Nikon P520 zoom capability: I see a lot of photos from the Canon SX 50 here. I went to by one but was offered a very good price for the Nikon P520 ( less tha half to the SX 50) so I...

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

I see a lot of photos from the Canon SX 50 here. I went to by one but was offered a very good price for the Nikon P520 ( less tha half to the SX 50) so I had to buyit instead. It lacks some features of the Canon but I am satisfied with it. Here is an example of it's zoom capability.

Note the sail boat

The sail boat's occupants

Boat lift

Boat lif wheel

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Looks good! A friend got great bird shots with her earlier model, the 510.

I was interested in how different (and uncomfortable) the Nikon felt to me than the SX50. Are we born a Nikon or Canon user, you think? :)

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Linda From Maine wrote:

Looks good! A friend got great bird shots with her earlier model, the 510.

I was interested in how different (and uncomfortable) the Nikon felt to me than the SX50. Are we born a Nikon or Canon user, you think? :)

I am really a Canon fan, but am O.K. with the Nikon. I got it new for $140. Couldn"t pass up a bargain like that.

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

I enjoy my 510. Are there any updates over the 510? The only thing I wish mine had would be raw shooting. On the other side it forces me to be more spot on with my shots.

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

Pretty impressive...

fhuhman Loc: Jefferson City, MO

My wife bought a P520 about a year ago. IQ simply is not good, wonder if she got a bad copy. Any tips you have would be appreciated. Thanks, Fred

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

I dont understand the IQ thing if you could give some details I may be able to help.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Frosty wrote:

... I got it new for $140. Couldn"t pass up a bargain like that.

Indeed :thumbup:

fhuhman Loc: Jefferson City, MO

Images seem hazy, colors are not accurate, not sharp. Low light is really bad. We just got back from Germany and she won't even show her pics. My Sony HX300 and a350 did great. She shoots mostly on auto, but we have tried different settings without any improvement.

twowindsbear

fhuhman wrote:

Images seem hazy, colors are not accurate, not sharp. Low light is really bad. We just got back from Germany and she won't even show her pics. My Sony HX300 and a350 did great. She shoots mostly on auto, but we have tried different settings without any improvement.

Perhaps start a thread for this question? I've had a P500 for 3 or 4 yrs, now & I keep on learning more things that it will do.

Carolina Wings Loc: Flew from North Carolina to Pennsylvania

Frosty wrote:

I see a lot of photos from the Canon SX 50 here. I went to by one but was offered a very good price for the Nikon P520 ( less tha half to the SX 50) so I had to buyit instead. It lacks some features of the Canon but I am satisfied with it. Here is an example of it's zoom capability.

Looks like it's doing the job for you...and that's all that counts :-D

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

fhuhman wrote:

Images seem hazy, colors are not accurate, not sharp. Low light is really bad. We just got back from Germany and she won't even show her pics. My Sony HX300 and a350 did great. She shoots mostly on auto, but we have tried different settings without any improvement.

Pm sent

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Racin17 wrote:

I enjoy my 510. Are there any updates over the 510? The only thing I wish mine had would be raw shooting. On the other side it forces me to be more spot on with my shots.

Sorry for the delay. I just got back from a trip to Boston and Cape Cod. It rained most of the time.

I don't think there is much or any difference between the 510 and the 520. The 520 has GPS, I'm not sure of the 510. Otherwise I think they are identical.

twowindsbear

Frosty wrote:

Sorry for the delay. I just got back from a trip to Boston and Cape Cod. It rained most of the time.

I don't think there is much or any difference between the 510 and the 520. The 520 has GPS, I'm not sure of the 510. Otherwise I think they are identical.

I have a P500, and I really like it!

I looked, not 'shopped,' at some of the 'newer' P5XX cameras and I was not really that impressed. Of course I didn't take notes about which camera had which functions. One had a 'better' articulating screen, another's screen didn't articulate at all. One may have had a slightly longer focal length zoom range. And one may have had filter threads that would actually work.

I really don't think you'd go very wrong with any of them.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

twowindsbear wrote:

I have a P500, and I really like it!

I looked, not 'shopped,' at some of the 'newer' P5XX cameras and I was not really that impressed. Of course I didn't take notes about which camera had which functions. One had a 'better' articulating screen, another's screen didn't articulate at all. One may have had a slightly longer focal length zoom range. And one may have had filter threads that would actually work.

I really don't think you'd go very wrong with any of them.

I really like mine also. Especially the price I paid for it. Last night I tried out the SX50. I liked the way the zoom worked, much faster than the P520, but the focusing bothere me. It seemed like it was constantly trying to refine it as something and made noises as it did it.