GeraldW
Veteran Member
At 1200 mm (full zoom) how easy is it to get sharp images hand held?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
SX50HS Question
- Thread starter GeraldW
- Start date
VisionLight
Veteran Member
Assuming "easy" to be the operating word here, there is a recipe for success. And what you leave out of the recipe is just as important as what you put in.
The most important ingredient for all occasions is a liberal amount of light. The more light, the easier to rise to the occasion. But avoid too much heat or moisture in your recipe. Heat causes improper air currents around your mix and too much humidity robs the fineness of texture within. And be careful while preparing not to disturb the mix too much. Stir gently, don't shake. And always, the shortest time you bake your mix, the better.
Follow this recipe and you will easily attain the results you desire.
M
MurryG
Guest
The longest focal length I ever had with my DSLR gear was 450mm and my SX50 at full zopm is easier to get sharp handheld photos using the EVF with good light because of the stabalizer Canon has provided in the SX50. That said with such a small sensor any severe cropping in post processing quickly gives back that advantage.
Murry
Murry
tocar
Senior Member
Technique is the key. Press the shutter button slowly upon exhaling and I usually shoot with both eyes open
Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg
Senior Member
Use the Eye viewfinder, hold your breath during the shoot, set your back to wall or tree to get Stability, squeeze the shutter bottom (don't Press), don't release your finger from the bottom until the shoot are finished.
take care.
take care.
I agree with the other writers here, and I'm adding this perspective.
This is one of the most interesting questions about contemporary cameras. Let's divide 1200 by 50 to get a "roughly real" long-lens grab of 24 times. If you use binoculars, that's the rough equivalent to your binocular power of, say, 8 or 10 times. Your image seems to make you that much closer.
So, is the image at 1200mm clear compared to what? A fantastic consideration, I'm always reminding myself, because there is nothing to compare it to.
My binoculars are really nice bird-watching $400 x10 binocs. Very nice. And my SX50, somewhat to my horror, outperforms them in terms of distance. A few days ago I used the camera to capture a Black-throated Gray Warbler image of a bird singing so far away that my binoculars just couldn't resolve the field marks.
But the camera could.
The picture itself was terrible. But it provided diagnostic identification of the bird.
I used to take pictures using a Spotmatic SLR and Kodachrome II slide film at 25 ASA. Those pictures were so sharp we had to carry bandages. They were beautiful, beautiful pictures. In comparison, my Black-throated Gray Warbler photos the other day were just garbage. Yech!
—Except for one detail: they were impossible pictures.
Of course a tripod helps. Or you can try the 2-second time delay, even hand-held. But in quick bird photos, when the bird is just suddenly there, and won't be there in 2 seconds, the SX50 hand-held is the best there has ever been. Er—it's also the worst, as this technology has never existed, in any practicable terms, before.
I love the camera and I love its reach. The hand-held pictures I've taken at 1200 mm have all been rough, disappointing, and the best I've ever taken.
Not to mention the videos. Birders, take note. :-D
This is one of the most interesting questions about contemporary cameras. Let's divide 1200 by 50 to get a "roughly real" long-lens grab of 24 times. If you use binoculars, that's the rough equivalent to your binocular power of, say, 8 or 10 times. Your image seems to make you that much closer.
So, is the image at 1200mm clear compared to what? A fantastic consideration, I'm always reminding myself, because there is nothing to compare it to.
My binoculars are really nice bird-watching $400 x10 binocs. Very nice. And my SX50, somewhat to my horror, outperforms them in terms of distance. A few days ago I used the camera to capture a Black-throated Gray Warbler image of a bird singing so far away that my binoculars just couldn't resolve the field marks.
But the camera could.
The picture itself was terrible. But it provided diagnostic identification of the bird.
I used to take pictures using a Spotmatic SLR and Kodachrome II slide film at 25 ASA. Those pictures were so sharp we had to carry bandages. They were beautiful, beautiful pictures. In comparison, my Black-throated Gray Warbler photos the other day were just garbage. Yech!
—Except for one detail: they were impossible pictures.
Of course a tripod helps. Or you can try the 2-second time delay, even hand-held. But in quick bird photos, when the bird is just suddenly there, and won't be there in 2 seconds, the SX50 hand-held is the best there has ever been. Er—it's also the worst, as this technology has never existed, in any practicable terms, before.
I love the camera and I love its reach. The hand-held pictures I've taken at 1200 mm have all been rough, disappointing, and the best I've ever taken.
Not to mention the videos. Birders, take note. :-D
Last edited:
Augustin Man
Forum Pro
Hmmm... Just look at these hand held shots, and be warned that I'm a MISERABLE birder and just a hobbyist in shooting:
You can see here breathtaking full zoom birds, even BIF, like those of Stephen Ingraham and others...
All the best,
Augustin
Attachments
Don_Campbell
Senior Member
Yup, some of my worst hand held images ever have been made with my SX50. Although I'd say also that some of my best. The IS on this camera is amazing--especially when considering the reach.
shutter 1/20th of a second; FL = 215mm (1200mm equivalent)
Jpeg compression raised to make DPR to be happier.
I admit that I don't get every 1/20th of a second handheld shot at maximum zoom to be acceptably sharp. I will say that at slow speeds the birds not holding still are at least as often the problem as my hands. I did buy a monopod recently but haven't put it to a lot of use yet.
shutter 1/40th, FL 215mm (1200 mm equivalent)
Of course the dang AF has to be told who to focus on when there are all these branches and leaves around. Pesky trees. (Image cropped a little for composition.)
Don
shutter 1/20th of a second; FL = 215mm (1200mm equivalent)
Jpeg compression raised to make DPR to be happier.
I admit that I don't get every 1/20th of a second handheld shot at maximum zoom to be acceptably sharp. I will say that at slow speeds the birds not holding still are at least as often the problem as my hands. I did buy a monopod recently but haven't put it to a lot of use yet.
shutter 1/40th, FL 215mm (1200 mm equivalent)
Of course the dang AF has to be told who to focus on when there are all these branches and leaves around. Pesky trees. (Image cropped a little for composition.)
Don
GeraldW
Veteran Member
Thanks to all. I think I should have phrased my question better. What I really was asking is: how good is the IS at that focal length. Augustin Man's picture nicely answered that.
I'm currently using a Panasonic FZ150 and it does very well for me, although I'm not a birder. What triggered this post was the purchase of an SX260HS. Images are amazingly good, and the IS works very well. The lens is in the same F# range as the SX50HS, and I'm impressed with how well the camera does in low light. The slow lens is what has kept me from trying the SX50HS; but the SX260HS shows me it's not the issue I thought it would be. With lens speed out of the way, the only remaining question was the effectiveness of the IS at fullzoom. Question answered - thanks.
A 1200 mm lens should be about the equivalent of 24x binoculars. I've used long camera lenses for years instead of carrying binoculars. Jjust divide the equivalent focal length by 50, since 50 mm on a 35 mm camera was considered to be 1:1 compared to the naked eye.
To Augustin Man:
Nice shot. Even at f/6.5 at 215 mm the depth of field is fairly shallow. If that were an f/2.8 lens, you probably wouldn't have had enough depth of field I ran into that with my FZ200 at 108 mm and f/2.8. Having a slow lens isn't all bad from a photographic viewpoint, and it's a lot easier to design, not to mention the size and weight, even with a small sensor.
I'm currently using a Panasonic FZ150 and it does very well for me, although I'm not a birder. What triggered this post was the purchase of an SX260HS. Images are amazingly good, and the IS works very well. The lens is in the same F# range as the SX50HS, and I'm impressed with how well the camera does in low light. The slow lens is what has kept me from trying the SX50HS; but the SX260HS shows me it's not the issue I thought it would be. With lens speed out of the way, the only remaining question was the effectiveness of the IS at fullzoom. Question answered - thanks.
A 1200 mm lens should be about the equivalent of 24x binoculars. I've used long camera lenses for years instead of carrying binoculars. Jjust divide the equivalent focal length by 50, since 50 mm on a 35 mm camera was considered to be 1:1 compared to the naked eye.
To Augustin Man:
Nice shot. Even at f/6.5 at 215 mm the depth of field is fairly shallow. If that were an f/2.8 lens, you probably wouldn't have had enough depth of field I ran into that with my FZ200 at 108 mm and f/2.8. Having a slow lens isn't all bad from a photographic viewpoint, and it's a lot easier to design, not to mention the size and weight, even with a small sensor.
I agree with the above and other comments. When I use this as a birdwatching tool I am getting very good ID features I cant pick up with the binos. However the shot becomes a record shot only. The other I managed to read the numbers on a collared goose which I couldnt do through the binos.
GeraldW
Veteran Member
Instead of binoculars, you'd need a spotting scope to match the magnification of the SX50HS at full zoom.
GeraldW
Veteran Member
Nice shots. Maybe not quite good enough for National Geographic or the Audibon Society; but I'd be more than happy with them.
I have to get one of those. It would share batteries with my G15, and the two would make a terrific pairing for travel.
I have to get one of those. It would share batteries with my G15, and the two would make a terrific pairing for travel.
You have used very much post processing, probably sharpness, haven’t you?
Augustin Man
Forum Pro
I'm a poor photographer and a worse "postprocessor"
! Yes, I pp-ed and trimmed these images, mainly with the "Auto Adjustment" of the Canon ZoomBrowser, that is not at all much, I think... but it's up to you to judge, because here are the SOOCs:
All the best,
Augustin
Don_Campbell
Senior Member
Of course not. The SX50 is a P & S that cost me $400.
I stood next to a couple of nice guys with DSLRs and long lenses taking photos of birds high on a cliff last week. One guy was setup before I arrived. About an hour later the other came along and took about 15 minutes to set up a large, heavy and very impressive tripod and then some more time to get the camera out, put his TC on it and then the long lens and finally its very large hood. By the time he'd gotten this very nice bunch of gear set up and ready to go, a male Peregrine had already appeared, called to his lady friend and then swooped down for a very quick but very dramatic "cuddle." And then he was gone. The second guy looked up and asked if the male had shown up. Yup and my silly little P&S, with about twice the reach but obviously a very much smaller sensor and all the limitations of that and its slow lens, got the photo. Not National Geographic or Audubon Society quality but this second guy had little for his effort that afternoon and I had a photo I never would have expected to get and likely won't have an opportunity to get any time soon, if ever. And I got it with a 1200mm equivalent reach.
The other guy standing next to me had been there for a couple of hours longer than I had. He had a DSLR and a dandy 600mm Canon lens that you can look up in B & H and be shocked by the price. His tripod was also huge and the camera and lens were beautifully balanced, and he seemed quite experienced, so that he could expertly swing it around to get shots I probably couldn't. He also got the "action" because he had been setup already for a couple of hours.
A few minutes after the Peregrine action, I hiked up some switchbacks to the crest of the hill with my 1.5 kg of camera + tripod and the second guy didn't lug his load up for obvious reasons. Could he have? Probably with the appropriate cases and effort but I bet I was up before he got the rig broken down to the point of getting it into his vehicle. To be sure, he had great gear--even nicer than the other fellow and he clearly knows how to use it. But even that nice gear has its limitations.
In short, I have no illusions about what's missing in my choice. I also have some pretty strong understanding of what I get with this amazing camera and the ability to hand hold a photo at 1200mm equivalent lens with a shutter speed of ~1/30th of a second, give or take, under good conditions is one of them. The ability to carry it up a steep trail in short order is another. Trade offs I'm happy with.
Regards,
Don
Augustin Man
Forum Pro
You're right, it's all about the atmospheric conditions. Here you can see the German flag on the rear of the fuselage and also the TC letters on the vertical stabilizer:rava777 wrote:
Hard to believe it picked the registration out on this Air New Zealand Boeing 777-300 (ZK-OKM) at 32000ft!.
In it's favour atmospheric conditions have been very good for these type of shots,here in the UK of late:
Happy shooting,
Augustin
Augustin Man
Forum Pro
If you think the SX50 isn't the best super zoom camera now, please show us samples from better cameras, not words
("it's only words, and words are all I have to take your heart away" ... from SX50 
- Boyzone "Words" )Happy shooting with other cameras,
Augustin
By the way, when I replied a couple of days ago, I should have included the fact that I was talking about photos straight out of the camera—no post processing at all. The original question seemed to be about what might be expected of the camera.
I was remiss in not saying that. There are many really beautiful bird pictures being displayed here and at other web locations showing fantastic results post-processing, especially using RAW and careful work with various photo editing programs. Really, really nice work, for sure.
But if someone buys this camera, sets it to max telephoto, hand-held, and (likely) shoots .jpgs—then he'll get quite variable results. Still very impressive; it's a superb camera.
(For myself, I carry a lightweight tripod because birds move and sing, they preen and they splash, and that takes me straight into videos. The tripod is an asset when birds cooperate; and a quick-release is handy when they don't. Also, I'm guessing Canon will upgrade this camera for 60p videos this fall, as it has recently with the SX280. I also have a Sony HX100v, and 60p (which the Sony has) would be nice for the extremely quick motions of birds. Even so, my Canon SX50 is the camera I use every day now. Highly recommended.)
I was remiss in not saying that. There are many really beautiful bird pictures being displayed here and at other web locations showing fantastic results post-processing, especially using RAW and careful work with various photo editing programs. Really, really nice work, for sure.
But if someone buys this camera, sets it to max telephoto, hand-held, and (likely) shoots .jpgs—then he'll get quite variable results. Still very impressive; it's a superb camera.
(For myself, I carry a lightweight tripod because birds move and sing, they preen and they splash, and that takes me straight into videos. The tripod is an asset when birds cooperate; and a quick-release is handy when they don't. Also, I'm guessing Canon will upgrade this camera for 60p videos this fall, as it has recently with the SX280. I also have a Sony HX100v, and 60p (which the Sony has) would be nice for the extremely quick motions of birds. Even so, my Canon SX50 is the camera I use every day now. Highly recommended.)
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum