Camera Choice

[NuroKnight]

Hey guys I'm new to the forums but anyways, I was thinking about getting into photography so I needed to buy myself a decent low-mid range camera around the price range of $500 dollars so I am currently having thoughts between the Sony DSCHX300 and the Canon sx50hs, Could you help me decide between the both of them, both of them have around 50 x zoom but I'm not sure what to decide which one has a better video recording and picture taking?

[Franglais]

Your post starts well - "thinking about getting into photography", "decent low-mid range camera" then slumps "Sony DSCHX300 and the Canon sx50hs".

These are consumer bridge cameras, not the sort of thing that the enthusiasts on forums like this one buy. I know that this sort of camera works - my brother-in-law has one and he shoots a lot of great bird pictures. But finally I can see from his pictures the many drawbacks of this type of design:

1. In strong sunlight the colours look washed-out. Highlights are pure white with no detail
2. The images are sometimes fairly sharp in the center but a bit fuzzy on the edges
3. Indoors when he uses the flash it looks like people are in a cellar with a flashlight shone in their faces

Enthusiasts (like us) go for cameras that are modular and can be adapted to fit your needs:

- big sensor to capture more light, better handle high contrast, give more detail
- RAW processing ability so that you can correct exposure and other errors on your PC afterwards
- interchangable lenses so that you can adapt your camera to your subject and lighting
- accessories like external flashguns to master difficult light

We choose DSLR (predominantly) or Mirrorless cameras. There are several in your price range. OK they only come with a 3x zoom and not a 50x one but in 3 years when you upgrade you only need to change the body, all your lenses and accessories will fit.

Out of the two cameras - I notice that the Canon has RAW mode which is a definite plus for me.

[Photo-John]

Charles has covered the basics well. I think I have a more open attitude towards superzoom cameras like you're talking about. On the other hand, they are definitely a compromise as far as image quality goes. One thing you didn't tell us was what kind of photo experience you have and what you plan to do with your new camera. Why don't you give us some more information about your intentions so we can give you some better guidance? It's possible that you'll be completely happy with a superzoom. On the other hand, it would be a bummer if you bought one and soon wanted to upgrade, which could definitely happen.

[Franglais]

..I think I have a more open attitude towards superzoom cameras like you're talking about..

Well that's possible. I used to just dismiss these things as too much of a compromise. However last year my brother-in-law did a full-size calendar, which was impressive. I put it up on the wall which gave me twelve whole months to observe his images in detail and sometimes think: "Well no that's not very good. Should do better than that".

With a bridge you're stuck. The only thing that you can do is improve your technique, you can't improve the camera.

Whereas with a DSLR/Mirrorless you can improve your gear little by little over the years, as you realise that you want to do something better and the solution could be an extra lens or accessory.

It's taken me 15 years to build up my Nikon kit, piece by piece. Right now I think I have everything I need so I'm just putting aside some money every month for the next generation of bodies in 3 years time..

Afterthought: there is one area where bridge superzooms excell - bird photography. We go out for a walk, my brother-in-law suddenly says "Look! There's a warbler on that tree over there", whips out his little bridge and does the shot. The subject is usually central and not in movement so it works