Canon PowerShot SX 60 IS 100x Zoom Mentioned Again [CR1]

[Don Haines]

As promised, I took an SX-50 and a 60D with a Tamron 150-600 outside to see how they stacked up against each other for bird photography.

Don,

thank you very much!

looks like I might be able to talk myself into, and at least mildly justify the Tamron after all

then again, this was the 1200mm SX50, not the 2000mm SX60... so I will have to talk myself into the extender as well
or realize that I really don't need the 600mm... but that wont happen

btw, also thank you for testing another thing... I believe that I read somewhere, that the Tamron is not compatible with extenders... now, I realize that there wont be any AF, but it seems like it is working otherwise (at least with the 1,4x)

The Tamron with the 1.4X extender would not focus in "normal" mode, but it would autofocus in liveview.... but the autofocus speed was very slow.

 

[fotochastn]

I have enjoyed this conversation. I hope that all of you who wanted particular improvements over the SX50 sent those ideas to Canon in time to influence the design of the SX60. It would be an awesome camera. For me, the SX50 (and I have owned each of its predecessors) is outstanding. I am not "a pack horse for glass," as I am when using my DSLRs. The camera has descent glass, certainly not as sharp as many of Canon's DSLR lenses, but good enough for general photography. The macro could be improved, but it,too, is an impressive element of an impressive package of capabilities. The video is good enough....Folks, thank you for an interesting hour of reading the posts...I must now go and download the wildflower images that I took with my SX50 and much heavier DSLR...I look forward to the introduction of the SX60 with anticipation.

 

[photonius]

Here is what the same scene from each image looks like when enlarged to the same size.... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.

In this case, it seems like the Tamron with the teleconverter resolves the most detail, the bare Tamron is second, and the SX-50 comes in last.... but when you consider I paid $300 for the SX-50 on sale and it fits into a coat pocket, it is a surprisingly good performance for such a camera.

Nice comparison. I've always been wondering about such comparisons, even just to a Canon 100-400 (before the Tamron came along).
An important aspect - or problem - of the bridge cameras is the small sensor and the aperture (usually 5.6 or even less) at the long end. It means that diffraction is already well into affecting image quality no matter how good the bridge lens is. Rough calculations suggest that at f6.3 or so, a resolution limit of ~ 2Mp is obtained for this sensor size. Thus a bridge camera is not as effective as the equivalent focal length would suggest.

 

[Stig]

Here is what the same scene from each image looks like when enlarged to the same size.... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.

In this case, it seems like the Tamron with the teleconverter resolves the most detail, the bare Tamron is second, and the SX-50 comes in last.... but when you consider I paid $300 for the SX-50 on sale and it fits into a coat pocket, it is a surprisingly good performance for such a camera.

Nice comparison. I've always been wondering about such comparisons, even just to a Canon 100-400 (before the Tamron came along).
An important aspect - or problem - of the bridge cameras is the small sensor and the aperture (usually 5.6 or even less) at the long end. It means that diffraction is already well into affecting image quality no matter how good the bridge lens is. Rough calculations suggest that at f6.3 or so, a resolution limit of ~ 2Mp is obtained for this sensor size. Thus a bridge camera is not as effective as the equivalent focal length would suggest.

uuuh, so more reasoning towards my (obviously G.A.S. driven) wanting a 150-600, grrreat , keep it comming

btw, since extenders work on the Tamron (well, the 1.4x obviously does), out of curiosity, did anybody try to push it with the 2x?