• 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 SX50 Specs (3 Viewers)

^^Thank you very much, Bigshent!!!! I checked out your zenfolio and Wow, you have so much fantastic stuff posted there! (Praise is always extra-meaningful coming from someone whose skills are way beyond mine.) Thanks again! :)
 
Well, I think so far I'm disappointed with what I have achieved though I did get a shot of a corn bunting in low light yesterday evening which, whilst not great, far surpasses any previous shot of this species. Biggest gripe must be battery life; I like to review shots I admit, but I dread to think how few shots I took with the battery fully charged yesterday - and I missed a Monarch butterfly (must have been an escapee) as the battery went completely flat.

I have found that my Raynox does not fit at all though the margin of difference is only a mm or so which is a shame, so I will have to invest in a cheap filter adaptor.

The strong sunlight at the moment is a major issue as shots are so contrasty and fine detail is being lost, but overall I like the camera. The AF is nice and fast, though if it locks on the wrong point it is a pain to get it focused in the right place. The colours are bright and crisp in good light and the zoom and teleconverter are quick and relatively easy to use. I particularly like the zoom out to relocate the subject option as I have found it to be very tricky to find things at maximum zoom.

Lots of practice and I think it will do very well for me, but I have a lot to understand still

Paul
 
Well, I think so far I'm disappointed with what I have achieved though I did get a shot of a corn bunting in low light yesterday evening which, whilst not great, far surpasses any previous shot of this species. Biggest gripe must be battery life; I like to review shots I admit, but I dread to think how few shots I took with the battery fully charged yesterday - and I missed a Monarch butterfly (must have been an escapee) as the battery went completely flat.

I have found that my Raynox does not fit at all though the margin of difference is only a mm or so which is a shame, so I will have to invest in a cheap filter adaptor.

The strong sunlight at the moment is a major issue as shots are so contrasty and fine detail is being lost, but overall I like the camera. The AF is nice and fast, though if it locks on the wrong point it is a pain to get it focused in the right place. The colours are bright and crisp in good light and the zoom and teleconverter are quick and relatively easy to use. I particularly like the zoom out to relocate the subject option as I have found it to be very tricky to find things at maximum zoom.

Lots of practice and I think it will do very well for me, but I have a lot to understand still

Paul

Hi Paul, are you using a Canon battery, mine normally lasts at least 4 hours and always have a spare in my pocket.

Ian
 
I've just won an ebay auction for one of those Raynox macro lenses, which should arrive in a few days.

I will have a play with it then, though apparently I might have to get some sort of fitting first, but then it would be rather surprising to me if I don't have to ask for advice about how to use it to something approaching best effect.

David
 
There is still a lot to learn on these SXs one thing I have found is the way it changes iso and shutter speed on my settings isnt what I want. Perhaps Manual mode will suit me so I can set the iso and shoot at a bit higher shutter speed

Here are a few pics from the weekend all in JPEG as I havnt a clue about RAW:-C
 

Attachments

  • moors 1 034 (450 x 600).jpg
    moors 1 034 (450 x 600).jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 321
  • moors 125 (450 x 600).jpg
    moors 125 (450 x 600).jpg
    86.4 KB · Views: 313
  • moors 043 (600 x 450).jpg
    moors 043 (600 x 450).jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 287
  • moors 217 (600 x 450).jpg
    moors 217 (600 x 450).jpg
    118.5 KB · Views: 295
Hi PooleParrott, it is the Canon battery I am using, I will probably just get a second battery to cover me.

I have found the DPP appears to soften the images slightly. The few I have uploaded to flickr are sharper than the view during editing which is a relief as I was feeling quite despondent with the shots I was taking. I haven't worked out how to resize them for BF yet but I will do and post a few in the future.

Cheers all

Paul
 
There is still a lot to learn on these SXs one thing I have found is the way it changes iso and shutter speed on my settings isnt what I want. Perhaps Manual mode will suit me so I can set the iso and shoot at a bit higher shutter speed

Here are a few pics from the weekend all in JPEG as I havnt a clue about RAW:-C

Sounds like you have the camera set to 'AUTO ISO' - you can actually select whatever ISO you want for photos in most modes except for a few such as AUTO and HQ etc. Mostly I leave mine set at ISO 80 for static subjects.
 
I have found the DPP appears to soften the images slightly. The few I have uploaded to flickr are sharper than the view during editing which is a relief as I was feeling quite despondent with the shots I was taking.

Cheers all

Paul
I suspect the images you submit in Flickr have not been resized so when Flickr displays them it reduces the size automatically and in doing so the algorithm applies sharpening.
There is no way that DPP can soften the images unless you are turning off/reducing the sharpening in DPP yourself (as a default DPP uses the In-camera sharpening that you have set).

DPP and Flickr are two completely different types of software, used for different things - Flickr is an image sharing site whereas DPP is image processing software where it is down to the user as to how an image is processed (BTW my Flickr stream is linked in my signature below).
 
I suspect the images you submit in Flickr have not been resized so when Flickr displays them it reduces the size automatically and in doing so the algorithm applies sharpening.
There is no way that DPP can soften the images unless you are turning off/reducing the sharpening in DPP yourself (as a default DPP uses the In-camera sharpening that you have set).

DPP and Flickr are two completely different types of software, used for different things - Flickr is an image sharing site whereas DPP is image processing software where it is down to the user as to how an image is processed (BTW my Flickr stream is linked in my signature below).

Cheers Roy, I was looking at it again last night actually and came to a different conclusion. When zoomed in at the 50% or 100% settings in DPP the sharpness is better so I would guess that viewing at the standard size is affected by the resolution of the lap top I am using.

Regarding your comment on in-camera sharpening I haven't found any way of adjusting this yet, only the noise reduction settings which I have set to minimum. Nor have I sharpened any of the jpegs using DPP as I have found that they develop artefacts very quickly. Would using in-camera settings have a detrimental effect - and how do I change them?

I have looked at your Flickr stream a lot Roy, mostly through green eyes but with the intent of learning, but I find that if I look too hard at your photos I start formulating ideas of buying expensive lenses or astroscopes and cameras and .... I just have to stop before I get the credit card out :-O

I took a shot of a lapwing in jpeg at 40m approximately using optical zoom only and was quite pleased with the result but I have been unable to replicate the results of others shot at longer distances. That, the corn bunting and the 5 damsel/dragonfly shots are to be found at the top (currently) of my Flickr stream here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43324529@N04/with/9228573031/

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I'm going to give RAW a spin next to see how the results from that come up - one of my Flickr contacts has got some great photos taken with the SX50 and he replied to my queries saying that he always shoots in RAW and doesn't use the teleconverter at all. Is there any advantage of using it as it can't be used in RAW can it?

Cheers Paul

p.s. sorry if we are going over any old ground.
 
Regarding your comment on in-camera sharpening I haven't found any way of adjusting this yet, only the noise reduction settings which I have set to minimum. Nor have I sharpened any of the jpegs using DPP as I have found that they develop artefacts very quickly. Would using in-camera settings have a detrimental effect - and how do I change them?



http://www.flickr.com/photos/43324529@N04/with/9228573031/

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I'm going to give RAW a spin next to see how the results from that come up - one of my Flickr contacts has got some great photos taken with the SX50 and he replied to my queries saying that he always shoots in RAW and doesn't use the teleconverter at all. Is there any advantage of using it as it can't be used in RAW can it?

Cheers Paul
p.s. sorry if we are going over any old ground.
Paul, to alter the in-camera sharpness for jpegs just go into the 'my colors' menu via the func set button, then go to the last item in custom colors which is 'custom color' and press DISP - you can then change contrast, Sharpness, saturation as well as several different colours (I personally set sharpness to zero in camera and then apply my own selectively in Photoshop).

If you do shoot in RAW you need to be aware that the images straight from the camera will have not had any processing as such applied to them so will look soft and flat - it is then up to you to process them as you see fit (you will need imagining editing software for this).

I always try to shoot in RAW with the SX50 but as you say you cannot use a digital converter with RAW so you are limited to 1200mm (full frame equivalent) - this is fine and the best option providing you can get near enough to your target. If you are shooting from long distances you will find that 1200mm is just not enough reach so in this case you will have to switch to jpeg and use a converter - the IQ will obviously take a big hit but it is OK for record shots.
BTW if you are using jpeg then make sure you are using the best quality one which is 'superfine'

If you have never had a decent DSLR system then you may be surprised as to just how near you have to get to the birds, even with a £5 k + lens. Most top birder would not bother even taking a shot unless the bird was fairly large in the frame, and that is with lenses less than 1200mm. With a 400mm lens on a Camera like the 7D you need to be with, say, 4-5 metres for a bird like a Goldfinch to capture good feather detail, although I will admit you can crop images from a DSLR a lot harder than from the little SX50.
 
Last edited:
Can only echo what Roy says in his last paragraph re distance. Never really done any DSLR bird photography but have plenty of experience digiscoping & even with that set-up most of my best/detailed shots were close ups & frame fillers, which leads on nicely to the subject of my post.
I spent time once again this weekend crawling about & getting up close & personal to several insect species with the Raynox on the camera. The best of the results are posted on here. I was particularly pleased with the Green Tiger Beetle which I have always found to be frustratingly mobile, but this one let me watch him catch & then devour an Ant. Awesome predators.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1156-001.JPG
    IMG_1156-001.JPG
    418.5 KB · Views: 335
  • IMG_1219-001.JPG
    IMG_1219-001.JPG
    361.5 KB · Views: 212
  • IMG_1256-001.JPG
    IMG_1256-001.JPG
    378.7 KB · Views: 207
Found the sharpness settings - I discounted the "my colours" menu as one of the gimmicks for, e.g., sepia toning. Must learn to try everything! Thanks for that Roy

I have owned a 40D and 300 f4 for the last 5 years and always shoot in RAW on that and have had a Panasonic FZ45 as a walking camera for the last 2. It is the Panny that I have replaced, and passed on to she who must be obeyed, with the SX50 and I want to squeeze as much as I can out of it as, like a lot of people, I don't want a good walk spoiled by a load of camera gear that is unlikely to be used but taken 'just in case'.

I'm not after the perfect shot but want to get better images for reference material for painting in years to come. It is something I did passionately as a younger man but due to family commitments have not had the time, or the space for that matter! The kids are growing up and occasionally even move out for a short spell - I'm hoping that one day they will stay moved out ;) The lapwing shot and the corn bunting have enough info for my needs but I feel are some way off the cameras capabilities.

Cheers again Paul
 
I spent time once again this weekend crawling about & getting up close & personal to several insect species with the Raynox on the camera. The best of the results are posted on here. I was particularly pleased with the Green Tiger Beetle which I have always found to be frustratingly mobile, but this one let me watch him catch & then devour an Ant. Awesome predators.
Those are darn good Rob, especially taken with a 'superzoom' . I must admit I have not really bothered with macro stuff with the SX50 as I have a Canon 100/2.8 L IS macro lens but I would be pleased with them that's for sure.
 
I always try to shoot in RAW with the SX50 ...
Roy, have you done any tests to see just how much more you can get out of this camera using RAW compared to jpg? From reading many threads/wars about it, it appears to me that some cameras need it more than others, i.e. some do a much better job of getting the jpg right than others. I'm wondering where the SX50 lies on that scale, because the penalties for using RAW aren't insignificant - slower continuous shooting speed (I believe), less shots per memory card, more time spent uploading and processing.
 
Roy, have you done any tests to see just how much more you can get out of this camera using RAW compared to jpg? From reading many threads/wars about it, it appears to me that some cameras need it more than others, i.e. some do a much better job of getting the jpg right than others. I'm wondering where the SX50 lies on that scale, because the penalties for using RAW aren't insignificant - slower continuous shooting speed (I believe), less shots per memory card, more time spent uploading and processing.
I have not done any specific test but would be sure that you can get more out of a SX50 RAW than a jpeg providing you are willing to spend the time processing. With various DSLR's I have shot nothing but RAW for some 8 years now and could not even image shooting jpeg's (I have found it most strange dealing with jpegs on the SX40/50). I actually enjoy the processing side of things so for me it is no hardship processing RAW's. I suppose the average time I take to process a RAW is a few minutes but I am more than willing to take 30 minutes processing a single image if that's what it takes to make it presentable.
I will admit that the RAW's from the SX50 (and SX40) do not give as much to play with as a DSLR due to the tiny sensor not capturing the same amount of detail but on the other hand it is perhaps more essential still to squeeze every last drop of IQ from it.

The SX50 does do a reasonable job with the jpeg's. What I do not like about shooting jpegs is that you are letting the Camera decide how to process the image, I would much sooner make my own decisions. For example I do a lot of my processing selectively via layer masks ( things like sharpening, contrast, noise reduction, highlights/shadows, colour corrections .......). If you let the Camera do it then it will apply all these things globally.
A typical example for birds is noise reduction, if you just apply it globally you could end up destroying detail in the bird - what I almost always do is to apply it just to the background, another great advantage with doing this with a cam like the SX50 is that you can blur the background so giving a more pleasing bokeh (these small sensor Cam's have a lot more DOF than a DSLR so you do not get the blurred BG for bird shots unless the BG is a really long way off).
Another important thing for birds is sharpening, if you just let the Camera do it via a jpeg then it will apply to everything in the shot equally and if you have the sharpening turned up too much you will get those ugly halos which wrecks an image. By doing it yourself selectively you can not only apply it just to just selective parts of the image but you can also apply in different degrees to say the bird itself (often you may need to sharpen a birds eye/head more than its body). By using a layer mask you can make sure that you do not end up with sharpening halos by apply the sharpening exactly where you want it.

As far as penalties for using RAW they are completely insignificant for me:-

The continuous shooting (with AF) is slower if you shoot RAW but as far as I am concerned even if you use jpeg it is next to useless. It struggling to reach 2 fps and even then the screen/viewfinder goes black between shots - I resigned myself a long time ago that the SX50 was basically a single shot Camera. BTW with the 7D for birds I always shoot in high burst mode but IMO it is a complete waste of time with these little superzooms (the SX40 was a little faster than the SX50 but still a waste of time IMO).

As far as less shots per card goes, with the price of memory cards these days I cannot image that anyone would be remotely bothered by this. With my DSLR I would not dream of going on a shoot without at least three or four cards on me. With the SX50 I have a couple of 8GB cards which is more than enough for my needs, if it was not I would buy more cards - they are 'cheap as chips' these day. BTW with a 8GB card you can get more than 400 SX50 RAW's.

As for uploading time, again this is no problem whatsoever for me, I have been used to uploading RAW files for years from my DSLR's and they are bigger files than those from the SX50. Up to a while ago I was still running a very old PC with USB 2 ports and sometimes it would take 15 minutes or so to download a card full of 7D RAW's - I just set the upload going and do something else until it has finished, so no big deal. Now a days I have a PC with USB3 which is 10x quicker than USB2 so that 15 minutes is now reduced to 90 seconds! - a similar number of SX50 RAW's would take less time still. Having to wait a bit longer for RAW's to download is a small penalty for getting better IQ.

As far extra processing time goes I have already said that I enjoy the processing side of it so no problem whatsoever for me. Everyone has to make their own judgement as to if the extra time spent processing RAW's is worth it - for me the whole aim of bird photography is to get the best possible IQ from a shot and RAW most certainly gives you that providing you know how to process.

At the end of the day it is up to the individual as to what they want, some folks cannot be bothered with doing any processing and are not particularly too worried about IQ which is fair enough, each to their own I guess.

BTW I have not even picked-up my SX50 for over a month (this time of the year I mainly shoot macro or landscape with the DSLR) but the last few times I did use it was for snapping distant birds and I shot exclusively at 1800mm so obviously Jpegs (the fact that they were mostly all c##p and I ended up binning almost all of them was no surprise LOL).

On the general question of IQ for my Flickr Photostream and 500px gallery shown below in my signature all the shots were taken in RAW. OK for a lot of folk they maybe fairly average I will admit but they most certainly are better than if I had been using Jpegs.
 
Last edited:
I have looked at your Flickr stream a lot Roy, mostly through green eyes but with the intent of learning, but I find that if I look too hard at your photos I start formulating ideas of buying expensive lenses or astroscopes and cameras and .... I just have to stop before I get the credit card out :-O
Hi Paul, just for info a lot of the bird shots in my stream were taken with the Canon 400/5.6 which is about the same price as your 300/4. The astroscope that I use as a 600mm prime lens with the 7D cost just £290 and there are also shots taken with the SX40/50. Not exactly expensive stuff compered with most bird photographers but I know what you mean - it can be an expensive hobby that's for sure :C
 
An evening spin

An evening spin with the SX50 didn't go to bad. A little egret reasonably close so the converters were not necessary. I also took a couple of pictures in RAW and tried the editor that came with the camera. It didn't go well, for a 39 year old my computer skills do need improving

Egret JPEG
 

Attachments

  • sx50 036 (700 x 524).jpg
    sx50 036 (700 x 524).jpg
    44.6 KB · Views: 220
  • sx50 048 (525 x 700).jpg
    sx50 048 (525 x 700).jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 199
  • sx50 059 (700 x 525).jpg
    sx50 059 (700 x 525).jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 181
I also took a couple of pictures in RAW and tried the editor that came with the camera. It didn't go well.

Egret JPEG
I assume you were using Canon's DPP - while it does an excellent job of converting the RAW's it is not that clever or user friendly for general editing IMHO. I always convert my RAW's in DPP ( I prefer it to ACR) and then send to PS as a 16 bit tiff for the baulk of the editing. I would not advocate that you start editing with the full blown Photoshop like CS5 but something like Photoshop Elements is ideal for most folks. Learning editing skills may seem a bit daunting to begin with but it is well worth it the effort if you want to get the very best out of your shots.

BTW, Some nice takes of the Egret
 
Any suggestions on where to start with layers Roy? I have found it very daunting and never got to grips with layers so I generally use little more than basic colour, contrast and whole image sharpening.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top