senatore
Well-known member
Very impressive video Mick.I cannot wait to get one of these cameras and get videoing.
Am delaying purchase as I'm hoping for lower prices in the new year and I want to see first what the SX60 is offering.
Max
-
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 SX50 Specs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Roy C
- Start date
Very impressive video Mick.I cannot wait to get one of these cameras and get videoing.
Am delaying purchase as I'm hoping for lower prices in the new year and I want to see first what the SX60 is offering.
Max
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Excellent vid Mick :t::t::t:
I'm getting used to my SX50 now.
The poor viewfinder makes it fairly useless for photographing birds in flight but I'm impressed by the quality of the images that this little camera can produce when you have a stationary target.
Jeff
www.jeffincypress.blogspot.com
The poor viewfinder makes it fairly useless for photographing birds in flight but I'm impressed by the quality of the images that this little camera can produce when you have a stationary target.
Jeff
www.jeffincypress.blogspot.com
Attachments
Gomphus
Well-known member
Been using the SX50 for video for a while and impressed! It's saved me carrying yet another camera for digiscoping and I'm very pleased with the results, still a bit jittery but much better with the stabilisation than my old cameras. I'm using it for record videos for sketching from. Digiscoping still has more reach but if its that far away I tend not to worry much!
Heres a bit on the Hermit Thrush in Cornwall...most of the shake is due to my excitement at seeing the bird LOL
http://youtu.be/GlbCqI0asP8
Heres a bit on the Hermit Thrush in Cornwall...most of the shake is due to my excitement at seeing the bird LOL
http://youtu.be/GlbCqI0asP8
End of year report
+1 for the happy SX50 owners club. Been using it since the summer & not really bothered with digiscoping since. As Gomphus said " if its that far away I tend not to worry much!". And another thumbs up for the video Mick,excellent stuff, an aspect of the camera I`ve yet to try.
I go along with all the negatives Roy highlighted about the camera, plus I have to say the dynamic range is fairly awful as well at times & I also agree about the viewfinder Jeff, but we all know what we`re buying into here, so lets celebrate the joy that £279 worth of camera can give. Attached are some of my better shots taken with the camera. Like ALL cameras good light is everything.
Happy Christmas one & all, Rob.
+1 for the happy SX50 owners club. Been using it since the summer & not really bothered with digiscoping since. As Gomphus said " if its that far away I tend not to worry much!". And another thumbs up for the video Mick,excellent stuff, an aspect of the camera I`ve yet to try.
I go along with all the negatives Roy highlighted about the camera, plus I have to say the dynamic range is fairly awful as well at times & I also agree about the viewfinder Jeff, but we all know what we`re buying into here, so lets celebrate the joy that £279 worth of camera can give. Attached are some of my better shots taken with the camera. Like ALL cameras good light is everything.
Happy Christmas one & all, Rob.
Attachments
Geoff Pain
Rural Member
crazyfingers
Well-known member
I don't see Northern Flickers much. When I took this shot I thought it was a red-bellied woodpecker and only after I got a look on the computer did I realize it was a flicker.
Unfortunately I had the camera set for the mode that I use for regular family shots where 4000x3000 pixels is overkill. This was originally only 1600x1200 and it's cropped quite a bit.
For those unfamiliar with North American birds, it is a woodpecker but it's feeding behavior is not at all like what you'd expect from a woodpecker. It mainly feeds on the ground digging for ants and other bugs with it's strong bill. For that reason it's migratory.
Unfortunately I had the camera set for the mode that I use for regular family shots where 4000x3000 pixels is overkill. This was originally only 1600x1200 and it's cropped quite a bit.
For those unfamiliar with North American birds, it is a woodpecker but it's feeding behavior is not at all like what you'd expect from a woodpecker. It mainly feeds on the ground digging for ants and other bugs with it's strong bill. For that reason it's migratory.
Attachments
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Was out today for a short walk as the sun was getting low. Almost left the SX50 behind. I'm glad I didn't. This red-Shouldered hawk was in a tree scanning the field beyond.
Both have a fair but not drastic crop.
I've only seen a red-shouldered hawk twice that I am aware of. That's the thing about the SX50. It can go anywhere on a moment's notice.
Both have a fair but not drastic crop.
I've only seen a red-shouldered hawk twice that I am aware of. That's the thing about the SX50. It can go anywhere on a moment's notice.
Attachments
AlanTh
Well-known member
I think that this has been asked before. I have read all through this thread, but not recently.
Would you say that there is any advantage in getting an adapter and fitting a skylight filter, to protect the lens? It used to be pretty common practice years ago with SLRs. I know that a new lens cap would also have to be purchased.
Would the filter (or a UV filter) be detrimental?
Would you say that there is any advantage in getting an adapter and fitting a skylight filter, to protect the lens? It used to be pretty common practice years ago with SLRs. I know that a new lens cap would also have to be purchased.
Would the filter (or a UV filter) be detrimental?
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I would most definitely not use a UV/protection filter on the SX50 (or any other DSLR lens) as it will effect IQ. So in answer to your question, yes a filter would be detrimental.
AlanTh
Well-known member
Many thanks for that Roy. I take it that IQ = Image Quality?
Is this problem something specific to dig cameras? As I said - back in the pre dig days, pretty much every photographer used to protect their lenses. That is the way it seemed to me at the time anyway ...
pooleparrot
Ian Ballam
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Any glass in front of the optics are bound to degrade the image to a certain amount Alan, by just how much depends on the filter itself.
Although I have never tested one on a SX50 type Camera I have done lots of tests with a DSLR and what I always found is that even a high class filter (costing £100 or more!) will degrade the IQ (Image Quality) of telelenses a lot more than on,say, a wide angle lens. I tested the same High Quality filter on both the Canon 17-40/4 lens and the Canon 400/5.6 lens - there was little difference between IQ with or without the filter on the 17-40 but on the 400/5.6 the difference was enormous - I guess any defects in the filter glass is magnified.
I have seen hundreds of post on the web where someone has bought a new lens and have been very disappointment with the IQ - the first question asked is always "are you using a filter - if so take it off" that almost always solved the problem.
As a side issue the best protection for something like the SX50 is to always use a lens hood (you can pick them up for a few pounds on the web). I never shoot any lens without a hood in place (except when using a circ polariser on my 17-40 but that is different than than a protective filter of course).
I remember someone on Birdforum getting a protective filter for a SX40 but they soon ditched it when they saw the IQ degrading that it caused.
That could possibly have been me Roy and the filter remains ditched whilst the lens hood is still firmly attached :t:
AndyM
AlanTh
Well-known member
Thanks for those replies. A lens hood it is then.
My question came about when thinking of the days when virtually every keen photographer had a darkroom and all the related gear.
I would have loved to have seen my late father's reaction to the digital age of photography. I'm guessing that he would very reluctantly (eventually) have agreed that the modern results are better.
My question came about when thinking of the days when virtually every keen photographer had a darkroom and all the related gear.
I would have loved to have seen my late father's reaction to the digital age of photography. I'm guessing that he would very reluctantly (eventually) have agreed that the modern results are better.
