SANParks.org Forums

Hi

I've had a Canon 450D previously and now I have a Canon 60D. With my 450D, I had Canon 100-400mm lens. Unfortunately, both camera and lens were stolen during a burglary. I was able to replace the 450D with a 60D but due to other losses I wasn't able to replace the 400mm lens with anything other than the 18-135mm kit lens that came with the 60D.

I'm currently struggling financially to get a proper lens for my 60D.

I reviewed an article on the new Canon SX50 this morning. In short, it has 50x optical zoom, Digic 5 processer, goes up to ISO 6400, has a 4.5 stop IS and a few other nifty features.

My question is, with all the power in this SX50, is it really necessary to spend the extra money on the 60D (which I already did) and proper lens or two? It seems to me that SX50 can do pretty much 90% of what the DSLR can do. The mega pixels is a bit lower and I imagine the image sensor is a bit smaller. But does that really matter? How much of a different would I see?

I guess you will ask me what I intend to do with my camera. Look, I'm a beginner and even though I would like it, I will probably not ever make to a professional wildlife photographer. I do take thousands of personal pictures in Kurger Park etc. I would also like to start sending in my pictures to Weg, WegRy, Getaway etc.

So, can I compete with the big guns using only a SX50? Waat would the difference really be?

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home...erShot_SX50HS/

i use both
Very happy with my Panasonic Z150 crossover
Just back from my annual Krugertrip and very pleased with the results
All in RAW, which is very important if you want to send images to mags and others!

main drawback with the newer generation of DSLR are the pixels
Above 400 ISO you will see pixels which will show.
And with the new generation DSLR (like the D60) ISO 800 is still very good.

And the lenses are great on the crossovers, but no match for a real white Canon lens
I use a 40D with the old white 300 4.0 lens and the image quality is much better then on my Z150.
This said i am still very pleased with the results from the crossover
With good light and ISO200 i have the best results
And a great camera for shooting from the hip at camps
And great quality for the price paid

Hi Pantoffelslippers

I use both and like you I am also a beginner and even though I also would like it, I will probably not ever make to a professional wildlife photographer. I do take thousands of personal pictures in Kurger Park etc.


Here are photos taken on the same day, the same time, same Fish Eagle. I hope this helps (all I did to the photos was to crop it, both were taken max zoom, setting on Auto)


Photo taken with Canon SX




Photo taken with Canon 600D with 75-300mm Sigma



I use the SX mainly where I need to go below 75mm, as well as where I need to maneuver quickly in the car and a long lens makes it difficult.

I hope this helps

Thanks a lot - this does help - haven't quite made up my mind on what I want but your input really does help and is much appreciated.

In good light, with low ISO, and short to medium zoom range, the bridge cameras will produce decent results; but they have two major drawbacks in comparison with a full DSLR;
- Shutter-lag, and;
- Much reduced Image Quality as you push ISO & zoom-range further out.

Shutter-lag is important for moving subjects. A DSLR is pretty-well instant. Although not great, a bridge-camera has a notable delay before firing the shutter, during which time the subject will have moved away from your focal-point, and may well be off the focal-plane...

IQ speaks for itself. If you've used the 100-400 you will know that it can produce stunning results at full zoom. That will not be matched by the bridge-unit. The fish-eagle images demonstrate the difference in IQ... As long as you can live with that, all will be well with the world!

Thanks EOS_user,

The eagle pictures actually show significant differences.

I need to read these posts again and give it some more thought...

Thanks

To make your decision a bit more difficult
The reason for me to buy a crossover where the 100-400 results
My panasonic (leica lens) matches the same quality

And with a decent adjusting program (i use lightroom) much can be done about the pixel quality.

Will post 2 images taken at Lake Panic tonite
So you can see the difference.
No crops

Thanks bert - looking forward to the pictures for comparison

200 iso, Canon D60 with 300 4.0 lens



Compostition is different but the saturation, sharpness, detail and water is totaly
different. Both taken within 10 minutes of each other, With the canon (but its a very good lens!) you see lots of detail in the water, while with the Panasonic its more of a blur, hardly any detail.
But then again, the lens with IS is easily R15.000
And being a fixed lens not really a comparison with the zoom on the Panasonic
All in all i am not to disappointed with the crossover image
And the money difference is very big so i am a happy crossover user