Canon SX50 Specs (1 Viewer)

crazyfingers · Nov 26, 2012

I ordered the SX50 on Amazon today for $425. The price dropped over night for "Cyber Monday" so I jumped. It will be here in maybe a week but because it's my Xmas present for myself, I will not be able to play with it until Xmas, so says my wife.

shoshone · Nov 27, 2012

crazyfingers said:
I ordered the SX50 on Amazon today for $425. The price dropped over night for "Cyber Monday" so I jumped. It will be here in maybe a week but because it's my Xmas present for myself, I will not be able to play with it until Xmas, so says my wife.

Nice one congrats!

Maybe she'll let you have the instruction manual in the meantime.

Atricapilla · Nov 27, 2012

crazyfingers said:
I ordered the SX50 on Amazon today for $425. The price dropped over night for "Cyber Monday" so I jumped. It will be here in maybe a week but because it's my Xmas present for myself, I will not be able to play with it until Xmas, so says my wife.

Ordering mine on Friday ~ hopefully,early Christmas prezzie.

Wildmoreway · Nov 27, 2012

GYRob said:
the owls are so close It would be hard to say which one was used ,of note is the shallow dof on the BG with the 7d .
Rob.

I suspect that the additional depth of field available with these small sensor cameras hides some of the failings of the cameras. Of course the shallower depth of field with dslrs also makes focussing more critical in obtaining a good image .. Swings and roundabouts but some of the newer superzooms are matching and perhaps exceeding the picture quality available from the earliest mass market dslrs from seven or eight years ago.

Jack Daw · Nov 27, 2012

capdegat said:
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 .

IMHO ----- a rather elitist view point claiming that these cameras are on an 'instamatic' level compared to ones DSLR. Not every one can afford a DSLR body with A 400 mm f5.6/ 300mm f2. lens Also not every one wants to hump round these big optics. From the postings I have seen on here some of the shots that have been taken wth these 'instamatics' have been excellent and I for one have been very envious. Yes theses 'instamatics' will not always compete with a DSLR --- but in terms of versatility and quality of shot you cannot dismiss them with one disparaging remark and it is rather patronising towards the folks who have posted their pictures and made this such an interesting thread. Best Regards Jack.

crazyfingers · Nov 27, 2012

shoshone said:
Nice one congrats!

Maybe she'll let you have the instruction manual in the meantime.

I never buy anything without first downloading the manual from the manufacturer so I've been studying the SX50 manual as a PDF for over a week.

I may be strange but I love to read user manuals and always check that what I think a thing should do it will actually do according to the manual.

capdegat · Nov 27, 2012

IMHO ----- a rather elitist view point claiming that these cameras are on an 'instamatic' level compared to ones DSLR. Not every one can afford a DSLR body with A 400 mm f5.6/ 300mm f2. lens Also not every one wants to hump round these big optics. From the postings I have seen on here some of the shots that have been taken wth these 'instamatics' have been excellent and I for one have been very envious. Yes theses 'instamatics' will not always compete with a DSLR --- but in terms of versatility and quality of shot you cannot dismiss them with one disparaging remark and it is rather patronising towards the folks who have posted their pictures and made this such an interesting thread.

I'm afraid I was only stating my point of view with my sx50 . I have been shooting with a d90 and 300mm f4 so it's not exactly top of the range stuff anyway. It still however is way beyond anything I've managed with sx50 . There may be something wrong with my camera but there is certainly lack of definition even at close range as can be seen in the photo. I bought mine for long range records etc and this it does well but I can't accept that its better than even the most basic dslr ( the new nikon d5200 is 24m as an example.)

DavidNB · Nov 27, 2012

Jack Daw said:
IMHO ----- a rather elitist view point claiming that these cameras are on an 'instamatic' level compared to ones DSLR. Not every one can afford a DSLR body with A 400 mm f5.6/ 300mm f2. lens Also not every one wants to hump round these big optics. From the postings I have seen on here some of the shots that have been taken wth these 'instamatics' have been excellent and I for one have been very envious. Yes theses 'instamatics' will not always compete with a DSLR --- but in terms of versatility and quality of shot you cannot dismiss them with one disparaging remark and it is rather patronising towards the folks who have posted their pictures and made this such an interesting thread. Best Regards Jack.

I thought so too.

I speak as someone who 10 years ago was trying to take wildlife pictures with a Fuji 6meg 3x optical zoom camera, and, let us be fair, that blew an instamatic off stage.

But then my first bridge camera blew that off stage, the SX30 blew that off stage, and the SX50 blows that off stage.

Instamatic my arse - just snobbish hyperbole.

But, back at the point, my scope blows my binoculars off stage, and, if I had a DSLR with a good lens and tripod no doubt that would blow the SX50 off stage.

If I have a bit of a windfall, I will get a DSLR, with a good lens, and/or a scope attachment.

But most of the time I don't have my scope with me, nor would I have a dslr and tripod with me most of the time if I had one.

Binoculars and bridge camera, though, I have just about all the time when out.

A compact or bridge camera will not give the ultimate quality, but, for all that, if it is what you have with you, it is helluva lot better than any state of the art thing costing thousands which is sitting in a cupboard at home when you need it.

David

draycotebirding · Nov 27, 2012

capdegat said:
I'm afraid I was only stating my point of view with my sx50 . I have been shooting with a d90 and 300mm f4 so it's not exactly top of the range stuff anyway. It still however is way beyond anything I've managed with sx50 . There may be something wrong with my camera but there is certainly lack of definition even at close range as can be seen in the photo. I bought mine for long range records etc and this it does well but I can't accept that its better than even the most basic dslr ( the new nikon d5200 is 24m as an example.)

Any chance of posting some of your shots taken with your DSLR?

Regards

John

Bob Philpott · Nov 27, 2012

This thread seems to be getting a long one. I hope it gets a bit longer as I picked up my sx50 this afternoon. My reason for getting it was exactly as outlined above. Nikon D80 and lens getting heavy and it would be nice to carry something light with the binos. It may be record shots I get but there have been some nice photos with this camera.

capdegat · Nov 28, 2012

I don't normally post as photography is for my own satisfaction and Roy's are always b...... good But here's a couple. Both d90.

Mícheál · Nov 29, 2012

capdegat said:
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 .

That's not a bad photo.

Tell us - what DSLR & lens combo would do better at that price?

Mícheál

Neil · Nov 29, 2012

The sx50 does like good light. Out on the mudflats this week I was shooting with the sx50 and the D800 +300/4 AFS + 1.4x. The results from the D800 are better and of course the AF responds much faster.
This light was dull,misty,drizzly so very familiar to many of you.
I also shot a lot of video at distances of 100 - 700 meters
https://vimeo.com/54512857
The first three are with the SX50HS and the last two with the D800. At similar distances of 15 - 20 meters. The kingfisher was with the 2x teleconverter and full zoom at about 40 meters.
Neil

Mai Po Nature Reserve,
Hong Kong,
China.
Nov 2012

IanF · Nov 29, 2012

I had another go at taking photos of the Moon tonight. I managed better results with the SX50 hand held than I did with the 7D + 400mm lens with and without 2x teleconverter (last photo) despite the fact it was tripod mounted and using a remote shutter release.

The Tree Sparrow was at around 15m.

The Black-necked Grebe was taken on a very misty day from around 10m.

Video - http://youtu.be/-Sp1cjx36q4

Bob Philpott · Nov 30, 2012

Ian,

I have had the camera 2 days and managed a couple of quick shots of fieldfare in a field yesterday on Auto. More than happy but need to play with it a bit more (a bit busy and need to play with colour). I think I am heading to RAW only and setting up C1 for record shots. Sports mode apparently does OK for BIF.

The worst thing I can find is the instruction manual and trying to work out which function works with which mode is not easy. Do you have an alternative instruction manual or did you just learn it as you went along.

Bob

capdegat · Nov 30, 2012

Ian
I have to say that you're getting more detail than me . Were these on full zoom ?
I'm now wondering if that makes a difference . I shall have to try harder.

capdegat · Nov 30, 2012

Neil
I think the point I was trying to make is apparent in the first shot of the plover. To my eyes it is smeared and just not right where as the d800 shot has that depth or whatever about it.
I'm not decrying the sx50 but for me it just doesn't work for detail shots.

IanF · Nov 30, 2012

Bob Philpott said:
Ian,

I have had the camera 2 days and managed a couple of quick shots of fieldfare in a field yesterday on Auto. More than happy but need to play with it a bit more (a bit busy and need to play with colour). I think I am heading to RAW only and setting up C1 for record shots. Sports mode apparently does OK for BIF.

The worst thing I can find is the instruction manual and trying to work out which function works with which mode is not easy. Do you have an alternative instruction manual or did you just learn it as you went along.

Bob

Hi Bob,

I've just used the manuals that came with the camera - the hard copy and the one on the CD.

The first few days I just used the camera on auto and I have to say the results were very good. It took me a while to get the settings right in AV mode to get the best out of the camera.

I just sat down with the camera manual it came with and went through it page by page with the camera in front of me. Tedious I know but it helps to get a feel for all the functions. It worth while making use of the manual on the CD rather than the hard copy one. It took me a while to realise than you can only use certain features in certain modes. There's a table on the CD that shows what features can be used in different modes.

I set my preferred settings on C1 and C2. C1 I use for the 1.5x teleconverter which I find gives very god results.

I've been using Jpeg+RAW but usually end up just using the Jpeg file. RAW does give a slightly more detailed/less grainy file but when you're filling the frame and down sizing they look okay for online use.

One thing I've noticed is that over time the camera has slowed down from what it was when I first got it. Not markedly but certainly noticeably so.

One thing I've noticed with RAW files when shooting in continuous mode. The first photo in the sequence takes a while to record to the camera but the following files record in what I'd call a true burst mode. I found it a little disconcerting at first - but for that first photo just keep your finger on the shutter and wait for the rapid fire!

I'm afraid I've about given up on birds in flight with it. It's okay for slow movers like Marsh Harriers, Buzzards, Egrets etc. gliding by but not practical for much else.

I've not had any issues with the amount of detail recorded but you do have to endeavour to get the focus to lock as best as you can.

IanF · Nov 30, 2012

capdegat said:
Ian
I have to say that you're getting more detail than me . Were these on full zoom ?
I'm now wondering if that makes a difference . I shall have to try harder.

Just everything I've taken has been on full zoom, with and without the teleconverters. I find it's better to fill the frame and then downsize on the computer. 50x optical zoom I've found gives very sharp results. Even using the 1.5x converter gives very good results in decent light. The 2x converter I find isn't quite so good for still photos but is great for videos.

The Waxwings were taken this morning. I was sat in the car parked on the roadside. As you can see there's no issue with the detail recorded. For a compact camera with a tiny sensor it's quite remarkable. I'd have to agree with a your comments about it not being in the same league as a DSLR with a decent lens but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison to make. In terms of compact cameras it's outstanding. Having said that I find the results from the SX50 are far better than many I've taken with a DSLR!

I've attached a photo of a Waxwing taken this morning. I've only just got in so I've not been through them all yet but this one caught my eye. The second two are 900x675 crops at 100% of the frame - so they're not resized and not processed in any way - other than the camera Jpeg compression/processing. With my DSLR every tiny bit of feather would be tack sharp though I'd need to be much closer or have a much longer lens!

Atricapilla · Nov 30, 2012

IanF said:
Just everything I've taken has been on full zoom, with and without the teleconverters. I find it's better to fill the frame and then downsize on the computer. 50x optical zoom I've found gives very sharp results. Even using the 1.5x converter gives very good results in decent light. The 2x converter I find isn't quite so good for still photos but is great for videos.

The Waxwings were taken this morning. I was sat in the car parked on the roadside. As you can see there's no issue with the detail recorded. For a compact camera with a tiny sensor it's quite remarkable. I'd have to agree with a your comments about it not being in the same league as a DSLR with a decent lens but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison to make. In terms of compact cameras it's outstanding. Having said that I find the results from the SX50 are far better than many I've taken with a DSLR!

I've attached a photo of a Waxwing taken this morning. I've only just got in so I've not been through them all yet but this one caught my eye. The second two are 900x675 crops at 100% of the frame - so they're not resized and not processed in any way - other than the camera Jpeg compression/processing. With my DSLR every tiny bit of feather would be tack sharp though I'd need to be much closer or have a much longer lens!

Well done Ian,what a cracking shot that is,amazing detail.

Canon SX50 Specs (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Still Wandering

Well-known member

Therapy of the green leaf

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Draycote recorder

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Still Wandering

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread