Keep my sx60 for birding or switch to...

I have a Canon 60D and 400mm f5.6L for birding, but I bought an SX50 just to always have nearby. The SX50 was just OK but no more than that for static birds as long as there was little cropping to be done. Then one day with a bunch of raptors following the harvest I grabbed the SX50 for some in flight shots. I got not a single shot and I was so frustrated I almost threw the damned thing against the wall. I immediately sold the SX50 and will stick to the big heavy 60D/400mm combo. There is so much more to birding than mere image quality, you have got to get the images first. For birds in flight I found the SX50 next to useless and a total frustration. The silly thing is that not using the long zoom, the SX50 is actually quite a nice camera.

I am sure there are many excellent images of BIF from an SX50, but it just didn't work for me.

My advice would be to buy an older dslr like a 40D and put what ever cash you can afford towards a used long lens.

Just my 2 cents.

Ken C

Ken53 said:

m3llex said:

...Panasonic Lumix fz200. Here's the thing -- the SX 60 has better zoom, but the Lumix FZ200 has a constant f-stop at zoom...so on days like to day I could set it as low as 2.8 and when I zoom in all the way, it will STAY there! On the SX, I zoom and it jumps to 5.6 no matter what so now I have to slow the shutter speed down and if I'm hand holding it's a tough shot.

So, lose some zoom but have stable f-stop or work harder on compensating somehow. *I'm an enthusiast working to get professional grade photos, not just a casual backyard birder*

Click to expand...

R2D2 is correct on this. I have been down both paths more then once. The super zooms have come a long way to getting great long shots, but they have their hard limits. Some out grow these limits.

Also cropping is inevitable on most bird images. An ACPS sensor will allow much more cropping to be done.

My wife loves her SX50 and will not use my T2i with any long lens. So we all have our preferences. No right or wrong, but think a year or two ahead. Now ask yourself what is your IQ goal at that point in the future.

Have fun

Ken

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, Ken. I wouldn't try to foist the SX50 on anyone, or even claim it's the best bridge camera out there. I was just trying to suggest that if m3llex was determined to go with either a superzoom or the FZ200, he might not want to base his decision solely on his experience with the SX60. I know you've gotten great shots with this camera but a lot of people, including me, have found it difficult to use, especially at the long end (where birders live!)

I myself am intrigued with a lot of the suggestions that have been made here, hopefully m3llex now has enough info to figure out what'll work for him. And if the SX50 is in the running, I hope he'll search the galleries for images of birds taken by you and other accomplished photographers before making his decision. As a birder, I felt comfortable saying I was pretty sure he'd want more reach than the FZ200 could give him. But I'm a novice photographer, and although I think my comparison of the two SX's is valid, the images certainly aren't representative of what the SX50 (or other superzooms) can deliver in really capable hands.

OK, I have the FZ200. I'm not a birder, so 600 is generally long enough. However, Panasonic has the EZ zoom settings which are simply crops from the center of the frame; but not up-sampled back to 12 MP, which is what all the other digital zoom do. So using only 5 MP gets you about 930 mm equivalent, and it's pretty good. Of course, you can do the same thing on your PC. In other respects, the FZ200 is excellent with a high resolution EVF that's to die for. The good grip, plenty of control customization, very fast AF, the lens accepts 52 mm filters without an adapter, and you can use the supplied hood and filters together, and there's a TTL hot shoe. Color is much more Canon like than most other Panasonics with just 3 steps more amber in AWB fine tuning. All my other cameras are Canon, so having similar color was important. Panasonic (like Nikon) allows you to fine tune the color of each WB setting individually. Even my 70D won't do that.

In short, the FZ200 is much more of an all round camera with a long lens than it is a specialized birder. Very nice on travel.

lizardi said:

Ken53 said:

m3llex said:

...Panasonic Lumix fz200. Here's the thing -- the SX 60 has better zoom, but the Lumix FZ200 has a constant f-stop at zoom...so on days like to day I could set it as low as 2.8 and when I zoom in all the way, it will STAY there! On the SX, I zoom and it jumps to 5.6 no matter what so now I have to slow the shutter speed down and if I'm hand holding it's a tough shot.

So, lose some zoom but have stable f-stop or work harder on compensating somehow. *I'm an enthusiast working to get professional grade photos, not just a casual backyard birder*

Click to expand...

R2D2 is correct on this. I have been down both paths more then once. The super zooms have come a long way to getting great long shots, but they have their hard limits. Some out grow these limits.

Also cropping is inevitable on most bird images. An ACPS sensor will allow much more cropping to be done.

My wife loves her SX50 and will not use my T2i with any long lens. So we all have our preferences. No right or wrong, but think a year or two ahead. Now ask yourself what is your IQ goal at that point in the future.

Have fun

Ken

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, Ken. I wouldn't try to foist the SX50 on anyone, or even claim it's the best bridge camera out there. I was just trying to suggest that if m3llex was determined to go with either a superzoom or the FZ200, he might not want to base his decision solely on his experience with the SX60. I know you've gotten great shots with this camera but a lot of people, including me, have found it difficult to use, especially at the long end (where birders live!)

I myself am intrigued with a lot of the suggestions that have been made here, hopefully m3llex now has enough info to figure out what'll work for him. And if the SX50 is in the running, I hope he'll search the galleries for images of birds taken by you and other accomplished photographers before making his decision. As a birder, I felt comfortable saying I was pretty sure he'd want more reach than the FZ200 could give him. But I'm a novice photographer, and although I think my comparison of the two SX's is valid, the images certainly aren't representative of what the SX50 (or other superzooms) can deliver in really capable hands.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The Super zooms are fine as long a we except their limits. We need to use them in good light and we limit the cropping to a minimum. Also action shots are difficult with super zooms. I have fun with the challenge of the super zooms. I see how much I can get them to do. That being said, the DSLR with a good lens like R2D2 mentioned, is easier to use and nets a lot more keepers. Not to mention the better IQ most of the time. I like them both but they are night and day different, in how they get used.

Ken

How about this bird in flight with the SX 50?

R2D2 said:

lizardi said:

R2D2 said:

You could spend a little more and get into a pretty decent DSLR kit...

Click to expand...

Yeah, and there starts the descent into "lens envy." Just ask my hubby... he has a 500mm and still has a "wandering eye!"

Click to expand...

Now a superzoom can of course deliver in good light at base ISO, but ask it to start shooting in even a little lower light (or shade),

Click to expand...

Wel, I can see where this is coming from and I can only partly agree with you.

Pls look at the little bird picture (view at original size..) from speedygonzales at this link (somewhere halfway) .

Light level 3.6 !!

First the part that I agree with you. As speedygonzales mentioned in this link, other superzooms (SX50, SX60 P600 etc. ) would have to take this picture with MUCH higher ISO ratings.. way above ISO 1.000 when you start touching the zoom lever.

A DSLR (APS-c as example) should have its aperture stopped down to F16 to get a comparable DOF, if he didn’t want only the beak or eye tack sharp. This would result in a ISO of around 5.500 and that compared to the ....way-above-1.000 on the SX50-60 or P600, would show a big difference in IQ.

But…. The Fz200 can stay on F2.8 even if the bird would be at the far end of its cage and the Fz200 needed to max zoom in…. still F2.8 ISO 400 and the AF speed, and accuracy is just ehhhh AWESOME even in these low light area's where other superzoom have problems when light is just a bit going down from ideal.

Now…. Close your eyes, and picture the ISO-400 from FZ200 and the ISO 5.500 of the APS-c, would you think the gap between these 2 is much closer than with the mentioned other super-zooms??

2ndly, is this really-low-light picture, compared to the rig-price that bad? Sure a APS-c cán do better, but at a much higher rig-price.

To me it looks like the gap between these sensors is closing in more and more

Speedygonzales placed a nice (aperture-vs FL and/or ISO) graph here somewhere on DPR with the most popular superzooms in it, AWESOME graph for when you are in the market for a superzoom

R2D2 said:

and the IQ rapidly starts to fall apart (compared to even an entry level DSLR).

And when it comes to BIFs, well it's still no contest.

I only mention this because I've been researching superzooms (again), for one to stash in the truck for photos of opportunity as I travel (instead of keeping a second DSLR there). Maybe in a couple more gemerations...

Happy shooting!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Click to expand...

--
This is just my RAW avatar....

Marcodpr said:

But...remember you lose couple of stops when you put the TC on

Click to expand...

nope sorry you are wrong, thats with a TC between lens and body. ANAVY can show you stunning examples of the beauty of this combo

Marcodpr said:

and it takes time to add/remove it

Click to expand...

completely true, but... there is a special tread on the BODY and i must say that placing and removing is not thát slow. you dont have to take the lens of, place TC put lens back sequence :-D

2ndly, because of the short-stop éven with the TC on, i ALWAYS leave it on when i'm hunting for small far object.. ready to burts at F2.8.

Jay7h said:

How about this bird in flight with the SX 50?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54759865

Click to expand...

What about it?

The bird was sitting on a rock and a burst was fired catching the bird as it took off. A piece of cake for any camera with a decent long lens.

Now try a bird already in flight, even a slow flying raptor.

You are in the field and the bird suddenly appears. Set the SX50 to max zoom and point it at the bird and you will not find it. Now press the framing button to zoom out and you find the bird. Now zoom in again to frame the bird, and oh sod it, it's gone again. OK, so let us say you have zoomed in and out a few times and you have found the bird, bit it is not where you want it in the finder. Have you ever felt the strength of the stabilizer on the SX50? It is so powerful at full zoom that it not only steadies the shot, it tries to keep the image where it is in the frame, and trying to drag the image where you want it is like dragging a dead dog in a bog. And then the bird has gone whilst you were fiddling about.

Sorry but no thanks. Static birds, or maybe perched birds about to fly caught with a burst, will be ok. But for a real life flying birds out there in the field, pick up an APS-c dslr with a half decent lens and away you go. Few problems getting the shot and good enough IQ so you can crop. The problem is that it does come at a price and at a heavy weight to lug around.

So please don't post any more BIF images from a super zoom. There are plenty around already to prove it can be done. Of course it can be done but for me it was intensely frustrating with no keepers at all.

Theory and reading reviews are all very well, but surely real user experience has some merit.

I do believe that at its price point the SX50 is an excellent camera, it is just that for me, it failed in the main purpose for which I bought it. And yes, I have seen the amazing images of back yard birds by Kenn and Temple: static birds relatively close to the camera and an amazing amount of highly skilled post processing. But those images are far removed from what the average Joe with limited pp skills is likely to achieve out in the countryside hunting for skittering birds..

Ken C

Interesting. Would you post some of your BIF pictures?

Perhaps if Ken C used Sports mode on the SX50 he might get better results for BIF.

For a birder with binoculars and a spotting scope on a tripod in hand the sx50 despite its limitations is a very good option compared to also carrying a DSLR with a 400/500/or 600 lens not withstanding the price difference.

Some very good birders have found the sx50 to be an adequate tool for them.

Jay7h said:

Interesting. Would you post some of your BIF pictures?

Click to expand...

So the request for my bif pictures then results in a tirade of "You don't need a dslr for those" and " I can do better than that" comments?

OK, so here goes with a few.


Stork in flight


Stork landing.


Hen Harrier [male] now almost extinct in UK


Hen Harrier [male] now almost extinct in UK


Hoopoe


Great Tit approaching feeder. Lots of Canon chroma noise, but 1/8000 at ISO 6400. Try that with your SX50.


Common Buzzard.

So fire away chaps.

Ken C

Ken Croft said:

I have a Canon 60D and 400mm f5.6L for birding, but I bought an SX50 just to always have nearby. The SX50 was just OK but no more than that for static birds as long as there was little cropping to be done. Then one day with a bunch of raptors following the harvest I grabbed the SX50 for some in flight shots. I got not a single shot and I was so frustrated I almost threw the damned thing against the wall. I immediately sold the SX50 and will stick to the big heavy 60D/400mm combo. There is so much more to birding than mere image quality, you have got to get the images first. For birds in flight I found the SX50 next to useless and a total frustration. The silly thing is that not using the long zoom, the SX50 is actually quite a nice camera.

I am sure there are many excellent images of BIF from an SX50, but it just didn't work for me.

My advice would be to buy an older dslr like a 40D and put what ever cash you can afford towards a used long lens.

Just my 2 cents.

Ken C

Click to expand...

Ken I don't want you to think I disagree with you. I don't disagree at all. I have used both. This is how I sum it up. If I want come home with a good bunch of BIF keepers and only a few bad shots, I would use my 70D 100-400L. If I want to chance coming home with just a couple keepers, I can make the super zoom work sometimes with a good dose of luck.

So no one takes this out of context. BIF success rates vary widely on the type of birds also.

Also I am not knocking super zooms at all. They were never meant to do BIF. Heck, many DSLR's are too slow for BIF. The fact that we can get a couple of BIF once and a while, is just a little icing on the cake.

Your observations with the SX50 and BIF are well in the ball park.

Ken

I don't know what's the matter with you guys...

I capture lots of BIFs with my SX60. Here's a recent example.







Well, I wasn't lying there were 200+ White Pelicans flying over!

Oops....I meant my SX50!!!

Yeah, my bad. But something has to give with the extra glass - IQ and distortion?

Marcodpr said:

Yeah, my bad. But something has to give with the extra glass - IQ and distortion?

Click to expand...

no, yes, it all depends.

IF you buy a el-cheapo... you will get AWFULL pictures with lots of CA and blurry as like you have been drinking pure alcohol.

If you buy a highrange class TC, you will add a little CA, lose only a little bit on your F stop and sharpness, all for the range is the motto here.

but... if you buy the TOP-notch Nikon 1.7TC (or better priced 1.5) you will get STUNNING results. Go to the Panny forum for much, much, MUCH more info on TC's there. Because of the easy of fitting it to the special body treat, TC-s are really common there, and you can/wil find STUNNING results there.

This is just my RAW avatar....

Ken Croft said:

Jay7h said:

Interesting. Would you post some of your BIF pictures?

Click to expand...

So the request for my bif pictures then results in a tirade of "You don't need a dslr for those" and " I can do better than that" comments?

OK, so here goes with a few.

Stork in flight

Stork landing.

Hen Harrier [male] now almost extinct in UK

Hen Harrier [male] now almost extinct in UK

Hoopoe

Great Tit approaching feeder. Lots of Canon chroma noise, but 1/8000 at ISO 6400. Try that with your SX50.

Common Buzzard.

So fire away chaps.

Click to expand...

Well i have seen lots of BIFS in the panny forum with FZ150 and FZ200 (and now FZ1000 even better but that is not a pinhead but still small sensored compared to DSLR)

Just some BIF examples that i think are great

Ken Croft said:

Ken C

Click to expand...

--
This is just my RAW avatar....

A few more birds in flight as requested..




Common gull and Black-headed gull.




Puffin returning with eels. Faster than a speeding bullet!




Herons. I visited a heronry [or rookery] early morning to see about a dozen or more.

Very skittish birds.



Ken C

Ken Croft said:

A few more birds in flight as requested..

Common gull and Black-headed gull.

Click to expand...

Excellent image.

Ken, it looks like you and your 350D plus 30D mastered BIF long ago already. Not an easy task especially back then. Keep up the good work.

Nice shots.

Ken