HighSierra wrote:
Like the title says. How much would it cost to get the same range in lenses for a DSLR as the 65X zoom on the SX60HS.
Lets assume same minimum and maximum apertures and IQ, if that's possible.
I've been thinking about purchasing a DSLR but hate to give up that range.
There is no comparison IMO. Particularly if you throw in the built in teleconverter of the SX60 which doubles the effective range at the long end. Even more so if you add the inexpensive Raynox adapter at the short end. There is no real apples to apples system in the DSLR or equivalent system choices.
You will need several lenses to cover the SX60's range but each individual lens will have some improvements over the full zoom of the SX60. While the one size fits all concept works well for the superzoom, there are weak spots in its system where it becomes a generally very nice camera but not an outstanding camera. Buying by the individual lens you can buy a very good lens, say, a macro lens, with superior specs and overall superior resolution. The minimum I see for that comparison is about about $1k with, say, a SL1 body and one of the many macro lenses available. At that price you have one lens.
In a recent thread elsewhere on the forum I was challenged in my math by someone telling me their $400 macro lens was "worth every penny" of its cost. But that one macro lens couldn't back off five feet and still fill the frame as can the SX60 with a bit of zoom. I can easily pull far away objects close to fill the frame and place as many usable pixels on the subject as possible without sacrificing much in the way of resolution. To do the same with a DSLR body would mean yet another lens. There, in that broad midrange of possible choices, an owner could select from any of a number of lenses from primes to zooms and from moderately good to phenomenally great. The body can go from a SL1 with its APS-C sensor size to a full frame or better still. The DSLR owner could choose from brand name only lenses or go with a third party brand to possibly save some money. In the middle of its range is where I feel the SX60 lens is at its weakest. Buying a good interchangeable lens here wouldn't be difficult but would probably add another several hundred (the choices include both grey market goods and pre-owned options) to one thousand (or more) if the user didn't want to compromise or wanted a more extended range lens.
From there the issues become more difficult to predict since, why would any one with an interchangeable lens system buy a moderately good lens? "Moderately good" though is what I feel you get with the superzooms in their middle range. Not terrible by any means but also not great by most modern day standards. If you simply input "Canon 600mm lens" into Google, you will see lenses going from approximately $1k to $15k. Lower f stop ratings so more light gathering and better DOF control come with any of those lenses. Better glass for sure with fewer problems to be corrected by software. The SX60 lens works because it is purpose built to the SX60 sensor and the SX60 processor corrects for many of the distortions of the SX60 lens at all focal lengths. From there, what you want in a long focal length lens can rather easily be accomplished by a very good medium range lens and cropping. With the higher quality camera body and the faster lens, noise will be minimized in the DSLR system allowing for more cropping before loosing resolution.
I would say, don't fool yourself into thinking Canon has produced some sort of laws of physics rule breaking system with their superzoom cameras. IMO a large part of the success of the superzoom category in general is the camera's processor ability to make the best of the single lens with all of its issues and not have to deal with the dozens and dozens of choices an interchangeable lens system would present. Do some research in in-camera lens corrections to see just how much the digital circuitry of any camera has to do with the image quality. In the end, you get what you pay for in almost every case you can make for a comparison. A $500 camera simply is not going to better a $2k rig. The differences may be slight for most people and certainly the better photographer is far more important than the better camera - as you can see by viewing some SX40/50/60 sample shots - but, if you are the type who wants to never say their gear is at fault or holding them back, then you realize the gear can't be compromised in the first place.
Any zoom lens is a compromise from the get go. Not that long ago, when 10X zooms were first becoming available, they were the limit of acceptability for the "serious" shooter. I never carried more than a 3-4X zoom to keep the lens issues at bay. Now, with the current superzooms, we are talking about 50X plus?! To think that is a simple thing is to also think your Civic Si really is capable of beating the Ferrari in all out performance.
Any camera lens system is a compromise and the most successful shooters are those, IMO, who learn to work to the advantage of the system and avoid the weaknesses of the system. However, going in thinking there are no weaknesses is likely to get you nowhere fast.
*
"Don't get me wrong. The Canon SX 50 HS does not produce the same quality images that DSLR cameras do and you should consider purchasing these if you want high quality images. I really like my Canon 1D Mark IV (shown here) and I have gotten incredible photos with it ... I now use use the Canon 1D X or my new Canon 7D Mark II with a Canon 300mm IS lens and 1.4 teleconverter, or my Canon 500mm IS lens with 1.4 teleconverter, Gitzo 1325 Carbon Fiber Tripod and Whimberley head. The Canon SX 50 is not in the same league with the big, professional, or near professional DSLR equipment. Then again, it costs around $430 vs. the Canon 1D Mark IV originally cost around $5,000"; http://stokesbirdingblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/canon-sx-50-hs-for-bird-photography-i.html
https://kenn3d.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/sx50-beats-all-my-dslrs/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kuFN8RWer8
If you are considering a purchase, I would suggest you first define the task at hand; what will you be doing with the camera? Do you need a jack of all trades and are willing to sacrifice the absolute quality of the far more expensive and complex system to achieve flexibility?
Then define your budget and how quickly you could afford to step into the higher quality system piece by piece. As you can see, the superzoom can replace several $kkkkk worth of equipment IF you realize what you are giving up and what you are gaining. It's rather easy to carry one compact camera rather than a large and heavy bag full of gear. And making the most of a minimalist approach is a great exercise in photographic freedom akin to carrying an interchangeable lens system but with only one prime lens. To be successful, the best photographers will take the extra moment to think more deeply about what they are intent on achieving with either system.
Finally, assess your own nature. Are you content with giving it the best you have an accepting those results? If not, then there are going to be many instances where a $500 system betrays its ultimate cost to the photographer. Is what you have said with the image more important than how sharp, clear and clean the image appears? Today's cameras allow everyone to be an accomplished shooter when it comes to capturing an image. It is only those few who think about what they are about to do who will, IMO, come away with remarkable shots with even the simplest of gear.
*
For approximately twice the cost of the SX60, you could own the current version of the Fuji X100 series; http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100.htm and http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-review-a-camera-walks-into-a-bar/
It is, by all accounts a ground breaking camera system with few peers anywhere near its selling price. A camera that provides an experience in use rather than just another photograph. It is, however, one fixed lens which will not achieve the reach or total flexibility of the SX60. Which camera would you rather own?
