Canon sx50 alternative to a zoom lens?

M

mr bill

Messages
492
Edit My Images
Yes
As some of you may have read in another thread ive been looking at longer range zoom lenses for nature and wildlife, after reading some good reviews i decided partly due to budget i'd wait a while and go for sx50hs.
I have to say i was fully expecting to return it as i really wasn't expecting much but have been pleasantly surprised here are some pics, the birds all been taken in shutter priority at the massive 1200mm,the rabbit at 400mm how big and expensive would a lens like that be?:eek:



 
Last edited:
Bird is impressive at that focal length. If I make it on Safari one of these bridge super zooms is definitely on the shopping list.
 
it does make me wonder what the canon 600mm at around £10,000 with half the focal length is going to do that this cant???? are these lenses that great ? or are other options getting better? Yes your not going to get the larger prints but how many people does that matter to?
 
Last edited:
is that worth the price difference and a massive price difference??:wacky: only if your a pro maybe?and you live/work by the Amazon,Africa or some other exotic location and plenty of time on your hands otherwise I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
I was joking. I can see where you are coming from but maybe youre getting carried away, the image comparison between a 600mm L lens and a £350 camera must be quite stark. Stick the 600 on a crop body and it becomes a 960mm then crop the image from there.
 
mr bill said:
it does make me wonder what the canon 600mm at around £10,000 with half the focal length is going to do that this cant???? are these lenses that great ? or are other options getting better? Yes your not going to get the larger prints but how many people does that matter to?
Click to expand...

If you had seen images taken using the lens in question you would not be posting this!

Let me give you a different comparison to help you out. Try comparing a Kia to a Ferrari in a drag race. There would only ever be 1 winner and the same goes for your comparison!

Andy
 
Keebsuk said:
If you had seen images taken using the lens in question you would not be posting this!

Let me give you a different comparison to help you out. Try comparing a Kia to a Ferrari in a drag race. There would only ever be 1 winner and the same goes for your comparison!

Andy
Click to expand...

I think your misunderstanding a little, as I stated i'm still going to buy a longer zoom for my 60d at some point which I wouldn't think of doing if I thought the sx50 was as good, though as its a hobby a £10,000 would never even be a thought.Just saying the sx50 is a very capable piece of kit for £250 even at 1200mm the pics come out crisp and clear, yes certainly the 600mm is a better piece of kit all round but £9,750 worth of difference?:thinking: a photo is a photo after all,if one was blurred and not useable then fair enough but that's far from the case.I think the pics ive taken speak for themselves and i'm still fairly new to photography.
 
Last edited:
I can just see Andy Rouse turning up with one of these because "someone on the net" was saying how good they are :LOL: :wacky: :bonk:
 
WelshNoob said:
I was joking. I can see where you are coming from but maybe youre getting carried away, the image comparison between a 600mm L lens and a £350 camera must be quite stark. Stick the 600 on a crop body and it becomes a 960mm then crop the image from there.
Click to expand...

:LOL: Yes ive no doubt there would be a difference but how much? would love to see a small bird taken with that lens but still doubt i'd think it was worth the enormous price difference:shrug:and don't forget its not really hand holdable so you could only really use it for specific situations.
I do realise a 600mm L is far better, I much prefer using my 70-200l to the sx50 but then theres not quite such a price gap.
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
I think your misunderstanding a little, as I stated i'm still going to buy a longer zoom for my 60d at some point which I wouldn't think of doing if I thought the sx50 was as good, though as its a hobby a £10,000 would never even be a thought.Just saying the sx50 is a very capable piece of kit for £250 even at 1200mm the pics come out crisp and clear, yes certainly the 600mm is a better piece of kit all round but £9,750 worth of difference?:thinking: a photo is a photo after all,if one was blurred and not useable then fair enough but that's far from the case.I think the pics ive taken speak for themselves and i'm still fairly new to photography.
Click to expand...

You obviously have much better eye sight than me Bill if you think they are "crisp & clear" :LOL: but if your happy that's all that matters.
 
Neil B said:
You obviously have much better eye sight than me Bill if you think they are "crisp & clear" :LOL: but if your happy that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

Well i'm not saying they are the best photo's ever taken but its pretty clear what they are unless you have poor eyesite
 
Just been looking on the web at some pics taken with the 600mm L and some I know something like the sx50 wouldn't be capable of but looking at some of the bird pics perched yes they are better as you'd expect but not £9000+ better imho
 
Last edited:
I think you fail to understand the basics here Bill, the people who have mega lenses are either professional and the lens pays for it's self or they have a lot of spare cash.
 
Neil B said:
I think you fail to understand the basics here Bill, the people who have mega lenses are either professional and the lens pays for it's self or they have a lot of spare cash.
Click to expand...

Yes I do realise that I believe I mentioned that earlier:thinking::LOL:just saying you don't need to spend thousands to get great pics for those who might think you do.
 
Yes you are getting a lot of reach for a reasonable price, and a compact package, however it appears the IQ (just looking at these images) is not all that crash hot. For me, even as a hobbyst I would not be happy with them.
I went through this phase (when I wanted reach) of a superzoom camera, then cheaper tele zooms and finaly settled on a good (but relatively expensive lens). I would have saved a lot of money by just buying a good lens straight up (although I did wonder if I was doing the right thing at the time). I do not regret buying good lenses.
 
RichardTaylor said:
Yes you are getting a lot of reach for a reasonable price, and a compact package, however it appears the IQ (just looking at these images) is not all that crash hot. For me, even as a hobbyst I would not be happy with them.
I went through this phase (when I wanted reach) of a superzoom camera, then cheaper tele zooms and finaly settled on a good (but relatively expensive lens). I would have saved a lot of money by just buying a good lens straight up (although I did wonder if I was doing the right thing at the time). I do not regret buying good lenses.
Click to expand...

I agree that's why im saving for a decent lens though I think the iq on the sx50 is pretty good (the subjects clear and detail decent,some may think not? but the subject's are pretty obvious to me and I don't wear glasses) for 1200mm and unless your rich or a pro your not going to get anywhere near that reach for anything near affordable for most people. For value for money its a good bit of kit and even pros have said this.
What zoom do you have out of interest?
 
Last edited:
At the most common print size, you're not going to see much benefit from a mega expensive lens over the results from a superzoom bridge, it's when you start either cropping into images to gain apparent reach that the IQ starts to be a problem! The other major benefit of the superzoom over the SLR/tele combination is the weight... I'm sure I'm not the only person who would baulk at the idea of carrying an SLR & optics to get 1200mm on the off chance they might spot a hare! I'm more than happy to carry my SZ bridge though, even if it only racks out to 720mm.
 
Nod said:
At the most common print size, you're not going to see much benefit from a mega expensive lens over the results from a superzoom bridge, it's when you start either cropping into images to gain apparent reach that the IQ starts to be a problem! The other major benefit of the superzoom over the SLR/tele combination is the weight... I'm sure I'm not the only person who would baulk at the idea of carrying an SLR & optics to get 1200mm on the off chance they might spot a hare! I'm more than happy to carry my SZ bridge though, even if it only racks out to 720mm.
Click to expand...
Thank you :) I really don't see any great differences in IQ between an sx50 and Lenses, as you say if want larger prints and are into cropping etc then obviously you will then, personally I find it hard enough to find time for taking pictures let alone using photo software's so I want the camera to do the work (though I will get into that at a later date) and if I ever wanted prints small or max A4 size would be sufficient for me, I still tend to delete more pictures than I keep due to not being very good but that's down to the user not the camera.All depends on an individual's needs
 
Last edited:
I think you could use this strange idea against any lens, i can take a photo of a butterfly using my phone, does it mean macro lenses are a waste of time :thinking:
 
I just took a couple of pictures one with the sx50 and one with my 70-200 L and was there any great difference? - No, is that strange or fact? plenty of reasons i'd rather use the L but in real world terms they both take good IQ pictures
 
Last edited:
@ Mr Bill.

Re longer lens (ie >200mm)
I have a few (not counting the bridge (P&S) cameras) since owning a DSLR

#1 My first - Not good mechanically or optically, however it is cheap.
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens

#2 It's nice & small and relatively inexpensive. Mechanically and IQ wise not great (especially wide open). It has seen very little use.
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens

#3 This one is OK and not not too heavy or big for a walk around tele zoom.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

#3 This one is good (but a bit big & heavy for a general purpose long walk around tele zoom)
It is my most used lens but not my favourite.
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM


Keep in mind 1/2 decent IQ is not only the lens it is also your camera body, atmospherics, light and the photographers technique.
 
Last edited:
heres an example one taken with the L one with the bridge, don't get me wrong please if had to choose the sx50 would be the first out the door. Overall the slr wins hands down in every respect and to get something near the same IQ it can take several attempts with the bridge,but as I think you can see there's not a world apart difference but there is a difference, I couldn't get the zoom range exact as with the sx50 its electronic one bad point about it.

 
Last edited:
Neil B said:
I think you could use this strange idea against any lens, i can take a photo of a butterfly using my phone, does it mean macro lenses are a waste of time :thinking:
Click to expand...

Taking your butterfly example and translating it to my real life, I recently was sitting in my conservatory when a dragonfly wandered in. I know exactly where the SLRs are and where the macro lens is but rather than go for that combo, I grabbed my baby X-20 (a compact, not even a bridge) and managed to get a couple of shots before it wandered back out. Had I made the SLR choice, I would have been changing lens while it flew off! (The resulting shot is in the Wild and Free area for C&C.) I suppose I could keep the macro lens on rather than the 24-120 but I know full well that if I do that, the next time I need the SLR in a hurry, I'll need something else instead. :bang: Equally, I could leave the SLR on the table but I'd rather not advertise the fact that I have that sort of kit so store it in a cupboard while the bridge and compact live more to hand.

A final note... I took just the compacts and bridge on holiday in June and will be doing the same next week (should be close to landing in a week's time!) unless I decide to take the old DSLR (D70) and an 18-270 zoom instead of the bridge. I've already got thousands of shots (of where we're going) taken on "better" cameras so don't need the extra quality that the D700 or D800 would give me - TBH, having the extra weight available for hand baggage is far more valuable to me these days! I'm not that worried about leaving kit in the car apart from the dangers of high temperatures causing damage (it gets bloody hot in cars in Crete!)
 
Neil B said:
I think you fail to understand the basics here Bill, the people who have mega lenses are either professional and the lens pays for it's self or they have a lot of spare cash.
Click to expand...

Neil, I don't have a lot of spare cash...though I don't drink or smoke so perhaps I do have a little bit more than some ;)

You raised an important point in an earlier post, if someone is happy with the images they are taking then that is all that matters. However when people say "You must be crazy lugging around a large lens like that", don't be surprised if I say "You must be crazy if you think I like that photo you just showed me."

Don't get me wrong, there are people who take amazingly rubbish photos with expensive kit (all the gear no idea, kinda like me), and others who take amazingly good photos with very modest equipment. However the thing that I always find is that the images that are (in my eyes) excellent are almost always done with semi to pro kit. If this wasn't the case all the pro togs would be putting their cameras away in their shirt pockets. Now to some degree it depends on what you like to shoot, at the long end there just isn't any contest.

Superzooms do have their place, they are light and convenient and you will probably have one with you rather than the heavy camera+lens back in your cupboard at home. However these days I try to only take photos that I want to keep, not 1000's of shots that will never get a look at ever again. I want to take my heavy camera and lens with me because I know it will deliver the results I want. I bumped into a pro wildlife photographer a number of years ago and the one thing that stuck in my mind that he said was "Rather take one great photo on an outing than 100's of mediocre ones".

I have had "superzooms" in the past, I also had a Panasonic G1 when they came out and I was happy with the images they took at the time, however I wanted more, but like already said, if you are happy with your images, that is all that counts.

I'll agree that £10K is a bit too steep (effing vertical), however 1/3 of that can get you some lovely glass that you will have long after your Canon SX50 has biodegraded.
 
mr bill said:
I think you can see there's not a world apart difference
Click to expand...

Of course there isn't a huge difference on those tiny images, you could have thrown a photo from an old Nokia N95 in there and not have seen a huge difference when viewing images at that size. Start making comparisons between the full size images as they left the cameras and you'll start seeing quite considerable differences!
 
PMN said:
Of course there isn't a huge difference on those tiny images, you could have thrown a photo from an old Nokia N95 in there and not have seen a huge difference when viewing images at that size. Start making comparisons between the full size images as they left the cameras and you'll start seeing quite considerable differences!
Click to expand...

i think i already made the point that you see bigger differences when you start cropping and enlarging but thats not the point i was making,not everyone wants or needs to do that.
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
it does make me wonder what the canon 600mm at around £10,000 with half the focal length is going to do that this cant????
Click to expand...

Delivering a full frame image circle, allowing more light to pass through the lens, and working with a full frame camera body to enable shots of excellent quality in poor light. That's what is is doing.

With regards to focal lenght, the SX50 lens is actually 215mm...
 
RichardtheSane said:
Delivering a full frame image circle, allowing more light to pass through the lens, and working with a full frame camera body to enable shots of excellent quality in poor light. That's what is is doing.

With regards to focal lenght, the SX50 lens is actually 215mm...
Click to expand...

As already mentioned its really for pro's anyway or the rich but still think it over priced.Though I don't doubt its very good, I think i'd expect it to cook the dinner at that price lol
 
Last edited:
Neil B said:
I can just see Andy Rouse turning up with one of these because "someone on the net" was saying how good they are :LOL: :wacky: :bonk:
Click to expand...

Yes well its rather childish taking the P and though I can appreciate those fantastic pics on your flickr not everyone can afford expensive lenses and or have the time to spend hours waiting which it must have done to get those pics so many have to do the best with what they've got.
I only bought this camera for its focal range as anything above 500mm in lenses becomes unaffordable and unless your making money from your pictures a complete waste of money,there are as in this thread better examples of what this camera can do which don't deserve mocking
 
Last edited:
Mr Bill,

You seem very protective over this camera. You asked if it's better than a £10,000 L lens. Anyone that has said it's not you've tried to start an argument and put them in their place by quoting the price difference and saying its not worth it.

Looks like Canon have dropped one and instead of selling bodies and lenses maybe they should just sell SX50's from now on?
 
WelshNoob said:
Mr Bill,

You seem very protective over this camera. You asked if it's better than a £10,000 L lens. Anyone that has said it's not you've tried to start an argument and put them in their place by quoting the price difference and saying its not worth it.

Looks like Canon have dropped one and instead of selling bodies and lenses maybe they should just sell SX50's from now on?
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I was going to say.

Mr Bill, all you've done through this entire thread is rubbish any point of view anyone's expressed that hasn't said 'wow that camera's amazing and I wasted a stack of money on my posh long lens and DSLR', and frankly it's irritating. If all you're interested in is posting tiny photos on the Internet then it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether you shoot with an SX50, 1DX + 600mm prime or a ten year old Sony Ericsson mobile phone, you really won't see much of a difference. If that's all you want then fine but don't expect those with higher standards or more demanding needs to agree with your apparent opinion that this camera is going to change the world. It won't. And if people do disagree with you then at least have the decency to accept their opinions rather than argue the toss.
 
Last edited:
And the basic point that Mr Bill has been making is that for the average Joe, the superzoom bridge does the job reasonably well. Look back and he's still planning to get a longer lens for his SLR just not a £10,000 one since the SX50 does that job to his satisfaction.
 
I've got the sx50 as my 'glovebox camera' its good, but its no dslr
 
Obviously some have misinterpreted what I've said, thank you Nod as least you read things properly, not sure where I said the sx50 is better than an l lens LOL, it does a good job for the money but am looking for better.I have an L lens, I don't recall saying the sx50 is better i just don't appreciate 1 comment which seemed to be rubbishing what others have,that's arguing ????
 
Last edited:
Anyway enough said what would you guys recommend as a good wildlife lens up to 500mm but not the L
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top