Thanks for posting these stills Neil.
Were they JPEGS straight out of the camera, or processed RAW files? Have you done any sharpening etc?
Yes. JPEGs with a little Unsharp Mask.
Neil
Thanks for posting these stills Neil.
Were they JPEGS straight out of the camera, or processed RAW files? Have you done any sharpening etc?
As much as I've complained about the SX50's EVF and anticipated the release of the SX60, I have to say my disappointing experience with the new model (and the ongoing discussion about it) have made me re-appreciate what the SX50 CAN do.
Much has been said about how the cameras compare at maximum optical zoom, with lots of contradicting opinions. I'd be interested to hear what people are finding in terms of the digital zoom capabilities of the SX60 too.
I know many would rather stay within a camera's optical limits and crop later, but I've found that in practical terms, utilizing the digital zoom can help with auto-focusing and facilitate a shot that would otherwise not happen, especially if there's a stick or other object between the shooter and the subject.
The exif info on flickr doesn't indicate anything beyond max optical, so I looked back through recent photos to find some that were taken at 100x (35mm equivalent 2440) and put a few in a folder. They're all jpegs with no processing, ie, "as taken."
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r2tfisjcfq5w3wj/AACwAJAjO_n-XJVFMsMBLCVBa?dl=0
The second shot is an example of the "stick in front of bird" situation. With pinpoint focus and 100x zoom, one can find a piece of the bird to focus on and get a decent shot....may not be great, but at least it's identifiable.
The last photo is of a small bird perched in the top of a 50 foot Sycamore. I couldn't see any details with bins, but the pic clearly shows a Lark Sparrow. Pretty amazing, even if it's a pretty bad photo.....
Still wish they'd just tweaked the SX50,... sigh.
mzettie,As much as I've complained about the SX50's EVF and anticipated the release of the SX60, I have to say my disappointing experience with the new model (and the ongoing discussion about it) have made me re-appreciate what the SX50 CAN do.
Much has been said about how the cameras compare at maximum optical zoom, with lots of contradicting opinions. I'd be interested to hear what people are finding in terms of the digital zoom capabilities of the SX60 too.
I know many would rather stay within a camera's optical limits and crop later, but I've found that in practical terms, utilizing the digital zoom can help with auto-focusing and facilitate a shot that would otherwise not happen, especially if there's a stick or other object between the shooter and the subject.
The exif info on flickr doesn't indicate anything beyond max optical, so I looked back through recent photos to find some that were taken at 100x (35mm equivalent 2440) and put a few in a folder. They're all jpegs with no processing, ie, "as taken."
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r2tfisjcfq5w3wj/AACwAJAjO_n-XJVFMsMBLCVBa?dl=0
The second shot is an example of the "stick in front of bird" situation. With pinpoint focus and 100x zoom, one can find a piece of the bird to focus on and get a decent shot....may not be great, but at least it's identifiable.
The last photo is of a small bird perched in the top of a 50 foot Sycamore. I couldn't see any details with bins, but the pic clearly shows a Lark Sparrow. Pretty amazing, even if it's a pretty bad photo.....
Still wish they'd just tweaked the SX50,... sigh.
Raptorash, sorry, I missed your question. The digital zoom shots were taken with the SX50. I was wondering if anyone's been using the SX60 this way, and if they're happy with the results. Still trying to figure out why I couldn't get decent photos from the SX60, since some people seem to be.mzettie,
I'm sorry, but I'm probably being a bit dense this morning.
I fully understand the point you are making about using a digital zoom over an optical zoom aiding focussing in certain situations (bird in dense canopy etc), and understand that the pictures you posted are actually taken using digital zoom. But for my clarification please, are these 4 photos taken with an SX50 to support your point about using digital zoom, or taken with an SX60 to support your view over poor IQ ? - because if taken with an SX60, then I don't see a problem for someone like me who wants a bridge camera for record shots only to support identification out in the field or for record photos to accompany rare bird submissions.
rgds
Raptorash, sorry, I missed your question. The digital zoom shots were taken with the SX50. I was wondering if anyone's been using the SX60 this way, and if they're happy with the results. Still trying to figure out why I couldn't get decent photos from the SX60, since some people seem to be.
Can someone with a better eye than mine, perhaps an SX50 user, validate something for me?
All the SX60 shots I've seen from Neil look "nice." I live in California, so based on that alone I'd say the color is good, that sort of thing. But something about all the shots looks ever so slightly "soft." Like there is just a touch too much blur or ever-so-slightly out-of-focus.
I dunno, something about it is bugging me but I can't tell if it's the camera, whether the image has been reduced before upload, or some other non-camera side-effect.
I agree 100% with this Andy - these Cameras are great if you can get near enough but they do not yield anywhere near as much detail as a decent DSLR set-up if you take a shot from afar - with a DSLR set-up you can often crop the image extremely heavily and get some nice detail but not so with the couple of Point and shoots that I have tried (SX40 and SX50).In my experience, with both the SX40/50, images are always going to be 'soft' unless you have really good light and a close subject. I'm no expert but if there is one thing that I have gleaned from hanging around the SX forums, is that you cannot expect DSLR perfection from what is essentially a point & shoot camera (but a very good one at that)!
In my experience, with both the SX40/50, images are always going to be 'soft' unless you have really good light and a close subject. I'm no expert but if there is one thing that I have gleaned from hanging around the SX forums, is that you cannot expect DSLR perfection from what is essentially a point & shoot camera (but a very good one at that)!
AndyM
EDIT: An example of probably the sharpest I've managed to date - Good light, subject at c.5m, Full zoom, 2.0x.
They are nice 'crazyfingers' but where you lose most with the small sensor Cams is when you have to crop heavily before you even resize for the web. Attached is an example of the original full frame and a near 100% crop taken with a 400/5.6 lens on my old 40D cam. On the 1.6 crop camera this equates to 640mm but when you consider the 100% crop then the finished image would be equal to a field of view well in excess of 2000mm!These are about as good as they get for me with the SX50 at max optical and 2x teleconverter. No crop but of course compressed to 1600x1200 to attach. File size perhaps 10% of the original so something must get lost in the size reduction. I believe the sandpiper was a cloudy though not a gloomy day.
This is my thought exactly...digiscoping without the scope and with more flexibility.Having said that they are extremely good value for money for the photographer who is not so bothered about really good IQ but just want a decent record shot of their sightings - much easier than digiscoping IMHO.
They are nice 'crazyfingers' but where you lose most with the small sensor Cams is when you have to crop heavily before you even resize for the web. Attached is an example of the original full frame and a near 100% crop taken with a 400/5.6 lens on my old 40D cam. On the 1.6 crop camera this equates to 640mm but when you consider the 100% crop then the finished image would be equal to a field of view well in excess of 2000mm!