I returned my SX60 after a week, and I have 15 months' experience with the SX50. Here are my own conclusions if you are trying to decide.
1.
If you are a bird-watcher and you hope to get some very nice "grabs" for later-on ID or verifications, I do suggest either of these cameras is your best choice over the present offers by the competition. No, I don't work for Canon. I've had 3 bridge cameras, my first being a Sony HX100v a few years ago. And I have two good friends with Nikon P520/P530 cameras.
All of these depend on the photographer's ability; not the camera's. But let's say our buyer is definitely focusing on BIRDS, and he is enthusiastic and moderately skilled.
In that case, the Nikon P-group, though excellent and capable, have a few things missing. (My Costa Rican friend, a superb photographer, doesn't care; he takes superb photos with his Nikon P530.)
You would like the fully articulating LCD monitor on the Canon. Not because it is so handy for selfies, but rather because it can be turned to face in toward the camera body when you are walking in the forest. This protection is quite nice to have, especially as bird photographers will likely use the electronic viewfinder most of the time.
2.
All things being equal, 60p with full-high definition is what you want for videos of birds. Birds shake their wings, or jump to reverse their perching position, in very very quick motions. 60p is better than 24 or 30. BUT, that is if all things are equal. The Canon SX60 utilizes 16 megapixels, possibly overcrowding its sensor compared with the SX50's 12 mp. Although the SX60 in theory SHOULD take better videos, and that was one important reason I wanted that camera, its videos were, in what became a very often-used word, "disappointing." They were good; they were adequate; but they seemed to be C+ or maybe B. They just did not shine.
Videos are very very important for birders. So many bird-watchers say they never bother with video, but that is a rather virginal comment. Birds move. Birds sing. Birds hang about silently in one position, "not doin' nothin'", for maybe a sixtieth of a second; but birds are all about the qualities we see in video.
Moreover, a single photo, even in a burst-series, may well show a bird turning his head away, or in some similarly not-great pose. On video, that motion is integrated into the bird's overall behaviour—as it was in life.
By the way, if it's okay with the bird, always try for a video at least 10 seconds long. At LEAST. (The camera tells you, second by second.) A 5-minute video can be very nice. And remember: the camera stays STILL (as much as possible) and it is the SUBJECT—that would be the bird—that does the moving around. You will always move your camera too much anyway, and later your audience may mention the word "seasick".
Sony, it is often said, is the established champion of video. Maybe so. My older HX100v had beautiful 60p full-HD video. I think Canon is still trying.
But would I buy either of the new Sony cameras? Definitely not. The stripped-down H400 is so stripped-down that it doesn't rate the competition at all. In other regards, I found my Canon outperforming my Sony in practical use in several ways—and that was when I was more favourably biased toward Sony. (I'm speaking for bird-watching use here, always.)
But I do wish the new Canon had aced its 60p video capabilities, and it did not.
By the way, the Canon SX60 is likely to begin and end your videos more smoothly. The SX50 begins movies as though the photographer were drunk and just missed his step. Later you can chop these bang-crash beginnings and endings off your videos, but the SX60 is better behaved, for sure.
The Canon SX50 takes very nice videos, but not in 60p. However, the SX50 won't attract the word "disappointing"—the awful D-word. Even DSLR enthusiasts tend to say the SX50 is "surprisingly good." You know; albeit for a bridge camera. "It takes pictures surprisingly well for a gurl—oops; I mean, for a bridge camera." That is what you'll hear; it translates as "I was just setting up my DSLR but the stupid bird flew away in 4 seconds flat, and I never even got the camera ready. This idiot beside me did by pure chance get a lucky photo with his bridge camera—nowhere near as good as I WOULD HAVE got, mind you, had the ill-behaved bird just WAITED a bit—but, even so, I must say his SX50 takes surprisingly good pictures for a gurl. I mean, for a bridge camera."
Nikon does very very well, too. I believe Canon is more useful for birders; I'm leaving out many details that would bring this too close to book-length. Anyway, regardless, my friend with his Nikon is taking superb bird photos.
Okay:
3.
The Canon SX50 has a control dial on the front which is in the way of the base of your thumb. You will lose good pictures because of it. Accidentally you'll unknowingly change settings, and you'll receive a popup when you press the shutter—instead of getting your photo. Annoyingly often. On the good side, this does allow you to brag about the ones that got away.
That was corrected nicely on the SX60.
4.
The Canon SX60's electronic viewfinder is SO bright and crispy-clear it may outcompete your binoculars for giving you the very best images of birds in the field. It is indeed a beautiful EVF. Downside: I think it contributes to your photos seeming "disappointing", as they consistently fail to match the images you recall seeing in the viewfinder.
The SX50 has a much more humble EVF. Capable, useful, just fine—but no more than that. Your pictures may well look better than you anticipated. (Especially videos.)
5.
The electronic level in the SX60 looks cool and is nicer to use. In the SX50 it is nice, but not as nice.
6.
For some reason, the SX60 seemed to originally FIND its subjects (small, quick-moving birds in thickets) more quickly and easily than does the SX50. I don't know why. But it happened consistently. So we do have a remarkable tool for SEEING birds, though in theory your binoculars will always be faster.
7.
Of course you know enough to never fall for the advertising. So you use the 35mm-equivalents and divide by 50, right? So you get:
SX50: 24 to 1200
SX60: 21 to 1365
Divide everything by 50.
SX 50: wide angle (24÷50) to about 1/2: you seem to be twice as far back from your subject as you really are, and so you bring in twice as much. (Actually 24/50ths, a ratio of 0.48:1.)
SX 60: wide angle (21÷50) is noticeably wider than the SX50's, as your ratio is more like 0.42:1.
SX 50: Telephoto reach maximum (1200÷50) 24 TIMES. That compares with, say, 8 or 10 TIMES for your binoculars. (However, other factors also enter the comparison.)
SX60: Telephoto reach maximum (1365÷50) 27.3 TIMES.
If this is new to you: notice these maximums are nowhere near the marketing numbers, which are sleight of hand. The companies do very well to purposefully confuse you with ZOOM maximums. Zoom is a relatively unimportant minimum/maximum statistic that you won't need to know. In photographing birds, your maximum telephoto reach is what interests you. A camera may very well have more zoom and yet less telephoto reach.
—Why divide by 50? Because the human being, standing still and not changing his gaze, sees roughly the equivalent of a 50mm lens OUTDOORS. That is why 50mm lenses are referred to as "normal" lenses. Not because they aren't kinky.
(Indoors, as at a party, you would divide by 35. Your horizons are limited. But don't do that, unless you are buying a lens; you'll just confuse yourself.)
8.
The SX50 costs less than the SX60. Toward the end of 2014, the SX50 might be available for half the price.
9.
Both cameras use the same batteries and the same memory cards, so these are not a factor. You can buy batteries at Amazon and memory cards at NCIX. Doing so saves lots of money and is the reason I have at least half a dozen batteries and I use a 125GB card. (Number your batteries so you can follow their life-progress and thereby learn that, yes, they are at least as good as the ones that cost about six times as much.)
10.
I hope that gets you started. Again, this is for birders who wish to share memories of what they saw. And either the SX50 or the SX60 will be very nice for you. If you care at all about money, buy the SX50, which is arguably as good or maybe even better.
At this moment (October 2014), I feel secure in advising BIRDERS that either of these two Canons are you best choice for BIRD photography.
In terms of questions, advice, and reading what people write: you really must know what a tool is FOR. I see a majority of writers not mentioning whether they are looking for a camera for photographing birds or girls or teacups. Come ON! No one can advise you if you don't say WHY you want the camera!
—And, are you rich or poor? How much is, say, a $100 bill worth to YOU?
Remember, in 2018, if the world is still around, all of this will be outdated and largely forgotten. So, lighten up, regain your perspective, and enjoy your new camera.
SX50. Waterfalls in Monteverde Reserve, Costa Rica. In the wet season your camera may easily fog up here. Not a problem; it unfogs quickly. A SOOC photo, straight out of the camera. December 2013.
SX60. Returning for Cargo. Lions Gate Bridge, Vancouver. SOOC. October 2014.
My own personal preference is the Canon SX50. None of my pictures, and none of anyone else's, will prove the point. The difference is slight and can be contested.
Enjoy your pictures.
