Point-and-shoot for birds

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

I'm planning a trip to Spain with family where I'll be traveling light and not primarily photographing so I won't be dragging my DSLRs and big glass on the plain. Still I'm likely to see some birds, and I'd like a few record shots. The two best options currently seem to be the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 (600mm equivalent, f/2.8 aperture throughout) and the Canon Powershot SX50 (1200mm, F3.4 - F6.5). As best I can make out from reviews they have roughly equal autofocus and ISO performance.

I've tried the Canon and, while no one is going to mistake it for an SLR, it's as good as I've seen in a point-and-shoot. Has anyone tried the Panasonic? It's more expensive, but faster and shorter, and has more expansion options (teleconverter, diopter). I'm not sure how image quality or autofocus compares. Any thoughts on these cameras?

[PhilCook]

I have always had a soft spot for Panasonic P&S/ DSLR lookalikes....I know a few people with them. including the very best macro photog I have ever seen bar none, and I view a lo9t of macro images. They seem to produce remarkable images, and quite often leave me wondering why I bought an expensive DSLR, or/and makes me wish I had one as well for a backup. Perhaps it's simply very good glass, Leica has chosen to put their name on it, after all I cant see Leica wanting to use their name on a poor product.....go the Panasonic imo

[Joe Murphy]

I would go with the Canon SX50, some very good info & examples here - http://kenn3d.wordpress.com/

[allanrube]

Would people post the optical zoom specifications on models they recommend? That would be helpful for bird photographers who need reach.

[Jerry van Dijk]

Allan, the focal length (in 35mm equivalents) Elliotte lists are the maximum optical focal length equivalents. Lower ends are 24mm for the Canon and 25mm for the Panasonic.
I've no hands on experience with the FZ-200, but used it's predecessor, the FZ18 (8 MP, 28-504 mm, f/2.8-4.2), and have always been very content about its image quality. The only reason I switched to DSLR in the end was for high ISO performance, faster autofocus and burst speed. I still use it as a travel camera. As you mention, it works well with all sorts of extensions. I mostly use a 2+ screw on lens, which turns the lens into a powerful macrolens (with higher magnification than 1:1). With that screw on lens I carry around all that I have now with my DSLR and three separate lenses (wide angle zoom, telezoom and macro), in a small package weighing about 500g instead of 5 kilo. The best quality the Panasonic has to offer is the IS system. I handhold most of my macro images and usually even the ones with higher magnification than 1:1 are sharp.
Apart from the possibility for add-on lenses, the biggest diffence between both camera's seems to be the focal length. Twice the reach on the Canon sounds sweet, but you'll have to resort to f/6.5 then. Unless the sensors in these cameras have been extremely improved the last few years, I think the long end will be useless to get decent images when light conditions are bad (think overcast day). The f/2.8 along the whole zoom range sounds great. Note that the DOF on these cameras is significantly larger than on a DSLR, so DOF at 2.8 won't be as shallow as you would expect.
You can check many examples on my website, www.jerryvandijk.com (http://www.jerryvandijk.com). Most images there have been caputred with the Panasonic. In the birds gallery all of them except for the B/W gull. For some of them, I've used the Nikon 1.7 TC (sorry, the specs are not listed on the site, I used it at least on the shrike, the grebe and the blue tit). For good macro examples, check the butterfly gallery. Only the lower row, except the black butterfly, is from the DSLR.
Good luck with choosing! Hopefully, you get some first hand information about the FZ200. Maybe check some of the reviewsites on the net too.

[John Chardine]

It's important to remember that when 35mm equivalents are given above, they are field of view equivalents not magnification (focal length) equivalents. For relatively small subjects like birds you should be interested in pixels on subject. For an indication of magnification/pixels on subject what's important is the real focal length of the lens (not corrected for 35mm) and the pixel density.