Numbers not always translate into facts in a linear way. For large prints, I've found that my Panasonic G3 - 16 megapixels sensor larger than SX50's 12 megas give me the same image quality in large prints. No miracle here: G3 is used with 'kit lens', a so-so do fairly good stuff, SX50 has very good quality lenses.
Best regards.
Oh, I am a survivor myself, and have visible limitations. I personally don't care about some weird or nasty things some few people say about my gait or speech, and certainly know that there is no real evil intentions most of times. Bus as sure as there are persons like MisterWilson, that, BTW, have my admiration, there are many others that take these items differently, in a more sensitive or painful way. Now, this is not their choice. That's the way they are. Al FR-153 has full right to feel about as he does, and also has my admiration about showing it.
Best regards.
For many people the joke may bring laugh, no doubt. But I guess few would rate it polite.
Ok, Ok. jokes aren't supposed to be polite. Nevertheless, it would be nice if they were.
A bit of info that may be useful in choosing SZ40xSX50:
When SX50 is zoomed to 950mm it's f is 5.6, a tad better than SX 40's f5.8 at 840mm. After all, you don't have to use it zoomed to 1200 everytime, do you?
Best regards.
Hi Tarzan - would like to see some photos of the Brazil wild taken with your SX50 - and please put the approximate distant of the photo taken. Thank you. We've already seen the works of the SX40 and they are fantastic including these here - now for the SX50!![/quote]
Sure, prestonphoto! I will be pleased to!
I am a happy user of a SX40, and will receive a SX50 next week. While satisfied with the 40's general performance, as an avid amateur wildlife photographer I have high hopes on the new camera.
Before the SX40 I had a Lumix FZ40, and for long distance shots this Lumix's had no general performance to talk about, just a colonel performance at it's best. (This last paragraph intends to be a joke, eh?)
Ah, surgeons... There must be some lawyer genes in some of them!
The following joke was published in a brittish journal, about 1890.
A surgeon exits the operating room, and meets 2 other surgeons. One of them asks him:
"Say, sport, what operation did you perform?"
"A hundred pounds one."
"Nooo! I mean, what did the patient have?"
"A hundred pounds."
As to why profissional photographers stick to high-end full frame DSLRs, compared to lesser models or superzooms:
1. - They are rain, dust and shock resistant.
2. - Their full frame sensors provide better performance in low light
3. - Their full frame provides better image quality and PP flexibility
4. - Their range of controls is much more extensive
5. - Their speed/accuracy in focusing is much better
6. - They use long-lasting batteries, accessory batteries and 2
memory cards
7. - Tradition?
BTW, in my humble opinion, superzooms are practical tools for amateurs, not 'so good', just fairly so. They are frail, limited in operation and almost 'nothing-proof'. Their chief quality is portability and versatility.
I find that the skills and knowledge I accumulated when hunting are very applicable in nature photography.[/quote]
Surely so! I always reputed the stalking as the best part of big game hunting. Stalking for a wildlife photo has the same taste, if not better.
And we can 'shoot' the game as many times as our skill let us, a bonus, no doubt!
:) I can very clearly see that in UHH I am surrounded by kind and gentle people!
Thank you all for the warm wellcome!
Best regards!
I am an amateur that takes the hobby seriously. Many Sundays are dedicated to taking pictures of specific places, and in these occasions, I carry a Pana G3 with 14/45, 50/200 and 100/300 lenses. This stuff replaced a Nikon D 5000 DSLR and lenses up to 300, with a small but real gain in image quality, and gratitude from my backbone. But even a micro 4/3 with lenses can be cumbersome, so, most of times, I carry a Canon SX40, with a zoom of 35x. For wildlife, at maximum zoom, it's image quality is on a par with G3,- (sounds heretical, I know...) and much more user-friendly. Many shots that would have been lost while changing lenses of the G3 were done because I had the SX40 at hand.
Best regards.
It is more for a bunch of feelings than any objective(no pun intended) reasons. Hunting is forbidden in my country since a decade, so shooting wildlife for me is now bloodless(a partrige in flight is much harder to catch with a camera than with my old faithful Valmet shotgun). I should confess that these days I find somewhat more pleasing to look at the shot(pun intended) critters than to eat them.
To achieve a small and elusive victory over time - to fix situations for a while - is also pleasant. To look at places that, as Heraclitus pointed out - "Panta rei os potamós" - may look like but are no more. For sheer fun. For 'joie de vivre'.
Hello!
I am Tarzan, from the times of John Weissmüller, before he got enough inches in his waist and became Jungle Jim. This implies that I am what can be called, in gentle words, an oldtimer.
Strictly an amateur in photography, my main interest is wildlife.
Thank you all.