Is the SX50 only good for photographing birds in trees?

Started Feb 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Beach Bum
Senior MemberPosts: 1,055
But the SX50 deficiencies don't put you off?
In reply to NPPhoto, Mar 1, 2013

NPPhoto wrote:

coody wrote:

You may wait and see the Sony HX300 if you have not been confidence for the Canon SX50 HS. The HX300 is expected better than the Canon SX50 HS. Let’s see.

IMHO does not compare to the SX50. As usual, Sony couldn't resist cramming this tiny sensor with more pixels. If you are a pixel peeper, then good luck with the Sony.

Also, I have not read anything about RAW shooting with the Sony and no hot shoe. Both those things = deal breaker for me.

-- hide signature --

Nick P

First of all, I'll mention I'm writing this knowing I don't have a hope in hell of getting a thumbs up for this post on a Canon forum. But I must speak my mind.

I have the HX100V, and the primary reason I bought it was for its superlative video capabilities, quick autofocus, and low light performance, all things that you won't find on the SX50. The Sony is on par with the Canon and Panasonic for still image quality, but I'm largely using u4/3 now for still images. If I need a really long zoom for my stills however, I have no problem reaching for the HX100V.

The lack of good video capabilities in the Canon and Nikon models is something that you can easily see by going to YouTube and comparing Sony (and Panny) models to comparable Canon/Nikon models, but something that might not be so obvious is how poorly the Canon/Nikon bridge cameras autofocus, specifically the SX40 and SX50, when compared to Sony and Panasonic bridge cameras. If anyone's curious about this, head to an electronics store and set the camera to mid-zoom to max zoom and press the half shutter to acquire focus. Then move from target to target as quickly as the camera acquires focus. I'll tell you unequivocally that you won't even need to time it because the SX50 is as slow as the HX200V is fast.

Not only is the SX50 painfully slow, but often times it even fails to acquire a lock at all, regardless of how long you try. This is something you won't experience with the Sony, because it's not only fast but extremely accurate.

Then there's the issue of the lens. Much to Sony's credit, they didn't release a camera with a crippled lens at the wide end. Just take a look at the F-stop at wide angle for the HX300 and SX50. Canon had to make major compromises to their lens, especially at the wide angle, to pack in that much zoom. Sony didn't. The Sony is way faster at the wide end and still faster at tele. How about that?

The last thing I'll mention is this megapixel nonsense. The only realistic negative impact the 20MP could have on image quality is reduced dynamic range, but, if you look historically at compact cameras, you'll notice that Sony generally wins out in this area, even while increasing the pixel count. So, while I wish they wouldn't keep adding the extra megapixels, I don't believe this will have a negative impact. And Sony's low light performance has always been the best among the compact cameras. If you don't believe me, go to YouTube and compare the HX9V or HX20V against the SX260 or SX240. You'll notice the low light performance goes to Sony by a mile, even with the Sony using 60fps video and the Canon 24fps. This disparity should heavily favor Canon, but it doesn't. This effectively demonstrates the difference in sensor tech between Sony and Canon, even with the excess megapixels on the Sony.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow