crazyfingers
Well-known member
I use the top button all the time. Couldn't get along without it. Bottom one I near as I can tell doesn't do anything I need and so I have forgotten what it does.
-
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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Roy C
- Start date
I use the top button all the time. Couldn't get along without it. Bottom one I near as I can tell doesn't do anything I need and so I have forgotten what it does.
Clark, you might be interested in a Hoodman Loupe. It turns the LCD into a viewfinder. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...pp3m_hoodloupe_3_glare_free.html/prm/alsVwDtl
You can buy a 20 dollar elastic harness to make it stay on the camera, but it's easy enough to make one.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Nice pics of the Wood Duck...bit quiet on this Thread now, they've all jumped ship for the new Nikon 83x
I'm still having a terrible time trying to get the Nikon to even meet the performance of the SX50 and I already returned one and got a replacement. Still, the SX50 is performing better at 2439mm with the 2x teleconverter than the Nikon can at 2000mm optical only.
Link below on the disappointing performance of the replacement Nikon I opened up today. Could I have gotten two lemons in a row? Or is the Canon SX50 really just amazingly good? So good that something that should better simply is not.
The SX50 is getting closer, with better quality, and far easier to hold and carry around. And as I pointed out, the Canon is set on normal jpg. The Canon could be better if set to fine jpg. The Nikon is on fine and is creating inferior photos at twice the file size as the Canon.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3218430#post3218430
Last edited:
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Unless anyone over in the Nikon P900 topic can come up with a silver bullet to get the P900 to outperform the SX50, this second P900 is going back for a full refund and I'm giving up on the Nikon.
I'm consistently getting these kinds of results.
The first two are the Nikon and the second two are the Canon.
The objects are about 30 feet away.
The Nikon is at full optical zoom of 2000mm.
The SX50 is at full optical plus the 2X teleconverter so effectively 2439mm with the digital.
The Canon was $350. The Nikon is $599.
The Canon is not even saving on fine JPG but just regular JPG while the Nikon is saving to fine.
The Canon photos before resizing are averaging about 3mb. The Nikon originals before resizing are averaging 6mb and are consistently worse.
Keep in mind I already returned one Nikon. This is the replacement and no improvement.
To top it off, the Canon is a lot smaller and lighter to carry and the Canon is a lot easier to customize and quickly switch between C1 and C2. The Nikon only has one custom setting button. And the most useful settings that I'd put on the Nikon's wildcard button are not available.
As you may be able to tell, I am thoroughly disgusted with Nikon and back to the Canon.
Now lets hope that the SX70 can beat the SX50.
I'm consistently getting these kinds of results.
The first two are the Nikon and the second two are the Canon.
The objects are about 30 feet away.
The Nikon is at full optical zoom of 2000mm.
The SX50 is at full optical plus the 2X teleconverter so effectively 2439mm with the digital.
The Canon was $350. The Nikon is $599.
The Canon is not even saving on fine JPG but just regular JPG while the Nikon is saving to fine.
The Canon photos before resizing are averaging about 3mb. The Nikon originals before resizing are averaging 6mb and are consistently worse.
Keep in mind I already returned one Nikon. This is the replacement and no improvement.
To top it off, the Canon is a lot smaller and lighter to carry and the Canon is a lot easier to customize and quickly switch between C1 and C2. The Nikon only has one custom setting button. And the most useful settings that I'd put on the Nikon's wildcard button are not available.
As you may be able to tell, I am thoroughly disgusted with Nikon and back to the Canon.
Now lets hope that the SX70 can beat the SX50.
Attachments
POIUYTREWQ
New member
CF-
First, thank you for your contributions to this thread on the SX50. I bought a refurbished one for myself for Christmas and although I was having a lot of fun using it as an adjunct to my birding I was stuck on AUTO mode until I started reading this thread. Now I use the Crazy Fingers’ settings almost every day and my IQ is much better.
When the P900 was announced I thought it was probably too big to be practical for me but was really anxious to see how it performed. I’ve been avidly following your journey on the other thread. The image quality is being hailed on other fora as the greatest thing in bridge cameras but I’m unconvinced.
That said, and I can’t believe I’m defending the P900, I think your second camera has to be a dud, too. Amazon is still showing it as 'Not In Stock' and B&H have it 'available for pre-order' only. For you to have gotten a replacement from Amazon already it seems to me that you were on the priority list for some one else’s return. And may be they’ll get your return as their replacement!
Perhaps you should get your money back and wait for Nikon to correct all the defects in this half-baked soufflé they’ve rushed to market. Then you can give it another try in 6-12 mos - by which time the price will have dropped.
In the meantime, great to have you back on the SX50 thread
First, thank you for your contributions to this thread on the SX50. I bought a refurbished one for myself for Christmas and although I was having a lot of fun using it as an adjunct to my birding I was stuck on AUTO mode until I started reading this thread. Now I use the Crazy Fingers’ settings almost every day and my IQ is much better.
When the P900 was announced I thought it was probably too big to be practical for me but was really anxious to see how it performed. I’ve been avidly following your journey on the other thread. The image quality is being hailed on other fora as the greatest thing in bridge cameras but I’m unconvinced.
That said, and I can’t believe I’m defending the P900, I think your second camera has to be a dud, too. Amazon is still showing it as 'Not In Stock' and B&H have it 'available for pre-order' only. For you to have gotten a replacement from Amazon already it seems to me that you were on the priority list for some one else’s return. And may be they’ll get your return as their replacement!
Perhaps you should get your money back and wait for Nikon to correct all the defects in this half-baked soufflé they’ve rushed to market. Then you can give it another try in 6-12 mos - by which time the price will have dropped.
In the meantime, great to have you back on the SX50 thread
crazyfingers
Well-known member
CF-
First, thank you for your contributions to this thread on the SX50. I bought a refurbished one for myself for Christmas and although I was having a lot of fun using it as an adjunct to my birding I was stuck on AUTO mode until I started reading this thread. Now I use the Crazy Fingers’ settings almost every day and my IQ is much better.
When the P900 was announced I thought it was probably too big to be practical for me but was really anxious to see how it performed. I’ve been avidly following your journey on the other thread. The image quality is being hailed on other fora as the greatest thing in bridge cameras but I’m unconvinced.
That said, and I can’t believe I’m defending the P900, I think your second camera has to be a dud, too. Amazon is still showing it as 'Not In Stock' and B&H have it 'available for pre-order' only. For you to have gotten a replacement from Amazon already it seems to me that you were on the priority list for some one else’s return. And may be they’ll get your return as their replacement!
Perhaps you should get your money back and wait for Nikon to correct all the defects in this half-baked soufflé they’ve rushed to market. Then you can give it another try in 6-12 mos - by which time the price will have dropped.
In the meantime, great to have you back on the SX50 thread
Thanks!
I agree that it's possible I got a second bad one. I am definitely going to return the one I have and wait a while now.
I think what you're seeing is the limit of what small sensor,long zooms can do and Canon maxed it out with the SX50. The SX60 was an improvement in some areas ( e.g. viewfinder) but image quality not so much , and some people prefer the 50.
When I looked at the SX60 Raw against the P900 I noticed that the Nikon's Noise reduction looked at bit more aggressive than Canon's and that effected apparent sharpness. When I looked at your two photos in Colormancer the Nikon had half as much noise ( 41 v 71 ) which made it look "softer". When I ran a Smart Sharpen over the Nikon the difference in Sharpness was not as apparent but the Canon was still better. I suspect also that Canon Image Stabilising is more effective as they have been at it longer. Obviously this is not an issue if the cameras are on a tripod ( unless the stabilising is left on during the test). And because the 2x Teleconverter in the SX50/60 is "Electronic" it may be easier to stabilise.
Anyway, I can't recommend that anyone upgrade to P900 expecting to see a noticeable improvement over the SX50/60, but it is a nice upgrade over the SX40. I miss having the Raw too but I'm happy with some of my photos from it.
Stick with your Canon.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Interesting about your analysis of the images.
In any case, I've submitted to Amazon for a refund return of the P900.
Back to having fun with the SX50. Canon does a lot right. It's not just the quality. I would have kept the Nikon if the images were actually better.
But the Canon simply is a lot more user friendly in terms of customization features and ease of use features.
In any case, I've submitted to Amazon for a refund return of the P900.
Back to having fun with the SX50. Canon does a lot right. It's not just the quality. I would have kept the Nikon if the images were actually better.
But the Canon simply is a lot more user friendly in terms of customization features and ease of use features.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
crazyfingers
Well-known member
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Well, OK. He was in my back yard, where there is lawn. But then went into my trails beyond the grass. But I consider that part of the back yard because with my trails it's easy access compared with going farther back.
From where I'm standing another 10 feet goes down a steep slope into much more difficult walking territory and then a swamp before coming up again into the abutting conservation land.
From where I'm standing another 10 feet goes down a steep slope into much more difficult walking territory and then a swamp before coming up again into the abutting conservation land.
Last edited:
There's nothing actually wrong with the Nikon photos, is there? It's just that they are no better than the Canon shots?
You'd hope they would be, but at least they aren't worse. It would be interesting to see how they compare at full optical zoom, no teleconverter unless it's on both of them, and maximum resolution on each. It could be that with the maximum resolution, the Canon *is* better. Or it could be that the teleconverter is squeezing a bit more detail out of it somehow. Does the Nikon have one?
I'd be resizing them for comparison with software, not with camera settings.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
The Nikon photos were consistently worse than the Canon in terms of fine detail/focus as well as far narrower Depth of Field.
The Nikon does not have what Canon calls their teleconverter. The Nikon does go into digital zoom range but once there many of the ease of use features disappear. For example the center focus rectangle goes away and Nikon's version of frame assist becomes mostly useless depending on how much digital zoom is used. It only snaps back to 2000mm even if you're only using a tiny bit of digital zoom. So it's then totally useless.
The Nikon goes into digital zoom at the end of the optical zoom range of 2000mm. The Canon teleconverter can be used at any optical zoom. How it works no one seems to know but it does produce better photos than plain digital zoom.
For me the bottom line is that the Canon, regardless of the fact that it was using the teleconverter, was getting closer and always producing better quality photos than the Nikon was.
As for resizing for posting, I typically used IrfanView to batch resize to 1600x1200.
HermitIbis
Well-known member
Canon on the digital teleconverter: "With the [Digital Tele-Converter] setting, the focal length of the lens can be increased by a factor equivalent to 1.5x or 2.0x. This makes it possible to increase the magnification without compromising the brightness of the lens even more than increasing the magnification to the same rate in ordinary zoom operations (including digital zoom), enabling you to shoot with a faster shutter speed, thereby minimizing camera shake and subject blurring."
Foggy language and not really an explanation. If it is a strictly internal (digital) operation, maybe it is just plain math integrated into the processor. The process takes practically no time, so it is certainly nothing "physical" like moving glass, or something.
I was surprised to read in the other thread (on the P900) how CF praised the AF speed of the SX50 vs the P900. Now it seems that his P900(s) have had a defect, which would explain it. My SX50 has too often NOT focused on a bird sitting on a small twig, costing me many opportunities for good photos. What I read about the fast and reliable AF of the P900 in early reviews raised my interest in the camera. But there are other factors to consider, and for now I remain happy with my SX50.
Some recent photos below.
Foggy language and not really an explanation. If it is a strictly internal (digital) operation, maybe it is just plain math integrated into the processor. The process takes practically no time, so it is certainly nothing "physical" like moving glass, or something.
I was surprised to read in the other thread (on the P900) how CF praised the AF speed of the SX50 vs the P900. Now it seems that his P900(s) have had a defect, which would explain it. My SX50 has too often NOT focused on a bird sitting on a small twig, costing me many opportunities for good photos. What I read about the fast and reliable AF of the P900 in early reviews raised my interest in the camera. But there are other factors to consider, and for now I remain happy with my SX50.
Some recent photos below.
Attachments
crazyfingers
Well-known member
I pretty much always shoot with the 2x teleconverter on. Long ago I determined that it does not significantly decrease photo quality and gives me 100X and as noted above, at lower magnifications it allows more light in for a given zoom.
So of All the photos I've posted in this threat, pretty much all are with it on.
And while I'm posting, today was the beginning of what will be an evolving story of watching a racoon family.
On my road about a 5 minute walk down to where I frequently visit a field and frog pond, there is a tree. A couple days ago the lady across the street from this tree told me that there is a racoon family in that hole.
I have been watching the hole and today for the first time saw that yes there are critters living in that hole.
In the days to come I hope that I can get much better photos but this is the first post of what I hope is a summer-long observation.
The hole is about 30 feet up a tree that's next to the side of the road. I took the photos while standing in the road about 40 feet from the tree.
So of All the photos I've posted in this threat, pretty much all are with it on.
And while I'm posting, today was the beginning of what will be an evolving story of watching a racoon family.
On my road about a 5 minute walk down to where I frequently visit a field and frog pond, there is a tree. A couple days ago the lady across the street from this tree told me that there is a racoon family in that hole.
I have been watching the hole and today for the first time saw that yes there are critters living in that hole.
In the days to come I hope that I can get much better photos but this is the first post of what I hope is a summer-long observation.
The hole is about 30 feet up a tree that's next to the side of the road. I took the photos while standing in the road about 40 feet from the tree.
