• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

600mm F4 II vs SX50 (1 Viewer)

Nick Leech

Well-known member
United Kingdom
I did some detailed comparisons between:

- my Canon 7D2 with Canon 600 f4 IS Mk2
- my Canon SX50 bridge camera (using max optical zoom, without internal "teleconverter")

The DSLR setup was shot on a Wimberly gimbal mount and decent Gitzo tripod and cable release.
The SX50 was handheld!

I shot photos of distant chimneys on nearby houses in excellent light

I blew up both images to show the same patch of moss on the surface of the brickwork.

I was amazed to see that the detail in the two images was not dissimilar!

The SX50 image had more noise/artefact than the DSLR image. But the detail in the patch of moss was almost the same!

I repeated the same experiment but using a much nearer target - some leaves on a bush in my garden. With the closer subject, the DSLR rig had a slightly clearer advantage.

Of course the DSLR rig has many advantages over the bridge camera - eg speed of shooting on moving birds, better low light performance, better autofocus etc.

However, for a stationary, well-lit distant object I was amazed how close the performance of the SX50 got with that tiny sensor!!

Any comments folks?
 
Yes, I've done similar comparisons between my SX40HS and my EF 500 F/4L IS mounted on a 1D MkIII (or may be a 1D MkIV). As soon as the bird starts moving, the comparison ceases. BUT, I bought the SX40HS because I had a day's visit planned to Orford Ness and the long lens would have been an embarrassment. (The National Trust transport on Orford Ness has just enough space for people, but no spare space for long lenses, and a matching tripod.)
Three years or so later, I find both systems have their uses.
 
I fully agree that both systems have their uses, it's just that I was amazed that the bridge camera with its tiny sensor and inferior glass could deliver similar levels of detail to a DSLR with a mega-expensive 600mm f4 lens attached!

I like to take a telescope/tripod on birding trips (as well as bins), but if I want to take my DSLR and 600mm f4 lens it is almost impossible to take both. So I usually have to choose between the scope and the DSLR/600mm rig (ie decide whether my trip is primarily bird observation, or photography). This is somewhat frustrating!

If I am mainly going to be photographing static birds in good light, a good compromise will be to take the bins, scope/tripod and a bridge camera for photos.

So tend to just save the DSLR/600mm rig for occasions when the emphasis is more on photography or when I know I am going to be shooting mostly moving/flying birds and/or low light scenarios.

The other strategy of course is to bring my wife along - she can carry the scope/tripod and I can then carry the DSLR/600mm lens!!

But I am interested to hear more about other people's thoughts or strategies!
 
Once you start photographing distant subjects, atmospherics can come in to play which will start to put a limit on what is achievable - this will result in closer performances between high and affordable gear.

I own a 500mm f4 but certainly for someone who's after record shots of distant birds, I would question it's benefit. A cheap camera beats an expensive but heavy one you leave at home...
 
I did some detailed comparisons between:

- my Canon 7D2 with Canon 600 f4 IS Mk2
- my Canon SX50 bridge camera (using max optical zoom, without internal "teleconverter")
[...] Any comments folks?
In 2016 I had a pair of kestrels breeding in a distance of 100m from my home. I did lots of comparisons and found that my SX50 was terribly hard to beat. You can see my posts here. My scope wasn't good enough for top-notch digiscoping, neither was my Nikon V2 at 800mm as good as your Canon DSLR. Anyway, in such a situation (and in many others) the SX50 is a true gold standard, in particular if you set up the camera on a tripod, use the inbuilt teleconverter and find the best "My Colors" setting. Even better with a cheap remote control to further reduce any shake.

Later I've bought a hide clamp und used that with the SX50, it saves a lot of weight for a tripod.

Presently I use the Nikon V2 combined with a legacy lens (Sigma 400mm) and teleconverters, an equivalent of 3500mm. It gives me a little more detail for wading birds in comparison to the SX50, but I am the first to admit that the additional weight and hassle, including manual focusing, is hardly worth it. The SX50 on a tripod is pure gold for distant, static objects.

After some experiments I thought that the Nikon V2 + 70-300CX (= 810mm equivalent) wins for birds in a distance up to 7m, for middle distances 8-30m there wasn't a clear winner, and birds farer away I'd prefer to shoot with the SX50.
For birds in flight or fast movement, the Nikon V2 is obviously the better choice, with its fast frame rate of 15 fps.
 
Last edited:
Hi Nick,

I'm currently enjoying my second Canon SX50 as my first failed after many years of excellent service. I use my Canon SX50 exclusively to photograph static subjects, primarily birds, in good light. I purchased this camera with the intention of using the zoom specifically as a "frame filler" for relatively nearby subjects. In this way I avoid the need to crop the image. I'm able to initially capture a nice amount of detail, and the images respond quite well to sharpening during post-processing.

I lean quite heavily on the use of negative exposure compensation not only to avoid blown-highlights on white-feathered birds such as egrets, but especially to achieve the "look" I'm after in my photography, which strongly favors the slightly darker end of the exposure spectrum.

Here's a link to my Canon SX50 Gallery, which features only hand-held images, all without cropping. I love this camera!

https://tonybritton.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-SX50-HS/
 
Tony - wow fantastic images in your gallery - just shows what can be done with the SX50 !!
Thanks, Nick.

The SX50 and I have forged a wonderful working relationship over the years. I keep it within its comfort zone and it rewards me with images I'm always happy with!

Wishing you the best in your photography.

Tony
 
As an occasional macro photographer, I have found that if I can't get close enough to my subject, usually a moth or butterfly, rather than using the full, optical zoom, I get better results if I use say 50% optical then crop with the in camera digital zoom.

Can anyone else confirm this or am I talking nonsense?


A
 
Once you start photographing distant subjects, atmospherics can come in to play which will start to put a limit on what is achievable - this will result in closer performances between high and affordable gear.

I own a 500mm f4 but certainly for someone who's after record shots of distant birds, I would question it's benefit. A cheap camera beats an expensive but heavy one you leave at home...

I think that is very much the case.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top