pooleparrot
Ian Ballam
Agree with Digi Zoom, and 2.0x tele is stretching it, although the 1.5x always seems to hold up well on the SX50.
-
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 SX60HS in Action (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
Agree with Digi Zoom, and 2.0x tele is stretching it, although the 1.5x always seems to hold up well on the SX50.
CalvinFold
Well-known member
I kinda talked about the issue in this post, but what I think part of the problem is one part setting proper expectations, one part really living with the camera for a while, and one part obsessive "compare it to the SX50" (rather than it's own merits).
I think PCMag had a more reasonable review of the camera in much better context, and with less expectation that one should get DSLR quality.
If you want reach, the SX60 isn't that bad; in the right hands, perhaps excellent (for this class). If you don't need that kinda of reach, then yeah, there are better cameras. But, if you don't need that kinda of extreme reach, why would you even be looking at the superzooms?
I think there needs to be more granularity in the reviews. Say, zooms to 600mm, zooms to 900mm, zooms to 1200mm, and zooms 1200+. Would really give a more fair sense of "what is best" based on the need of the user.
Realistically, these superzoom cameras are pushing it no matter how you look at it, if for no other reason than the diffraction limit of such small photosites. They are quite excellent, most all of them, considering what is being asked of them for the price. And yeah, the SX60 is probably on the edge or just beyond that reality.
Like everyone else, we need a superzoom class with the next size up sensors to make the next real "breakthrough." In the meantime, if I can make the SX60 dance and sing like Neil does at full zoom, I will be quite happy.
CalvinFold
Well-known member
This little discovery...that turning on the digital teledapter helps far more than it harms for long range shooting (at least on the SX60)...is one thing I plan to remember when I get my camera.
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
Agree, I find the 1.6x gives alot better results too
crazyfingers
Well-known member
The 2x teleconverter has several handy uses not just to get more zoom.
1: It makes the autofocus rectangle "smaller" to fit into a hole in a bush to get square on the bird when relatively close. I much prefer a digital zoom than a focus on a branch a foot in front of the bird and the bird out of focus.
2: In low light it allows to back off on optical zoom to allow a larger aperture and actually get a focus or get a better shutter speed.
3: Now this might just be some oddball software thing with the SX50 (I don't have the SX60) but if I'm photographing for example an insect, the camera is actually able to get a focus lock physically closer to the subject than if using only optical. Why that is is a puzzle. But as an example at 5 feet away maximum optical zoom may be just too close to focus but with the teleconverter on, without changing my location, it will focus. It's odd that it is that way but it is.
1: It makes the autofocus rectangle "smaller" to fit into a hole in a bush to get square on the bird when relatively close. I much prefer a digital zoom than a focus on a branch a foot in front of the bird and the bird out of focus.
2: In low light it allows to back off on optical zoom to allow a larger aperture and actually get a focus or get a better shutter speed.
3: Now this might just be some oddball software thing with the SX50 (I don't have the SX60) but if I'm photographing for example an insect, the camera is actually able to get a focus lock physically closer to the subject than if using only optical. Why that is is a puzzle. But as an example at 5 feet away maximum optical zoom may be just too close to focus but with the teleconverter on, without changing my location, it will focus. It's odd that it is that way but it is.
Last edited:
IvanCavallazzi
Well-known member
Is it possible that the converter crop the cherry middle part of the tiny sensor? Just like the apsc sensor correct the border lenses problems... that would explain the tele good results.
Adam,
Can you elaborate please on "now got the settings sorted" ? The so-called issue with IS is the "biggie" that has been putting me off making a decision in favour of the SX60. So many early users have slated it as too slow to stabilise, or not stabilise at all - especially in forums in US.
rgds
Ash
crazyfingers
Well-known member
I don't know. There is a lot of talk about the teleconverter in the giant SX50 topic. It appears that there is something about the teleconverter that is better than just going into digital zoom range. Something... I don't recall we fully understood it.
And using the teleconverter is better than cropping because the photo starts out with full pixel count instead of crop which just deletes pixels.
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
Hey Ash,
I've set the AF Frame to Flexizone and the IS to 'Continuous'. Simple as that - don't see this camera being any more complicated than the 40.
At high end mag I use the button on the barrel which only takes a split second to stabilize the image when held down.
It focuses alot quicker than my old 40 and doesn't struggle with birds hidden betwixt branches etc.
BiFs seem to be alot easier to get reasonable results with the 60 too
I've set the AF Frame to Flexizone and the IS to 'Continuous'. Simple as that - don't see this camera being any more complicated than the 40.
At high end mag I use the button on the barrel which only takes a split second to stabilize the image when held down.
It focuses alot quicker than my old 40 and doesn't struggle with birds hidden betwixt branches etc.
BiFs seem to be alot easier to get reasonable results with the 60 too
Nick Leech
Well-known member
Neil - those Grey Heron shots are good. Were they handheld or on monopod/tripod? Am I right in saying that you seem to find the IS and AF good on your SX60 handheld? (Mzettie says he found the IS poor (at max optical zoom) on his SX60)
Neil - did you have the SX50 previously? If so, do you find the IS/AF on the SX60 just as good?
Neil - did you have the SX50 previously? If so, do you find the IS/AF on the SX60 just as good?
According to the SX60 manual, the digital TC allows for faster shutter speeds than equivalent digital zoom, which may be part of the IQ improvement
I'm beginning to wonder if people in the US are getting a different camera than those in Asia and Europe. I used the frame assist lock button on the SX60 all day yesterday (while comparing cameras) and it always took at least 4 seconds to stabilize the image enough for the camera to auto-focus. This might be acceptable when photographing relatively immobile birds, but it's far too slow for sparrows, warblers, etc., and makes it impossible to get a useful shot if light conditions aren't ideal.
Maybe I expect too much, but that expectation comes from my experience with the SX50. Yes... with operator effort, good light and cooperative birds, the SX60 can keep up....but in my world, those conditions rarely exist. I can think of multiple records I've submitted that wouldn't have happened if I'd been reliant on the SX60....at least as I've experienced it.
After reading some of the input here tonight, I put the two cameras to another test. I shot in low light (indoors) with both cameras set to 2x telephoto, and stayed at a much more modest focal length. Took about 15 photos with each camera, then picked the best 3 of each, which I put here;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127980272@N06/sets/72157648607273629/
Maybe I expect too much, but that expectation comes from my experience with the SX50. Yes... with operator effort, good light and cooperative birds, the SX60 can keep up....but in my world, those conditions rarely exist. I can think of multiple records I've submitted that wouldn't have happened if I'd been reliant on the SX60....at least as I've experienced it.
After reading some of the input here tonight, I put the two cameras to another test. I shot in low light (indoors) with both cameras set to 2x telephoto, and stayed at a much more modest focal length. Took about 15 photos with each camera, then picked the best 3 of each, which I put here;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127980272@N06/sets/72157648607273629/
Ysterkvisten
Well-known member
I looked at your flickr comparisons, and I think that the SX50 is a rather clear winner in all pics.
I was so keen on getting the 60, but reading the test above and looking at your images, the sx50 is the winner at least for me, unless there are well kept secret settings on the sx60 that gets it up to par with the 50.
Janne
Hi Janne. Nobody wanted to like the SX60 more than me. I don't have very good vision, so I was waiting on pins and needles for this camera to come out. I LOVE the SX60's improved EVF, which makes it's poor long distance performance a bitter pill to swallow. I haven't returned this one yet....keep hoping someone will tell me how to tweak the settings to get it to do what the SX50 can. I appreciate all the suggestions that have been made so far, and have applied some to the SX50 with good results, so I'll keep trying. At least til it's time to return it....
wardy11
Well-known member
Well, that's my biggest mistake for some time - I ordered the Nikon P600 and it arrived today....what a disappointment!
I didn't like the feel of it when I unpacked it, it felt cheap and plastic feeling but I wasn't too put off at that stage.
To cut to the chase, the performance was atrocious - hunting for focus all the time and when it did finally achieve it, as soon as you move a fraction of a millimeter, it starts again zooming in and out searching for a focus point. Really disappointed in it all round.
I didn't want to go the Nikon route as I've always been a faithful Canon man but reluctantly I did based on several reviews but I believe now I was too hasty.
It's being collected tomorrow so that's the end of my Nikon experience.
Now I have to decide as to what next. It seems some more positive comments are now coming through on the SX 60 so maybe that will be the decision after all...and now with £40 cashback being announced today, it may be the best route forward.
I didn't like the feel of it when I unpacked it, it felt cheap and plastic feeling but I wasn't too put off at that stage.
To cut to the chase, the performance was atrocious - hunting for focus all the time and when it did finally achieve it, as soon as you move a fraction of a millimeter, it starts again zooming in and out searching for a focus point. Really disappointed in it all round.
I didn't want to go the Nikon route as I've always been a faithful Canon man but reluctantly I did based on several reviews but I believe now I was too hasty.
It's being collected tomorrow so that's the end of my Nikon experience.
Now I have to decide as to what next. It seems some more positive comments are now coming through on the SX 60 so maybe that will be the decision after all...and now with £40 cashback being announced today, it may be the best route forward.
Doing comparisons is always time consuming and difficult to get everything exactly the same. In looking at the exif the sx50 was set to Continuous and the sx60 was set to Single shooting. If no Self-timer was used then this could result in some finger vibration on each frame at low shutter speeds.
Was the test done on a tripod with the IS switched off and using the Self-timer?
Neil.
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
Yeah, IS on 'Single Shot' on the 60 is total shite....has to be 'Continuous'
These superzooms are mostly sold to people who want lots of reach.
The camera should be pretuned to make those long shots as good as possible.
Is it too much to ask that manufacturers set up their cameras to give their best out of the box, rather than needing to learn some secret setting?
Meanwhile, thank you birdboybowley and neil, for giving the rest of us the guidance the manufacturers seem reluctant to provide.
The camera should be pretuned to make those long shots as good as possible.
Is it too much to ask that manufacturers set up their cameras to give their best out of the box, rather than needing to learn some secret setting?
Meanwhile, thank you birdboybowley and neil, for giving the rest of us the guidance the manufacturers seem reluctant to provide.
crazyfingers
Well-known member
I would happy if the user manuals didn't focus just on the list of setting but said when one might want to use one setting vs another. There should also be large section of the manual for different uses. For example, best settings for the kids soccer game outdoors, best settings for the kids concert indoors,, best settings for scenic landscapes, best settings for distant wildlife, etc.
I don't do a lot of "bush bird"photography so I headed to the local park today to test out the sx60 on some challenging birds. The bushes had just been watered and the silvereyes were thrashing around in the damp leaves.
The camera was set to jpeg and 2x Teleconverter Mode and Continuous burst with Auto iso.
This is not a full zoom example but about half zoom in 2x mode , so around 800 mm.
As you can see from the first photo there is some finger vibration but it's not there in the second photo which is straight from the camera and the third photo is the adjusted version.
I didn't notice a long lag using the Frame Assist - it was about 1 second and the AF was about 1 second. The AF did miss sometime and then you would have a burst of frames that were all out of focus.
Neil.
ps Correction - 2nd is corrected and 3rd is original.
The camera was set to jpeg and 2x Teleconverter Mode and Continuous burst with Auto iso.
This is not a full zoom example but about half zoom in 2x mode , so around 800 mm.
As you can see from the first photo there is some finger vibration but it's not there in the second photo which is straight from the camera and the third photo is the adjusted version.
I didn't notice a long lag using the Frame Assist - it was about 1 second and the AF was about 1 second. The AF did miss sometime and then you would have a burst of frames that were all out of focus.
Neil.
ps Correction - 2nd is corrected and 3rd is original.
Attachments
Last edited:
