FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED vs SX50 (1020mm vs 1200mm)

[LTZ470]

Download originals...

SX50 (1200mm EFL)

FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED (1020mm EFL)

--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

 

[mingleby]

Interesting comparison...

I think that the SX50 wins this round

Mike.

 

[jcmarfilph]

LTZ470 wrote:

Download originals...

SX50 (1200mm EFL)

FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED (1020mm EFL)

 

[SpeedyGonzalys]

mingleby wrote:

Interesting comparison...

I think that the SX50 wins this round

Mike.

Mm, not on my screen, look at originals, than maginify, and look at the cracks between the numbers on the pictures, the FZ are sharper...

amazing...

 

[LTZ470]

jcmarfilph wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

Download originals...

SX50 (1200mm EFL)

FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED (1020mm EFL)

 

[jcmarfilph]

LTZ470 wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

Download originals...

SX50 (1200mm EFL)

FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED (1020mm EFL)

 

[LTZ470]

jcmarfilph wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

Download originals...

SX50 (1200mm EFL)

FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED (1020mm EFL)

 

[MarioV]

SpeedyGonzalys wrote:

mingleby wrote:

Interesting comparison...

I think that the SX50 wins this round

Mike.

Mm, not on my screen, look at originals, than maginify, and look at the cracks between the numbers on the pictures, the FZ are sharper...

amazing...

Yes, but then, the rest of the field is out of focus on the FZ200. The SX50 has increased focus on the wall and lamp. So it all depends.

For me, the additional add-on lens isnt convenient. This is more a case of Convenient vs Inconvenient.

 

[SpeedyGonzalys]

yes, i did see that, and i think its because of the smaller aperture...

so, its a complement to both camera's.

The FZ does the job with a much higher shuttertime, and sharp picture in the selected Aperture,

and the Canon wins because it creates almost the same IQ, but with much less money involved.

FZ+tube+Tcon is much more expensive than the Canon, so kudo's to both

 

[LTZ470]

MarioV wrote:

SpeedyGonzalys wrote:

mingleby wrote:

Interesting comparison...

I think that the SX50 wins this round

Mike.

Mm, not on my screen, look at originals, than maginify, and look at the cracks between the numbers on the pictures, the FZ are sharper...

amazing...

Yes, but then, the rest of the field is out of focus on the FZ200. The SX50 has increased focus on the wall and lamp. So it all depends.

For me, the additional add-on lens isnt convenient. This is more a case of Convenient vs Inconvenient.

Agreed Mario, it's a double edged sword...that was why I was looking at the SX50 closely, the advantage of carrying the camera alone...

 

[flektogon]

LTZ470 wrote:

1020mm vs 1200mm...180mm advantage SX50...would you like me to shoot the Canon at 840mm then compare the images?...lol...

Haven't gotten out with the two Jomer, as soon as I get out with them we'll see how they really compare...

Even though the focal length is close, they exhibit vastly different DOF, so you can't make any comparisons.

 

[Kevin Omura]

LTZ470 wrote:

MarioV wrote:

SpeedyGonzalys wrote:

mingleby wrote:

Interesting comparison...

I think that the SX50 wins this round

Mike.

Mm, not on my screen, look at originals, than maginify, and look at the cracks between the numbers on the pictures, the FZ are sharper...

amazing...

Yes, but then, the rest of the field is out of focus on the FZ200. The SX50 has increased focus on the wall and lamp. So it all depends.

For me, the additional add-on lens isnt convenient. This is more a case of Convenient vs Inconvenient.

Agreed Mario, it's a double edged sword...that was why I was looking at the SX50 closely, the advantage of carrying the camera alone..

For the cost you could just buy both, would be just under $1000 depending on how much the Canon winds up costing at some of the bigger shops that discount. There is also no way you could replicate these lenses in the DSLR world either or if you could they would be huge and expensive! For example the Sigmonster 300-800 f5.6 on a crop DSLR might come close to the range of the SX50 for $6000.

I like shooting with two cameras most of the time and this is a much smaller and lighter kit than my DSLRs. Hmmmm might not even trigger a divorce....

 

[flektogon]

flektogon wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

1020mm vs 1200mm...180mm advantage SX50...would you like me to shoot the Canon at 840mm then compare the images?...lol...

Haven't gotten out with the two Jomer, as soon as I get out with them we'll see how they really compare...

Even though the focal length is close, they exhibit vastly different DOF, so you can't make any comparisons.

And yes, please reshoot those pictures using the same focal length (maximum of the FZ) and the same f-ratio (minimum of the SX). Then we would be able to make a valid comparison.

 

[LTZ470]

flektogon wrote:

flektogon wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

1020mm vs 1200mm...180mm advantage SX50...would you like me to shoot the Canon at 840mm then compare the images?...lol...

Haven't gotten out with the two Jomer, as soon as I get out with them we'll see how they really compare...

Even though the focal length is close, they exhibit vastly different DOF, so you can't make any comparisons.

And yes, please reshoot those pictures using the same focal length (maximum of the FZ) and the same f-ratio (minimum of the SX). Then we would be able to make a valid comparison.

All the review sites use the sweet spot of the lens, so I think I'll stick with the sweet spots as well...

 

[LTZ470]

Kevin Omura wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

MarioV wrote:

SpeedyGonzalys wrote:

mingleby wrote:

Interesting comparison...

I think that the SX50 wins this round

Mike.

Mm, not on my screen, look at originals, than maginify, and look at the cracks between the numbers on the pictures, the FZ are sharper...

amazing...

Yes, but then, the rest of the field is out of focus on the FZ200. The SX50 has increased focus on the wall and lamp. So it all depends.

For me, the additional add-on lens isnt convenient. This is more a case of Convenient vs Inconvenient.

Agreed Mario, it's a double edged sword...that was why I was looking at the SX50 closely, the advantage of carrying the camera alone..

For the cost you could just buy both, would be just under $1000 depending on how much the Canon winds up costing at some of the bigger shops that discount. There is also no way you could replicate these lenses in the DSLR world either or if you could they would be huge and expensive! For example the Sigmonster 300-800 f5.6 on a crop DSLR might come close to the range of the SX50 for $6000.

I like shooting with two cameras most of the time and this is a much smaller and lighter kit than my DSLRs. Hmmmm might not even trigger a divorce....

Excellent points Kevin, especially the Divorce notation!!!

 

[Condor]

LTZ470,

Thanks so much. I really wanted to see this comparison shots.

Could you do the same with some wildlife subject (which includes domestic cats and dogs).

Another thing is than Ken discovered that for handheld shots of moving subjects (as in real wildlife subjects case) the new Lock feature indeed makes a big diffrence as this detail comparison from Ken's last samples proves:


Detail comparisons of Ken's handheld full zoom shots - SX50 No-Lock vs Lock output

Thanks again.

Ed

 

[Condor]

Ken also proved that Fine vs SF also matters when we talk about more and better details with the SX50 as you can see here (SX40 - SX50 Fine - SX50 SF):


Ken's samples details comparison - SX40 vs SX50 Fine vs SX50SF

Could you tell us if you used Lock and/or SF in your SX50 shot?

Another thing is... Are you using the standard Pana/Oly 1.7x TC or that wonderful but very expensive Nikon unit instead? In which case Could you perform the same comparison but without any TC and SX50 in SF mode and using Lock. I mean handheld shots of really distant subjects.

Ed

 

[Condor]

LTZ470,

Any comments about your experience with the new SX50's Lock feature? That would be highly appreciated coming from you.

The same with Fine vs SuperFine.

Thanks in advance,

Ed

 

[topshot61]

LTZ, your pics, in both Pana, Canon forums are some the best.

I thank you for starting this model comparison thread.

I am using Pana FZ 50 since 2006, and now ,

I intend to order either of FZ 50 or SX 50, after a more informed situation.

As you have started this comparison thread , I seek your help as;

1. please post photos, may be 100% crop at wide 28 mm, portrait - 90/100 mm , mid tele 300/400 mm

and 600 mm ( point is that at all the times no photographer does use 600 mm tele! and one does not buy a Cam, only for Tele)

2. As the max F no. of Sx 50 is 3.4-5.2 in the 28-600 mm range ( after 100mm it is 5.2 as per my thread for F/D fall off for Sx 50, http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3271762) , hence I request that you shoot the pics. with SX 50 at the same shutter speed as the Fz 50 using, for SX 50 ISo 160 ( for wide), ISo 320/400 for tele, so that you more or less get the same shutter speed on both the cameras.

3. pl. use the SF ( 5 bit jpg ) mode to save images in Sx 50, and Large ( 4bit jpg, best) in FZ 50.

All the above will bring out whether the SX 50 image with slower lens, matches up to the FZ 50 images with faster lens, as a complete package.

If you can do the above, then this thread will be a seminal contribution!

Thanks in advance

 

[Stephen Barrett]

SpeedyGonzalys wrote:

Mm, not on my screen, look at originals, than maginify, and look at the cracks between the numbers on the pictures, the FZ are sharper...

amazing...

Comparing FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED vs SX50 for calculated 9% MTF resolution:

• Both cameras have sensor resolution of approx. (4,000 pixels / 6 mm) / 2 = 333 lp per mm.

• The 9% MTF lens resolution of the SX50 @ F/6.5 = approx 1600 / 6.5 = 246 lp per mm

• The 9% MTF lens resolution of the FZ200 + TC @ F/4 = approx 1600 / 4 = 400 lp per mm

So theoretically the lens resolution of FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED is much better than that of the SX50. I don't know if F/2.8 is even better, or is F/4 the "sweet spot"?


Total Resolution
To find the total resolution of the camera, I think the quadratic formula works best for superzooms, although some people insist on using an exponent of 1. Calculating the total resolution:

Squareroot of [ 1 / ( 1 / sensorres^2 + 1 / lensres ^2) ]

• SX50 total resolution @ F/6.5 (approx 9% MTF) = 198 lp per mm

• FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED @ F/4 (approx 9% MTF) = 256 lp per mm

So theoretically, the FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED @ F/4 should beat the resolution of the SX50 @ F/6.5 by a ratio of approximately 1:0.77. One way of looking at it would be that the FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED @ F/4 should be able to resolve details at 100 ft for which the SX50 @ F6.5 requires 77 ft.