Lumix FZ200 or Canon SX50 or ... (1 Viewer)

[dalat]

Hi,

wondering a lot about what gear to buy for starting digiscopy, I became deviated a little and now am wondering if it might be better to go for a superzoom camera instead.

After starting to read about these cameras, I understand that there are different trends for the latest models to come out.

Lumix seems to think that 24x Zoom is enough but puts in more aperture in the FZ200 (2,8 throughout the zoom range). Canon on the other side seems to think that zoom is what matters and will offer 50x in it's new SX50.

What you, who have experience with similar models, think about this? Which way you would go?

Or do other models (Fuji, Nikon or Sony that I did not look into yet) offer even more than those two?

Thanks for your thoughts, Florian

 

[Winterdune]

It's about speed for much bird photography, and the Pannys are fastest.
Sean

 

[Wildmoreway]

The Canon SX50 is still an unknown quantity, but were I in the market for a new superzoom from what I have seen of RoyC's work I would be having a look for the earlier Canon SX40.

 

[Roy C]

Attached are a few shots taken with the SX40 to give you an idea - all hand held at maximum zoom (840mm - 35x zoom).
While not up to DSLR standards of course, for the money it is a very nice little walkaround. One thing is for sure using a superzoom is a darn site easier than digiscoping in my experience.

 

[Roy C]

Just to give you an idea of longer focal lengths with the SX40 here are a few more taken with the built-in digital converter which gives 1260mm or 1680mm focal lengths. The first two are at 1260mm and the third one at 1680mm. Again all hand held. Personally I would not find some of the shorter focal lengths offered by other companies enough for me but if you can get really close to the birds then some of these shorter zooms may do for you.

 

[Wildmoreway]

My short experience with the panny FZ45 did show that you could get some goos shot with a 24x zoom, but ironically many of those shot used the "intellegent" extention beyond the 24 x focal range. I would agree with Roy C, though and the results I have seen from the SX40 (and I am not a Canon fan) bear this out. The SX40 seemed to get the balance between sensor size and focal range just right and as I have said elsewhere were in the market for a superzoom at present I would be looking for the best deal on an SX40. I do have my doubts abot the 50x range of the new SX50 though as being too ambitious, and that 35 X might be the the practical limit, (there is I think some evidence to suggest that the 42x zoom Nikon was too ambitious) however even if so the new SX40 might still be perfectly ok used at 35x max zoom.

I am not usually one for sitting back and waiting but at the moment if you can'y find an SX40, I would sit back for two or three months and wait until the practical results from users of the SX50 start coming in.

 

[evan47]

i bought the sx50 hs as an alternative to a budget long zoom. although i have only given it a quick try out in poor conditions it seems to have great potential.
focus is reasonably quick, nice and sharp too. image stabiliser is very good and low light performance is ok.
it will be a handy birding camera for when i run out of reach with my d7000 and 70-300vr set up.

 

[evan47]

hmmm, i think i will retract my earlier post on the sx50.
further testing reveals shutter lag, poor evf, poor screen, overcrowded control cluster, premature low battery warning, lots of ca and fringing on high contrast edges. on top of this it started to have focus issues (the evf and screen are so poor you cant really tell until you view your pics on a computer).

 

[miketaylor]

Hi all,

I've been reading the threads about the Panasonic Lumix FZ150 vs FZ200 and Canon SX40 vs SX50, and there is loads of useful material and some very impressive images, including extremely useful direct comparisons between FZ150 vs FZ200, or between SX40/50 and DSLR.

But apart from this thread I've found very little on the FZ200 vs the SX50. Now that both cameras have been out for a few months, what is the current consensus on which is better? Has anyone directly compared the two?

Cheers,
Mike

 

[Montereyman]

If you are using a scope it provides the image magnification and not the camera's lens. The less you zoom the camera lens the better the image quality will be for a number of reasons, including camera movement. The longer the focal length of the lens the greater the needed shutter speed and along with the higher the ISO setting which does not help image quality.

My wife used an Olympus Pen camera with its 14-42mm zoom and the guide's scope in Costa Rica and got very good image quality in what were usually very low light circumstances with the jungle canopy. Now that we have a spotting scope the same camera without its lens and mounted with a T-adapter ring attaches to the back for shooting and this provides a setup that is easy to carry around in the field, leaving the camera attached to the scope.

 

[njlarsen]

Hi all,

I've been reading the threads about the Panasonic Lumix FZ150 vs FZ200 and Canon SX40 vs SX50, and there is loads of useful material and some very impressive images, including extremely useful direct comparisons between FZ150 vs FZ200, or between SX40/50 and DSLR.

But apart from this thread I've found very little on the FZ200 vs the SX50. Now that both cameras have been out for a few months, what is the current consensus on which is better? Has anyone directly compared the two?

Cheers,
Mike

The DPReview site had a much higher grade for the FZ200 than the SX50. However, it might be more meaningful reading the actual text to see which items they like and dislike for each of these two and which of these items actually makes a difference for someone shooting birds, because not everything relevant for general photos will be relevant for birds. At not the least: look at their full size images to see what you can see among the things mentioned and what is relevant for your own conditions. (for example, do you shoot in sun over an estuary or inside a rainforest? Very different demands to the best camera!)

Niels

Edit: both of these cameras are head and shoulders above the FZ18 which was my last superzoom!

 

[Jim M.]

I would second Neils' recommendation to look at the reviews at the DP review website. They are here:.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-sx50-hs

If I were choosing between the two cameras, I would be considering the FZ 200 plus a teleconverter versus the Canon. That would give them similar magnifications, and I do think you would want the teleconverter to get adequate magnification for regular bird photography based upon my experience with the older FZ 18, which had a similar magnification to the FZ 200. Given that choice, I would probably still opt for the FZ 200 because of its superior low light capabilities due to having a constant aperture throughout the zoom range and its superior EVF. But I would miss the convenience of being able to zoom back to wide-angle without detaching the teleconverter. Which is something you could do with the Canon.

Jim

 

[scodgerott]

I have the FZ200 and bought it before the Canon came out, however I like its lower light capabilities with the F2.8 lens. The Canon should be good in moderate to good lighting. Last year when I had the FZ150, I visited a rainforest area and I missed a number of bird shots because the camera struggled to do anything in the low light. If you're not worried about lower light shots then the Canon offers a fantastic zoom range and from what I've seen better image and noise qualities. I did read one disturbing thing about the Canon, if you use the 13 fps setting the screen and viewfinder go black, so you can't see what you are shooting. I also think that the FZ200 is faster in just about every area, so in my book that makes it a better camera for getting those fleeting shots. With regards to comments about the 50x being too much, if it is, you don't have to zoom to 50, you can stop somewhere short of there. With the FZ200 I am frequently using the 48x izoom, (really just digital zoom despite what Panasonic says) for birds. I don't like teleconverters, as they are a bit of a nuisance to screw on and off, but they probably give better image qualty than the digital zoom, but not by that much. I did some testing last year with the FZ150 and found that it gave better quality on digital zoom than my old Sony 2x teleconverter. That could be because of the quality of that particular TC, a better quality one should yield better results.

 

[John In Ireland]

Yes, Roy's images are a good advert for the Canon. I have been pondering over buying one of these as a second camera to my dslr. I am particularly interested in the video side of it. Does anyone have any samples to look at. I understand that still images will not be as good as dslr but there is an advantage here for record shots with the amazing zoom. Also I would imagine the video could be better than most palm type camcorders at the same price.

 

[Neil]

8-P

Yes, Roy's images are a good advert for the Canon. I have been pondering over buying one of these as a second camera to my dslr. I am particularly interested in the video side of it. Does anyone have any samples to look at. I understand that still images will not be as good as dslr but there is an advantage here for record shots with the amazing zoom. Also I would imagine the video could be better than most palm type camcorders at the same price.

John
I'm mostly using the sx50 for videos of shorebirds at distance (50-500 meters https://vimeo.com/54512857 . But while traveling I've been using the sx40 and sx50 ( video mode is the same on these two cameras as far as I can see ) for people/places https://vimeo.com/49877459
The fast lens of the Panasonic is not usually an advantage when shooting video as the lens is normally stopped way down to f11 or f16.
Neil

 

[scodgerott]

Here's some shots I took with my FZ200.

 

[John In Ireland]

They are nice shots but it really depends on what distance from the camera they were captured.

 

[scodgerott]

Hi John, they were all relatively close. With the Crake, it was only about 2.5 metres away. The Stilt was about probably 10 metres and the Hardhead around 15 metres. Not sure if that helps. I think what they show is that the camera is capable of getting quality images and also very capable of capturing action shots. It can't match the SX50 in zoom, there's no denying that, but it is a faster camera, which for my use is better.