some info on it if he gets one and lets me borrow it.

[AB26]

Hi Peter,

This is a very personal opinion, being the owner of a Sony super zoom and a Nikon DSLR.
A super zoom is no alternative to a DSLR. I have indeed given the Sony to my wife. Since I have had the DSLR I don't want to shoot with the Sony. With a sensor the size of a SX50 (6.17x4.55mm at 12.1MP) how far can you zoom or crop before the image is unacceptable? At the price of a DSLR?
Rather spend the money on another lens.

[ajohnw]

Well the raw files can be downloaded from the site I linked to. Perhaps some one would care to work on one with dark areas in it and see what they can do. I took a quick look and found that at longer focal lengths the sensor didn't seem to be fully illuminated. Barrel distortion in the street shot that has darker areas is rather excessive even in the jpg of it. There is also a comment about tripods and the max focal length. The colours from raw looked flat to me but not as bad as the Fuji. That may be down to the need for an icc file on both cameras.

12bit raw? These styles of camera sensors are usually 10bit internally and output 8 bits after passing through masses of software as the remaining 2 bits are iffy anyway. People who try to hack powershots are well aware of this. Really 12bit? Very very doubtful just convenient. Jpg compression masks resolution problems. I would say this camera is better than I expected but the effects are still there. I would guess 1 mb web shots look to be just about feasible and in that respect this camera in some ways does nearly match my ancient 2mb digital ixus. It's the first one I have looked at that does

-

[jcuknz]

AF is usually pretty useless when the birds are in foliage due to the relatively large area it uses to find focus with. Some cameras ar better than others and have adjustable areas for AF to work with. Panasonic G3 for example but getting 'real' reach like the bridge cameras is a problem for it. Though with the larger sensor you can probably crop to get the Angle of View of the bridge cameas, and the potential for higher ISO helps considerably.

Taken with just a 280mm AoV .... though I kept my Panasonic FZ50 to use my x2.2 teleadaptor which gives me 950mm AoV I have yet to use it since changing to M4/3

[ajohnw]

Was that taken with the 45-200mm JC. I found that rather soft at the 200mm end and a lot better at around 150mm, the range you used for the shot. I'm contemplating buying the 100-300mm but unlike most 3:1 zoom range lenses it appears to be worse than the other in some respects.

I would also be interested in how you find the magnified view within the whole view for focusing? It sound ideal to me but the mag is 5x. I've found that a bit iffy on my Pen where as 7x can focus to a pixel level. Rather hard to keep the subject in frame though.

-

[thequacksoflife]

Was that taken with the 45-200mm JC. I found that rather soft at the 200mm end and a lot better at around 150mm, the range you used for the shot. I'm contemplating buying the 100-300mm but unlike most 3:1 zoom range lenses it appears to be worse than the other in some respects.

I would also be interested in how you find the magnified view within the whole view for focusing? It sound ideal to me but the mag is 5x. I've found that a bit iffy on my Pen where as 7x can focus to a pixel level. Rather hard to keep the subject in frame though.

-

I agree about the 45-200 being soft at 200m. I'm testing the 100-300 saturday week so I'll let you know how it does.

I agree with whoever said that a Superzoom can't compare with a dSLR ..... but then a superzoom is more convenient cheaper etc.....

IF I was buying a superzoom I'd consider the Fuji XS-1 (bigger sensor). and the Panasonic FZ200 as it has a constant f2.8 lens.

[Dave Humphries]

I know what you mean, but

Rather spend the money on another lens.

Problem is Andre, for Nikon DSLR, that tends to be a LOT more money to get anything like the same focal length

Assuming you want to avoid third party and mirror lenses (as I do).

I gave some serious thought to the Sigma 150-500mm, which is at least less than a grand (in GBP), but that only gives me 750mm equivalent and at less quality than my 70-300mm. It doesn't help that I've already had issues with previous Sigma lenses.

Then there's the weight issue

However, your opinion is just as valid as mine,

[ajohnw]

I wouldn't buy the Fuji from playing with the files and would have doubts about the Canon too. The Panasonic though maybe. I am always interested in what can be done with jpg's to keep Collin amused so taking this

http://img.photographyblog.com/revie...c_fz200_39.jpg

A lot of dark end brightening, some brightening of the middle, top hat filter to reduce noise followed by a median colour filter to smooth things out allowing just sufficient scope for some tone mapping to just short of where the green window surround started showing artefacts produced this. Mid and light tones with that. This should expand to full size.



More work than usual out of my compact but I chose the shot because it shows typical dark tone compression. The large building effects are similar to the other cameras but not so extreme especially in respect to the Fuji. That one is weird. Highlights can be very good but mid tones down seem to be flat.

The blog site I linked to is useful. It can be found by searching blog "make model". They always have a lot of sample shots and on this camera unusually they have more or less put it through the lot. That in itself is unusual. I like the comment about macro working down to 1cm - difficult to light

Working on jpg's. On cameras like this I think it makes sense as much of the work is done. Raw may well be rather difficult.

-

[beechdale basher]

Thanks for the feedback.

I have a Nikon D90 and my long lens is a Sigma 150-500. I cant shoot this hand held and it is a lump to be carrying around. I just wondered if this would be better for times when I dont want to be carrying the big kit

[Dave Humphries]

I have a Nikon D90 and my long lens is a Sigma 150-500. I cant shoot this hand held and it is a lump to be carrying around. I just wondered if this would be better for times when I dont want to be carrying the big kit

In which case the answer is definitely yes - if it gets you out with a camera, the picture is going to be better than the one you couldn't take because "the lump" was left at home

[rpcrowe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_pFNh-PGIQ

[ajohnw]

Thanks for the feedback.

I have a Nikon D90 and my long lens is a Sigma 150-500. I cant shoot this hand held and it is a lump to be carrying around. I just wondered if this would be better for times when I dont want to be carrying the big kit

If you look at the Panasonic jpg I posted you should notice that the tree detail isn't all together their at any size really. That's typical of compact size sensors. Like you I have a huge sigma zoom and it doesn't get used much due to it's size. My answer is micro 4/3. Some compact type dynamic range problems but the kit is very easy to carry around.

All three cameras mentioned are on that blog site it is worth taking a look at the sample pictures. Here is a similar image from a Pen E-P3. There is a huge difference in quality.

http://img.photographyblog.com/revie...pus_ep3_54.jpg

The Pen is an expensive camera with a viewfinder. The Panasonic G3 isn't. An image from that. Basic hardware is the same. This one shows slight compression in dark tones but they would be very easy to bring out if needed.

http://img.photographyblog.com/revie..._dmc_g3_47.jpg

It's a very useful site for comparing the actual output from cameras.

-

[evan47]

i bought the sx50 hs and returned it before the 14 day return period ended. it has a poor EVF, mediocre LCD. suffers from ca, shutter lag, poor battery life and rather overcrowded control cluster.
to be honest, you can take good pictures with it if you can live with the obvious limitations of a small sensor and a rather low keeper rate, but at the end of the day, if you normally use a dslr you will not find the sx50 very nice to use. ..... slow and clumsy, it also has sketchy AF.

[Gaaron]

thx evan47 for your post. It has helped me greatly. I have a 400D Canon with 2 lenses (not IS)..& due to the 'weight' of carrying & it doesn't have 'live view' - I bought the SX50 HS & mmm was deliberating over returning or keeping it. I was thinking I may get used to the shutter lag. But I prob wouldn't. Think I'll save for a new IS lens. Is having 1 lens (wide to a decent zoom -maybe 300mm) be ok? I just like good pics & 'developing' them etc (scenery/action).

[Trina]

I too bought a sx50 thinking it would be great... and honestly if I only ever used a P&S I probably would have been very happy with it... Evan said it all... the view finder drove me nuts... and since getting my DSLR I dont like to use the LCD to shoot.. I like to take pics of my dog in action...it did not work well for those at all lol I usually missed him... I think you will be happier with the new lens:> I am taking mine back and saving for a new body:>

[GeorgeM]

I tried the Canon SX40HS first and then the Nikon P510. I returned both because of AF issues and EVF issues.
AF was slow and unpredictable on both cameras.
The EVF is terrible after having used DSLRs since 2007. I need that nice, clear viewfinder that you get with a DSLR. With both cameras, I perceived a noticeable lag between training the camera on a new subject and seeing the subject in the EVF. Very annoying, especially since I was using the long zoom on birds at my feeders.