Canon SX50 Specs (5 Viewers)

[HermitIbis]

Trying the Raynox 250 that I bought a while ago, the first photo looks at some text from my ink printer. Maybe I am wrong, but the need to have the object at a distance of 109 millimeters seems very limiting in practice. - Actually I am happy with the macro abilities of the SX50 as it is, no Raynox added: see the other photos taken three days ago.

I wonder how useful more magnification would be for my own birding activities. Today in my park, I often used 50x or the 1.5 teleconverter instead of the 2.0, as the birds were filling the frame anyway. Instead of buying a new camera, I might prefer to travel to places with rarer birds.

 

[crazyfingers]

I got my raccoon baby today. It poked it's head out of the hole briefly.

 

[HermitIbis]

Cute. Small mammals are difficult to photograph, with the exception of squirrels.

 

[crazyfingers]

Thanks. Small mainly nocturnal ones are even harder.

 

[HermitIbis]

I might prefer to travel to places with rarer birds.

Said and done. Took a 2-hours trip to a reservation, rail/bus day-ticket for Euro 10.50. I met six bird species that I hadn't seen before in the wild, so that's less than Euro 2 per new bird, not to mention stunning dragonflies and a young fox. Including a Purple heron (only 18-23 are said to live in Baden-Württemberg), some Western marsh harriers (30-50) and two Black-necked grebes (100-200).

Beating the 8500 species of Phoebe Snetsinger will cost me more, as the trips get longer.

 

[crazyfingers]

Love the fox cub!

 

[HermitIbis]

Thanks. The most dangerous predator in my area.:t:

Many of my photos (e.g. photo 1 above) are shot in 172mm zoom position, the setting discussed earlier in this thread (AV and "iso priority"). This C1 setting can be useful to get a "first decent photo", because
(a) Sacrificing a little zoom may be worth it, if my priority is a sharp first photo of a surprise bird for ID. The speed (1/320 or more) and the wider view are helpful in this respect.
(b) What I like is the ability of the 172mm setting to catch birds in flight. Often a useful alternative to "sports mode". Surprised by a flying bird, I can press the frame assist, giving me room for my shaky hands and "user error".

Photos 1-3 were shot at 172mm, the Western marsh harrier was so far away that the full zoom (215mm) was a must. Not my best photos, but again: decent enough as ID photographs.

 

[crazyfingers]

I wish there was a C3. I would try that AV setting of yours. Right now I have my alternate set to spot metering which is handy in bad lighting.

I should have tried that this morning when I took a photo of a hummingbird from the underside and the sun nearly straight down.

Here is the hummingbird doing a stretch before heading off again like a guided bullet.

 

[mzettie]

I wish there was a C3. I would try that AV setting of yours. Right now I have my alternate set to spot metering which is handy in bad lighting.

I should have tried that this morning when I took a photo of a hummingbird from the underside and the sun nearly straight down.

Here is the hummingbird doing a stretch before heading off again like a guided bullet.

Hummers are my "first bird love," but the little buggers are the most challenging birds to photograph. You can get away with fairly low shutter speeds when they're perched (not preening or stretching) but otherwise, you really have to use TV if the light's not perfect, and sometimes even when it is. Might want to try it with safety shift on, so if you choose a speed that's a little too high, you can still get a shot.

My new P900's in the shop, so at your suggestion, last weekend I took the SX50 on a little excursion to the Bonne Carre Spillway, about 30 minutes outside of town. The camera's getting old and a little finicky, but I got some halfway decent shots. They're all within optical zoom range except for the last one, which was at 1900mm eq.

 

[HermitIbis]

Due to Climate Change, maybe one day I can see hummingbirds here. - Seeing mzettie's hint in the other thread I was tempted to buy my fourth SX50, refurbished from Canon US $ 180, but the offer is only valid for the US:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/powershot-sx50-hs-refurbished#
"Offer valid April 1, 2015 12:00 a.m. through May 31, 2015 11:59 p.m. ET. Offer valid in U.S.A. only".

$180 plus customs/postage would have been ~Euro 225, slightly above the price for my 2nd and 3rd SX50. In internet auctions, "not/rarely used" SX50 cameras are now selling for Euro 270 here, sometimes Euro 300+.

 

[Toirealach]

Hummers are my "first bird love," but the little buggers are the most challenging birds to photograph. You can get away with fairly low shutter speeds when they're perched (not preening or stretching) but otherwise, you really have to use TV if the light's not perfect, and sometimes even when it is. Might want to try it with safety shift on, so if you choose a speed that's a little too high, you can still get a shot.

My new P900's in the shop, so at your suggestion, last weekend I took the SX50 on a little excursion to the Bonne Carre Spillway, about 30 minutes outside of town. The camera's getting old and a little finicky, but I got some halfway decent shots. They're all within optical zoom range except for the last one, which was at 1900mm eq.

Some nice shots there...love the Painted Bunting.:t:

What were your settings on the flying Snowy Egret?

 

[crazyfingers]

Due to Climate Change, maybe one day I can see hummingbirds here.

I was pretty shocked to learn that on migration those tiny things make 80 mile nonstop flights across the Bay of Fundy from Nova Scotia to Maine.

 

[mzettie]

Some nice shots there...love the Painted Bunting.:t:

What were your settings on the flying Snowy Egret?

Thanks. PBs are such showy little birds, it's amazing that they can hide as well as they do. Felt good to finally grab a shot.

The Snowy was taken in TV mode at 141mm (819mm eq.) Shutter speed of 1/800, EV -2/3, center-weighted metering.

 

[mzettie]

I was pretty shocked to learn that on migration those tiny things make 80 mile nonstop flights across the Bay of Fundy from Nova Scotia to Maine.

Even more amazing is their flight across the Gulf of Mexico in the spring. Don't remember how many miles that is, but I think it takes about 18 hours of non-stop flying. Some birds and insects take advantage of oil rigs to rest, but most probably don't encounter any and just have to keep going, no matter what kind of weather they encounter.

 

[mzettie]

Due to Climate Change, maybe one day I can see hummingbirds here. - Seeing mzettie's hint in the other thread I was tempted to buy my fourth SX50, refurbished from Canon US $ 180, but the offer is only valid for the US:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/powershot-sx50-hs-refurbished#
"Offer valid April 1, 2015 12:00 a.m. through May 31, 2015 11:59 p.m. ET. Offer valid in U.S.A. only".

$180 plus customs/postage would have been ~Euro 225, slightly above the price for my 2nd and 3rd SX50. In internet auctions, "not/rarely used" SX50 cameras are now selling for Euro 270 here, sometimes Euro 300+.

Seemed like a decent price to me, and one would "hope" that coming from Canon, it'll have gotten a thorough going-over and be reliable. We'll see.

Have you been happy with your second and third cameras?

 

[crazyfingers]

Even more amazing is their flight across the Gulf of Mexico in the spring. Don't remember how many miles that is, but I think it takes about 18 hours of non-stop flying. Some birds and insects take advantage of oil rigs to rest, but most probably don't encounter any and just have to keep going, no matter what kind of weather they encounter.

That is even more amazing. Though I guess if they couldn't do it they could always go around.

 

[HermitIbis]

I guess crazyfinger's photo shows a Rufous Hummingbird, right? The site http://beautyofbirds.com/hummingbirdsmassachusetts.html lists only two h. species (except rare vagrants) for your state, and the Rufous is the one with the long bill.

Have you been happy with your second and third cameras?

I am very satisfied with the performance of my cameras. There does not seem to be much production variety - none of the three was a "lemon". (The same was true, btw, for my three Canon dslr which I had since 1981.) My first SX50's shutter broke after ~130,000 photos (my estimate), two months before the end of the 2-year warranty. When the repaired SX50 arrived, I had already bought no 2, which I used in the following months without noting a difference.

Now I have 180,000+ SX50 photos on my harddisk. How many photos were shot and later deleted, I can only guess. The total number of photos that I shot with all three SX50s is now probably close to half a million, if not more.

 

[crazyfingers]

I guess crazyfinger's photo shows a Rufous Hummingbird, right? The site http://beautyofbirds.com/hummingbirdsmassachusetts.html lists only two h. species (except rare vagrants) for your state, and the Rufous is the one with the long bill.

With such bad lighting hard to tell. The Ruby-throated Hummingbird is far more common here than Rufous and also has quite a long bill.

I'd love for it to be a rufous as I could add it to my life list!

Attached is the only other photo that I kept.

 

[crazyfingers]

Here is one with massive brightness and contrast adjustments.

 

[mzettie]

With such bad lighting hard to tell. The Ruby-throated Hummingbird is far more common here than Rufous and also has quite a long bill.

I'd love for it to be a rufous as I could add it to my life list!

Attached is the only other photo that I kept.

Your hummingbird is almost certainly a Ruby-throated, since that's the only hummer that nests east of the Mississippi River. Rufous are vagrants to the northeast, but it's too early for that....they're still on their breeding grounds far to the west.

The back-lighting in the photo makes it impossible to see color, which would really help to differentiate the species. There are anatomical differences between the two (Rufous are more compact, appearing sort of "neck-less,") but discerning those differences in a photo is tricky. Ruby-throateds have a deeply forked tail (which this bird appears to have) whereas with Rufous, the central rectrices are the longest, making the tail look very pointed. But posture and foreshortening can really skew those kinds of details on such little birds. And sometimes, a Ruby's tail can be folded in a way that makes it look pointed....but here are a couple of pics that show the difference fairly well. Would be better if I had a photo with the Rufous' tail spread, not closed, but I couldn't find one.