Which bridge has the best stabilisation and lens?

[Horace]

I purchased a Nikon P600 on release and find it very good compared to the D70 and the D3100 I part ex'd. Hand held at the zoo, I got a shot of the whiskers on a sleeping tiger at full zoom, light was good on a clear day. Bit slow on start up and the focus can seaRch but you do get used to it.

[mrinmoyvk]

Horace, My uncle also bought P600, zoom reach is amazing but I found it bit slow while zooming from min to max zoom, might be because I am used to manual zoom on DSLR. It takes few seconds to reach to the max zoom level. Canon SX 50 HS is much faster than P600, agreed that zoom is less.

[rpcrowe]

My son-in-law purchased a Canon SX 50 HS and the images he gets are decidedly quite good, especially for his experience level. My son-in-law doesn't aim for big prints and his images are for the Internet and emailing...



This shot was done hand held in Auto Setting (which is to only setting my son-in-law uses) at ISO 800. The focal length was 215mm and the exposure was 1/500 second @ f/6.5. I did some post production on this shot which improved its quality...

The camera handled this shot of the lioness with a bright sky background quite decently (helped by post processing).



ISO 800, 215mm, f/6.5 @ 1/800 second.

The SX 50 HS has a long zoom which seems to be quite sharp throughout its range. The camera also has RAW capability which is a MUST for me. I don't like a camera which requires using the LCD for the only viewfinder and the SX 50 HS has a very decent eye-level EVF as well as an LCD viewfinder. Although I prefer a TTL viewfinder, I can live with the EVF.

One thing that I don't like about the SX 50 HS (and every bridge camera I have seen) is that the zoom is electronically controlled. I far prefer a manually controlled (manual zooming is what I am talking about, not manual focus).

The minuscule built-in flash is next to worthless but, when I upgraded my Canon 270EX to the Mark ii model of that flash (for slave purposes), I gave the 270EX to my son-in-law. That improved flash performance greatly since you can bounce using the 270EX. I also gave my Son in Law a Joe Demb Photojournalist FlipIt. Using the FlipIt to modify the 270EX, even vertical shots have decent lighting. BTW: the FlipIt also helps in close-up and/or macro work. I don't know if you can access the 270EX HSS capability through the SX 50 HS menu. IMO, the zebra shot above would have benefited from flash. While the 270EX is not powerful enough to do much fill work at distances, it very likely would have added catchlights to the zebras eyes.

While the image stabilization of the SX 50 HS is quite good, it is still difficult for many photographers (my son in law included) to hand hold at the maximum range of the telephoto. The lens stops down considerably at the longest zoom range so I would recommend a tripod or at least a monopod for maximum telephoto shots. The nice thing is that the camera is so light, you don't need a heavy-weight tripod or monopod.

I have not used the Canon SX 60 HS but, would assume that it is as good as the SX 50 HS and perhaps a bit better.

Would I shoot with the SX 50 (or 60) HS. In reality, I would like this camera but, not as my only camera.

[jcuknz]

As I consider you to be a serious photographer you have the difficult task of choosing between a bridge camera for its super-zoom and the birds and a MFT camera for quality with your insects. Since moving to MFT I see the only reason to go for a small sensor is to get the reach. I also unfortunately have had reach in the form of a 950mm rig for some years and found the birds seem to know when you have a big rig and stay further away and know that my 'best' bird shot was taken with a 70mm after I attracted the birds to me instead of trying to capture them from a-far. The best bird photographer I know locally attracts them with bird calls and uses a maximum 300mm lens.

Of the suggested offerings I see the FZ200 is priced at US$600 though what the prices would be in your country I do not know and there is the problem of your possibly unreliable postal service failing to deliver if you bought within your budget from the likes of KEH, Adorama, or B&H Photo Video. I personally trust the first and last having bought 2/h from them.

If you do get the FZ200 I know it will accept a telephoto adaptor to increase its reach from 600mm to 1020 and saw some high quality images of vintage aircraft in flight taken with such a rig.
http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52448 [But unfortunately I think the photos have been deleted as I got red crosses when I checked it a moment ago ]


Bear in mind that when you get to 800<1200mm reach there is very little practical difference between them and probably allowing for the ability to crop from the larger sensor of MFT [ 17x13mm vis.6x4.5mm of the bridge ] a reasonable telephoto lens will equal the bridge. [ 476mm actual, 1/4 crop gives around 900mm ]

I cannot give personal examples becuase my rig is an older 14-140 zoom with my Olympus x1.7 tele adaptor and all up I doubt if one could equal that with your budget except maybe on the 2/h market from KEH starting with a Pany G3 at around US$200... and I don't think the adaptor is made these days though probably there is an alternative ... though the market is flooded with rubbish with cheap lenses being offered at highish prices to fool people into buying ... a subjective comment ... sorry ideally one buys camera and adaptor from the same maker [ see txt at end of link above for description of gear used ]

Finally to wrap up .. forget all these comments about the lens being able to focus as close as its front element ... LOL ... you want to scare the little beasties you hunt? Far better is to use the zoom to achieve the tight framing with a moderate CU lens to enable you to stay somewhat back, perhaps 9<12 inches. Which you can do with your existing camera/lens with the CU lens taped onto the end of the camera lens as it has no mounting thread. Even a throw-away plastic magnifying glass is worth playing with for experience before you invest in photo quality glass ... here beware of the cheap Chinese sets ... more rubbish I'm afraid.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi again Brian,

The SX 50 HS has a long zoom which seems to be quite sharp throughout its range. The camera also has RAW capability which is a MUST for me. I don't like a camera which requires using the LCD for the only viewfinder and the SX 50 HS has a very decent eye-level EVF as well as an LCD viewfinder. Although I prefer a TTL viewfinder, I can live with the EVF.

One thing that I don't like about the SX 50 HS (and every bridge camera I have seen) is that the zoom is electronically controlled. I far prefer a manually controlled (manual zooming is what I am talking about, not manual focus).

I concur with the RAW and Eye-level VF desire, although I appreciate that using the rear LCD may suit you better.

I had also forgotten about the zoom control aspect, my old Fuji bridge had a manual zoom, it was one of the reasons I chose it. Personally, it is another thing that does cause me frustration on my bridge and P&S cameras, when compared to how easy it is with manual control. However, I appreciate your current camera has electric only zoom control, so I guess you're used to jiggling it in and out until you get the zoom framing you wanted.

Dave thanks for bringing up RAW. I know no one here with RAW capabilities so perhaps you could explain the RAW advantage?

Nick did answer this for me in the second paragraph of post #11 (thanks Nick).

I'm not sure what image editor you use on your shots, or whether you'd even enjoy post processing all your shots, but it is the way to make a difference to the quality of shots, because RAW allows more latitude in processing before artefacts like colour banding begin to appear (as it might if a jpg is significantly processed).

Finally, one other thing to bear in mind is that the bigger the sensor (better quality), the less Depth of Field you will have (for a given numerical aperture value), given what you shoot in your temple/garden (bugs and plants at relatively close distances), that might begin to be an issue if you go as large (sensor-wise) as MFT (2 x crop factor).
However, for general use, MFT is great and I recommended it for my daughter - however, it usually(?) does mean interchangeable lenses, something you said you wanted to avoid.
I think your current crop factor is about 5, so something not too far from that won't give you 'a nasty surprise' (in reduced DoF giving more out of focus legs and petals).

Cheers, Dave

[jcuknz]

Dave's comment about manual zoom prompted me to try and find out if the FZ200 has it and it appears that unfortunately Panasonic have reverted to power zoom from the manual zoom of the FZ30 [8Mp] and FZ50 [10 Mp]. Not impressed by one review I read that they didn't know that the FZ200 reverts to what the FZ20 had [ my first Panasonic] with its constant f/2.8.
This info search brings up a description of my bridge camera, the FZ50 with its Raynox 2020 giving the 950mm reach at about f/4.5 which compensates somewhat compared with what DSLR rigs achieve in their ability to use higher ISO ...I rarely if ever used other than 100 ISO for IQ reasons. Pricewise the FZ50 goes for about $250 s/h and the Raynox 2020 is similarly priced. It shoots RAW if you want to go down that path.

But from memory of researching your existing camera I am not sure exactly what advantages you are going to get ... you already have 500mm reach for the birds or is it 550, not much difference and MFT with the kit lens will give you better IQ for the little beasties ... I have noticed that you rarely go in close with your shots so the kit 14-42 [ 28-84 mm ] would be fine. and like the APS-C worker you have greater tolerance to crop.

The reduction in native depth of field was something I noticed on using MFT but since I normally focus on a subject and ignore softness elsewhere it doesn't bother me these days ... in fact I often deliberately soften further the surrounds to the subject in editing. Which makes the subject look sharper to a degree. Normally working at 800ISO means I also usually am working at smaller aperture which I guess compensates.

So unless something has happened to your existing gear I'd suggest it is MFT or nothing and you will gain little from a second bridge camera .... MFT is a giant step forward for a bridge user .... hope this helps you decide

Note ... my aim with MFT was to get a larger sensor with similar characteristics to a bridge camera and so today I have a 28-280 zoom which is very close to the 35-280 of my original Nikon bridge camera which served me so well before Panasonic distracted me away from it [ WOW!! 432mm reach instead of 280 and a constant f/2.8 ... the FZ20 and at the same time I bought the FZ3 for my wife which she still uses today a decade later ]

[Nicks Pics]

Reading these last posts reminded me of one thing to mention about the SL100 which I own, and mentioned earlier, which is that bug photography can be a little difficult with it as it often can't focus at the preferred distance from the bug. On it's "Super Macro" mode it can focus 1cm away, but backing off and zooming in often gives a more desired affect for insects unless you want to shoot them at wide angle, which often includes too wide view of the bkg, but zoom is disabled on this mode. On normal "macro " mode, the zoom works, but the close focus capabilities become rather distant, making the subject not fill enough of the frame, so either way it is hard to frame a bug shot as you would want. If you are interested in the fujifilm sx1 or HS50 EXR or any of the other cameras that have been mentioned you could compare the minimum close focus distances on macro mode of other cameras with the SL1000 on the manufacturer's websites to see if they are better. Ones with manual focus might have an advantage in this respect. but I'm not sure.

[mrinmoyvk]

As I had previously mentioned, Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ200 is a very good camera.
Macro shots or extreme zoom or trying something odd might not be possible on this but most of the people end up shooting portraits and landscapes 90% of the time. For them FZ200 is best camera. You get constant f2.8 aperture through out the zoom range and Full HD movie recording at 60p. These are two unique features that you don't get in any other camera in market till date. Even most high-end DSLR camera fall back in 1080 at 60p they offer 60i. constant f2.8 for 24x zoom is almost impossible to get in budget on any lens for DSLR.

[JBW]

As I had previously mentioned, Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ200 is a very good camera.
Macro shots or extreme zoom or trying something odd might not be possible on this but most of the people end up shooting portraits and landscapes 90% of the time. For them FZ200 is best camera. You get constant f2.8 aperture through out the zoom range and Full HD movie recording at 60p. These are two unique features that you don't get in any other camera in market till date. Even most high-end DSLR camera fall back in 1080 at 60p they offer 60i. constant f2.8 for 24x zoom is almost impossible to get in budget on any lens for DSLR.

And there you have hit upon my dilemma. I occasionally take a shot of my dogs, but 99% of the time it is macro or at least close-ups of various whatevers in the garden. I am beginning to lean to a Fujifilm S1 because it is weather resistant and with the dust and humidity here that is a bonus. But time will tell.

[JBW]

Reading these last posts reminded me of one thing to mention about the SL100 which I own, and mentioned earlier, which is that bug photography can be a little difficult with it as it often can't focus at the preferred distance from the bug. On it's "Super Macro" mode it can focus 1cm away, but backing off and zooming in often gives a more desired affect for insects unless you want to shoot them at wide angle, which often includes too wide view of the bkg, but zoom is disabled on this mode. On normal "macro " mode, the zoom works, but the close focus capabilities become rather distant, making the subject not fill enough of the frame, so either way it is hard to frame a bug shot as you would want. If you are interested in the fujifilm sx1 or HS50 EXR or any of the other cameras that have been mentioned you could compare the minimum close focus distances on macro mode of other cameras with the SL1000 on the manufacturer's websites to see if they are better. Ones with manual focus might have an advantage in this respect. but I'm not sure.

I have found with my Fujifilm S4200 a touch of telephoto on macro or even just straight super macro can give pretty bug shots. And I am guessing that with a higher end Fujifilm bridge it would only get better?

[JBW]

Dave's comment about manual zoom prompted me to try and find out if the FZ200 has it and it appears that unfortunately Panasonic have reverted to power zoom from the manual zoom of the FZ30 [8Mp] and FZ50 [10 Mp]. Not impressed by one review I read that they didn't know that the FZ200 reverts to what the FZ20 had [ my first Panasonic] with its constant f/2.8.
This info search brings up a description of my bridge camera, the FZ50 with its Raynox 2020 giving the 950mm reach at about f/4.5 which compensates somewhat compared with what DSLR rigs achieve in their ability to use higher ISO ...I rarely if ever used other than 100 ISO for IQ reasons. Pricewise the FZ50 goes for about $250 s/h and the Raynox 2020 is similarly priced. It shoots RAW if you want to go down that path.

But from memory of researching your existing camera I am not sure exactly what advantages you are going to get ... you already have 500mm reach for the birds or is it 550, not much difference and MFT with the kit lens will give you better IQ for the little beasties ... I have noticed that you rarely go in close with your shots so the kit 14-42 [ 28-84 mm ] would be fine. and like the APS-C worker you have greater tolerance to crop.

The reduction in native depth of field was something I noticed on using MFT but since I normally focus on a subject and ignore softness elsewhere it doesn't bother me these days ... in fact I often deliberately soften further the surrounds to the subject in editing. Which makes the subject look sharper to a degree. Normally working at 800ISO means I also usually am working at smaller aperture which I guess compensates.

So unless something has happened to your existing gear I'd suggest it is MFT or nothing and you will gain little from a second bridge camera .... MFT is a giant step forward for a bridge user .... hope this helps you decide

Note ... my aim with MFT was to get a larger sensor with similar characteristics to a bridge camera and so today I have a 28-280 zoom which is very close to the 35-280 of my original Nikon bridge camera which served me so well before Panasonic distracted me away from it [ WOW!! 432mm reach instead of 280 and a constant f/2.8 ... the FZ20 and at the same time I bought the FZ3 for my wife which she still uses today a decade later ]

The drawback to a MFT is the same as the drawback to the DSLR... the need to change lenses. Many times my hands are not so nimble. Imagine wearing a nice thick set of wool mittens with rubber gloves over them as well and trying to change lenses. Sooner or later something gets bent, dropped, and or broken.

[ajohnw]

I had a nose about last time you thought about an upgrade Brian. You do well with what you have and I'm not at all sure a more costly camera would do any better. My immediate thought was a bigger sensor had to be better and Fuji have made one model for some time. Doesn't look to be decent sensor to me and it's hard to really see what macro settings can do from the specs.

The other problem with a larger sensor even at bridge cameras sizes is magnification. If the sensor is bigger then more magnification is needed for the same view in the finder. That means less depth of field and a steadier hand. If you go that way there are a couple of cameras such as the Olympus Stylus 1 that use a 12mp 1/1.7 in sensor. These cameras zoom to around 300mm because of the bigger sensor. The stylus one's super macro mode focuses from 5 to 60cm and telephoto will focus down to 80cm. There are samples about on the web. I doubt if you would notice much difference in handling with a sensor of this size. The next step up is 1in which is considerably bigger.

I've found the most useful information on these types of camera and macro work by searching Dpreview's forum. Last time I looked around most was moans about too short a working distance what ever the make. This is because bridge cameras and compacts tend to offer macro modes that use very short focal lengths. I would like to own a camera like the Stylus 1 but decided to wait until the prices had dropped and also try and get my hands on one to see what it can do in macro mode. I have looked at the raw files from them and they are not too bad, much better than the now old large sensor Fuji for instance but at some settings colours look a bit muted to me and would need plenty of PP but this is pretty typical of sensors in this size range.

This site is a good source of unprocessed image files. They also show macro capability but don't state working distances etc,

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/

I reckon it will pay you to take changing very very slowly before jumping Brian. There is likely to be a pretty steep price increase over your current camera as well.

John
-

[jcuknz]

Photography is not a major part of my life these days so while I have purchased and played briefly I am not sure of my feelings of recent developments [ for me that is].... namely as a bridge user I used a moderate [two dioptre] CU lens with a 430mm lens for close-ups [ big close-ups of course ... subject 35mm across filling sensor ] but the change to MFT resulted in the 2D not giving me the magnification I wanted. So simultaniously I got myself a 4D and a set of automatic extension tubes and though I probably already knew from Stagecoach's macro work the tube is vastely superior in uniform coverage across the sensor ... though I wonder if the B&W 4D I got is actually a genuine product as it is not that different from the Chinese cheapies I got .... or is it simply the difference between a 2D and a 4D ... what works at 2D doesn't with a 4D ... a shocking revelation.

In all this I am useing a 14-140 zoom lens as I too do not favour changing lenses [ a fear of dust and having to clean a sensor ]. The other difference is I live in a more equipment freindly climate which must be a serious question for Brian.

I do not think that a second bridge is a step forward but a MFT body and kit lens, even something quite old and basic such as an Olympus E-PL1 with a set of auto extension tubes should be well within budget* , and provide the IQ I suspect Brian is after... another purchase I got awhile back to get IBIS [ In Body Image Stabilastion ] to use with my old legacy lenses but currently carries a 'bug-eye' 7.5mm manual lens most of the time.

*The problem with extension tubes is that unless used with a long lens they get you close ... but a wrinkle I have yet to work out is the effect of using tubes with the 14-140 lens and first impression was that I was "way WAY back without much improvement if any in magnification" Most peculiar! One day I will get around to properly working things out.