If you had to buy a superzoom P&S what would you buy?

Dear Board,

I own and love my 40D and 1DMK2 but they can be a handful to schlep around. I would like to have a camera that I could carry in the vehicle that offered good to great zoom range and decent image quality.

I often see things worth taking a picture of while driving back and forth to work, birds and animals primarily and they coincidently happen to be the subject of most of my picture taking efforts.

While I have no qualms about leaving one of the DSLR's and the Sigma 150-500 sitting on the driver's seat of the car in the parking lot at my workplace they still lack that certain degree of portability that I seek.

To that end I am considering buying a superzoom P&S. I'm not buying tomorrow but merely researching at this point. I have narrowed it down to 3 candidates and I was wondering if anyone can offer any insight into my choices or maybe suggest an alternative, or a place to look for additional choices? It needs to shoot RAW and that's pretty much my only requirement at this point.

Here is my list.

Canon SX50HS

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …cameras/powersh​ot_sx50_hs

Panasonic DMC-FZ200

http://shop.panasonic.​com …nd_model_031920​14_imaging

Fuji Finepix S1

http://www.fujifilm.co​m …tal_cameras/s/f​inepix_s1/

The Canon is, a Canon something I have brand familiarity with and a camera that has a sort of following. The Panasonic offers arguably the best lens though a much shorter range. The Fuji offers comparable range to the Canon and the bonus of being at least somewhat weather proof, though reviews knock it a bit for it's image quality?

The prices are all between $ 350.00 and $ 600.00, and $ 600.00 is my max. I realize that I will never be able to afford the expensive glass required to get the best out of my 40D or 1DMK2. I have no intention of getting rid of them, as I am pleased with the modest progress I have made with my photographic skill level with those cameras. I will continue to use them, I'd just like something that I could have as a walk-around knock-around camera that I can have with me at all times.

I am all ears at this point and open to suggestions from people who have experience with the cameras I have mentioned or any potential alternatives? I am a hobbyist with no intentions of becoming a great photographer. I just would like to become a better photographer and having a camera with me at all times seems to me at least to be an essential part of growing my skill set.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

So many choices that of course it boils down to personal preference after comparing pros and cons of each. Here's a good site that helps.

http://www.cameralabs.​com/buyers_guide/super​zoom

My own choice was the SX50 for 3 good reasons: Biggest zoom range, RAW, familiar Canon menus. I've never regretted it.

I have read several reviews of both the SX50IS and DMC-FZ200, for much the same reasons you are looking. A 6D/70-200 2.8 isn't exactly pocketable. Of the two, I lean toward the SX50.

With that out of the way, I can't finish the deal because of the sensor size. The SX50 offers two things you don't get in a pocket P&S. Zoom, EX flash compatibility. Sensor size, and therefore baseline IQ will be no different than the Canon A Series, or the SX280 (or current equivalent). If I can't shoot above ISO 400, and have given up all hope of DOF control, what do I gain from an SX50? 1200mm of zoom I can't use w/o a tripod? Why? If I have to lug a tripod, and the shot matters, I'll take my 60D/100-400L. A bit of IQ can be gained by using the S100 or G16, but that only gets you 24-120 (close?) zoom. The G16 isn't quite pocketable. The G1X is SLR-sized.

When I need a lighter setup/traveling camera, I use my SX260HS, or a 60D/15-85 w/o the grip. IMHO, the bridge cameras are a bridge to nowhere. BTW, in good light, I really like the SX.

From the early years straight through to todays compacts, I have always been very impressed with the straight out of camera jpegs that Fuji cameras provide. They seem to have gone to a lot of effort to reproduce that velvia look in their jpeg cookbook.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17088093
.... If I can't shoot above ISO 400, and have given up all hope of DOF control, what do I gain from an SX50? 1200mm of zoom I can't use w/o a tripod?....

With my SX50 I frequently shoot at ISO 800, find DOF no problem, and have never used a tripod with it! Here's a sample shot I took (handheld) a couple of days ago:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I'd get a Panasonic DMC-FZ1000, because it's got a respectably large sensor, and a serious wide range lens. But I'm not in the market for that sort of camera. It's outside the OP's price point, though.

I tend to agree about the FZ1000, but it is a tough choice. I think I'd either go way to the high end or else go with the cheapest option that gives you what you want (FL, raw, etc.) Not sure paying $600 to be "in the middle" makes a lot of sense.

teekay wrote in post #17088102
With my SX50 I frequently shoot at ISO 800, find DOF no problem, and have never used a tripod with it! Here's a sample shot I took (handheld) a couple of days ago:

That is a nice shot. It also illustrates my argument against an SX50 quite well. At 114mm you are near wide open at f/5.6. And you most likely don't need a tripod. Save that for the 1200mm shots. Notice total DOF in that shot. I meant controlling a thin DOF; you just can't do that with a small sensor P&S, unless you are really close and using a really long focal length.

I am sure you have noticed your error by now. That shot was taken at ISO 200, not the 800 you stated in your post. And for an ISO 200 shot, it is noisy. See the 100% crop. As I stated, the SX50 offers 1200mm zoom and EX-flash compatibility. You used neither in this shot. I (or anyone else) could do this same shot, a lot cheaper, with an A-series powershot, or one of the pocketable SX240-280 series cameras.

If I can't put the camera in my pocket, what is the sense of putting up with the performance you get out of the SX50? It is no better than the much smaller cameras.

A technical note about the focal length:

Most exif readers show the ACTUAL focal length of the camera lens, mine does it.

From the manual of the SX50:
50x zoom 4.3 (W) - 215 (T) mm
(35mm film equivalent: 24 (W) - 1200 (T) mm)

That means: 4.3 mm is equivalent to 24 mm ; 215 mm is equivalent to 1200 mm

In the exif of the sample image, you read 114.11 mm for the ACTUAL focal length.

mathematically,
114.11 mm is equivalent to 636.89 mm, that is a very large focal length.

rpolitsr wrote in post #17088713
A technical note about the focal length:

Most exif readers show the ACTUAL focal length of the camera lens, mine does it.

From the manual of the SX50:
50x zoom 4.3 (W) - 215 (T) mm
(35mm film equivalent: 24 (W) - 1200 (T) mm)

That means: 4.3 mm is equivalent to 24 mm ; 215 mm is equivalent to 1200 mm

In the exif of the sample image, you read 114.11 mm for the ACTUAL focal length.

mathematically,
114.11 mm is equivalent to 636.89 mm, that is a very large focal length.

Thanks for the information. I should have known that. My 60D doesn't do any '35mm equivalents' either. This completely negates my point above about 114mm and 'any A-Series' powershot camera.

and...
That makes this shot at 640mm, which is coincidentally the full-zoom limit of my 100-400L on the 60D. All things considered, that is a nice shot. I would never be able to pull that off, hand-held, with the 60D/100-400L at 1/250. Not even close. Hand-held at 400mm, my keeper rate drops dramatically if Tv is slower than 1/500. One saving grace is the noise level. That shot is at ISO 200. I could use 1600 (3200?) on the 60D and have less noise.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17088255
>....And you most likely don't need a tripod. Save that for the 1200mm shots. Notice total DOF in that shot. I meant controlling a thin DOF.... That shot was taken at ISO 200, not the 800 you stated in your post..... And for an ISO 200 shot, it is noisy....

I certainly don't wish to get into an argument re the SX50, since I do recognize it has pros and cons (large DOF being one of them) like any other camera, but I never meant to claim that particular shot was at full zoom or at ISO 800, so forgive me if I implied it. I would dispute that the full crop shown is noisy, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

In the end, I hope you find one to your liking and let us know why.

teekay wrote in post #17089153
I certainly don't wish to get into an argument re the SX50, since I do recognize it has pros and cons (large DOF being one of them) like any other camera, but I never meant to claim that particular shot was at full zoom or at ISO 800, so forgive me if I implied it. I would dispute that the full crop shown is noisy, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

In the end, I hope you find one to your liking and let us know why.

Huge DOF is simply a characteristic of small sensors. It is what it is; neither good nor bad. I don't believe anyone claimed full-zoom except me, wrt to a comparable shot from my 60D/100-400L.

The person who posted the shot claimed ISO 800. The EXIF says ISO 200. To my eyes the 100% crop is both incredibly noisy for ISO 200, and over-sharpened. If it is visible in a web shot, the original is guaranteed to be worse.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17089222
....The person who posted the shot claimed ISO 800. The EXIF says ISO 200....

I am that person, and as stated in my last post I really did NOT mean to say the shot was at ISO800 although I now realize that my wording certainly implied it. I should have said, "Here's a sample shot, handheld at ISO 200 and part zoom". Again, my apologies.

Wer'e getting off topic here, but I still can't see the excessive noise in the 100% crop!

It is raining here, today, or I would put up a 60D/100-400L shot to compare. I'll go through my LR and see what I have.

No arguments from me about decent results coming from the SX50. I just meant to outline why I didn't want one. No offense to those who are happy with it.

teekay: I agree with you. I copied your 100% and ran an 80% noise reduction with Noiseware, then compared 100% of both ... the noise reduced was extremely trivial.

I think what others are calling noise is simply lower IQ than they expect with their dslr prime lens.