Canon SX50 (Page 4): I love my SX50, I only wish they would do something with the self time switch. I spend a lot of time turning it off. It gets hit with my palm, every time I use the...

mel Loc: Jacksonville, Florida

Whyfret1 wrote:

I am camping and met up with a fellow and I am in awe of his Canon SX 50 capabilities. My 650D with a 300mm lens was pathetic in comparison. I'm a newbie so perhaps my perspective is due to naivety. Where I am going with this? I am asking for feedback regarding the SX versus another option. I want the zoom potential but would also like more MP if possible.
Any and all opinions welcomed

I love my SX50, I only wish they would do something with the self time switch. I spend a lot of time turning it off. It gets hit with my palm, every time I use the camera. Does any one else have that problem, and what do you do about it if you do.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Whyfret1 wrote:

I am camping and met up with a fellow and I am in awe of his Canon SX 50 capabilities. My 650D with a 300mm lens was pathetic in comparison. I'm a newbie so perhaps my perspective is due to naivety. Where I am going with this? I am asking for feedback regarding the SX versus another option. I want the zoom potential but would also like more MP if possible.
Any and all opinions welcomed

I've just given my girlfriend a SX50 for her birthday, (she really likes it), and while I admit, it is a very nice little camera, capable of nice shots, it in no way comes close to any DSLR in versatility and capability!

MagicMark

speters wrote:

I've just given my girlfriend a SX50 for her birthday, (she really likes it), and while I admit, it is a very nice little camera, capable of nice shots, it in no way comes close to any DSLR in versatility and capability!

...or image quality either.

:thumbup:

Ugly Jake Loc: Sub-Rural Vermont

speters wrote:

it in no way comes close to any DSLR in versatility and capability!

What versatility do you need it doesn't have? burst , manual focus, . . . I can't think of anything else. Please, don't make statements like this unless you've used the camera. A LOT of people can't afford a $1000 tele; the '50 brings reach to a legion of folks with not much cash!

I can't climb down there . .

But my Canon Sx-30 can take me there!

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

For some reason the Fuji HS 50 seems to get ignored.
f/2.8 - f/11, 30 sec. - 1/4000, 16 MP.
Both ranges beat the SX50.
IQ depends quite a bit on the photographer. I have a long way to go, but check my test for focus

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-141239-1.html

Whatever you get I'm sure you'll be happy!
Cheers, Neil

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

neilds37 wrote:

For some reason the Fuji HS 50 seems to get ignored.
f/2.8 - f/11, 30 sec. - 1/4000, 16 MP.
Both ranges beat the SX50.
IQ depends quite a bit on the photographer. I have a long way to go, but check my test for focus

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-141239-1.html

Whatever you get I'm sure you'll be happy!
Cheers, Neil

The Fuji line is also VERY good and capable. I did not go with Fuji primarily because of the LCD screen, the SX50 is so much more capable in that area and everything I have wanted to shoot with it has come out better than I expected. I do NOT 'knock' the other bridge cameras, they just don't have the capabilities that are important to ME.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

speters wrote:

I've just given my girlfriend a SX50 for her birthday, (she really likes it), and while I admit, it is a very nice little camera, capable of nice shots, it in no way comes close to any DSLR in versatility and capability!

Capability? I guess you bought the 50X 1200mm zoom lens for your DSLR and have a burro to carry it :)

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

jgdean wrote:

This is from my SX50... LOVE IT!

Wow! If you had any more, you'd be ON the moon!
I sure enjoy my SX-50. You can't go wrong with it. A great, portable 'all in one' 'fun' camera!

aginzu

Racmanaz wrote:

You may also want to look into the Panasonic FZ200.It doesn't have the reach the SX50 but the FZ200 has a constant f2.8 troughout it's zoom range. Do you need the 1200mm reach? The Panasonic also has a high resolution EVF (1.3M dot), the SX50 only has a 202,000 dot EVF.

I thought about the FZ200, but the main thing I wanted was to add more telescopic capability to what I already had with my DSLR. The 24x zoom on the FZ200 is only about a 1.5x improvement over what I had with the DSLR (250mm on APS-C = 375mm 35mm equivalent). The SX50 doubles that. If I had only one camera I might choose the FZ200, but as an adjunct to the DSLR the SX50 made more sense.

georgeretired Loc: Manitoba Canada

I see that you have generated several pages of good words on the SX canon camera. I've been shooting with my trusty old 50D but this summer I bought one. It will never replace the camera, lens and gear I have but the convenience and performance is outstanding.
For the low price an excellent back up camera.

georgeretired Loc: Manitoba Canada

I see that you have generated several pages of good words on the SX canon camera. I've been shooting with my trusty old 50D but this summer I bought one. It will never replace the camera, lens and gear I have but the convenience and performance is outstanding.
Attached are a few pictures taken with the SX50 taken in a graveyard in Kenora Ontario Canada. These shots go from fully extended lens to no extension. For the low price an excellent back up camera.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

georgeretired wrote:

I see that you have generated several pages of good words on the SX canon camera. I've been shooting with my trusty old 50D but this summer I bought one. It will never replace the camera, lens and gear I have but the convenience and performance is outstanding.
Attached are a few pictures taken with the SX50 taken in a graveyard in Kenora Ontario Canada. These shots go from fully extended lens to no extension. For the low price an excellent back up camera.

I think you may have forgotten to post the photos, George.

Joe3 Loc: The Villages, Fl

bee7474 wrote:

I have the macro lens that fits the SX50 that works. Bee

Any tips on using the macro lens? I have them and have not tried them as of yet.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

James56 wrote:

Well why not try a Sony....20.2 MP, but don't let ... (show quote)

You're misleading this author and causing unnecessary doubt for him/her. Super zooms do NOT rely on digital zoom for accomplishing the zoom range they are listed as having - which is strictly optical zoom range. Optical zoom is just in-camera cropping to simulate zooming. It isn't a part of the super zoom specification of any bridge camera.

Yes, bridge cameras have a digital zoom feature but that's an option beyond the optical "super" zoom range they are listed as having. The 12X or 20X or 24X or whatever is the optical super zoom of the camera. A 200X digital zoom is just plain stupid because nobody would use such a thing unless it was just for a one-time documenting of something important where quality was not a requirement.

jgdean Loc: NC, USA

marcomarks wrote:

A 200X digital zoom is just plain stupid because nobody would use such a thing unless it was just for a one-time documenting of something important where quality was not a requirement.

I disagree...