Edit: no mystery, Fuji SL1000 initial shots & stuff

[Yeats]

Another cloudy, rainy day... in fact, there's a t-storm going on right now.

I did have a chance for a short stroll along the Musconetcong River, and got me some turtles.... and a tick.

View attachment 68238
turtles musconetcong river DSCF0080 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

turtles musconetcong river DSCF0082 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

View attachment 68239
turtle musconetcong river DSCF0084 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

 

[Luke]

are you shooting through a fence?

 

[Yeats]

are you shooting through a fence?

Almost; there was a multitude of branches. Since the sun wasn't out the turtles weren't quite as lazy as they might have been, they abandoned ship as I came closer.

 

[Lili]

Turtles can MOVE
nice shots looking very good!

 

[kyteflyer]

IMpressive stuff, Chris. How many more superzooms will you have, do you think? I'm pleased you're doing all my testing for me :whoo:

 

[Yeats]

IMpressive stuff, Chris. How many more superzooms will you have, do you think? I'm pleased you're doing all my testing for me :whoo:

Sue, I think I'm done... for now. The only one remaining to audition is the Panasonic FZ200 + a teleconverter, but that combo becomes more expensive...

I guess you can call the class of superzooms I've been looking at "super-duper zooms". Here's my brief rundown of the 3 current models:

Canon SX50: best IQ. The sensor and lens are both better than the Fujis, in terms of noise and sharpness. What kills it for me, though, is the tiny, low-res EVF and small, uncomfortable grip. Those ergonomic flaws are simply a cataract to wildlife shooting.

Fuji HS50exr: best body & handling. Best EVF - much better than Canon's. Best performance in menu speed and AF. The one I had suffered from build quality problems, though, namely a de-centered lens, malfunctioning LCD and gritty zoom mechanism. Images are noisier and less sharp than the Canon's. I had to return my HS50 because of the functional issues, but I kinda wanna try it again. It cost a $100 more than the Canon SX50 or Fuji SL1000.

Fuji SL1000: good EVF, better than the Canon and almost as good as the Fuji HS50. Big, comfy grip, like the HS50. More menu-based than the HS50, and sluggish in that regard. Also a bit sluggish shot-to-shot. Images are a little less noisy than the HS50, particularly at ISO 400 & 800. The lens on mine has more PF & CA than the other two cameras. It's also an incredibly slow lens, dropping to a maximum aperture of f/6 at around 300mm. By way of comparison, the Canon SX50 is at f/5.6 until around 900mm. The SL1000's battery life is horrible, at 100 shots or fewer for my usage, the other two cameras last at least twice as long.

The lenses on both Fujis are more prone to bloom than the Canon. I notice this because I've been shooting swans.

Overall, I'm somewhat deflated. I feel like I'm being forced to choose between usability and image quality. The Fuji SL1000 is something of a compromise, the images are slightly better than the HS50 and the grip and EVF allow it to be a significantly more pleasurable shooting experience than the Canon SX50. I am tempted to try another HS50 in the hopes that it has a sharper lens. If that were the case, I could cope with the noisier images.

 

[Yeats]

View attachment 68287
swan DSCF0010 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

View attachment 68288
robin DSCF0114 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

View attachment 68289
turkey vulture DSCF0124 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

View attachment 68290
bear DSCF0139 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

 

[Lili]

I think the Bear made you

 

[Yeats]

I think the Bear made you

Yup, cover blown, I had to slink back to HQ with my tail between my legs.

He was really, really cute! I wish he would've come out into the nearby clearing... he backed up when I approached, so I left him alone.

 

[kyteflyer]

Love his really bright eyes! Lovely shot. But.. you "approached" the bear? I would have been running in the other direction.

re the superzooms... Fuji has always been notorious for its smeary jpgs, thats why I finally relinquished my S8000fd in 2008 and went to DSLR. Its always $$$ that becomes the issue, but I think, now, if I was a seriously dedicated wildlife photographer, I would be looking to get a Pentax body and the longest prime I could afford. You'll always get better IQ than on the superzooms (heck, you'll get better IQ with an old Tamron 70-300, than with the superzooms). However, as I said before, I am seriously considering the X-S1. Its not as long as some, but with the same sensor as the X-10, has a definite advantage over most. I think flysurfer ran a whole thread on it, early last year.

I'm going to gumtree my FZ100... as long as I have it, I can't justify buying another... and probably my XZ-1 as well (because I want that Ricoh GR)... but another superzoom... probably not. Its going to be the K5 + 55-300, or K5 + adapter + 200mm prime (MC mount) if I *must* shoot the birds and the bees.

Can you tell I am (as usual) being indecisive? Keep them coming, Chris

 

[Biro]

I understand your frustration, Chris. Some of the big compromises that have always been a part of the superzoom experience caused me to avoid them after my Canon S3 IS, which actually wasn't a bad camera. 36-436mm zoom at f/2.7-3.5. Great IS as well. No wide angle and a really coarse viewfinder. It also helped to keep to ISO down to 400 or below.

The Panasonic FZ200 got my interest - and it's probably worth your attention. But I had high hopes for the Fuji's. They always seem to get so close but there's usually a deal-breaker somewhere. I'd love to see a Fuji X-S2 with the innards from an X-20. If Canon would simply put a good EVF in its SX series it might do the trick.

Currently, my wildlife camera is the Panasonic G5 with the Lumix 100-300mm zoom on it. That's an effective 600mm at the long end - at f/5.6 with lens-based stabilization. It's not a bad solution but 1000mm would be helpful. At least there's some room for cropping with a 16mp micro four-thirds sensor. The G5 can be had in the $300 range these days. But the lens is $500, so that's still an $800 outlay.

Frankly, despite your reservations about some of the superzooms you've been working with lately, the results you've been posting are quite impressive. To me, that means we're not far off from the camera we want.

 

[Yeats]

Love his really bright eyes! Lovely shot. But.. you "approached" the bear? I would have been running in the other direction.

I'm respectful of bears, but not scared... at least not of the black ones.

re the superzooms... Fuji has always been notorious for its smeary jpgs, thats why I finally relinquished my S8000fd in 2008 and went to DSLR. Its always $$$ that becomes the issue, but I think, now, if I was a seriously dedicated wildlife photographer, I would be looking to get a Pentax body and the longest prime I could afford. You'll always get better IQ than on the superzooms (heck, you'll get better IQ with an old Tamron 70-300, than with the superzooms). However, as I said before, I am seriously considering the X-S1. Its not as long as some, but with the same sensor as the X-10, has a definite advantage over most. I think flysurfer ran a whole thread on it, early last year.

I had a Sigma 170-500 with my K-x. I was happy with the images, but I felt so damned conspicuous. I know that many photogs enjoy the social aspect of their jaunts, but I'm not one of 'em; I prefer solitude. A big lens attracts the wrong kind of attention IMHO.

I'm going to gumtree my FZ100... as long as I have it, I can't justify buying another... and probably my XZ-1 as well (because I want that Ricoh GR)... but another superzoom... probably not. Its going to be the K5 + 55-300, or K5 + adapter + 200mm prime (MC mount) if I *must* shoot the birds and the bees.

Can you tell I am (as usual) being indecisive? Keep them coming, Chris

Yeah, it so often comes down to money, doesn't it? I'm really stuck on finding the best, most affordable way.... and so I'm as indecisive as you are, Sue!

 

[Yeats]

I understand your frustration, Chris. Some of the big compromises that have always been a part of the superzoom experience caused me to avoid them after my Canon S3 IS, which actually wasn't a bad camera. 36-436mm zoom at f/2.7-3.5. Great IS as well. No wide angle and a really coarse viewfinder. It also helped to keep to ISO down to 400 or below.

The Panasonic FZ200 got my interest - and it's probably worth your attention. But I had high hopes for the Fuji's. They always seem to get so close but there's usually a deal-breaker somewhere. I'd love to see a Fuji X-S2 with the innards from an X-20. If Canon would simply put a good EVF in its SX series it might do the trick.

Currently, my wildlife camera is the Panasonic G5 with the Lumix 100-300mm zoom on it. That's an effective 600mm at the long end - at f/5.6 with lens-based stabilization. It's not a bad solution but 1000mm would be helpful. At least there's some room for cropping with a 16mp micro four-thirds sensor. The G5 can be had in the $300 range these days. But the lens is $500, so that's still an $800 outlay.

Frankly, despite your reservations about some of the superzooms you've been working with lately, the results you've been posting are quite impressive. To me, that means we're not far off from the camera we want.

I considered the FZ200, Steve, but it's just too short. I bet the G5 + 100-300 lens, even with "just" a 600mm FOV, would have at least as good of an image compared to a 1000/1200mm superzoom, even with the necessary cropping. But... but... I just want a "small & simple" super-duper zoom, and the frustration comes in because I want to take the imaging pipeline and lens from the Canon SX50 and stick them in the Fuji HS50's body....... arrrrgh!

I haven't mentioned it yet, but I'm also interested in doing some macro work with a superzoom, taking advantage of the small-sensor DOF.

Thanks for the kind words about my images... it's easy to look good at 1024 pix, though.