Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Review

By dpreview staff on Jan 15, 2013 at 23:15 GMT
Buy on GearShop$399.00

Just Posted: Our review of the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS. Canon's latest superzoom, the SX50, features a 24-1200mm (equivalent) lens and a feature set that compares well to its competition, in what is now one of the most competitive segments of the compact camera market. Specifications include a 12MP CMOS sensor, 2.8" fully-articulated LCD screen, Raw capture and full manual control. Is this the travel camera enthusiasts have been waiting for? Read our review - created in collaboration with Jeff Keller of The Digital Camera Resource Page - to find out.

195
I own it
42
I want it
20
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

Comments

Total comments: 165
12
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Jan 16, 2013)

It's ironic that you have to remind people they'll need a tripod if they shoot at the 1200mm equivalent. If you were shooting with a DSLR at that focal length you'd be using thousands of dollars worth of heads, gimbals, tripods, gyroscopic stablizers, bedrock-anchored concrete footings, and sandbags filled with ununoctium.

10 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 16, 2013)

What I do is embed the camera into a cement block, leaving a small access hole for screen, lens and buttons.

2 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 16, 2013)

"It's ironic that you have to remind people they'll need a tripod if they shoot at the 1200mm equivalent."

You don't. I've shot at full telephoto on mine handheld almost exclusively, including of fast-moving subjects, at shutter speeds as slow as 1/50th.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/SX50__1762.jpg

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Jan 16, 2013)

You're a lucky guy—it proves that some people really do have hands of steel. To get results like yours I have to use a tripod, mirror lockup, and a remote release when i shoot below about 1/100.

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 16, 2013)

I have shaky hands. The SX50 has incredibly effective IS.

2 upvotes
krassphoto
By krassphoto (Jan 16, 2013)

...not to mention 1200mm DSLR lens itself.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 16, 2013)

@ljfinger
How do you only get 1/50 shooting up at the bright sky like that? Sunny 16 rule should give you 1/80 @ f16, so why 1/50 @ f6.5? Seems way too slow of a shutter speed shooting wide open on a bright sunny day.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 16, 2013)

It wasn't as bright and sunny as it appears in that image. There were high thin clouds partially obscuring the sun.

0 upvotes
matty_boy
By matty_boy (Jan 16, 2013)

Id have to agree, ive shot exstensively with an SX50, moon shots at night and some wildlife and the IS is truly amazing on this camera

0 upvotes
wb2trf
By wb2trf (Jan 17, 2013)

As I noted in a separate post, I found the same thing. It is in fact very practical to shoot with this at 1200mm equiv at low iso in daylight handheld, no tripod.

0 upvotes
jaykumarr
By jaykumarr (Jan 16, 2013)

Main aim of purchasing a super zoom is "super zoom" . i.e tele end. But why do you never compare how a tele-distant photos from fz200 etc with the camera being tested?

In short distance, anyway the mediocre since too many lens involved in super zoom.

4 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm holding out for a 55x zoom

1 upvote
mingleby
By mingleby (Jan 15, 2013)

I can hardly believe it...

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Jan 15, 2013)

Is it a coincident that DXO and DPReview has the same camera review on the same day?

3 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jan 15, 2013)

Yes.

10 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 15, 2013)

Announced September 17th. I made my purchase decision a month later - and three months ago. You need to keep that sort of think in mind if you want your reviews to be relevant.

3 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jan 15, 2013)

Can you email me in advance of your next purchase decision?

But seriously, we try as hard as we can to be timely. This review was collaborative, and both we and Jeff were very overworked in the final months of 2012. Had we been able to put this out earlier, we would have.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
16 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 16, 2013)

Since this camera hasn't been discontinued or replaced with a newer model yet, I'd say the review is still relevant.

4 upvotes
NiallM
By NiallM (Jan 16, 2013)

There have been so many interesting and good 'serious' cameras released (and reviewed here) in the past 12 months i'm surprised they even bothered, let alone got around to reviewing this..some of us had to wait a while for a Pentax K-30 review, but..u know, there's other websites out there..cameralabs, youtube etc.

2 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 16, 2013)

"But seriously, we try as hard as we can to be timely. This review was collaborative, and both we and Jeff were very overworked in the final months of 2012. Had we been able to put this out earlier, we would have."

The point I've been trying to make is, you don't need to put THIS out. You need to put out a short review (not a preview, a review) that focuses on the crucial areas of performance (focusing, image quality) within the first week after release.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jan 16, 2013)

Look at the byeline - Jeff wrote this for DCR, we spent a few hours doing the studio shooting just before Christmas, and I spent a couple of days editing it this week.

Your point about a 'short review within a week of release' is well taken, but I'm afraid somewhat impractical. For starters, we don't have reviewable cameras that soon. Also, you'd be amazed how several 'short reviews' of multiple products can add up to a lot of work, which would challenge the production of other content.

One of my priorities for 2013 is to increase the amount of content we can put out on all classes of cameras, and shorter reviews/first impressions/roundups will be part of that, but we have to work within some practical constraints.

The internet is full of 'reviews' of products within 24 hours of announcement but look a little deeper and they're closer to what we'd call 'product announcement news stories'.

12 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 16, 2013)

"Your point about a 'short review within a week of release' is well taken, but I'm afraid somewhat impractical. For starters, we don't *have* reviewable cameras that soon. "

I really did mean "release" not announcement. I could do one or two of these a day. They don't have to be in-depth. Just some quick tests, some impressions of performance in different conditions and shooting types, and some quick looks for serious flaws or seriously impressive bits of performance. Think of it as a gallery of sample images combined with some pros and cons and a few studio shots, and that's it.

0 upvotes
Shunda77
By Shunda77 (Jan 16, 2013)

You just described a full review! DPR staff can't win, on one hand people are saying some reviews are too brief, and on the other saying they're too long. Personally, I don't just 'have' to buy a camera upon first release, but then again, I loath the rampant consumer society we live in.........
Take your time DPR and keep providing the excellent attention to detail, there are already plenty of 'first look' sites out there.

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 16, 2013)

No I didn't. Leave out all the body, user interface, flash, white balance, and detailed IS and IQ testing.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2013)

lj, if you did one or two of these a day you'd put out some crappy reviews that nobody would care about. Do you see the argument over the early publication of test shots here? If they did what you suggest, they'd just be another engadget video review nobody could take seriously. Not only that, to get a reasonable, publishable sense of a camera you'd have to spend at least a few days with it. Otherwise, it would go something like this: camera out of box, this is weird, I don't know how to use this, let me shoot pictures with a camera I'm not remotely familiar with, and let's call that a quick preview. On top of that, you're talking to people who deal with tons of cameras all the time and might need a little time with a camera to overcome whatever habits they got into shooting with another camera. That could lead to somebody saying "I loved that last camera and this one is different so blech on this thing I want the other one." You don't have any perspective.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jan 16, 2013)

Sorry to be blunt, but anyone can do crappy content quickly. We try not to do that. Our challenge is to do good, accessible, relevant content in a timely manner. Not so easy.

7 upvotes
JohnMatrix
By JohnMatrix (Jan 16, 2013)

I have to agree with lj on this. Surely most folks who buy this type of camera will buy one on spec and price anyway (i.e. "50X zoom"). They'd have never heard of dpreview. And the rest of us know the general limitations of cameras like this, so a short review with a variety of samples is good enough.
The pocket fluff review was out in October.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2013)

If that's all you need then go to your local store and be a stand-up citizen by supporting your local economy rather than shipping your money somewhere else and wondering why your city doesn't have the cash to repair that road or why your local camera store or even the local Best Buy is shutting down. If all you want is five minutes with your hands on the camera then go spend five minutes with your hands on the camera. This site is free and it is designed to give people a comprehensive view of the camera to anticipate everything from ergonomics to critical image quality. Most people are morons that go on Amazon, buy a random camera, and then complain about things that were clearly stated in the specs. This page is for people who don't want to waste their time and money on something that is a complete mystery....in other words, this is where we learn about cameras.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 16, 2013)

It's not "crappy", it's "limited" to the most important areas. "Limited" content is much more useful than "no content", and what you put out for the first 4 months of this camera's life (and most camera's lives) is "no content".

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 16, 2013)

Limited to the most important areas? Important to whom? You evidently want to leave out some of the most important things to me, and I'm sure, many other readers:

"Leave out all the body, user interface, flash, white balance, and detailed IS and IQ testing."

For me, ergonomics and UI are just as important as IQ. We're talking about cameras, not just sensor performance.
There are many sites offering short and superficial reviews shortly after the release of a camera, with very little analysis and not much more than a list of pros and cons. But I come here for the in-depth reviews, and I gladly wait a few months for them.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2013)

Exactly -- it isn't crappy because it fits YOUR needs. It's crappy to everyone who doesn't want exactly what you want. And you're dead wrong about no content. When I was considering the G1 X they published real-world shots and a series of test shots well in advance of release in the US. I knew the size and body style, so I wasn't remotely worried about ergonomics. I also wasn't terribly worried about performance. It was the size I wanted and the image quality I wanted....and had wanted for years. They may not do that for every camera, but they also don't review every camera and they also have no control over when the manufacturer decides to send them a camera for review if at all. Get real, Monday morning quarterbacks. The world is much more complicated than "oh, just do what I want you to do."

0 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (Jan 16, 2013)

To Barney Britton et al.

ljfinger definitely has a point. You, for some reason, not only go to defensive mode, but try to ridicule him -- instead of listening.

You are doing very good, tremendous job with these reviews -- in that they make up great historic database. But you are simply out of pace with this world. If that's not your priority -- well, fine, so be it.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm sure their pace has other factors involved than the speed at which they would choose to go. Other than when they can get their hands on a camera, they have to live with the fact that you aren't paying a dime into their bank account, which might allow them to just buy a camera rather than wait for a review copy. I agree with you that they are out of pace with this world. This world, in my experience, is full of impatient people looking for easy answers, quick fixes, or to simply be told what to think. Patience isn't a variable in their equation. They want to go online and buy something without ever looking at it and then have the right to play with it for a week and return it when they're disappointed. The world thinks everything should be delivered in 3 to 5 business days whether its a parcel or a review. A few years ago if you got your package in 8 to 12 weeks you were lucky. In the case of the internet, we are fortunate to have more than 1 source for information.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm not ridiculing anyone (see my earlier post about different types of content being pushed in 2013) but what I'm saying is that we're not going to slap the word 'review' onto something that isn't. Actually, if you look at our news coverage and product information in our database, there's already a lot there on the day of announcement. But as I said - the point is well-taken. We know the benefit of timely original coverage and we're dedicated to making some changes this year, with the advantage of a larger editorial team.

0 upvotes
mugupo
By mugupo (Jan 15, 2013)

Still can't zoom faster than a camcorder is a bit letdown.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Jan 15, 2013)

It zooms too fast in video, not too slowly.

1 upvote
Total comments: 165
12