-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Canon SX60HS in Action (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
As much as I've complained about the SX50's EVF and anticipated the release of the SX60, I have to say my disappointing experience with the new model (and the ongoing discussion about it) have made me re-appreciate what the SX50 CAN do.
Much has been said about how the cameras compare at maximum optical zoom, with lots of contradicting opinions. I'd be interested to hear what people are finding in terms of the digital zoom capabilities of the SX60 too.
I know many would rather stay within a camera's optical limits and crop later, but I've found that in practical terms, utilizing the digital zoom can help with auto-focusing and facilitate a shot that would otherwise not happen, especially if there's a stick or other object between the shooter and the subject.
The exif info on flickr doesn't indicate anything beyond max optical, so I looked back through recent photos to find some that were taken at 100x (35mm equivalent 2440) and put a few in a folder. They're all jpegs with no processing, ie, "as taken."
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r2tfisjcfq5w3wj/AACwAJAjO_n-XJVFMsMBLCVBa?dl=0
The second shot is an example of the "stick in front of bird" situation. With pinpoint focus and 100x zoom, one can find a piece of the bird to focus on and get a decent shot....may not be great, but at least it's identifiable.
The last photo is of a small bird perched in the top of a 50 foot Sycamore. I couldn't see any details with bins, but the pic clearly shows a Lark Sparrow. Pretty amazing, even if it's a pretty bad photo.....
Still wish they'd just tweaked the SX50,... sigh.
Much has been said about how the cameras compare at maximum optical zoom, with lots of contradicting opinions. I'd be interested to hear what people are finding in terms of the digital zoom capabilities of the SX60 too.
I know many would rather stay within a camera's optical limits and crop later, but I've found that in practical terms, utilizing the digital zoom can help with auto-focusing and facilitate a shot that would otherwise not happen, especially if there's a stick or other object between the shooter and the subject.
The exif info on flickr doesn't indicate anything beyond max optical, so I looked back through recent photos to find some that were taken at 100x (35mm equivalent 2440) and put a few in a folder. They're all jpegs with no processing, ie, "as taken."
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r2tfisjcfq5w3wj/AACwAJAjO_n-XJVFMsMBLCVBa?dl=0
The second shot is an example of the "stick in front of bird" situation. With pinpoint focus and 100x zoom, one can find a piece of the bird to focus on and get a decent shot....may not be great, but at least it's identifiable.
The last photo is of a small bird perched in the top of a 50 foot Sycamore. I couldn't see any details with bins, but the pic clearly shows a Lark Sparrow. Pretty amazing, even if it's a pretty bad photo.....
Still wish they'd just tweaked the SX50,... sigh.
They look ok. Especially the hummingbird. I've been using the 1.6 and 2.0x a bit in California. It might even be a good idea to leave it in this mode permanently. You won't often use the 21 mm end if you're birding.
Neil.
mzettie,
I'm sorry, but I'm probably being a bit dense this morning.
I fully understand the point you are making about using a digital zoom over an optical zoom aiding focussing in certain situations (bird in dense canopy etc), and understand that the pictures you posted are actually taken using digital zoom. But for my clarification please, are these 4 photos taken with an SX50 to support your point about using digital zoom, or taken with an SX60 to support your view over poor IQ ? - because if taken with an SX60, then I don't see a problem for someone like me who wants a bridge camera for record shots only to support identification out in the field or for record photos to accompany rare bird submissions.
rgds
Here are some examples of using the Digital Zoom - 1.6x and 2.0x at long distance (900 metres).
Neil.
Neil.
Attachments
Here are a few general photos with the SX60 taken in the good light of California.
Neil.
Neil.
Attachments
Neil, I've been wondering if IS was the main problem I had with the SX60. I did discover the frame assist button and it steadied the image in the viewfinder, but I still had trouble getting well-focused shots. This was the case even at less than max zoom so it seemed like something else was responsible, but I'm not at all sure about that. Probably should have held on to the new camera a while longer, but was worried I'd ding it. Now I'll have to rely on others' experiences to decide whether to try again, so thanks for taking the time to report on yours.
CalvinFold
Well-known member
Can someone with a better eye than mine, perhaps an SX50 user, validate something for me?
All the SX60 shots I've seen from Neil look "nice." I live in California, so based on that alone I'd say the color is good, that sort of thing. But something about all the shots looks ever so slightly "soft." Like there is just a touch too much blur or ever-so-slightly out-of-focus.
I dunno, something about it is bugging me but I can't tell if it's the camera, whether the image has been reduced before upload, or some other non-camera side-effect.
All the SX60 shots I've seen from Neil look "nice." I live in California, so based on that alone I'd say the color is good, that sort of thing. But something about all the shots looks ever so slightly "soft." Like there is just a touch too much blur or ever-so-slightly out-of-focus.
I dunno, something about it is bugging me but I can't tell if it's the camera, whether the image has been reduced before upload, or some other non-camera side-effect.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
I've been using the SX50 for about a year and a half. I've been looking at the posted photos from the SX60 but have had a very hard time judging them. I'm hoping someone with both cameras can do some same 50 vs 60 shots side by side.
What I have heard it that the SX60 drops off quickly in crispness and ability to focus at the max zoom. I am also curious how well it does at the zoom that the SX50 is capable of or if the drop-off is only beyond the SX50's capabilities.
Long distance shots are also problematic to judge because ripples in the air cause a lot of problems that no camera can avoid. I'd rather see comparison shots of things that are only 40 feet away instead of half a mile.
What I have heard it that the SX60 drops off quickly in crispness and ability to focus at the max zoom. I am also curious how well it does at the zoom that the SX50 is capable of or if the drop-off is only beyond the SX50's capabilities.
Long distance shots are also problematic to judge because ripples in the air cause a lot of problems that no camera can avoid. I'd rather see comparison shots of things that are only 40 feet away instead of half a mile.
Raptorash, sorry, I missed your question. The digital zoom shots were taken with the SX50. I was wondering if anyone's been using the SX60 this way, and if they're happy with the results. Still trying to figure out why I couldn't get decent photos from the SX60, since some people seem to be.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
On the SX50 I use the 1.5x and 2x teleconverter a lot. I don't tend to mess with the zoom into digital. But the 2x teleconverter makes the focus rectangle "smaller" to fit the focus in a hole in the shrubs to get the focus on the critter instead of the twig in the way.
In my experience, with both the SX40/50, images are always going to be 'soft' unless you have really good light and a close subject. I'm no expert but if there is one thing that I have gleaned from hanging around the SX forums, is that you cannot expect DSLR perfection from what is essentially a point & shoot camera (but a very good one at that)!
AndyM
EDIT: An example of probably the sharpest I've managed to date - Good light, subject at c.5m, Full zoom, 2.0x.
Attachments
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I agree 100% with this Andy - these Cameras are great if you can get near enough but they do not yield anywhere near as much detail as a decent DSLR set-up if you take a shot from afar - with a DSLR set-up you can often crop the image extremely heavily and get some nice detail but not so with the couple of Point and shoots that I have tried (SX40 and SX50).
Having said that they are extremely good value for money for the photographer who is not so bothered about really good IQ but just want a decent record shot of their sightings - much easier than digiscoping IMHO. Another big advantage to these Cams is the weight compared to the DSLR outfits.
I have sold both my SX Cams now but may be tempted back into the fold sometime although the SX60 does not seem to be inspiring me a lot at this stage.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
These are about as good as they get for me with the SX50 at max optical and 2x teleconverter. No crop but of course compressed to 1600x1200 to attach. File size perhaps 10% of the original so something must get lost in the size reduction. I believe the sandpiper was a cloudy though not a gloomy day.
Attachments
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
They are nice 'crazyfingers' but where you lose most with the small sensor Cams is when you have to crop heavily before you even resize for the web. Attached is an example of the original full frame and a near 100% crop taken with a 400/5.6 lens on my old 40D cam. On the 1.6 crop camera this equates to 640mm but when you consider the 100% crop then the finished image would be equal to a field of view well in excess of 2000mm!
Attachments
CalvinFold
Well-known member
This is my thought exactly...digiscoping without the scope and with more flexibility.
If money wasn't the object (to some degree) then I'd probably ALSO get a micro four-thirds for digiscoping. And I may yet get a used MFT for that purpose, but not for a couple years.
I don't really see getting a DSLR for myself if for no other reason than sheer expense and weight. Though my girlfriend may inherit a couple year old Nikon DLSR, and we agreed I could borrow it for digiscoping as long as she can use whatever bridge camera I buy. =D
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Not saying DSLR's aren't better. They are. If weight/size and cost was no object
For me superzoom is the best option. At the moment I don't think that I can get better than the SX50 in the superzoom world. I wish the SX60 was better for stills and am still trying to keep an open mind. But with some of the buttons on my SX50 starting to feel a little sticky after taking roughly 30,000 photos since I got it, I am considering getting a second SX50 before supplies run out. It sounds so far that the SX60 is no upgrade for what I would mainly use it for. Still photo at max zoom. The SX50 is a lot less expensive than the SX60 these days.
Steve Babbs
Well-known member
[ It sounds so far that the SX60 is no upgrade for what I would mainly use it for. Still photo at max zoom. The SX50 is a lot less expensive than the SX60 these days.[/QUOTE]
It does sound that way. I'm thinking get a cheap sx50 and hope the sx70 will be a proper improvement.
It does sound that way. I'm thinking get a cheap sx50 and hope the sx70 will be a proper improvement.
Similar threads
