Is a bridge an upgrade from a Rebel D6041 (300)? Folks, this is a repost of part of my "introduction". My title on the intro wasn't very descriptive of my issue. So anyhow an old...

W3KLS Loc: PA USA

Folks, this is a repost of part of my "introduction". My title on the intro wasn't very descriptive of my issue. So anyhow an old Rebel, one of the first I think, is my best piece. Thought about a 70D but that seems a big jump. I'm looking at a Canon SX 50 or 60 or a Sony DSC HX 400V. Any comments would be helpful.
Tnx, Ken

tramsey Loc: Texas

The Canon Powershot SX50HS is a tough camera to beat

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

We would need to know what you like to shoot, since there is no one perfect camera.
Some are better (or worse) than others at certain things.

W3KLS Loc: PA USA

Here's a little background on what I shoot. Most of my shots are nature and either very close like flowers and insects or long range like deer a ways off. Often low light like dawn or dusk. Also do some long exposure star fields. Plus the usual family, etc. shots almost any camera could handle. No extreme enlargements or commercial work. Hope this helps and thanks.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

W3KLS wrote:

Here's a little background on what I shoot. Most of my shots are nature and either very close like flowers and insects or long range like deer a ways off. Often low light like dawn or dusk. Also do some long exposure star fields. Plus the usual family, etc. shots almost any camera could handle. No extreme enlargements or commercial work. Hope this helps and thanks.

Just FYI, I have a Rebel film camera that dates back to 1985 ;)
But for your situation, you might consider spending the money on a variety of lenses, try to find some good used ones. Maybe consider lens adapters. I have seen adapters to adapt the old screw mount lenses and even Nikon lenses to Canon cameras so you should be able to build an arsenal of lenses that will meet your range of shooting. Most of the adapters are really cheap, less than $20. For instance you can get a Vivitar Series 1 lens 70-210 with Macro for about $50 on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-Series-70-210mm-focusing-Minolta/dp/B00AZTB65O it is a Minolta lens but you can get a Minolta to Canon adapter http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Minolta-Rokkor-Digital/dp/B003EB0AY8 for $40. If you are shooting for you own enjoyment and not doing big enlargements the Rebel may be able to handle it. If not, if you upgrade to a 70D or something in between you will need the lenses anyway. Just some thought to help you get the most out of your camera and experience before spending a lot on another body. And if you haven't already got them, a decent tripod and a remote shutter release I think it is the RC-1.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

Go for either one of the cameras you listed. Everyone doesn't need a sack of lenses, just to take some pictures. You won't be disappointed with either.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

W3KLS wrote:

Here's a little background on what I shoot. Most of my shots are nature and either very close like flowers and insects or long range like deer a ways off. Often low light like dawn or dusk. Also do some long exposure star fields. Plus the usual family, etc. shots almost any camera could handle. No extreme enlargements or commercial work. Hope this helps and thanks.

The SX50 doesn't do ultra-long exposures (star fields). And it doesn't love low light.

I wouldn't think of a bridge camera as an "upgrade," but an alternative: an affordable, lightweight way to shoot long-distant critters and birds.

Some UHH'ers use for close-ups too, and have gotten great results.

A bridge camera has an electronic viewfinder, which is not as clear as an SLR's, and is darker. This may or may not be a problem for you.

Another suggestion is to try the camera in your hands. I hated the feel of the Nikon P510, loved the Canon SX50. Having had a Rebel for several years, I think the SX50 just felt more like what I was used to.

And one more thought: the SLR Canon Rebel T series. I have the T3i and it's awesome :)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Michael Hartley wrote:

Go for either one of the cameras you listed. Everyone doesn't need a sack of lenses, just to take some pictures. You won't be disappointed with either.

If the OP wants a camera "just to take some pictures", I completely agree. If on the other hand he wants more, the limitations of a superzoom like the Canon sx50 may or may not fall short. Linda From Maine has had great success with one.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

mwsilvers wrote:

If the OP wants a camera "just to take some pictures", I completely agree. If on the other hand he wants more, the limitations of a superzoom like the Canon sx50 may or may not fall short. Linda From Maine has had great success with one.

Agreed, with the fact, that the SX50, or the Fuji, or the Sony, will do all, 99% of the people need a camera to do.

I got a remote shutter release for mine, just came in the other day, supposedly it will keep the shutter open for 99 minutes, or something. Haven't tried it yet.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Linda From Maine wrote:

A bridge camera has an electronic viewfinder, which is not as clear as an SLR's, and is darker. This may or may not be a problem for you.

Hi Linda - I cannot agree - EVFs are bigger and brighter than OVFs on most DSLRs, and can gain up in low light situations - they can also enlarge for focusing in manual focus mode. Many DSLRs are noted for having small and dim view finders. They also do not cover 100% of the field of view. Modern EVFs provide for great detail - certainly enough for almost any application, and do cover 100% of the view.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

Delderby wrote:

Hi Linda - I cannot agree - EVFs are bigger and brighter than OVFs on most DSLRs, and can gain up in low light situations - they can also enlarge for focusing in manual focus mode. Many DSLRs are noted for having small and dim view finders. They also do not cover 100% of the field of view. Modern EVFs provide for great detail - certainly enough for almost any application, and do cover 100% of the view.

You haven't looked through the electronic view finder on an SX50 then. It sucks. That is the only part of the camera I dislike.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Michael Hartley wrote:

You haven't looked through the electronic view finder on an SX50 then. It sucks. That is the only part of the camera I dislike.

:thumbup:

I got used to it when I was using the SX50 nearly exclusively while following eagle triplets from birth to fledging last summer. But once I got my T3i back out, and started doing landscapes and such, I was so happy for the brightness and clarity of the viewfinder.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Also recommend you look at the Fujifilm S1 (NOT the SX1)
-
I have a Canon 7D, but wanted a generic walk-around with long zoom, light weight, no lenses to change, WiFi, value priced, RAW, and Macro.
-
Looked at the Canon SX60, Nikon's similar, Fujifilm, and others.
You'll NOT get great high-ISO grain rendering in any, and the Fuji met more of my needs than the others - for the best price (I just saw it on Amazon for $329 :shock: :shock: ($30 less than I paid before Christmas :shock: :shock: )

The S1 Macro will focus at 1cm !! :shock:
-
Anyway - - pretty happy with the camera - performs well - jack of all trades, and when you consider I'd have to take a second mortgage on my home to get a 1200mm lens for my 7D (plus a new back to carry it with) - - the S1 is a pretty good deal.
-
I will eventually get either a Tammy 150-600, or Sigma's competing Sport version 150-600 - - for my 7D Mk-I once Sigma finally releases the Sport version (supposedly closer in price to the Tammy) the dust settles and reliable comparisons are available for both of those.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Michael Hartley wrote:

You haven't looked through the electronic view finder on an SX50 then. It sucks. That is the only part of the camera I dislike.

You're right - I haven't - but I've been viewing through my pannies for a long time now at 1.4mpx, and have now forgotten that they are electronic - until I turn the info displays on. Now I read that there are even higher mpx viewfinders! :-) It seems that Canon did the wrong thing with SX50. :-(

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Michael Hartley wrote:

You haven't looked through the electronic view finder on an SX50 then. That is the only part of the camera I dislike.

I rarely use the EVF on My Fuji S1 - - It's so much more convenient to use the large swing-out back-panel display.
I realize that method may be subject to wash-out from bright sun - but I've not run into that yet.
Here are some indoor shots taken with my S1
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-277354-1.html