Anything better than the Canon SX70? It's all about the zoom and pixels on target

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19463620
I was enamored with the superzooms in the past and really thought how useful it would be, but over time I found that after about 32x or so, the IQ just dropped off if conditions weren't just right. I had the SX50/60 models and the sensor performance just wasn't very good at the exposures I was getting at the long end in lower light situations, like people in shadows, dusk/dawn, etc.

That's been my experience as well but this is a bit of a special circumstance as I'm not looking for a camera as a replacement for a SLR as I know nothing with a small sensor is going to get the IQ that a 7D or 5D can get but something I can carry all the time for the times where when out and about I see something I want to share or identify. The Panasonic fits that bill well but the IQ at the long end is not all that good. I was hoping there is something out there a tad better.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19463620
Perhaps the SX70 is better though in both regards, low light high ISO performance, and IQ at the long end. It seems based on reviews that perhaps the Nikon was better in this regard than Canon, but I basically gave up on them at that time, and for a travel kit (which is what I was trying to do), back then I went with the baby rebels and a couple lenses for Disney, etc.

If I were hiking and wanted a lighter travel kit, I would personally have no issues taking the M50 (good through ISO 6400), but would want something other than the 55-250, like a 70-300 or maybe 100-300 (if I could find one), just to give that bit of extra reach. I cannot put a TC on the 55-250, or I would try that even.

I have been really contemplating the 70-300L and might actually get it. It is a tank, it is a compact lens, it takes 1.4x TCs to get me to 420mm (at f8), and I could use this on both my mirrorless and my 5D4. It would basically eliminate my need for the 55-250, with some gains, like a bit more IQ, up to 420mm, etc.

420mm on the M50 is 672mm equivalent FF FOV at 24Mpx and that would be quite, quite good for travel.

When traveling or hiking I don't have a problem carrying a SLR in my sling bag. It's the every day times I'm looking to fill. When not hiking but out walking the dogs or exercising. We are on several migratory routes and being 200 yards from a large lake, we see a lot of critters.

gjl711 wrote in post #19463180
Like THIS? I haven't, no. Might be a possibility. Thanx for the suggestion.

Thats the one. I'm even able to wear it with a 1dx and 100-400 while mountain biking into spots to get shots of big horn sheep.

Ya gotta love when Sarah Dippity comes a knocking. I visited our Nextdoor site and just for giggles, searched for "Canon" in the for sale site. Someone was selling a SX70 and at a really decent price. They were just a few miles away so I though I would at least take a look at the camera. The lady selling the camera said she bought it for her daughter a few months back but she never used it. She was asking less than 1/2 what it's going for at B&H. I tried everything and it seemed to work just fine and barely looks used. When I took a pic, it came up as IMG_0110. (Did she really take only 110 pictures? Had the box, manuals and everything. The strap was never put on and still in the wrapper. The lens cap strap was on though. i offered $50 below what she was asking thinking we would have to dicker a bit and she took it. So, I am not a owner for the SX70. Now on to some testing. I spent a little time this afternoon testing but nothing really serious or very controlled. From left to right, my wife's old Nikon S6400, the Panasonic ZS-80, the SX70, and the 5DIV with 150-600 all in there minimum carrying size.

Did a quick compare between the 4 cameras of the mailbox across the street. Each is a 800px by 800px 100% crop. Clearly the SX70 has by far the most reach and the S6400 the least as I expected. In good light the quality between the 5DIV, ZS80, and SX70 isn't that evident but I can still see a difference. Time for some serious testing. Headed out to the lake tomorrow am for some real world shooting.

Wow what timing and convenience! The zs80 didn’t look good at all really. Try testing the sx70 at whatever FL gives you the same FOV as the 5d4, then compare 100% crops, that might be a bit telling.

.
Astounding how much better the 5D4 image looks. . Of course I expected it to be the best, but I thought the others would come a lot closer than they do. . After seeing those results, it would be hard for me to go with anything other than the 5D4.

At some point no picture at all is preferable to a sub-par image. . But that threshold is different for each photographer, so only you can decide whether it's worth taking a lesser camera out with you or not on non-photography outings. . If you can live with some photos where the fine detail is not real crisp and finely resolved, then one of those smaller set-ups could be a great fit for your needs.


.

Since we rarely look at images at 100% when enjoying them on a screen, there are many times these images from any camera look fine. Sometimes images are just for fun and personal use, and therefore just about any image is better than no image.

I would also contend that a majority of images enjoyed by the public through a variety of mediums (print, screen, etc) aren’t perfect at 100% crops.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19463856
Wow what timing and convenience!

I know, right!! Totally unexpected. I was actually surprised at how much camera gear is for sale. Several bodies and lots of lenses. Will have to spend a little more time there and see if there are any deals to be had. I did notice a 7DII and a old 5D as well as several Nikons and other bodies.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19463856
The zs80 didn’t look good at all really.

I really have to re-test. I didn't spend any time at all setting up, just grabbed the cameras and clicked. All on "P" mode. The zs80 is not great but i think it does better than that.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19463856
Try testing the sx70 at whatever FL gives you the same FOV as the 5d4, then compare 100% crops, that might be a bit telling.

I have no illusions that the 5DIV will crush the small sensor cameras especially when comparing a full frame. It better, but that's not why I wanted the smaller camera. It's all about portability and then quality.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19463896
.
Astounding how much better the 5D4 image looks. . Of course I expected it to be the best, but I thought the others would come a lot closer than they do. . After seeing those results, it would be hard for me to go with anything other than the 5D4.

Keep in mind that those were not really good examples and none of the images have been processed. SOOC jpegs and as I usually shoot raw, I have not optimized any of the in camera settings. They are what they are. I'll do some more controlled tests today I think.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19463896
At some point no picture at all is preferable to a sub-par image. . But that threshold is different for each photographer, so only you can decide whether it's worth taking a lesser camera out with you or not on non-photography outings. . If you can live with some photos where the fine detail is not real crisp and finely resolved, then one of those smaller set-ups could be a great fit for your needs.
.

It depends on the use I suppose but something is always better than nothing at even if it's poor quality.

.
Yeah, Cary made good points about that in his post #22.

It really depends on what pleases you and what you are planning to do with the images.

But I will add that for those of us with a 5K monitor, viewing images at 100% is more normal than some people may realize, especially for those like myself who don't have any of the newer super high resolution cameras. . I mean, the default view for all of the photos I took with cameras other than my 5D4 is actually more than a 100% pixel view.
.

Those with a 5K monitor are in the extreme minority I am quite sure. There are times to use 100% views to determine quality, like when you have a deliverable to external parties in one form or another, but a vast number of photos are for personal family use and sharing, and are more about just memories or having fun capturing events around you.

Heck, I have been at recent weddings where they still threw around those disposable film cameras... I am sure some of those photos will be viewed more often than the pro photog's staged pictures of the wedding party, etc. Didn't even know they still made those things...

I recently switched to a 4k monitor and sort of know what Tom is talking about. My editing style has changed a bit because so much more of the image is visable when working with it at 100%. I find myself at times zooming in when doing bit level editing and have become more aware of 100% image softness. However, the screen real estate hasn't changes that much, just the resolution so the image is much more clear than with my old monitor. When editing images for the web that have been resized to something small, its a bit odd to have to edit at 200 or 300 percent just to make the image big enough to edit comfortable.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19464101
.
..... but a vast number of photos are for personal family use and sharing, and are more about just memories or having fun capturing events around you.
.

.
Yeah, I don't even bother with those kinds of photos ..... not at all what photography is about for me. . So like I said earlier, each person will have to decide for themselves what is the threshold of acceptable image quality, because there we all have such different purposes for and expectations from our photography.

.

It would be interesting to follow your experience with the SX70. I still have the SX50 and the bright light here can be a problem with it. In the thread Australian birds are several photos taken with the SX50. I hope the SX70 is much better. I have the same problem as you, I like a small camera for walking. One thing I learned from somebody here on the forum is that ISO 200 gives mostly the best results.
Succes with your new camera.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464254
.
Yeah, I don't even bother with those kinds of photos ..... not at all what photography is about for me. . So like I said earlier, each person will have to decide for themselves what is the threshold of acceptable image quality, because there we all have such different purposes for and expectations from our photography.

.

I suppose I am the other end of the spectrum. I have some camera with me almost all of the time and use it for even the most mundane things. Most are toss away images just to be used in a text conversation or email. Some are experiments just for the fun of processing an image, others for work (I most boring ones), others to learn a new technique or try some area of photography I hadn't tried before or some just for fun.