Atricapilla
Still Wandering
Neil ,at what distances were the bird shots taken,number 5 is a cracker,keep em coming.
-
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
Neil ,at what distances were the bird shots taken,number 5 is a cracker,keep em coming.
Bob,
The egrets were about 25 meters and the starling about 15 meters. The sx50 does a great job if the bird is 25% of the frame or more. The AF has a difficult time on small birds on the ground or against busy backgrounds.
Neil.
I'm liking the sx50 as my main travel camera now. I took the sx50, G1X and Sony RX100 to Italy last week and the G1X didn't get much of a look in . I always had the RX100 in a pocket and the SX50 around my neck.
Neil.
Neil.
Attachments
I am also very interested in the responses to crazyfingers' post. I have a couple of slightly different but related questions.
The only digital camera I currently own is a sad little Nikon Coolpix L5 (ca. 2006)--definitely NOT adequate for bird photography! A decent DSLR with fast telephoto lens is WAAAYYY out of my reach for the forseeable future. My preliminary research suggests that the SX40 or SX50 are my best hope for getting some nice bird shots (without having to commit any felonies in pursuit of the goal!).
I'm pretty sure that in comparison to my current camera, I would be absolutely thrilled with either the SX40 OR the SX50. So my question is this: Given the similarity of the two models (and the sad state of my finances), is the SX50 really worth the extra $100-$200?
Also: is it true that the SX50 does not include a USB interface cable? Does this mean I'll need to buy a card reader? (Can anyone tell me the specific type of card reader needed, and its approximate cost?)
At this point, I'm leaning toward finding a really good deal on the SX40....but can anyone convince me that I should spring for the SX50?
I'm not super-knowledgeable about digital photography, so I'm not exactly sure I understand the benefits of being able to shoot in RAW with the SX50 (but I suspect it might be important enough to change my decision). If someone could dumb it down for me, I'd be grateful.
One more question: Do either of these models have any macro capabilities to speak of? I mean, can they take good-quality close-up macro shots of insects, flowers, lichens, rock textures, and the like? I don't think I've seen this addressed in any of the reviews or threads I've read so far.
I'm especially interested in hearing from people who are thrilled with their SX40s and don't feel any need to upgrade, and/or people who have had a chance to compare the two models side-by-side....But any and all responses are much appreciated!!
I'm sorry I can't make your decision easy ( camera decisions never are ) as I loved the sx40 when I got it and now I love the sx50 more. The Raw is the main difference for me but the extra lens is nice too.
I haven't done much Macro , but I have taken some closeups .
There is a simple comparison of the two in the middle of this thread, although not in great light unfortunately. Quality of jpegs is similar between the two and HD video is similar too so you won't be disappointed with sx40 here.
Neil.
Attachments
Atricapilla
Still Wandering
Thanks for the info Neil,very impressive.
As far as macro goes, both crazyfingers and I have found that with these superzooms with good IS, then for pics of insects, butterflies etc the hell with macro, just use massive zoom from 8 ft or so. They are less likely to fly away for one thing. Also works for flowers and fungi, but at least one can take time in macro mode then.
The IS is so good that it is usable hand-held at high zooms, especially in good light. I have been playing with a tripod, too. According to what I've read if the camera is on a tripod the IS is automatically disabled. I think tripod is better, but surprisingly little better, especially, as I say, in good light.
Regarding autofocus, when first crazyfingers and I both first superzoom bridge cameras (mine a Pentax, I think his was a Nikon) we both found pics of birds through clutter practically impossible, but by setting up a centre focus on our then SX30s it became pretty easy to let the autofocus find the bird, even through lots of vegetation.
The SX50 is much faster to find focus than the SX30.
Birds in flight are difficult - at high zooms finding anything for the AF to focus in on is hard enough, but I have found it easier by putting the camera into landscape mode. In landscape mode, even against a sky background, I'm guessing that the AF in landscape is expecting something fairly distant, while in normal auto the focus could be anywhere from a centimetre or less up to infinity. Does that make sense?
David
The IS is so good that it is usable hand-held at high zooms, especially in good light. I have been playing with a tripod, too. According to what I've read if the camera is on a tripod the IS is automatically disabled. I think tripod is better, but surprisingly little better, especially, as I say, in good light.
Regarding autofocus, when first crazyfingers and I both first superzoom bridge cameras (mine a Pentax, I think his was a Nikon) we both found pics of birds through clutter practically impossible, but by setting up a centre focus on our then SX30s it became pretty easy to let the autofocus find the bird, even through lots of vegetation.
The SX50 is much faster to find focus than the SX30.
Birds in flight are difficult - at high zooms finding anything for the AF to focus in on is hard enough, but I have found it easier by putting the camera into landscape mode. In landscape mode, even against a sky background, I'm guessing that the AF in landscape is expecting something fairly distant, while in normal auto the focus could be anywhere from a centimetre or less up to infinity. Does that make sense?
David
draycotebirding
Draycote recorder
Hi Neil in the SX40 thread there were links to the CHDK hack site where you could use Raw on the SX40. I think Roy tried it out.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2291917&postcount=38
Regards
John
I'm afraid I'm the opposite to Neil, I think the sx50 is instamatic level compared to my dslr. I will probably keep it to use when I have my scope with me for record purposes, but the quality as soon as you are out of a very small 'comfort' zone is to me at best poor . The comfort zone being bright sunlight within 25m of small subjects . Perhaps for around town as Neil has shown its OK but for me - not anywhere near good enough. This waxwing was only 10-15m away and this was the best I could do .
Attachments
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Yep, no problem shooting RAW with the SX40 if you use the CHDK hack John.
I am an avid RAW shooter with my DSLR's and have been for years but to be quite honest I cannot see any advantage with these small sensor Cameras as they just do not capture the fine detail like a DSLR. I suppose they could be handy in recovering partially blown highlights on occasions but that's about all.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I agree with this Les (not tried the SX50 but have the SX40). they are handy as a little lightweight walk-around but a long way off the quality of a DSLR (and my astroscope + DSLR). I will keep my SX40 for snap shots though.
Last edited:
I'm always impressed by the zooming power of this superzoom cameras. On my recent trip to Italy I did this quick test with the sx50 in less than ideal light.
Distance was about 700 meters.
Neil.
Distance was about 700 meters.
Neil.
Attachments
I do like the ability to save highlights from a improperly exposed original, so I am shooting a lot in Raw with the sx50. The attached photo is a jpeg but I have a small TIFF file from the Raw original here http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/8215495685/in/photostream if anyone would like to see what detail the sx50 can capture.
I lost detail in the Girl's hair and the bag strap around her neck with this grab shot so I was happy I had a raw copy.
Neil
I lost detail in the Girl's hair and the bag strap around her neck with this grab shot so I was happy I had a raw copy.
Neil
Attachments
IanF
Moderator
I must admit that one the whole I still prefer the DSLR though on some occasions I've got comparable or even better results with the SX50 HS. It's great for close birds such as those coming to feeders but also pretty good for more distant birds at around 40m - as in the case of the Short-eared Owl photos.
The first was taken with the Canon 7D + Canon 400mm f5,6 and the second with the SX50 from around 40m. Both taken from the same position within 5 secs of each other. Resized to roughly the same size for the subject.
The Moon was taken late afternoon hand held at 50x zoom. I've not had chance to try for a photo once it's fully dark.
I must admit that of late I've often just taken out the SX50 as it's so light to carry around and does a good job of recording decent record shots as well as taking much better videos than I was achieving with the 7D.
The first was taken with the Canon 7D + Canon 400mm f5,6 and the second with the SX50 from around 40m. Both taken from the same position within 5 secs of each other. Resized to roughly the same size for the subject.
The Moon was taken late afternoon hand held at 50x zoom. I've not had chance to try for a photo once it's fully dark.
I must admit that of late I've often just taken out the SX50 as it's so light to carry around and does a good job of recording decent record shots as well as taking much better videos than I was achieving with the 7D.
Attachments
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Have you been able to compare the 50 with the 40 on shots that they both can do to compare image quality and lower light capability?
Hi, No I sold the sx40 before I got the sx50 so no direct comparisons, although looking at similar photos on the pc taken from the sx40 before, I think the sx50 is easily as good, although havent had it for long to try it out thoroughly yet. The main difference, apart from the zoom, is the faster focusing. I have a particular bird feeder in the garden that I always try new cameras out on and the focusing from the sx50 was noticably faster, it actually surprised me how fast it locked on. jacqui.
Atricapilla
Still Wandering
Neil,You say you are shooting a lot of Raw with your sx50 .
2 questions for you:
1. What size are your raw files with the sx50 ?
2. What size and make of sd card do you use and why?
Does anyone else out there have a favourite sd card(size and make) for their sx50 and reasons why?
flossiepip
Well-known member
Got the SX50 on a good deal at the weekend. From the little go I've had so far, it does poor light/shade better than my much loved SX30 and you can pull birds in better with that zoom.
In use and handling though the SX30 was so easy and there are a few changes on the SX50 so will take a little time to get comfortable with this one.
The view finder is still poor, it will not take my SX30 battery and you still get that thin strap! But you just know its going to be a great camera.
In use and handling though the SX30 was so easy and there are a few changes on the SX50 so will take a little time to get comfortable with this one.
The view finder is still poor, it will not take my SX30 battery and you still get that thin strap! But you just know its going to be a great camera.
