# Canon PowerShot SX 60 IS 100x Zoom Mentioned Again [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 29, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16193"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16193">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We continue to receive little bits of information about the upcoming Canon PowerShot SX60 IS. We should be seeing this highly popular superzoom some time in the spring.</p>
<p>The latest we’ve heard is the camera will have a 100x zoom and will have a focal length range of 20-2000mm. This goes along with what most sources have previously said. I’d get one just for the fun of 2000mm!</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## PicaPica (Mar 29, 2014)

you think the 2000mm will be worth it?

what i have seen from extrem superzooms so far it´s maybe fun for a day.

i had a fuji superzoom bridge and it looked just bad at the long end.


----------



## MintChocs (Mar 29, 2014)

It will be good for UFOs or is that dust on the lens


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2014)

I bought a SX50, and it was very good, but I had trouble with the small buttons, and the zoom moved much too fast. hopefully, it will have a touch screen and two speed zoom.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 29, 2014)

MintChocs said:


> It will be good for UFOs or is that dust on the lens



Same thing, right? Also works for distant Blobsquatch sightings.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 29, 2014)

Seriously, though: if the IQ, handling and performance are reasonable for the price, I might get one. This is about as close as I'm going to get to a 1DX+600II+2x tele.


----------



## K13X5C (Mar 29, 2014)

I have the SX50 and can say that an extended focal range, beyond the 24-1200, 50X optical zoom of the SX50, is not one of the improvements that the SX50 replacement needs, as I see it. 
What it is does need is a wider maximum aperture, a cleaner button layout and ideally a larger sensor. I'm not holding my breath for the larger sensor, but surely a bit wider aperture is doable, as f/3.4 on a tiny sensor is quite limiting. It does a great job when scouting local locations because the zoom can pull in good detail from quite a distance and saves me a lot of walking time, but in low light situations, indoors at night for example, it's a tough go. Granted it is a point and shoot camera that is optimized for outdoors, and it is very good at that, and very few P&S are really good indoors, but a little more attention to low-light situations would expand it's uses nicely. It doesn't have to cut into the S120 territory to be more useful. 
The SX50 button layout on the back is frustrating for those with larger hands, and older hands. I've missed shots because the wrong button was accidently brushed against and activated at just the wrong moment. I have DSLRs and other P&Ss and don't have that problem, it's just the SX50.


----------



## LookingThroughMyLens81 (Mar 29, 2014)

I'd go for a Powershot SX60 if it was beefy and built like the old Sony R1 and the Fuji HS bridge cameras. The Canon design is just too small and unsteady in my hands with it's tiny zoom lens. I can hold a regular DSLR just fine but not one of those SX-series cameras since they don't have the heft and bulk.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> i had a fuji superzoom bridge and it looked just bad at the long end.



Check this out. This is a T2i+100-400L+1.4xTC III versus an SX50. These are 100% crops from more than 800 meters away.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

I'm interested in this camera as a lower-cost, wider focal-length range camcorder with an EVF. Camcorders tend to have wide focal length ranges OR EVFs, but not both, and the ones with EVFs start at around twice the likely price of this camera.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 30, 2014)

I must say, that's a pretty good result from the T2i.

I'm really looking forward to getting an SX60HS, having something so compact with such a diverse focal length range is going to be fantastic.
I'm a fanatic for value/cost ratios, and this thing has it out the wazoo (if it actually performs as we expect, it's still entirely possible that the last 1,000mm of focal length is going to be there just for marketing).


----------



## 2n10 (Mar 30, 2014)

I have the SX50HS and it has quite surprising IQ. If the SX60 has comparable IQ it is definitely a camera I would have my eye on. It would be very interesting to see what the min and max apertures are.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 30, 2014)

I'd get it for those occasions when I want to spot a distant bird ... and for the fun of having a 2000mm fov.


----------



## Sanaraken (Mar 30, 2014)

Looks like a fun camera to have for paparazzi.


----------



## Stig (Mar 30, 2014)

ok, 2000mm got my attention, but I don't know much about these cameras... so, a question to someone who does...

how would a picture from SX60 at 2000mm compare to lets say 6D + lets say Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, cropped to the same frame?

thank you


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

Stig said:


> ok, 2000mm got my attention, but I don't know much about these cameras... so, a question to someone who does...
> 
> how would a picture from SX60 at 2000mm compare to lets say 6D + lets say Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, cropped to the same frame?
> 
> thank you



Look a few posts up.


----------



## 100 (Mar 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > i had a fuji superzoom bridge and it looked just bad at the long end.
> ...



A T2i has a 1.6 crop factor so a 100-400L @400mm will get you to 1.6 x 400 = 640mm.
Combine that with the 1.4x TCIII and you get 640 x 1.4 = 896mm
No where near 1200mm so these 2 photos cant both be 100% crops @1200mm equivalent
You need another 1.4 extender to get to 1200mm with the T2i


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 30, 2014)

100 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > PicaPica said:
> ...



Ithink that's one of the reasons he posted the pics. Price per IQ is too good for the sx50. On the other hand, if IQ and AF speed is very good, (maybe put in the 70d AF tech, then it's compelling to have such a long zoom.


----------



## K13X5C (Mar 30, 2014)

For those considering a SX60, and assuming it is mild upgrade from the SX50, (what else would Canon do ?) you may want to take a look at the links below. They are what convinced me to give the SX50 a try and I'm glad I did. Canon really did a good job with it. Even without the 100X zoom the 50X, 24-1200mm, is very useful. If I'm shooting outside it goes with me, whether I have a DSLR along or not.

If you want a bargain, the SX50 is now $319 at Amazon, the list price is 429 and was selling for no less than 399 up until a few months ago. It is #4 at Amazon in their point & shoot digital camera sales. I'd expect the SX60 to sell at something very close to 430 for a while, or more.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon_sx_50_review.shtml 

http://stokesbirdingblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/red-shouldered-hawk-canon-sx-50-up-close.html 

http://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/?view=md 
SX50 Flickr group


----------



## Stig (Mar 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Stig said:
> 
> 
> > ok, 2000mm got my attention, but I don't know much about these cameras... so, a question to someone who does...
> ...



yes, I have seen that, thank you,

however, as somebody already pointed out, 400*1,4*1,6 is not 1200, also, I think at this point we are talking about an MF only combo, with crop sensor at who knows what ISO (its f11 and 1/1000s)... 

but I also understand that I asked about a camera, that is in the rumor stage, so never mind 

basically though, for a moment it seemed here, that there is no reason for a big white lens (or, to be honest, for me to buy the Tamron 150-600 for my 6D), when you can have 2000mm with IS and AF in pocket size, and that just doesn't sound right, or?

so what is it (and again, I'm sorry if its a stupid question, but I don't know much about superzooms) that's the trade off, slow AF, ISO...? 
And if so, than in good light, with stationary subjects... will the SX beat the cropped picture from an FF DSLR with a 600mm lens, or are the small lenses and small sensors not that good?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

K13X5C said:


> I have the SX50 and can say that an extended focal range, beyond the 24-1200, 50X optical zoom of the SX50, is not one of the improvements that the SX50 replacement needs, as I see it.
> What it is does need is a wider maximum aperture, a cleaner button layout and ideally a larger sensor. I'm not holding my breath for the larger sensor, but surely a bit wider aperture is doable, as f/3.4 on a tiny sensor is quite limiting. It does a great job when scouting local locations because the zoom can pull in good detail from quite a distance and saves me a lot of walking time, but in low light situations, indoors at night for example, it's a tough go. Granted it is a point and shoot camera that is optimized for outdoors, and it is very good at that, and very few P&S are really good indoors, but a little more attention to low-light situations would expand it's uses nicely. It doesn't have to cut into the S120 territory to be more useful.
> The SX50 button layout on the back is frustrating for those with larger hands, and older hands. I've missed shots because the wrong button was accidently brushed against and activated at just the wrong moment. I have DSLRs and other P&Ss and don't have that problem, it's just the SX50.


I find that I am forever accidentally turning on the self timer. Better buttons would be my number one improvement.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

Stig said:


> ok, 2000mm got my attention, but I don't know much about these cameras... so, a question to someone who does...
> 
> how would a picture from SX60 at 2000mm compare to lets say 6D + lets say Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, cropped to the same frame?
> 
> thank you


I would go shoot a comparison between the SX50 and the Tamron....... But we are having a snowstorm here and the visibility is quite poor... 

What I can tell you is that the AF and speed of the SX50 is poor in comparison, but on the other hand, I can't tuck the Tamron into a coat pocket.....


----------



## AlanF (Mar 30, 2014)

Don
You are so right about turning on the self-timer by mistake. The SX50 is a fantastic little camera (I set up thread showing how it could for static photos out-resolve a 100-400 on a 5DIII). But, my wife turns on the self-timer every time so I have just bought her a touch-screen driven Ixus, which is basically foolproof. The little Ixus 310HS performs very well and I have just posted some photos in the City and Street scenes section.

The most important improvement would be to speed up the AF by using dual pixel technology.


----------



## Aperture28 (Mar 30, 2014)

Hi all,

I love Canon superzoom Powershot family, I own S5, SX1, SX40 and SX50. (it's a hobby I keep them all) And I can't wait for SX60. What I would really love is:

1. More zoom enchancements (x60 or more) best would be getting 20mm ultrawide and better (>1200mm) ultrazoom(35mm equivalent) the more the better for me. If 20mm-2000mm is true the better for me. I am wildlife/ornithology fotoamateur as well as astronomy and that zoom would be a cross between camera/camcorder/telescope  

2. Definitively better EVF resolution! This is bothering me since S5 till now.

3. Faster, better picture quality (overall but mostly in lowlight),

4 At least 30frames/s in 1080p 

Points 3. and 4. can be achieved -> sensor enchancements + Digic 6 should do the job.

5. Bring back mount for filters(I know it was not officially there but it was in all cameras including SX40 - I have lots of filters including Circular Polariser which I still use wih SX40 but I can't on SX50 - I do not know why some 'wise' guy took it off from SX50 - bring it back, please)

I do not care about:

1. Better resolution. With this sensor size 12MP is fine for me.
2. RAW as I use CHDK RAW anyway.
3. Printed manual.
4. Build in wi-fi -> can be sorted out by SD wireless card.

It would be great to see a supreme quality ultrazoom similar to SX1 with all SX60 features + extras(better build quality, weather sealing, manual focus/zoom wheel, etc.)

In some distant future I would love to see your x100 zoom patent applied:smileywink: (18mm-1800mm) with 1/2.3" sensor.

Also another product line with super zoom but larger sensor (like 1/1.7" ) and I do not care if this camera would be larger and heavier. I am a big boy - Just bring it on!

Keep up good job Canon. Your fan.


----------



## Stig (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Stig said:
> 
> 
> > ok, 2000mm got my attention, but I don't know much about these cameras... so, a question to someone who does...
> ...



thank you very much, that would be great... and I'll gladly wait for better weather


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

100 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > PicaPica said:
> ...



Yes, they can, and they are. The T2i is 18MP versus the 12MP of the SX50.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Let's do the math. 400mm * 1.414 * 1.62 crop * (5184px/4000px) = 1183mm equivalent.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 30, 2014)

A camera with 100x zoom is intended for entertainment only. Including voyeurs. ??? It can also be useful for men with small dick complex.  Seriously. There could be two different versions: One more wide angle, such as 20-1000mm (equivalent). And another more tele like 35-2000mm (equivalent). Since the maximum aperture of the lens were not darker than F5.6 I could have fun with them. As much as the zoom increases, there is always the desire to be bigger. As for the size of my di-k... : Well I wish it were a little bigger. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> A camera with 100x zoom is intended for entertainment only. Including voyeurs.


Quite true....


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > A camera with 100x zoom is intended for entertainment only. Including voyeurs.
> ...


I'm sure "Robert Capa" would have made the photo of the birds copulating with a 28mm lens.  Do not ask me how it would come so close.


----------



## Marauder (Mar 30, 2014)

I first got my feet wet with digital photography with a cheap little Canon A430 pocket camera. At first, I just used it as basic snapshot camera, then I began to experiment with macro and different modes. This lead me to want "something a little better," so I bought a Canon SX10 superzoom "bridge" camera in 2009. And THAT'S when I began to get more adventurous! Love the SX10 and it lead me on the path to DSLR's--the T3i and then the 7D. 

This is a common path for a "bridge" camera user, as it whets the appetite for more flexibility and control, so it often leads one to wanting to get into a DSLR. Yet I've never lost my affection for the classic Superzoom bridge cameras. I bought a brand new in the box SX50 some months ago, from Kijiji (a sort of Canadian Craigslist), for only $200 all in. 

I must say it's impressive--not a replacement for a DSLR and good lens, but Superzooms give tremendous versatility in a small package. If my primary goal is photography, then my two DSLR's come with me. Usually with a general purpose lens, like the 15-85 or 40mm pancake on the T3i and the 100-400 on my 7D. Under those circumstances I may also have the SX50 and/or Panasonic FZ200 in the car. Sometimes I'll just take one of the SLR's out with me, with one of the Superzoom's along as a "just in case" the lens on the SLR isn't right for a sudden, and unexpected situation. 

An example, if I expect even-odds on both Telephoto and wide-angle shots, then the T3i with general purpose lens and the 7D with 100-400 go with me. This is a heavy and bulky combo though, but worth it if I KNOW I want both wide angle and telephoto. But, if I am primarily after one type of subject, then I choose whichever DSLR fits the primary goal and use one of the Superzooms as a contingency second body. So, if I plan to do some landscape shots, I might take the SX50 or FZ200 as an "emergency" telephoto camera, in case a hawk or animal suddenly springs up where I don't expect it to. It may not be as "good" as the 7D and 100-400, but it beats the 15-85 or the 40! Or, if I am primarily after a telephoto target, I might bring along one of the superzooms as a contingency wide angle camera, to take a shot of an interesting building or vista I didn't expect. It is a lot easier to carry an SLR and superzoom than it is to carry two SLR's! And I've kicked myself often enough for missing a shot for want of the appropriate focal length selection!!!

Another use for the Superzooms is to have a versatile camera with you when you aren't in the mood to haul bulky and equivalent equipment with you. If I'm going for a walk where photography is NOT the primary goal, and I don't feel like lugging a pair of SLR's and their lenses around, I grab one of the Superzooms. I may take few shots, or none at all, but at least I've got a camera with a very useful range of focal lengths with me, in case the singing frog from the Bugs Bunny cartoon makes an unexpected appearance!! : And it can be so liberating to "travel light," yet still have the ability to shoot from wide-angle to super telephoto with one (relatively) small camera. 

I often bring out the Superzooms when I just don't feel like hauling a lot of equipment with me---especially when I'm longing for the simple "good old days" when the old SX10 was my pride and joy--a single body with a 28mm to 560mm reach. It didn't take the same quality of photos I can get with my DSLR's (or as the newer SX50 and FZ200 for that matter!), but it did still take some gorgeous photos. For stationary subjects in good light, it worked very well. I got some great shots of herons with it, and the two new ones have also worked well as "backup" wildlife and landscape cameras. 

I bought the SX10 new in 2009, but both the SX50 and FZ200 I purchased for VERY good prices off Kijij. In addition, I also bought a Fujifilm X10 from Kijiji as well--which has a fast lens and makes a very good low light camera that is compact and easy to take places where I wouldn't want to carry a bulky SLR. It's rather challenging to change cameras and systems (the FZ200 layout is logical, but designed to frustrate a long time Canon user to no end! LOL), but that's part of the "fun" as well. I'm not a pro--I shoot as a hobby and FUN is where it's at for me. I find using different pieces of equipment and deciding which camera is the right tool for the moment at hand is a part of the "fun." I also clearly have a bad case of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) but hey, that's a part of the FUN factor for me too!

Regarding the layout of the SX50, I concur that it's too easy to hit the wrong button. As a matter of fact, it's amazing how much better the old SX10 fits the hand than either the SX50 or the FZ200 do. It's larger than either, and it has a much larger, deeper and more comfortable grip than either, so the new cameras don't have it ALL over the old one. 

I'd like to see a larger camera in the SX60, but I don't think that's likely as there is a strong bias towards compact electronics. I'm quite anxious to see how the SX60 performs when it does arrive. It's not "in the centre of my RADAR" the way the 7D II or the 100-400 II are, but it's still something interesting to me. Superzooms are great as a "bridge" for the novice shooter towards DSLR's--and they can remain compelling and fun tools, even after you've 'graduated!' ;D


----------



## Marauder (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > A camera with 100x zoom is intended for entertainment only. Including voyeurs.
> ...



What an awesome shot Don! And LOL at voyeur! What was used for this shot?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


SX50 handheld at 1200mm.... from a kayak....

It is a very capable toy camera.


----------



## Marauder (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I figured it was the SX50. Beautiful shot! It really is a remarkable camera for the size and for the $$'s!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Anybody could do as Capa did there, stage the shot with no enemy fire for miles, not saying he wasn't a true combat photographer, just that holding that image up as an example is fatally flawed. Unlike the many thousands of close combat images shot nowadays with 16-35mm lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Was that a staged shot?


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Some evidence suggests that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Soldier


----------



## 100 (Mar 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



If we follow your "logic" the original Rebel (6 MP) doesn’t have the same 35 mm equivalent focal length as the T2i (18 MP) because it has 1/3 of the T2i’s megapixels... 
I’m sorry, but megapixels are not a factor in focal length equivalence. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_equivalent_focal_length


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

100 said:


> If we follow your "logic" the original Rebel (6 MP) doesn’t have the same 35 mm equivalent focal length as the T2i (18 MP) because it has 1/3 of the T2i’s megapixels...
> I’m sorry, but megapixels are not a factor in focal length equivalence.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_equivalent_focal_length



Fine. Call it whatever you want. This was the SX50 at 215mm versus the T2i at 560mm. The image scale (angle subtended by each pixel) was very nearly identical between the shots.

Or, if you prefer, this was the T2i at 560mm cropped to match the field of view of the SX50 at 1,200mm equivalent. Same thing.

The point is, the SX50 at the long end held its own against a Canon full-frame L-zoom telephoto used at virtually its maximum resolving power. Not bad for a $450 camera/lens combination with a 50x zoom range.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

100 said:


> I’m sorry, but megapixels are not a factor in focal length equivalence.



But it does factor into the number of pixels on target....

An SX50 puts 4000 pixels across a full image. At it's long end (1200mm equivalent) it puts as many pixels on target as a 12Mpixel FF camera through a 1200mm lens.... or as many pixels on target as a 12Mpixel crop camera with a 750mm (1200/1.6) lens... or as many pixels on target as a 70D with a 548mm (1200/1.6)*(4000/5472).... The extra pixels allows you to crop the image an additional 1.37X to give the same number of pixels on Target.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

The two biggest things about the SX50 that are disappointing are the lens speed, and the viewfinder.

I doubt a wider focal length range will make the lens speed better. Worse is more likely.

The EVF on the SX50 isn't bad, but it isn't great either. It's biggest problem is the optics in front of the microdisplay (the "eyepiece", if you will). The thing suffers from a horrible lack of field flatness making the image of the microdisplay downright blurry in the corners. If you adjust the diopter to get sharp corners, it's blurry in the center. If you compromise, it's somewhat soft all over. I'd love to see better optics and a higher resolution microdisplay. It doesn't have to be bigger or brighter to please me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > I’m sorry, but megapixels are not a factor in focal length equivalence.
> ...



That only works if the smaller pixels are "as good" as the bigger pixels. They never are. In good light the difference is normally small enough to not be a major issue, pretty much any P&S can take fantastic colourful, rich, detailed, and sharp images at 100iso and good daylight. Start to lower the light levels and the smaller pixels always start to show their lesser capabilities.

Look at this link from 2008.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



That's true, but realize that the SX50 was at f/6.5 and the 100-400L was at f/11, which was stopped down due to optical softness. That means the SX50 was at ISO 100 and the T2i was closer to ISO 400 for the same shutter speed (I don't have the original with me so I can't check). This goes a lot way toward equalizing the pixel performance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2014)

Not really. 

The SX50 has a 3.48 crop factor to the APS-C, it has 5.68 crop factor to a ff camera.

For equivalence a 7D and 400mm @ f11 and 400iso should be SX50 115mm @ f3.16 and 115iso.

At these settings, if the pixel level performance is equal, the images will be identical, including diffraction. But that was not my point, in good light they might be, but in anything but good light they will not be.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



70D... 5472 pixels in 22.3mm, or 245.4 pixels per mm....
SX-50.. 4000 pixels in 6.17mm, or 648.3 pixels per mm....

We are not dealing with smaller pixels, we are dealing with pixels having 7 times the area, so we are not only cropping away pixels to have the same number on target, those remaining pixels are also far bigger.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Not really.
> 
> The SX50 has a 3.48 crop factor to the APS-C, it has 5.68 crop factor to a ff camera.
> 
> ...



And my point was just about the optical quality of the lens in the SX50 at the long end.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Sorry, that makes no sense; you are comparing the same number of pixels, that are different sizes! hat means you make an assumption that the different sized pixels are equal, that is a false assumption in most shooting situations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Not really.
> ...



You can only take an image with the SX50 lens with the SX50, you can't compare lenses without using different sensors.

Before I offend everybody in the thread.

Smaller cameras per pixel performance is remarkable, especially in good light. The SX50 style camera makes a lot of sense to me, but it will never come close to the performance of a bigger sensor in less than ideal conditions. 

That is all I was trying to say.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2014)

And all I was answering is what I answered: "i had a fuji superzoom bridge and it looked just bad at the long end." The SX50 does not look bad at the long end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > I’m sorry, but megapixels are not a factor in focal length equivalence.
> ...



That's fine, as long as you keep in mind that smaller pixels need to be enlarged more for matched output, and that additional enlargement has a detrimental impact on IQ. Plus, there's more noise even at base ISO.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



100 percent agreement!

I'd also like to add that the AF of the SX-50 is far worse than any DSLR and there is also an annoying shutter lag... but I re-iterate, for a toy camera it sure works great!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 31, 2014)

A friend of mine had a Sony 15X zoom, and was excited at first. But when Sony launched other models with more zoom he felt inferior and bought a 2.2X teleconverter. It was a teleconverter any brand he curled up in front of the lens hood, and chromatic aberration caused abominable. With the teleconverter the camera angle was equivalent to 1000mm vision, and he was pleased. : But after a while he felt inferior when he saw that there were already cameras with more zoom. :-\

I think those people who purchase a superzoom camera should stay a few years without researching new models and just enjoy your camera. But I gave some advice to my friend: :-X "Never buy a DSLR, or you will be very poor."  Perhaps a psychologist could help you?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2014)

As promised, I took an SX-50 and a 60D with a Tamron 150-600 outside to see how they stacked up against each other for bird photography.

The goal is to place a blue-jay sized object about 40 feet away and to see how much detail the various lenses can resolve.

The last time I tried this was with the SX-50, a 70-200F4IS, and a Sigma 120-400.... on that test the SX-50 won, the 70-200F4IS came in second, and the Sigma 120-400 was a distant third. 

Here are the reduced size originals... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2014)

Here is what an 800 pixel wide crop from each image looks like... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2014)

Here is what the same scene from each image looks like when enlarged to the same size.... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.

In this case, it seems like the Tamron with the teleconverter resolves the most detail, the bare Tamron is second, and the SX-50 comes in last.... but when you consider I paid $300 for the SX-50 on sale and it fits into a coat pocket, it is a surprisingly good performance for such a camera.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 31, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Here is what the same scene from each image looks like when enlarged to the same size.... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.
> In this case, it seems like the Tamron with the teleconverter resolves the most detail, the bare Tamron is second, and the SX-50 comes in last.... but when you consider I paid $300 for the SX-50 on sale and it fits into a coat pocket, it is a surprisingly good performance for such a camera.


Thank you for testing. The Tamron + teleconverter is very impressive. Yes, I have to admit that modest SX50 does a good job, and is unrivaled in convenience.


----------



## Lloyd (Mar 31, 2014)

There is something lacking in the feather detail on all three examples. It makes the bird seem lifeless. Is that bird a
Norwegian Blue?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 31, 2014)

Lloyd said:


> There is something lacking in the feather detail on all three examples. It makes the bird seem lifeless. Is that bird a
> Norwegian Blue?


That is a lifeless extinct bird  ;D


----------



## K-amps (Mar 31, 2014)

Lloyd said:


> There is something lacking in the feather detail on all three examples. It makes the bird seem lifeless. Is that bird a
> Norwegian Blue?



That's just the sensor in the SX50 showing its age...


----------



## Stig (Mar 31, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> As promised, I took an SX-50 and a 60D with a Tamron 150-600 outside to see how they stacked up against each other for bird photography.



Don,

thank you very much!

looks like I might be able to talk myself into, and at least mildly justify the Tamron after all 

then again, this was the 1200mm SX50, not the 2000mm SX60... so I will have to talk myself into the extender as well 
or realize that I really don't need the 600mm... but that wont happen 

btw, also thank you for testing another thing... I believe that I read somewhere, that the Tamron is not compatible with extenders... now, I realize that there wont be any AF, but it seems like it is working otherwise (at least with the 1,4x)


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2014)

Stig said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As promised, I took an SX-50 and a 60D with a Tamron 150-600 outside to see how they stacked up against each other for bird photography.
> ...


The Tamron with the 1.4X extender would not focus in "normal" mode, but it would autofocus in liveview.... but the autofocus speed was very slow.


----------



## fotochastn (Apr 1, 2014)

I have enjoyed this conversation. I hope that all of you who wanted particular improvements over the SX50 sent those ideas to Canon in time to influence the design of the SX60. It would be an awesome camera. For me, the SX50 (and I have owned each of its predecessors) is outstanding. I am not "a pack horse for glass," as I am when using my DSLRs. The camera has descent glass, certainly not as sharp as many of Canon's DSLR lenses, but good enough for general photography. The macro could be improved, but it,too, is an impressive element of an impressive package of capabilities. The video is good enough....Folks, thank you for an interesting hour of reading the posts...I must now go and download the wildflower images that I took with my SX50 and much heavier DSLR...I look forward to the introduction of the SX60 with anticipation.


----------



## photonius (Apr 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Here is what the same scene from each image looks like when enlarged to the same size.... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.
> 
> In this case, it seems like the Tamron with the teleconverter resolves the most detail, the bare Tamron is second, and the SX-50 comes in last.... but when you consider I paid $300 for the SX-50 on sale and it fits into a coat pocket, it is a surprisingly good performance for such a camera.



Nice comparison. I've always been wondering about such comparisons, even just to a Canon 100-400 (before the Tamron came along).
An important aspect - or problem - of the bridge cameras is the small sensor and the aperture (usually 5.6 or even less) at the long end. It means that diffraction is already well into affecting image quality no matter how good the bridge lens is. Rough calculations suggest that at f6.3 or so, a resolution limit of ~ 2Mp is obtained for this sensor size. Thus a bridge camera is not as effective as the equivalent focal length would suggest.


----------



## Stig (Apr 2, 2014)

photonius said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what the same scene from each image looks like when enlarged to the same size.... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.
> ...



uuuh, so more reasoning towards my (obviously G.A.S. driven) wanting a 150-600, grrreat , keep it comming 

btw, since extenders work on the Tamron (well, the 1.4x obviously does), out of curiosity, did anybody try to push it with the 2x?


----------

