marke1 Loc: Midlothian, VA

I narrowed down my search to these same two cameras a couple of months ago. I was unable to find a Lumix anywhere in my area to actually hold and see how it worked, I am sure it is a great camera. When I found an SX50 (it had just come out) to look at, I was amazed at how good it felt in my hands and the zoom is fantastic. The low light capabilities are more than enough for me, though I am just an amateur photographer. The last photo posted is of my son and a friend at a VCU basketball game. It was taken in a gym with lousy lighting - and taken from more than 100 feet away.

Chihuly exhibit at Virginia Museum


Chihuly neon exhibit at Virginia Museam


VCU basketball game

ggttc Loc: TN

I got the sx 50 as an early Christmas present about a month ago...I like you, was kinda torn between the canon and the FZ...

But the reach of the canon eventually got the best of me...and you can seriously reach out and touch something with that lens.
One thing that impressed me was that the digital zoom actually works!...something I have never seen on bridge before...most digital zooms are simply something to print on the box.

Now I mainly shoot birds and wildlife...your tatses might run differently...

Here a few examples...a little blown out but you will get the idea.

50 optical


100 digital


200 digital

dragoncello

Can't speak to the Lumix, but I bought the SX50 in October for a trip to Italy circumstances were such that I didn't want the weight of an SLR and multiple lenses. It was a bit of a gamble, obviously, but I was very pleased with the results. Full disclosure: I had no intention to try to sell the photos or make large prints, and the SLR would almost certainly have been better under those circumstances. But I put the SX50 to the test and got excellent results both wide angle and full tele, along with some of the canned options that I thought I'd never use like low-light hand held night shots (I think it takes several consecutive shots and merges them to reduce noise on the theory that noise is a random event not likely to be reproduced in the same place in multiple exposures) and in-camera HDR which usually worked ok, even hand held, though the manual said to always use a tripod. (I sometimes helped the camera by leaning against a building, etc.)

Here's an example of the camera's reach, both photos of Siena's city hall, the Palazzo Pubblico taken from the same location on the opposite side of the city's central piazza, the Campo. I took the photos primarily for diagnostic purposes, to see the effect of the lens and whether I could hand hold at 1200mm equivalent. The first photo is at full wide angle. If you look at the tower above the Palazzo, you'll see that there's a grey stone top above the red brickwork. At the point where the stone stops angling outward and begins to rise vertically, there are sculpted wolves projecting from the four corners. They're scarcely visible in the overview, but at full zoom you can actually read the date 1922 sculpted into the base, presumably the year when this modern replacement was installed on the tower, and see that it must have since been at risk of falling so that metal restraints that have been placed on the carving to secure it to the tower. Both are hand held, though for the zoom I used the 2-second delay to prevent camera shake from pressing the shutter.

The third photo is one of those hand-held night shots of the Via Lamberti, a street in the center of Florence. The last two were taken during the day, about 10:30 on a November morning, but in the extremely dark 13th-century Church of San Remigio. The painting is from the late 13th century. Because the church was so dark, I used the hand-held night shot here, too. The camera defaulted to 1600 ISO. Obviously some noise, but under the circumstances surprisingly ok, and needed very little clean up in Lightroom.

One last testimonial for the camera. On another location I was photographing a fresco in an interior with crazy low lighting, some of it from clerestory windows high up on the wall and part of it from tungsten high up in the ceiling. The colors were weirdly orange. There was a fire extinguisher in the corner with a white paper tag on it providing the date of its most recent inspection. I used it to register a custom white balance and photos came out with the white balance pretty much spot on. Kudos to Canon on those grounds, too.

Palazzo Pubblico, Siena




Via Lamberti, Florence


San Remigio, Florence


13th-Century Madonna, San Remigio, Florence

Cathy63 Loc: Saskatchewan, Canada

I have a Lumix fz150. The only complaint I have is the digital view finder is the worst! I have to use the swivel finder instead. But I take all my pictures on it.

DK Loc: SD

Personally, I had the SX40 and now the SX50. You really can't go wrong. I got a good deal on the "50" ordering it through Sam's Club. Best deal I could find,$379.

Photog

I have found very little need for a 50x range (very difficult to keep steady when fully extended) and the quality of the glass at a constnt 2.8 leaves little room for the SX50 in my bag. I have handled both and the feel and more substantial feel of the Lumix was a major plus for me.

As a popularity contest, broad avaibility and lower cost of the SX50 will likely draw much support.

Tarzan Loc: Brazil

My cent - my opinion probably is not 2 cents worth .
I have an SX50, a close friend has an FX200. We often compare our pictures. He is not an outdoors man, and used FZ's max zoom a few times just to see what it coud do.
I am a wildlife and street picture man. The slight diference of image quality goes to Canon, mainly in higher ISO, but is clearly visible only when cropping is applied.
Canon's image stabilizing is very effective. For stationary pictures in maximum zoom (1200mm eq.) I use monopod fewer and fewer times.
FZ is faster in focus and burst.
Can't say a thing about video - never use it.
Best regards.

caknutsen Loc: Seattle, WA

Just when I had my mind made up to go with the FZ200, a whole series of new replies come in.

Canon SX50 appears to be the dominate direction

Thanks again

caknutsen Loc: Seattle, WA

So if your friend said, " do you want to trade cameras?" Would you?

photosarah Loc: East Sussex, UK

Well, I compared both the SX50 and FZ200 before going to the Galapagos Islands. Personally, I think there are very few occasions you would need the further range of the Canon camera, but the f2/8 on the Panasonic is with you for every photo you take, in whatever light and at whatever length. I don't remember what the macro range was on the SX50, but it is 1cm on the FZ200 (if you remember to switch to macro on the lens!). I bought the FZ200 and am super pleased with it. My expensive DSLR plus long lens fell into the sea (ruined) but the FZ200 did a wonderful job and, in fact, I think some of my better pics were taken with it. So here's another opinion to muddle you! Go hold both of them, and see which you like the feel of. And may you take good photos and have fun, whichever one you decide on :o)

ggttc Loc: TN

Again it depends on what you want to do with your camera...Canon sx users are very loyal to the product and so are FZ users...no one wants to admit..."I am such an idiot...bought the wrong camera."

I like the long zoom...there are many intrepid photograpers here that hike thru mud and water and snow and bugs and bears and stuff to get the great shots...(and they are better men and women than I Gunga Din)...my wife is one of those...calls me a wimp and comes back 2 hours later with her hair matted, mud up to her knees and various and assorted insect bites...I prefer to set up a tripod and take the long shots...so the sx 50 is my kind of camera...

Just about what you want to do

caknutsen Loc: Seattle, WA

Ouch!!! On losing the DSLR into the sea. That's kinda why I am looking for a quality bridge, I have a D90 with lenses ranging from 10-20, marcos/primes, to 28-300 I can't bring myself to purchase a more expensive lens given this is a fun hobby of mine.

A. I don't need to pack these all the time

B. I do some pretty wild terrain sometimes and don't really want to damage or destroy that equipment.

I think I will head to the local photo shop and do some hands on with both. The 2.8 is a good point.

caknutsen Loc: Seattle, WA

Hey thanks everyone for your input, word from folks here mean so much more than reading reviews in my mind.

I will let ya know what I end up with.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

The Panasonic has a fixed F/2.8 across the whole zoom range which is of great benefit in low light. The Panasonic uses Leica glass and that's also fabulous. Panasonic also has a clearly superior image stabilization system and their auto-focus system is very fast so you can shoot follow-up shots quickly. I prefer the Panasonic partially for those reasons and partially because I have an FZ30 that has worked flawlessly for six years and the premium glass gives me excellent results every time.

I believe a lummox is a big oaf of a fellow who carries large loads on his shoulders, is slow witted, and doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about anything except basic human functions. This is not the personality of a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 at all, just the opposite in fact!

caknutsen Loc: Seattle, WA

iPad + fat fingers + wrong glasses = lummox

Guilty as charged

Cheers