Bridge camera or new lens(2nd hand)?

WilsonWan

WilsonWan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
55
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just started getting into wildlife and since my 70-200 will not be able to do any close up so i figure it'll be a good idea to invest.

I have my eyes on the canon sx50 hs due to its 1200mm zoom but i don't think this will be a long term investment. I also have my eyes on a sigma 50-500mm(2nd for £500) and maybe if I pair up a 2x converter with it.

Which one will be a better option? I won't be buying these until end of this year so I'm not in a hurry at all.

Cheers
 
Having come from a bridge camera, i find i do miss the mega zoom. However I found I kept pushing the limits hence the move to DSLR.
The ultra zoom will get the picture but if you've been using a 70-200mm I think you'll stat to miss the quality. The bridge will be good in good light but they start to get noisy in cloud etc. Also if you do get a good image the quality may not be there to enlarge it or crop in.
If you were a newbie i'd probably say try it as you'll get a good around lens before committing to DSLR, but I think you may end up frustrated with the results!
 
Hi there, does anyone know how the Cannon sx50 manages a macro distance of less than a centimetre? It doesn't strike me as physically possible.

cheers

Thom
 
The bridge camera, while good, does not have a 1200mm lens.

It actually has a 4.3-215mm lens. The camera has a much smaller sensor which makes it the the so called equivalent of a 1200mm lens on a DSLR.

If you purchased a 50-500mm lens then that is more than adequate for wildlife shots, especially with the excellent image quality that your 5D3 offers. In addition you can crop quite heavily with the 5D3 and still retain an excellent quality image - and from higher ISO. Although I recommend looking around for a 150-500mm OS as it is a better lens.

I think you will be disappointed with a bridge camera. Get the lens for your DSLR and work a little on your fieldcraft and you will get much better results.

Oh, and don't bother with a 2x on the Sigma XXx-500 lens. Autofocus won't work and you will take a real hit on your shutter speed due to the two stop light loss from the 2x.
 
Dracven said:
Hi there, does anyone know how the Cannon sx50 manages a macro distance of less than a centimetre? It doesn't strike me as physically possible.

cheers

Thom
Click to expand...

That would be the 4.2mm lens at the wide end. Quite easy for the manufacturers to give that a really short focus distance.
 
RichardtheSane said:
The bridge camera, while good, does not have a 1200mm lens.

It actually has a 4.3-215mm lens. The camera has a much smaller sensor which makes it the the so called equivalent of a 1200mm lens on a DSLR.

If you purchased a 50-500mm lens then that is more than adequate for wildlife shots, especially with the excellent image quality that your 5D3 offers. In addition you can crop quite heavily with the 5D3 and still retain an excellent quality image - and from higher ISO. Although I recommend looking around for a 150-500mm OS as it is a better lens.

I think you will be disappointed with a bridge camera. Get the lens for your DSLR and work a little on your fieldcraft and you will get much better results.

Oh, and don't bother with a 2x on the Sigma XXx-500 lens. Autofocus won't work and you will take a real hit on your shutter speed due to the two stop light loss from the 2x.
Click to expand...

500mm on these will be already very soft, so what is the point of TC?

If you bought 400mm f/5.6L prime, then 2x would make a perfect sense (on a monopod or tripod perhaps)

Compact? Meh... but that's a good way to realise just how good your 5D is
 
daugirdas said:
500mm on these will be already very soft, so what is the point of TC?
Click to expand...

Have you ever owned or used one of the long Sigmas, Daguirdas? I'll agree that they're not razor sharp wide open at 500mm but neither is a good copy very soft. stop them down to f/8 and they sharpen up very nicely. I'll also agree that a TC is a waste of time on them - the TC will drop the maximum aperture to to small to allow AF and it will also tend to make images too soft. Better IMO (and experience) to get as sharp an original shot as possible then crop in to get closer framing.
 
I used to do it with my 400mm F5.6 and a 1.4x and it works if live view is set up for contrast detect AF.

Normal AF defiantly does not work as you stated :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top