Which Bridge?

dave of donny · 23 Oct 2013

I'm fast approaching the big 5-oh, and I've decided it's time to move up from my old faithful camera that I got for my 40th.

Well of course 10 years is along time in electronics, and also, it seems in lens development. As such, I need to call on a few experts in the field to help me make my choice.

Here's what I think you need to know if you're able to give me advice.

First, I am absolutely NOT a photographer, but I think I'm a bit better than just point and shoot - so I'm not frightened by options even though my favorite setting is Auto!
Second, I'm a keen birder, and so my main subject would be birds in the wild.
I will also use the new gear for the obigatory holiday snaps.

So, I think I am looking at a bridge camera - I don't have the skill or luggage allowance for DSLR!

After some research I was swayed by the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS and it's leader-of-the-pack 50x Zoom.

Then, just the other day, I became aware of the Panasonic DMC-FZ72EB-K Lumix which has stolen the lead with 60x Zoom.

Both cameras seem to be generally well received by the folks who know what they are talking about, and I am sure I'd be pretty blown away with either. But I'd like to feel sure I'd made the right choice.

My only reason for considering the Lumix over the PowerShot is the extra 10 clicks of Zoom - but do I lose anything if I go this way?

The only thing the PowerShot seems to boast over the Lumix is the swivel screen - is this useful enough to forgo the extra mag power?

Both these babies are available now for 300 and a bit quids, and that's my price range.

So what do you think? Opinions? Canon? Panasonic? Other?

Any help is gratefully received.

Thank you!

dave of donny · 23 Oct 2013

Hmmm... just been having a bit of a look round the fora (sorry... Grammar school education!

) and reminded myself that I'd be quite keen on getting into astrophotography with my light-bucket Skywatcher telescope... if that makes things easier (or more likely, totally cocks them up!!!).

ancient_mariner · 23 Oct 2013

Hi Dave - for birding, to a degree, the longer lens the better, although there's probably little to choose between those 2 for reach in real terms. What I'd suggest is that you go to a shop where you can try them side by side. Handling and ease of use will make all the difference to how you get on with the camera and whether you enjoy using it.

I do have a couple of comments though. You say you're not a photographer: I bought a panasonic superzoom compact for my wife a couple of years ago, and that has an 'artificial intelligence' mode that makes some very good choices for someone who only wants to point, zoom and shoot. However in compacts, my *personal* opinion is that Canon have the edge when it comes to image quality and stabilisation, and you may find that having a camera which will let you take acceptable images in lower light to be beneficial. Also my brother has an SX40 (the model before the SX50) and uses it for astrophotography.

Since you're spending that kind of money, also have a look at the Fuji X-S1, which is a closer bridge to an SLR than either the Canon or Panny.

Padman400 · 23 Oct 2013

My daughter has the SX50. I went out with it this afternoon for a quick walk and shot of some photo's which i have not looked at yet, but will post a few up later if you want. What I REALLY like is the 1.5 and 2x teleconverter that the canon has built in. It gets you so much closer to the bird. It is not digital so you do not lose any IQ. What I actually think it does is crop in camera, which has to be better than cropping in PP as it uses the full amount of pixels per shot, which cropping afterwards does not.

ancient_mariner · 23 Oct 2013

Padman400 said:
My daughter has the SX50. I went out with it this afternoon for a quick walk and shot of some photo's which i have not looked at yet, but will post a few up later if you want. What I REALLY like is the 1.5 and 2x teleconverter that the canon has built in. It gets you so much closer to the bird. It is not digital so you do not lose any IQ. What I actually think it does is crop in camera, which has to be better than cropping in PP as it uses the full amount of pixels per shot, which cropping afterwards does not.

It's upscaling: cropping in camera, then extrapolating the missing data to give the same number of pixels as a full frame image. Just my opinion, but I think better results can be had PP, however that means someone has to do some careful PP. Nothing wrong with that if you'd prefer the camera do the work, and for webscale/small prints the difference may not be noticeable.

ancient_mariner · 23 Oct 2013

Here's one I took in the spring using my brothers SX40 - the SX50 has a longer lens and probably better image quality too.

Padman400 · 25 Oct 2013

Here are three taken at range with the 2x tele on. Stone was cropped, wheatear straight out of camera.

This one front the short end of the lens

dave of donny · 25 Oct 2013

ancient_mariner said:
Hi Dave - for birding, to a degree, the longer lens the better, although there's probably little to choose between those 2 for reach in real terms. What I'd suggest is that you go to a shop where you can try them side by side. Handling and ease of use will make all the difference to how you get on with the camera and whether you enjoy using it.

I do have a couple of comments though. You say you're not a photographer: I bought a panasonic superzoom compact for my wife a couple of years ago, and that has an 'artificial intelligence' mode that makes some very good choices for someone who only wants to point, zoom and shoot. However in compacts, my *personal* opinion is that Canon have the edge when it comes to image quality and stabilisation, and you may find that having a camera which will let you take acceptable images in lower light to be beneficial. Also my brother has an SX40 (the model before the SX50) and uses it for astrophotography.

Since you're spending that kind of money, also have a look at the Fuji X-S1, which is a closer bridge to an SLR than either the Canon or Panny.

Thanks Toni, sound advice.

You know, I've told enough visitors to BirdForum, asking about binoculars, to go and try some, that I feel a little ashamed that I had to have the same advice pointed out to me!

Thanks for your comments regarding long lens... I figured that would be key, with image stabilising, and everything else would be a bit of a bonus, and a bit of a given from established quality manufacturers.

I've had a bit of a look round the web at the Fuji, but I think the 26x is probably short of the mark... and not much more than I get with my old Oly + T-con.

Along with all of that and the comments concerning your brother's astrophotography - I think the Canon is looking the serious favourite, unless someone comes up with something astounding to convince me otherwise.

Well... it's almost the weekend. I feel a test run coming on!

Cheers.

dave of donny · 25 Oct 2013

Padman400 said:
My daughter has the SX50. I went out with it this afternoon for a quick walk and shot of some photo's which i have not looked at yet, but will post a few up later if you want. What I REALLY like is the 1.5 and 2x teleconverter that the canon has built in. It gets you so much closer to the bird. It is not digital so you do not lose any IQ. What I actually think it does is crop in camera, which has to be better than cropping in PP as it uses the full amount of pixels per shot, which cropping afterwards does not.

Thanks for your response, Padman, and also the sample pics.

Again, the evidence in favour of the SX50 is rather persuasive, but there's time for a late manoeuvre from any one with different opinions... after all, I am a Yorkshireman, and it'll be a little while before I part with the readies!!!

ancient_mariner · 25 Oct 2013

It *sounds* like you know what you want, but if you can, do have a look at the Fuji because it's much more like a 'real' camera and the image quality should be another notch up because the sensor is much larger and should be less prone to noise.

Quick edit - on the issue of sensor size, if you look closely at all of the bird images there you will see that they are quite impressionistic - there is a suggestion of detail in the feathers, rather than clear details. This is typical of a small sensor, and while images can look very nice with this type of camera, depending on how fussy you are then can be disappointing. But all photography is a trade off, and if the above look pleasing to you then I'm sure you'll be very happy with your results.

dave of donny · 26 Oct 2013

Hmmm Toni,
Now you've given me something else to consider, because image quality is important.
Sensor size is something I would never have considered, and as you say, there's more often than not a payoff... and maybe a few clicks of zoom are worth losing for clarity of detail.
Well, that's what I asked for, and that's what testing out the gear is for.

RKC · 26 Oct 2013

dave of donny said:
You know, I've told enough visitors to BirdForum, asking about binoculars, to go and try some, that I feel a little ashamed that I had to have the same advice pointed out to me!
Cheers.

If its the same forum there is a large thread running started by RoyC ref SX50 it is quite regarded as far as I can make out

dave of donny · 28 Oct 2013

Thanks Bob!

dave of donny · 30 Dec 2013

Well, it will probably come as no great surprise to hear that I plumped for the sx50 in the end!
Thanks to the opinions here, and also on BirdForum, and an excellent review that I find by Lillian Stokes, which were all cogitated over and helped in my decision.
Muchas gracias.