The Remarkable Canon SX50: Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 camera. It is a remarkable camera considering its size and cost. However, as a nature photographer...

LittleRed

Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 camera. It is a remarkable camera considering its size and cost. However, as a nature photographer (primarily flying critters i.e. birds, butterflies, dragonflies) I have found that it has it limitations. First the lag time on the shutter is frustrating when chasing after an active subject (the use of the burst method is quite good, however when you take 500 or more pics a day if you use this method you could end up with 5000 pics to scan at the end of the day [500 shot as 10 pics per burst] A week like that and you'd be ready for the loony bin). Secondly, the maximum F stop is F-8, which is quite low and messes up and restricts your DOF, especially when taking pics of butterflies etc. Thirdly, sadly its a pig on batteries. When in the field you need to be always ready to take a quick shot when the occasion arises. Thusly, you camera must be active under full power i.e. the lens in the proper zoom setting, the IS on etc. With this little beast that means it is draining the battery constantly. I do not use the LCD screen for taking pics and still I can go through 2 to 3 batteries in one full day of shooting. I usually carry 4 with me all the time when using it. So, even though I think that this little gem is quite the remarkable camera in its own right I don't think that it will at this stage of my life replace my DSLR. I use a Canon T5i (back-up T2i) coupled with either a 300 prime (+1.4 TC) or a 100-400 tele to do most of my work in the field. It is quick to focus, no lag time on the shutter and even though it doesn't have the reach of the 1200mm equiv of the SX50 it gives me more than I want in quality.
But in retrospect considering what I paid for the SX50 ($379) and the fact that is an easy camera to carry and use I think it is really a remarkable unit. The IQ is quite good throughout the optical zoom range (digital is not all that bad either). For a stationary bird like a egret or a butterfly sitting on a flower it does an excellent job. However, for a small bird such as a warbler darting through the trees it does not fit the bill.
I've attached some photo's I took today while sitting on my patio sipping a single malt to illustrate what I think is the goodness of the IQ of the camera. All the pics were taken at maximum zoom (1200mm equiv) in bright sunshine (at last ;-)) All are jpegs straight out of the camea with NO PP done whatsoever. The gull and flower were cropped to fill most the frame but the butterflies are completely as is, i.e. no cropping.

Ring-billed Gull taken on my neighbors roof top 300 feet away

Yellow Day-Lily taken from across the yard 40 feet away

Viceroy Butterfly taken on neighbors lilac tree 15 feet away

Canadian Tiger Swallowtail butterfly taken on neighbors lilac tree at 15 feet

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

LittleRed wrote:

Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 camera. It is a remarkable camera considering its size and cost. However, as a nature photographer (primarily flying critters i.e. birds, butterflies, dragonflies) I have found that it has it limitations. First the lag time on the shutter is frustrating when chasing after an active subject (the use of the burst method is quite good, however when you take 500 or more pics a day if you use this method you could end up with 5000 pics to scan at the end of the day [500 shot as 10 pics per burst] A week like that and you'd be ready for the loony bin). Secondly, the maximum F stop is F-8, which is quite low and messes up and restricts your DOF, especially when taking pics of butterflies etc. Thirdly, sadly its a pig on batteries. When in the field you need to be always ready to take a quick shot when the occasion arises. Thusly, you camera must be active under full power i.e. the lens in the proper zoom setting, the IS on etc. With this little beast that means it is draining the battery constantly. I do not use the LCD screen for taking pics and still I can go through 2 to 3 batteries in one full day of shooting. I usually carry 4 with me all the time when using it. So, even though I think that this little gem is quite the remarkable camera in its own right I don't think that it will at this stage of my life replace my DSLR. I use a Canon T5i (back-up T2i) coupled with either a 300 prime (+1.4 TC) or a 100-400 tele to do most of my work in the field. It is quick to focus, no lag time on the shutter and even though it doesn't have the reach of the 1200mm equiv of the SX50 it gives me more than I want in quality.
But in retrospect considering what I paid for the SX50 ($379) and the fact that is an easy camera to carry and use I think it is really a remarkable unit. The IQ is quite good throughout the optical zoom range (digital is not all that bad either). For a stationary bird like a egret or a butterfly sitting on a flower it does an excellent job. However, for a small bird such as a warbler darting through the trees it does not fit the bill.
I've attached some photo's I took today while sitting on my patio sipping a single malt to illustrate what I think is the goodness of the IQ of the camera. All the pics were taken at maximum zoom (1200mm equiv) in bright sunshine (at last ;-)) All are jpegs straight out of the camea with NO PP done whatsoever. The gull and flower were cropped to fill most the frame but the butterflies are completely as is, i.e. no cropping.

Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 ... (show quote)

Hi there from a fellow SX50 owner. I just got mine about 13 days ago and have been putting it through its paces to see what it will and will not do. I purchased mine as a smaller camera with a long zoom to take to the Arctic with me in September. My normal camera is my Nikon D5200 which I dearly love. However, it will not always be practical during some of the legs of my trip.
I read your post with great interest and agree with you COMPLETELY on ALL the points you made. It does have shortcomings, but it will definitely do what I need it to do - namely shoot pictures of mostly (I hope!) stationary subjects at great distance in good light. I will definitely use my D5200 with its 55-300 zoom whenever possible and practical.
The SX50 is a great little camera for my purposes.

LittleRed

MadMikeOne wrote:

Hi there from a fellow SX50 owner. I just got mine... (show quote)

Tis nice to hear from a fellow SX50 user. This little job should do all you want on your trip to the cool north. (tis cool even in Sept, been there, done that). If your using the max zoom quite a bit make sure you have a tripod or a mono. I use the mono most of the time when using it in the field with the zoom.

Ron J.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

LittleRed wrote:

Tis nice to hear from a fellow SX50 user. This little job should do all you want on your trip to the cool north. (tis cool even in Sept, been there, done that). If your using the max zoom quite a bit make sure you have a tripod or a mono. I use the mono most of the time when using it in the field with the zoom.

Ron J.

Thanks for the suggestion on the tripod. Unfortunately that will be tough to do a lot of the time. I hope to use the SX50 a lot while we are in the Zodiaks going from ship to shore. Now there's a picture for you- setting up and using a tripod in a moving Zodiak. I laughed when I visualized that. I do plan to try to use a mono, though. I'll practice here at home and see if I can get the hang of it.
Yesterday, I took lots of shots at long distances - mostly of swans very far away. I was using a custom setting, Tv mode, and Auto. When I viewed the images on the LCD at the end of the day, many (but not all) of my swan shots were what I can only describe as "green all over". I downloaded them and will take a good hard look at the properties in the photo files. I am betting that all of the "green all over" shots were shot in Tv and/or C1 and I somehow messed up the WB. I am hoping that it was operator error and not machine malfunction. If I can't figure it out, there will be a new topic started tomorrow along the lines of "Alien Green Swans Found - HELP!!". Wish me luck on that one.
Mike

FrumCA

MadMikeOne wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion on the tripod. Unfortuna... (show quote)

HaHa. I will be interested to hear if you did discover a new species of swans!!!

aginzu

I agree fully with these comments. One additional limitation is that the camera does not work as well in reduced lighting conditions because the sensor gets very noisy if the ISO is increased above about 400.

That being said, I love the camera! I took it and my D5100 (with an 18-250 lens) on a trip to the Antarctic earlier this year and ended up using the SX50 for most of the wildlife photos due to it's zoom reach and portability. All the pictures I took with it were handheld and most turned out great, even at full zoom. The image stabilization works very well. I used the D5100 in low light situations or where DOF control was critical.

I think that the SX50 is an excellent alternative to purchasing a long telephoto for a DSLR. It's much more portable yet is capable of getting great results.

Hunter Lou 1947 Loc: Minnesota

LittleRed wrote:

Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 camera. It is a remarkable camera considering its size and cost. However, as a nature photographer (primarily flying critters i.e. birds, butterflies, dragonflies) I have found that it has it limitations. First the lag time on the shutter is frustrating when chasing after an active subject (the use of the burst method is quite good, however when you take 500 or more pics a day if you use this method you could end up with 5000 pics to scan at the end of the day [500 shot as 10 pics per burst] A week like that and you'd be ready for the loony bin). Secondly, the maximum F stop is F-8, which is quite low and messes up and restricts your DOF, especially when taking pics of butterflies etc. Thirdly, sadly its a pig on batteries. When in the field you need to be always ready to take a quick shot when the occasion arises. Thusly, you camera must be active under full power i.e. the lens in the proper zoom setting, the IS on etc. With this little beast that means it is draining the battery constantly. I do not use the LCD screen for taking pics and still I can go through 2 to 3 batteries in one full day of shooting. I usually carry 4 with me all the time when using it. So, even though I think that this little gem is quite the remarkable camera in its own right I don't think that it will at this stage of my life replace my DSLR. I use a Canon T5i (back-up T2i) coupled with either a 300 prime (+1.4 TC) or a 100-400 tele to do most of my work in the field. It is quick to focus, no lag time on the shutter and even though it doesn't have the reach of the 1200mm equiv of the SX50 it gives me more than I want in quality.
But in retrospect considering what I paid for the SX50 ($379) and the fact that is an easy camera to carry and use I think it is really a remarkable unit. The IQ is quite good throughout the optical zoom range (digital is not all that bad either). For a stationary bird like a egret or a butterfly sitting on a flower it does an excellent job. However, for a small bird such as a warbler darting through the trees it does not fit the bill.
I've attached some photo's I took today while sitting on my patio sipping a single malt to illustrate what I think is the goodness of the IQ of the camera. All the pics were taken at maximum zoom (1200mm equiv) in bright sunshine (at last ;-)) All are jpegs straight out of the camea with NO PP done whatsoever. The gull and flower were cropped to fill most the frame but the butterflies are completely as is, i.e. no cropping.

Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 ... (show quote)

Yes, it's a great back up camera. I've taken well over three thousand shots with the one I have and I've come to the conclusion I will be stepping up to a DSL. I've lost too many good shots and I don't want to continue this way. I need a camera with a faster shutter. I know I'm going to spend big bucks but when you loose a lot of good shots you soon realize for your time and effort you need a bigger camera.

hb3 Loc: Texas

LittleRed wrote:

Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 camera. It is a remarkable camera considering its size and cost. However, as a nature photographer (primarily flying critters i.e. birds, butterflies, dragonflies) I have found that it has it limitations. First the lag time on the shutter is frustrating when chasing after an active subject (the use of the burst method is quite good, however when you take 500 or more pics a day if you use this method you could end up with 5000 pics to scan at the end of the day [500 shot as 10 pics per burst] A week like that and you'd be ready for the loony bin). Secondly, the maximum F stop is F-8, which is quite low and messes up and restricts your DOF, especially when taking pics of butterflies etc. Thirdly, sadly its a pig on batteries. When in the field you need to be always ready to take a quick shot when the occasion arises. Thusly, you camera must be active under full power i.e. the lens in the proper zoom setting, the IS on etc. With this little beast that means it is draining the battery constantly. I do not use the LCD screen for taking pics and still I can go through 2 to 3 batteries in one full day of shooting. I usually carry 4 with me all the time when using it. So, even though I think that this little gem is quite the remarkable camera in its own right I don't think that it will at this stage of my life replace my DSLR. I use a Canon T5i (back-up T2i) coupled with either a 300 prime (+1.4 TC) or a 100-400 tele to do most of my work in the field. It is quick to focus, no lag time on the shutter and even though it doesn't have the reach of the 1200mm equiv of the SX50 it gives me more than I want in quality.
But in retrospect considering what I paid for the SX50 ($379) and the fact that is an easy camera to carry and use I think it is really a remarkable unit. The IQ is quite good throughout the optical zoom range (digital is not all that bad either). For a stationary bird like a egret or a butterfly sitting on a flower it does an excellent job. However, for a small bird such as a warbler darting through the trees it does not fit the bill.
I've attached some photo's I took today while sitting on my patio sipping a single malt to illustrate what I think is the goodness of the IQ of the camera. All the pics were taken at maximum zoom (1200mm equiv) in bright sunshine (at last ;-)) All are jpegs straight out of the camea with NO PP done whatsoever. The gull and flower were cropped to fill most the frame but the butterflies are completely as is, i.e. no cropping.

Am sitting on my patio playing with my Canon SX50 ... (show quote)

Agree with what you say....the SX 50's redeeming quality is it's reach as it is with many of 50's current competitors in terms of reach. Other than reach and price, the long zoom bridge cameras are inferior in all other regards to DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras....as they often say, one gets what one pays for; however, the added bonus many of the bridge cameras is the additional reach....

moose19

just pick mind up today, glad to heard the good report on it