• 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.

Canon SX60HS in Action (2 Viewers)

the pic below was taken purely as a record shot,the exif reads 247mm and the pic has been cropped ,sports mode again
 

Attachments

  • thrush.JPG
    thrush.JPG
    181.3 KB · Views: 247
Here's a few shots (none to write home about!) but shows the range and ability of the optical zoom with the 2x converter. Pretty impressive: pic 3 is visible in the middle of pic 1 and the boat is visible in pic 4

Beachy (4) (Medium).JPGBeachy (5) (Medium).JPGBeachy (6) (Medium).JPGLand's End (3) (Medium).JPGLand's End (4) (Medium).JPG
 
I ran into the same problem in Tv (shutter priority) mode...clipped/blown highlights. After doing some reading I'm going to try my next session with Tv with the histogram turned on in the display and see if EC (exposure compensation) can fix the problem.

This is not an unknown problem for me. My old Coolpix 4500 used to have the same problem (worse actually, they truly were "clipped" and badly transitioned highlights). My favorite subjects, a pair of white-tailed kites, will force me to figure this out. :)

I found the "real" manual online as well, so that has given me more insight on why I couldn't access certain special features.

I want to fiddle with the modes and scenes more. The sad thing is, I would have thought the "mode" would be something Canon would provide in the EXIF/XMP data, but it doesn't appear they do. Digital teleconverter settings, etc. would be nice in the photo data too, but...nope. Makes it tough to change settings in the field and then know what you did and tried when you see the shots back at home unless you take alot of notes.

I did a rough pass through my photos this morning...of 521 shots, 84 were decent enough for me, which is a 16% hit rate...for the distances involved, pretty good (I'm usually less than 10% digiscoping, and often 0-5% on keepers). Considering I was pretty aggressive in trying BiF and all over the range map (which I couldn't even do with the camera+scope setup), and using the 2x digital teleconverter most of the time, I consider this a big improvement.

I do rely on post-processing alot, a habit I've had for years since I'm no stranger to Photoshop and always had less-than-stellar cameras. So I have no problem bending the camera settings to get the most data and worry about getting the photo back in post-processing.

I understand SX60 RAW support may be in the latest Photoshop CS6 updates, so it may be high time I start trying that as well, except maybe for the action shots.
I don't know how to access it when post-processing, but the exif data's all there somewhere. I know, cause when I put photos in Flickr I can see it all, including scene mode and teleconverter settings. Here's a link to a photo taken with an SX60;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127980272@N06/15462021120/in/set-72157648590733867
If you scroll down a little and click on "show EXIF," it all appears just below.

I found the metering on the SX60 to be a bit strange too. I noticed when the camera chose a faster shutter speed (like sports mode does) the results seemed to be better. I attributed this to overcoming the lack of image stabilization that my copy seemed to have.
 
I don't know how to access it when post-processing, but the exif data's all there somewhere. I know, cause when I put photos in Flickr I can see it all, including scene mode and teleconverter settings. Here's a link to a photo taken with an SX60;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127980272@N06/15462021120/in/set-72157648590733867
If you scroll down a little and click on "show EXIF," it all appears just below.
That's pretty cool. I looked again thought and can't find the information in Photoshop, at least not in the JPEGs. So either Photoshop isn't supporting some aspect of EXIF via their XMP-based File Info, or I'm just blind and can't see it (quite possible).

I found some possible leads in the Advanced tab, but it appears to give things like "Mode: 2" which probably translates into a mode name, but doesn't help much without a lookup chart.

Any Photoshop users in the audience care to lend a hand?

Figures, I finally get to a point where it's worth staring at the data only to find getting at it still feels like the 1980s...
 
That's pretty cool. I looked again thought and can't find the information in Photoshop, at least not in the JPEGs. So either Photoshop isn't supporting some aspect of EXIF via their XMP-based File Info, or I'm just blind and can't see it (quite possible).

I found some possible leads in the Advanced tab, but it appears to give things like "Mode: 2" which probably translates into a mode name, but doesn't help much without a lookup chart.

Any Photoshop users in the audience care to lend a hand?

Figures, I finally get to a point where it's worth staring at the data only to find getting at it still feels like the 1980s...

I'm still using Picasa, mostly because I'm too lazy to learn a more advanced editing software. I don't see all the EXIF data in Picasa either, but I upload from there to Flickr so somehow Picasa facilitates the transfer. I imagine the situation's similar in Photoshop.
 
Some quick samples, straight from the camera.

Due to limitations at upload these are cropped and/or resized and saved as High (8) JPEG quality, which will bias the quality. But the photos are otherwise unedited and haven't been through my post-processing cycle yet.

Weather was sunny to severely overcast. I'm pretty sure I had the 2x digital teledapter on for all shots.

The plane shows a good idea of the fact that the camera can indeed capture motion really well (IMHO), even at extreme range (granted, a slow moving target). The little black/white/irridescent duck is a good example of the highlight clipping problem I had.

Details:

PLANE: Distance = 720m, cropped, left at 100% size, High Quality JPEG (Photoshop)
BIRDS: Distance = 100m, cropped, resized to 50%, High Quality JPEG (Photoshop)


To be fair for my purposes, I'm not pixel peeper, nor do I have any intentions to print these often or use them very often at their full size. In fact, even for my gallery here I suspect I'll reduce them 50%, which really ameliorates the teledapter's tendency to pixelate things (which you can see better in the airplane pic).

Granted, knowing what I know now...turn off the teledapter for close-in shots.

Given what has been "decent" shots at 50-100m in my gallery with my digiscoping gear, and most photos beyond that are badly grainy, I think reaching out consistently to 100m (and turn off the teledapter, or turn down to 1.6x) and even reaching way out to 700+m (1/2 mile!) as needed is a huge improvement for my photographic needs.

Even my girlfriend (who has a very nice D700 and 70-300mm lens) admits how cool it is to photograph some bobbing white spec in the distance and get home and discover it's a gorgeous black-and-white duck with a shimmering emerald head. :)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0364.JPG
    IMG_0364.JPG
    143.6 KB · Views: 177
  • IMG_0531.JPG
    IMG_0531.JPG
    449.6 KB · Views: 199
  • IMG_0570.JPG
    IMG_0570.JPG
    301.2 KB · Views: 219
  • IMG_0705.JPG
    IMG_0705.JPG
    342.3 KB · Views: 213
I've posted three shots to my gallery, my first "decent" shots with the SX60 from my first outing with it.


Of course these have been cropped, reduced, unsharp mask'd, and had levels and contrast adjustments as needed to give the photos more oomph. Pretty typical routine for me, especially since I shoot in such low-contrast weather so much of the time.

I'm not 100% happy with the macro photo because I know it's focus isn't quite right. I have done better with a Coolpix 4500's macro mode, here.

The other two are a bit grainier than I would have expected, but I was using the 2x teledapter which seems to induce this.

I obviously need to experiment more in both macro and non-macro. I've had over 10 years of experience with the Coolpix 4500, so I can't expect to know how the SX60 behaves in a single outing. :)
 
Last edited:
I've posted three shots to my gallery, my first "decent" shots with the SX60 from my first outing with it.


Of course these have been cropped, reduced, unsharp mask'd, and had levels and contrast adjustments as needed to give the photos more oomph. Pretty typical routine for me, especially since I shoot in such low-contrast weather so much of the time.

I'm not 100% happy with the macro photo because I know it's focus isn't quite right. I have done better with a Coolpix 4500's macro mode, here.

The other two are a bit grainier than I would have expected, but I was using the 2x teledapter which seems to induce this.

I obviously need to experiment more in both macro and non-macro. I've had over 10 years of experience with the Coolpix 4500, so I can't expect to know how the SX60 behaves in a single outing. :)

Do you do Macro close up or at 6 feet with maximum zoom? I find that on the SX50 the stand-off approach works better. Besides, it's less likely to spook the thing. I've also found that using the teleconverter actually lets me get physically closer and still get focus. Seems to be a quirk in the software. Again that's the SX50.
 
Do you do Macro close up or at 6 feet with maximum zoom? I find that on the SX50 the stand-off approach works better. Besides, it's less likely to spook the thing. I've also found that using the teleconverter actually lets me get physically closer and still get focus. Seems to be a quirk in the software. Again that's the SX50.
I used the macro mode on the dial and close-up to the subject. In macro mode the teleconverter is disabled (sensibly so IMHO).
 
So what would be the recommendation, SX50 or SX60?
If have been reading a lot online and it seems the sx60 can't compete with the sx50 that's 2 years old. I'm tempted by the sx60 but it seems the sx50 takes a better picture. Seems strange to me that this could be the case.
 
So what would be the recommendation, SX50 or SX60?
If have been reading a lot online and it seems the sx60 can't compete with the sx50 that's 2 years old. I'm tempted by the sx60 but it seems the sx50 takes a better picture. Seems strange to me that this could be the case.

I do not have an SX60. But I can say that having read these threads and a number of reviews on-line, I got a second SX50.

Some people seem to be having good luck with the SX60. But one review I saw shows showed side by side photos of the two at maximum zoom and the SX50 was significantly superior. On the other hand I'm not sure if anyone is sure whether some of the early production models may have had a production flaw. So I just don't know for sure.
 
I do not have an SX60. But I can say that having read these threads and a number of reviews on-line, I got a second SX50.

Some people seem to be having good luck with the SX60. But one review I saw shows showed side by side photos of the two at maximum zoom and the SX50 was significantly superior. On the other hand I'm not sure if anyone is sure whether some of the early production models may have had a production flaw. So I just don't know for sure.


I've come to the same conclusion. Too many reviews say that there has been a significant reduction in image quality with the SX60 and one website that said the SX60 was better showed images from both to my eyes the SX50 images were easily superior. I would particularly like the improved evf of the SX50 but not if it means poorer photos. I'm going to dither overnight but I suspect I'll be order the SX50 in the morning. What a wasted opportunity for Canon.
 
Those that have the SX50, is the poorer EVF (to that on the SX60) that much of an issue?

I have read thread after thread and review after review and narrowed my choice down to a Nikon P600 but still have a nagging doubt that the Canon SX50 may perhaps be the best buy.
 
Those that have the SX50, is the poorer EVF (to that on the SX60) that much of an issue?

I have read thread after thread and review after review and narrowed my choice down to a Nikon P600 but still have a nagging doubt that the Canon SX50 may perhaps be the best buy.

I stopped using my Fuji HS10 because of the poor evf. Being primarily an SLR user I found it very hard to use the LCD screen. The SX50 does get very good reviews for its image quality. Having a Canon SLR I'm keen to stay with a Canon so I can use the Canon flash for others it may well be that another bridge camera is the best choice.
 
Those that have the SX50, is the poorer EVF (to that on the SX60) that much of an issue?

I have read thread after thread and review after review and narrowed my choice down to a Nikon P600 but still have a nagging doubt that the Canon SX50 may perhaps be the best buy.

It does the job. You can certainly tell if it's focused on the subject or not. That's really all I expect. The Sx50 is a lot less money than the P600 and smaller and lighter.
 
Those that have the SX50, is the poorer EVF (to that on the SX60) that much of an issue?

I have read thread after thread and review after review and narrowed my choice down to a Nikon P600 but still have a nagging doubt that the Canon SX50 may perhaps be the best buy.

Think it depends on what your subject's going to be. I have the SX50 and my husband has the P600. The Nikon takes beautiful pictures but it's achingly slow....both buffering and autofocus-wise. In lower light conditions it seeks like crazy. That being said, it does have a manual focus function that's usable, ie., when AF doesn't work you can override it and focus manually. So if you're shooting birds that give you some time, you'd probably really like the P600. If, however, you're often trying to get little birds in the bush, BIFs, etc., you'd probably prefer the Canon. I'm particularly attached to the Frame Assist function, would probably miss half my shots without it.
 
Those that have the SX50, is the poorer EVF (to that on the SX60) that much of an issue?

I have read thread after thread and review after review and narrowed my choice down to a Nikon P600 but still have a nagging doubt that the Canon SX50 may perhaps be the best buy.

Forgot to say, re the SX60; the improved EVF is really nice.....until you attempt to use the Frame Assist. For some reason Canon made most of the image go dark when the zoom is retracted, making this most useful function practically worthless in the new model.
 
Forgot to say, re the SX60; the improved EVF is really nice.....until you attempt to use the Frame Assist. For some reason Canon made most of the image go dark when the zoom is retracted, making this most useful function practically worthless in the new model.
I didn't have any problem with this idea at all. Photoshop uses the same user interface for cropping, among other things. Just takes some getting use to.

Granted, I wish I could make the "undark" portion larger (you can only make it smaller than default), but I still found it very useful.

For example, very handy when photographing ducks at long range like the bufflehead and surf scoters which tend to dive very often and quickly and pop-up elsewhere nearby but out-of-frame.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top