Canon SX50 Specs (1 Viewer)

[Roy Harvey]

I have now solved the problem - after many hours of searching on-line and trying different things.
The solution - if the viewfinder is not working, is to press the 'disp' button twice.
Easy, when you know how!

Roy

 

[HermitIbis]

@Roy Harvey: Good to hear that you've found the solution.

Yes there was a bit of CA in that shot, especially around the antenna, but it was only really obvious if zoomed in and a couple of clicks in Lightroom sorted it out.
However, I'm not sure if there's any advantage to having RAW in this case as the method for getting rid of CA is based on colour-sampling the purple fringe and this would presumably be the same in JPEG?

The description in articles like this one seemed to suggest that Lightroom offers for many camera models a "global" CA correction setting (which probably means: no colour-sampling necessary). The first Lightroom version to offer this luxury for the SX50 was Lightroom 4.3. - With the SX50 I still prefer jpeg (and TC 2.0 plus continuous shooting) over RAW, but combining RAW with Lightroom remains tempting. Your robin in reply #2051 was splendid.

Some of my own: The Chiffchaff wasn't shy, the second photo was taken - believe it or not - with a zoom position of mere 52 mm!

 

[birdboybowley]

Yr Chiff looks more like a Reed Warbler

 

[HermitIbis]

Thank you very much - you are surely right. The red-brownish colour, the large feet...
The bird searched for food on the ground and passed me by in a distance of less than 50 cm. Probably an old bird with poor eyesight that confused me with a tree.

 

[mtar925]

Tropical Kingbird

This morning in the public park behind our townhouse development in Northern California. I'd heard through the local club that it's been there all Summer, but this was the first time I'd spotted it. Life bird!

SX50 at max zoom, + 1.5x TC. Cropped in PS Elements - I've had better luck shooting at 1.5x and cropping in, than with the 2x TC. Program Mode with most of the settings recommended in this thread. Thanks for all the help! I couldn't be happier with this amazing little camera.

Matt T

 

[Brosnabirder]

Me too. Not a photographer by any means but has added an extra dinension to birding trips for me. My pics won't win any prizes but that's not really the point for me. I'm happy to have a record of the day

 

[HermitIbis]

B. The search for speed
I believe we share the preoccupation!

It was annoying to find that the new features offered by UHS-1 Standard Memory cards are not implemented on the Canon SX50.

A review of the SX60 shows the speed of a camera with UHS-1 ability in continuous shooting mode:

To test the numbers I fitted the SX60 HS with a freshly formatted Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-1 card, set it to its best quality JPEG mode and held the shutter down in continuous shooting mode. The SX60 fired off 200 frames at a what sounded like constant speed and would have continued until the card was filled had I not released the shutter. I timed the first 50 frames at at 6.3fps, just shy of the claimed 6.4fps. However the first 10 frames came in just shy of 7fps, so for shorter bursts the SX60 HS exceeds the published speed.

This is a massive improvement on the 2.2fps continuous shooting speed of the earlier SX50 HS and though that model's 10 frame 13fps High Speed Burst HQ mode has been dropped, it was always of limited use as it captured less than one second of action.

I've also googled how fast the best UHS-1 cards really are. These can be labeled as 95 MB/s fast, but numbers from laboratory tests can be misleading. Users have reported real-life tests as closer to 45 MB/s. That's roughly in the same range what the review above suggests: up to 3-4 times faster than the SX50 in continuous mode.

PS. Two photos taken from a hide in a wetland reservation, so I'd estimate via Google Maps that the Stonechat and the Reed bunting were 50 m away. The third and fourth were closer (30 m), a Water pipit (?). In all three cases I went into digital zoom (155x), auto mode.

Very average quality, I know. Maybe still of interest for non-owners of the SX50 to see how the camera handles distance shots.

 

[crazyfingers]

This time of year BIF shots are made easier when they are in a flock. It makes it easier to get at least one bird in the focus rectangle. This is, as usual, max optical and 2x TC. Look like rock pigeons.

Note in the second photo the bird that's flying out of sync with the rest is a hawk of some kind.

 

[gihe]

Your robin in reply #2051 was splendid

..and your Robin in #2082 is also splendid :t: The Canon has certainly brought out the finery of the feathers. They may be common but there's an elegant simplicity to these birds, don't you think?

 

[gihe]

So I finally ventured outside the back garden and got a few shots of the usual suspects in the Serpentine, Hyde Park. Have to say, I'm loving this camera!

 

[crazyfingers]

More BiFs. Wood ducks. I got very lucky with the lone duck. That one I cropped about 50% The first is uncropped.

BiFs are hard but flocks and large birds are certainly easier.

 

[Jhanlon]

Can anyone tell me whether this model or the SX60 can be used for digiscoping? If do, how do the results compare with the camera at high zoom?

 

[HermitIbis]

No, these superzooms are not suitable for digiscoping. I had been interested in digiscoping myself, before I bought the SX50. Maybe this site helps:

Note that for all digiscoping cameras, a camera with not more than 5x optical zoom is preferred, as it minimizes vignetting. Preferred is 3x to 4x.

I admire those who have the energy to experiment with the equipment and finally come up with impressive digiscoped pictures. Walking around with the SX50 is easier.

 

[Jhanlon]

No, these superzooms are not suitable for digiscoping. I had been interested in digiscoping myself, before I bought the SX50. Maybe this site helps: I admire those who have the energy to experiment with the equipment and finally come up with impressive digiscoped pictures. Walking around with the SX50 is easier.

But surely the Canon can be used at min zoom, ie 2 or 3 x instead of 50? Are the results really comparable to a good digiscoped image?

 

[Gomphus]

But surely the Canon can be used at min zoom, ie 2 or 3 x instead of 50? Are the results really comparable to a good digiscoped image?

Doesn't work James, tried it, but couldn't tell you the exact science of the lens that makes it not work....

However got to say I rarely digiscope any more since the SX50! However I do sometimes use a Canon compact against my Kowa for the rare occasion stuff is miles away!

 

[Jhanlon]

Doesn't work James, tried it, but couldn't tell you the exact science of the lens that makes it not work....

However got to say I rarely digiscope any more since the SX50! However I do sometimes use a Canon compact against my Kowa for the rare occasion stuff is miles away!

Interesting.What exactly happens when you try?

So basically the SX50 delivers as good as a 'standard' digiscoped image apart from the most distant stuff? I have only just started considering this model as previously its unpockatability had put me off and I'd been thinking of a compact 30x model. I think some of these can be used for digiscoping but not sure what makes them different.

 

[AndyM]

So basically the SX50 delivers as good as a 'standard' digiscoped image apart from the most distant stuff? I have only just started considering this model as previously its unpockatability had put me off and I'd been thinking of a compact 30x model. I think some of these can be used for digiscoping but not sure what makes them different.

The SX50 won't go in your pocket but it will hang off your belt with ease. As an SX40/50 owner, I can think of no sane reason to digiscope unless you absolutely want to!

I'd probably fire off a ton of shots and be on to the next subject before I'd got a scope/tripod/camera combo set up correctly and have a higher rate of success.

AndyM

 

[Gomphus]

Interesting.What exactly happens when you try?

So basically the SX50 delivers as good as a 'standard' digiscoped image apart from the most distant stuff? I have only just started considering this model as previously its unpockatability had put me off and I'd been thinking of a compact 30x model. I think some of these can be used for digiscoping but not sure what makes them different.

If you hung a dslr off a scope it would be better quality wise I think, and some one I know uses a micro two thirds one but the bridge camera suits me better, like Andy says less faffing around! For video I love it. Not as good in low light though. Not dure on the sx60 as not upgraded yet!

 

[IngOls]

I have become a fan of Canon SX 50 after have read this Birdforum since before summer.
Thanks for all good information on this forum.

I have bought 2 cameras of this model.
Have tested the cameras during summer and must say that they takes fantasic images if you take consideration to the price.
I use this camera more and more and my Swarovski ATM 80 HD less.
Digiscoping take time and I have no AF.

I will now give you a very good tip how to improve your images.
I have tested Adobe Photoshop Elements 14 in a 30 days free test.
I am very impressed by a new function called "Shake reduction".
Just click to remove the camera shake blurs that come from unsteady hands.

My best way to give you an idéa of the result you can see in a grass image.
The first one is not sharp and not processed.
The second is processed with shake reduction in PhShEl14. Oh what a difference.
The difference is bigger in the original image.

I have processed some bird images taken on long distances with shake reduction in PhShEl14.
The third image is Canada Geese at about 115 m=383 feet. 215mm 1200mm 35 ekv.
The fourth image is Bernacle Geese at about 155m=517 feet. 215 mm C2=2400mm 35 ekv.
I normaly use monopod with a light video head for rapid tilt adjustment.

The only images that can´t be processed with shake reduction is birds on water that have very narrow horisontal wave pattern (a little difficult to discribe in words for a swede).
If you are interested I can send an image that is cracked after processing.
All bird images taken on gras and cliff are OK after processing.
Shake reduction functions best with birds on "normal natural background".
I recommend you to test PhShEl14 in a 30 days free test and see for youself.
Probably you can improve some not so good images after processing.

 

[HermitIbis]

Wow, many thanks for the hint. I had completely missed that Photoshop Elements 14 has such a new feature. Impressive difference between your two photos 1 and 2. Presently I am using PS Elements 9.