gessman Loc: Colorado

BillMN, I know exactly what you're saying. I'm 77 and been diabetic for 40+ years and my eyesight isn't near what it once was. But do you know what, some folks may just be too sot in their ways for this camera and want some cheap instant gratification to go along with it. Anyone who can't find something to like about the SX50 may just need to give it more time and do a little more reading and practice a little more.

I've been thinking that using the SX50 HS, or any other bridge camera for that matter, would be like going bear hunting with a Willow switch but one of my kids got me one for Father's Day and caused me to ask myself what was wrong with him to buy me a tinker toy when he knows I've got other much better, much more expensive cameras that I use including a full frame DSLR that I've been using for four years now.

Well, this past Sunday afternoon I decided to take my tinker toy out and see what it could do. I liked the idea of that 1200X zoom a lot 'cause the longest lens I have is a 400 plus a couple of teleconverters that I really don't like to use and to go along with my age, diminishing eyesight, I also am starting to have some tremors and mobility issues. I thought 1200X aided by then turning on the optical zoom taking it to 2400X might be fun to play with. Below are a few examples that resulted from my outing. The first couple demonstrates just how bad the 12 megapixels really are. It's almost downright disgusting that Canon would sell something like this to people and take their hard earned money like that.

The first couple sort of speak for themselves 'cept I should say that I was within about 30 feet of my subject so I didn't have to zoom much but I'll explain #'s 4, 5, & 6 'cause everything is not obvious. In #4 I set the SX50 on all the wide angle I could get. Although it wasn't a good clear day like we're used to in Colorado, I was at just a little over 10,000 feet elevation and if you'll kinda squint, at about the left 1/3rd mark, you can barely see some smoke rising up out of the forest floor at about where there's some picnic sites between 3/8ths and 1/2 mile from where I was standing, hand-holding the camera, can't see, shaking, and all that. In #5 I turned the camera to portrait mode and zoomed in about half way to get a little closer look at the smoke and I noticed a white object down by the water's edge so I zoomed in a little more, as far as it would go to see what that white thing was which resulted in #6 and you can magnify the image to see that the white spot is a man sittin' on a rock, putting his shoe back on after wading in the water. I can't imagine what anyone would want with an SX50 except that the cost of it is a pretty inexpensive way to reach out and get some images you wouldn't get otherwise.

Would I have preferred to have been aiming my 5D2 at that critter - you bet and I'm gonna do that tomorrow morning as soon as I get a leak in my sprinkler system fixed and get some plants in the ground providing he's still hanging around where I found him.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)




(Download)


(Download)

gessman Loc: Colorado

I need to say one more thing in regard to the quality of these images, I was shooting into the late afternoon sun with my hand up over the end of the lens to keep too much light from entering the lens and diluting the quality of the images but the light still robbed the images of normal color and contrast and made the images much weaker than they should have been. I probably shouldn't even have offered these images as a good example of the capabilities of the camera but they do demonstrate a couple of things that are good. The only image that has been cropped is the wide angle shot showing the area or environment.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

Ditto!

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

If I couldn't do any better than that I couldn't sell them.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

Don't understand your comment! What are you trying to say!

74images Loc: Los Angeles, California

Who said that the SX 50 is a piece of junk, to me it aint, its a good camera, i have used features that are good, the digic 5 processs works good, the higher asa features over 1600 work, the long zoom is fairly good, the swivel led is good, mainly if your doing a selfy, i know the sensors are small, & it doesnt give really sharp photos like the D.S.L.R.'S, the reason i got it because it had a flash shoe for a powerful flash like the sunpack A3000 i bought, & i had a $700.00 budget to work with, + i had to buy a case, & a digital flash card (16 gig) with whatever was left over with.

So hell... i'm happy on what i got, when my bread is better i'm getting a D.S.L.R., which will be a nikon.

74images

74images Loc: Los Angeles, California

Dont want a i phone, no need for it!

Murray Loc: New Westminster

Ow! Ease up on the hollering....I need a couple of aspirin. I also understand the SX-50 to be pretty good.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

I downloaded and took a look at some of the pictures (3) you posted, and I agree they aren't all that good, but they also all show that you have reworked them in Photoshop Elements. Two say in the EXIF info, that they were processed in Elements 2.0 and the third says it was Elements 12. It might be helpful and make a better point if you were to post copies that you haven't modified so we can see what they look like right out of the camera. I have seen many examples of pictures taken by others that even with no work on them look very good. Maybe it is the particular camera you have or a lack of familiarity with it. The SX50 is a fine camera and is capable of taking very good pictures.