Canon SX70 vs SX50 — big differences?

I bought a used SX50 about a year and half ago. I paid $240.00. I see them now for well under $100.00 on eBay.  I don't know why the price dropped so significantly, but unless the SX70 (which I don't own)  is worth almost $500.00 more, I would buy an SX50.

I had the SX50 but have only played around with an SX70. One thing that drove me crazy about the SX50 was the lack of an eye sensor on the EVF. This has been added to the SX70. Also the continuous shooting speed has been increased. Both of these features are important if you are into shooting birds. The digic 8 processor should make a difference also. EVF and LCD resolution is improved on the SX70. Both shoot RAW but I think the SX70 has the newer Canon sRAW option. There was a recent firmware update to the SX70 (unusual move for Canon). Maybe someone will chime in with info. about the update.

Hepatica wrote:

Hello—I have opp to get used SX50 at a very nice price. Was looking at SX70 since I liked its weight and viewfinder better than the SX60. Liked the SX70 a lot based on brief look indoors. Will be shooting birds (zoom) and rare plants (Macro). Seen a lot of middling reviews for the SX 70.

Anyone whose used both 70 and 50 know if substantial differences? Know the 50 is old now but considered better for stills than the 60. How is 50 in dim light?

Looked at Nikon P900 but too heavy for long rugged hikes with binoculars. I’ll always wear my bins.

Thsnks!

I have a 50 and recommend it highly but compared to 2018 technology it's slow.  You should be able make beautiful images with a 50 but I wouldn't recommend it for anything like shooting birds in flight. For shooting anything moving the 70, would be better but a SLR is a much better option.

probably too late to answer this but there is one big difference that I've noticed; the SX50 can take usable pictures and the SX70  and SX60 can't, nor can the Nikon P900 or P1000 or possibly any bridge camera with more than 12MP. I've only owned the SX50 but never seen a picture from the 60 or 70 that I would find acceptable. The SX50 is obsolete in terms of features, but - it's a camera - it can take pictures, the others can't do that.

"probably too late to answer this but there is one big difference that I've noticed; the SX50 can take usable pictures and the SX70 and SX60 can't,...."

Would you say these images below from my SX70 HS are unusable?

Female Mallard Portrait

City Dove Portrait

Peek-a-Boo With Robin

Meerkat On Guard

Cheers.

Avian2016 wrote:

"probably too late to answer this but there is one big difference that I've noticed; the SX50 can take usable pictures and the SX70 and SX60 can't,...."

Would you say these images below from my SX70 HS are unusable?

Cheers.

Thanks, Avian2016. The proof is in your images. The previous poster has shown nothing to prove his assertion.

Your comments are of interest to me. I have found personally some older cameras gave me image files that were more of my taste than newer cameras. After some consideration I surmised the cameras with less pixels created smother, creamier images (my description)  which I preferred.  The rush to add pixels and higher ISO's seems to have had an affect on that.  I must be in the minority, but I feel that way about my SX50. I love the images and sometimes feel the SX40 was good enough too. If I need large prints I use my DSLR.

Congratulations! The last 2 are usable (at that scale) - the first 2 usable images I've seen from that camera so far. (first 2 are not. Second one is way too smeared, not sure why the first one, with similar settings to the last, doesn't cut it.)

I hope my comments haven't offended anyone. It's not a criticism of the photography, just the output the sensor produces. There's a reason phones (with sensors about the same size) have settled around 13MP. Marketing pushes the pixel count up while diffraction and pixel efficiency hold it down. 13MP has evolved as the compromise. I was also quite happy with the output from my 10MP Nikon P80 a decade ago.

What resolution would the SX70 sensor be scaled up to full frame - about 640MP? There's a reason we don't see that.

The first, at original available size, looks like it was drawn with a colouring pencil. It's what I would expect from a budget cellphone (at closer range using a portrait mode).

The fourth one is probably the same but the finer fur detail masks this. However the smearing gives itself away where the hairs go across a background which contains some similar colours. There you find short segments of hair suspended in space.

Again, no criticism of the photography - just the sensor.

Thankyou for your concern about my eyesight. It is now only 20/20 (It used to be a lot better than that). However the worse my eyesight gets the better the SX70 images will appear. I also don't have perfect colour vision, which is another factor in favour of the sensor.

Thank you for your comments whakapu.

Kind regards,
Avian
http://thetzarnaturephotography.mozello.com/

what do I think about those photos? I think they were taken at 800 ISO and look similar to SX70 shots taken at lower ISO.

I should clarify what I mean by "usable". Everything is usable for social media. I want to upload to Flickr at a resolution at least 2000px on the long dimension and look clean, and I like to imagine that one day I will buy printer consumables and do A3 or A4 prints of some of my favourite shots and for those to reward close examination.

Point taken that we shouldn't stop others enjoying their new cameras however I welcome anyone stopping me buying a new camera on the assumption that it will be better in every way. For example I'm grateful to Michael the Maven for exposing some dastardliness Canon has done with the SL3. They removed the hotshoe centre pin to prevent 3rd party flashes working on it. I'd hate to have discovered that after upgrading from my SL1.