It could actually be a decent lens. Photo mirror lenses are cats, catadioprtric lenses , which are spherical mirror and lens combinations that have long focal lengths in short bodies. I still have an old Spiritone 500 mm lens that I would use with my film cameras. There was no spherical aberration on it but you had to use a tripod to get the best use out of it. You could get decent pictures out of it, but out of focus points were donuts. Some fine compact astronomical telescopes today are the Cat type. They are usually about f/8 or f/11 on AV. Try one as you may enjoy it or use a new bridge camera such as the Canon SX50 which will give you better pix than you'll ever get with that mirror lens.

Years ago postprocessing was in the darkroom, and it took forever. Now you can do whatever you want with the image afterward and that leads to a tendency to hurry up your images in the field, and not really compose your shot. Of course you can always fix it later. Hah! Then again, photography used to cost a fortune, with film, darkroom, and the printing process, and now its relatively cheap, so which times are better? I love what we had then and I love what we have now better!

It's a tossup! They're both great! I started with Nikon years ago but it got too expensive, and at that time my daughter had taken up photography. Gave her my Nikon equipment and lenses, and bought a little lower cost Canon equipment at the time, and now through the years all I've ended up using is Canon. It could've been the other way around too. Both are great companies and it all depends on what you like and get used to using. I prefer Canon.

Nice photos! Hooray for bridge cameras. Eventually bridge cameras and SLR's are going to combine. The writings on the wall. It'll happen when the manufacturers realize how much money they can make , by making it happen and getting us photographers to buying more cameras.

No tripod. Only image stabilization. Zoom was approximately 50 to 60 X, All handheld. I figured out how to brace the camera and not use the optical finder, which is only decent. The Canon image stabilization is fabulous. I figure I am realizing about 3+ f-stops. That helps a lot with the long zoom ratio. I've taken some shots up to 200 X and have been satisfied with the results. Haven't really checked to see what my shot data ended up and will post later.
Also full servo autofocus with shutter tripping at moment of focus and exposure reading. Metering varies between spot and center weighted.

This is an SX50 shot from about 150 yards away. It was tough even to see in binos.

It's the Great Blue Heron with a nestling

Stokes is right! 1it's a fantastic camera. I get pictures now I couldn't even get before. Here's a few examples.

Great blue heron 200 yards away


Osprey


Cormorants

As I've gotten older, it is a lot easier to carry one camera. Using canon slr's for years in wildlife refuges, A-1's, 10-S, 20-D, 50-D and all the respective lenses and of course the necessary tripod, I bit the bullet And picked up a Canon SX40 and now a Canon SX50HS and haven't looked back. It's made me enjoy photography more now , even that I'm older. I'm not tired carrying heavy equipment after a long day anymore, The camera takes raw also, and the pictures equal previous ones with the SLR. The lens is excellent and the optical zoom of 50 is awesome. The great image stabilization makes it unnecessary to even carry my tripod anymore! I am now one happy fella. Hope this helps.

Both are very good cameras . I have preferred Canon for many years, mostly because of the ergonomics. With my nature photography, I prefer the more intuitive feel of Canon. Some people will say it's what you get used to. As I get older I prefer a lighter camera. In the end it's just really the photographer , not the camera!

I've used after market batteries for years and ever had a problem. I usually the Canon battery in the camera and use the aftermarket as a spare when needed.