Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82 for Birding and Wildlife Video and Still Photographs: First Impressions

Readers will know that I was a fairly early adopter of a superzoom bridge camera for wildlife. Nothing else bar an APS-size-sensored DSLR and a lens of at least 600 mm focal length has the reach. With binoculars, sometimes a telescope and tripod, and a video camera, weight becomes important.

Self-defined real photographers and their familiars, the photographic journalists, ignored bridge cameras for a very long time but they are now so important to bird and other wildlife photographers that they have to be taken seriously. More and more wildlife watchers are using bridge cameras of varying zoom ranges for the simple reason that they are light and versatile. Indeed, we are just back from a wildlife trip in Europe where nobody was carrying a DSLR or CSC—a first as far as we can remember.

Yes, the sensor is small—it has to be—and so there is more noise especially as the ISO rating is jacked up for long shots and/or in poor light. And, yes, the image is subject to the effects of diffraction at any aperture smaller than about f/4 (1/2.3” sensor) but you can get a shot of a bird with the equivalent of a 1000 mm lens or longer and get a very good image especially after a little tweaking in Lightroom and/or Photoshop. As well as the well-known disadvantages of a small sensor, for wildlife photography there are advantages. Depth of field is greater. For example, with the Lumix DC-FZ82 at its maximum focal length of 215 mm (equivalent to 1200 mm on a full-frame 35 mm camera), the depth of field for f/5.6 at 20 metres is 54 cm. By contrast, the depth of field of that 1200 mm lens on a full-frame camera is just 9 cm. So getting an image is easier.

I started with the Nikon P510 and then, two years ago, moved on to the P610. Since then though I have moved to taking 4K video while outputting to HD (1080). This has given me enormous advantages: doubling the size of the image in the frame during editing in Final Cut Pro X and thereby doubling the effective focal length of the taking lens; zooming, panning and tilting in post-production; adding additional stabilisation, for example. The appearance of a new generation of bridge cameras with large zoom range offering long focal lengths plus 4K video and RAW for stills was too much of a temptation.

I had a choice between the Nikon Coolpix B700 and newly-on-sale Panasonic’s Lumix DC-FZ82 (FZ80 in the USA apparently). After reading a few reviews and looking at the specifications (which I could not find on the Panasonic website) I chose the Panasonic. There were compromises on features whichever way I had gone.

Neither camera has GPS—a serious omission for a travel camera. Yes I know that I can use my iPhone to make a log file and then do the whole GPS thing in Lightroom or use Panasonic’s iPhone app-Camera wifi connection but it is extra hassle. Why are camera manufacturers leaving out features they once considered essential or desirable?

I have now had a week or so to look at what the FZ82 can do. It does not have some features that the Nikon P610 had and the B700 has. The screen is fixed; there is no eye sensor to switch between view finder and screen; there is no easy bird watching setting. But focusing does seem to be faster (albeit still contrast detection) and the viewfinder brightness can be changed.

I am not showing any photographs or videos here; plenty of examples can be found in more formal reviews of the camera like this very useful one.

The reviews made much of the fact that the FZ82 has a touch-screen focusing, and the standard setting is for this to be activated. However, as also noted on this site where birders discuss their experiences of the FZ82, there is one severe disadvantage to left handers (actually left-eyers) like me. I could not work out why the focusing point was moving all over the place. I eventually realised the end of my nose in contact with the screen was shifting it about. Even when the screen display is “off”, the touch screen is still “on”. Right-handed users with a short distance between nose and eye have the same problem. I was less than content with this really silly arrangement. For most purposes I have disabled the feature, but kept a custom setting where it is on so that I can use touch focus when the camera is on a tripod. There are also discrepancies between the instruction manual (it has to be downloaded) and what happens in the camera in relation to touch focusing.

After that irritating start to getting the camera into a useable state, I tried some long- and short-distance stills and 4K video in good and poor light. Some reviewers have questioned whether RAW would be of much use in a camera with such a small sensor. I have found the jpg output to be rather flat, flatter than on the Nikon P610, and that it is more effective to work on the RAW files in Lightroom than on the jpgs (simultaneous RAW/jpg recording to the card is possible).

Reviewers have mentioned noise even at base ISO (which is low at 80). I compared the noise with the P610 and it looks about the same or slightly better. However, autoISO takes the setting up pretty quickly and I had several shots where the ISO was 1600; noise was obvious and needed attention in Lightroom. 

I am very pleased with the 4K video. I imported some into FCP X then balanced the colour. A quick export to a Blu-ray disc produced images on television that I really could not distinguish from my Sony 4K to HD footage. The sound quality seems to be better than in the P610 as well. I put the camera on a tripod and extended the lens. With the cropping for 4K, the working range of the lens in full-frame 35 mm terms is 28-1680 mm. I was able to fill the frame with a Blackbird digging worms out of the grass at the end of the garden. I had the stabilisation off. The travel tripod I was using is pretty stable but the effects of the wind coming round the side of the house could be seen in the form of an occasional slight wobble in the image. But 1680 mm equivalent focal length is a delicious prospect for future trips (with tripod!) especially since I can double that without loss of final quality during editing in FCPX—3700 mm, which deserves an exclamation mark.

I have also used the P610 for time lapse videos when travelling. That was easy. Start the process off and a time lapse video appeared when all the shots had been taken. With the FZ82, you have to find Time Lapse in the menu, set the number of shots and the interval between shots. No clues given as to sensible settings, so you either have to do the calculation in your head or use an App on the phone. You can then either make the 4K or other video format in camera (taking a few seconds) or use the collected stills in another programme because, unlike the P610, the original still images are retained.

There are all sorts of ways of using custom function buttons, custom settings for particular purposes and a customisable quick menu. I needed to go through the whole thing to see just what is there.

Basically, the camera will do what I want it to do. There are irritations and things missing that I would like to have. I do not know if the Nikon B700 would have been better, worse or more suitable for my particular requirements. I do, however, still have to do more tests on AF modes, for example, to see which is best for particular subjects, like birds in trees with twigs all around and then to arrange a standard setting that can be accessed by turning as few knobs, pressing as few buttons and selecting items on screen as possible. The essence of a wildlife camera is speed of being ready to press the still or video button (the latter being, incidentally, a little too small and depressed) from either a standing start or another setting. You may only have a matter of seconds to get the shot.

Finally, a plea to the manufacturers. There is a vast market for birding cameras. No bridge camera is ideal at present because the speed of focusing is still relatively slow. But on-sensor phase focus devices are being fitted to small cameras. Yes, they are more expensive but the first manufacturer to put it in a superzoom bridge would capture the birding and other wildlife market. It seems that bridge cameras are made down to a price as the poor-(wo)man’s proper camera. Double the price and put in the features we all need (phase autofocus, stabilisation as effective as Sony’s BOSS on its camcorders, mobile screen, high-quality viewfinder, GPS, the capacity to turn off whole suites of functions not needed in the field, for example) and the WILDLIFE CAMERA—a new category of camera for marketing purposes—would sell, just as the finest and most expensive binoculars and telescopes sell. 

'Bridge' Cameras for Wildlife. A Retailer Gets the Message

The 'photographic' magazines may ignore 'bridge' cameras and only mention them in passing as new models appear but those of us who travel thousands of miles to see wildlife and natural habitats know what most travellers will be carrying: a superzoom bridge camera.

I see some in the photographic trade have now realised that the are not just selling to 'photographers' (the term is hard to define but I tend to think of amateur photographers as people who take photographs that are acceptable as photographs by other amateur photographers) but to naturalists who take still photographs and, sometimes, video. This advertisement from WEX arrived in an e-mail:

However, I am not sure they quite have the message. A 10.7x optical zoom is usually nowhere near enough.

The Nikon Coolpix P610 Superzoom Bridge Camera for Birding and Wildlife - Video and Stills In the Wild

I can now report on how the P610 performed over two weeks in the state of Gujarat, India. In short, I used it for 95% of my video and 95% of the still photographs. Originally, I was intending to use the camcorder for video plus the odd still and the Nikon for stills where I needed a focal length of greater than 500 mm (in full-frame 35 mm equivalents). The longest focal length I can manage on my Sony camcorder with the awkward screw-in extender fitted is 300 x 1.7 = 510 mm.

I only used my Sony Camcorder for 5% of the footage. The reason for this was two-fold. Firstly, the large mammals (Asiatic Lions, Blackbuck and Asiatic Wild Asses, for example) in the national parks and sanctuaries of Gujarat were far more wary of vehicles than similar mammals in Africa and photography was therefore at a greater distance. I needed more than 500 mm, and so the Nikon, being used for stills was pressed into service to see if I could get video footage that I would have been unable to get with the camcorder. Secondly, the outrageously high camera fees charged in the parks and sanctuaries of Gujarat. Camera fees, payable in rupees, were GBP12.50 per camera per visit. Since we had six visits to Gir, the camera fees for that park alone were £75. The charge is per camera not per photographer so one unfortunate in our party was spotted with a second camera in her bag (which she had no intention of using) and dragged off to pay another fee. I was not going to pay for a second camera in order to add support to the bureaucratic lunacy of the ministry responsible for running the parks so carried only the Nikon to use for everything.

To cut to the chase, I could not distinguish the quality of the full HD video between the two cameras. If anything the Nikon had the slight edge (it has a larger sensor, 1/2.3 compared with 1/2.88 of my now obsolete Sony). Stabilisation also seemed similar. I was able to take video, sometimes at the full 1440 mm equivalent focal length by pressing the camera against the side of the vehicle or by pressing the camera into the flesh of my attractive assistant who received the simple instruction: ‘Stop breathing’. Of course, there were the usual problems of taking video from a vehicle with other people on board, with their slightest unintentional movement causing me and the camera  to move. The Nikon seemed slower than the Sony in changing focus. However, at focal lengths equivalent to the range available on the Sony, I had no problems at all and it may be the effect of a larger sensor and the long focal length that made the Nikon seem slower. The depth of field at a distance of 50 metres and an aperture of f/5.6 is only a couple of metres and a lion walking quickly towards the camera would need the autofocus to shift quickly. The only disadvantages of using the Nikon compared with the Sony were the recording of the noise of the zoom motor and of the wind whistling past the microphones. I have a Micromuff fitted to the Sony which helps with the wind problem. On the Nikon the stereo microphones are mounted on the top of the flashgun. Had I thought I should have tried raising the flashgun to change to angle of the microphones in relation to the direction of the wind.

I also made full use of the built-in GPS (as I did with the camcorder also).

Before leaving, I bought a package of a battery charger and two cheap batteries, so that I also had two fully charged spares with me. I did not take the supplied Nikon in-camera charger. I did not have to change a battery in the field but replaced the battery after each morning or evening session. The cheap batteries performed just as well as the original Nikon.

So can the P610 replace my camcorder for video?  For most purposes, my answer would be ‘yes’. However, the Sony does have the edge in two respects: its low lux capability and night shot (infrared). The capability of the cheap P610 does leave me with a problem for the not-too-distant future: what do I buy to replace the Sony camcorder; another Sony camcorder and if so which sensor size and output or a compact system camera with an added microphone, the Panasonic Lumix with a 4K video option, for example? I have already discounted an SLR for wildlife video since I do not want to have to use live view through the screen as a viewfinder nor do I want the very restricted depth-of-field for wildlife shots on the fly (desirable as that narrow depth of field would be in certain circumstances). I am putting off making that decision.

So, having found the P610 excellent for both stills and video (and a major improvement on the P510, as I explained in my previous post) were there any niggles? There were three; one was on performance, the others ergonomic. At full zoom and on a little of the hand-held, pressed-against-the-flesh video footage there was some ‘shimmering’ down the edges. Was this the result of the in-camera stabilisation fighting against or trying to help my keeping the camera still? Somehow, I found I had the electronic as well as the optical vibration reduction turned on, so that may be the reason. More testing will be done—not, sadly with a desert fox cub as the subject but a garden chair.

The catch that closes but does not
lock the battery compartment

Ergonomically, I found the video start/stop button in an awkward place. That is probably because I am a partial left-hander and hold the camera to my left eye. The rest of my face prevents my right thumb from gaining easy access to the video button. Finally, and despite all the plaudits, a real demerit for the Nikon designers. This is what happens. Binoculars are permanently welded to wildlife watchers and the camera dangles above them. Unfortunately, the catch that closes the battery compartment snags the top of the binoculars and the flap springs open. A fellow traveller had noticed this with here P510 (soon to be swapped for the P610) and had actually lost the battery because the tab holding the battery had also been pulled across by the binoculars or their strap after the compartment had flipped open. Nikon really do need to redesign the battery compartment catch; simply pushing it to one side to open it is too easy. At present a piece of sticky tape seems the most useful precaution.

It is very difficult to illustrate how good video or stills are on screen. However, here is a video shot at focal lengths beyond 1000 mm equivalent of parakeets seeing off a marauding rat snake.

Examples of still photographs (more on shown on my Flickr page). Nearly all are crops from the full-size (4608 x 3456 pixels) photographs, with processing in Aperture with Nik Software plug-ins.

So, to conclude, buying the Coolpix P610 shortly before we went to India paid off, enabling me to get video footage and still shots that would not have been possible with my Sony camcorder with its very limited (x10) zoom. Having tested it in action, I am extremely pleased that it did more than I asked.

There will be more information on the wildlife of Gujarat on my other blog, Zoology Jottings.

The New Nikon P610 Superzoom Bridge Camera for Birding and Wildlife - First Impressions

Nikon Coolpix P610

As an early buyer of the first superzoom bridge camera, the Nikon Coolpix P510, I was keen to buy a replacement with a better digital viewfinder and a longer zoom. Of all those now available I chose the newly-released P610 and it arrived as soon as Wex had stocks.

I should say I chose it over the also new P900 which has an even longer maximum focal length (2000mm in full-frame 35 mm terms). However, the P900 at 899 g is much heavier than the P610 (at 565 g virtually the same weight as the P510). For tropical trips I am usually carrying 10 x 42 binoculars and a camcorder as well, so weight is important to me.

My first impressions are very favourable. Nikon seems to have listened to what birders want. For example there is a dedicated Bird-watching setting in the Scene dial setting. This setting is held after turning away from it to Auto, Programmed, Shutter-priority, Aperture-priority or Manual modes so that when returning to Scene the Bird-watching setting appears there without having to turn the dial to select it afresh.

In the Bird-watching setting, there is a small centre-dot focus point and the shutter is silent.

One key difference is the increased maximum focal length (24-1440 in 35 mm terms). A major improvement compared with the P510 is the viewfinder resolution (921k vs 201) and there is eye detector to flip automatically between screen and EVF. The build is far less plasticky with a more robust feel. The Fn button is useful and I have set it to change the vibration reduction function quickly if the camera is mounted on my Trekpod or tripod. The speed of focus, although still based on contrast detection as would be expected, seems faster. One very useful feature has been added. It can sometimes prove difficult to find the target with the lens fully extended. In front of the telephoto/wide lever on the lens barrel is a button; when this is pressed the lens zooms to a shorter focal length so that the target can be found, and when it is released the zoom returns to its previous telephoto setting.

There are lots of other features, either new or improved. I am pretty sure this camera will prove a hit for birders and other wild-life watchers. The built-in GPS is very useful. I may well use the time-lapse function and the wireless link with my iPhone to fire the shutter without shake. The video seems to be of higher quality than that from the P510.

So far, I have only two minus marks. The first is that only an in-camera charger is supplied—useless when travelling so I quickly ordered an external charger and spare batteries from Amazon. There is no raw output which is a shame. However, early indications are that the jpegs are not overly rendered either in terms of contrast, saturation or over-sharpening. In Aperture (soon to be the late lamented) or Nik software I was able to increase sharpness without producing the artificial edge look.

I have only managed a few test shots—still and video on and off the tripod—because the weather has been so poor. But thus far I am very pleased but will report on it when it has seen proper action for the first time—in India next month. In the meantime, I think Nikon have a winner in the Coolpix P610

Superzoom Bridge Cameras for Birders: Latest Reviews

A very useful compilation of reviews has appeared today in ePhotozine which ranks current models of superzoom bridge cameras. Now, their definition of superzoom and my definition of superzooms useful to birders (extending to the equivalent of at least 1000 mm) differ and so you first have to exclude the cameras that do not reach my definition, including their number one in the ranking.

One of their equal seconds, the Panasonic Lumix FZ72 (20-1200 mm equivalent, RAW and what seems like pretty fast focusing) looks very tempting. What's more there is available a tele-extender to take the optical zoom range from x60 to x102 (at the cost of loss of light reaching the sensor of course).

The price of these superzooms is very low for what you get and I wonder if a manufacturer will take the plunge to go for a better electronic viewfinder (more dots and faster refresh rate). Birders and wildlife watchers would probably pay twice the price for a top of the range model that did all that they really wanted. Compared with a reasonable pair of binoculars, a bridge camera at present is a drop in the financial ocean.

I suspect that all the manufacturers have been slow to catch on to the wildlife market. Feedback from the the amateur photography market (which ignored these cameras for years) is a limited source of to manufacturers who often do not realise what a large part of the market is looking for. After all, remember the axiom: cameras are designed by people who never use them to sell to amateur photographers who own but never use them.

This is the link to the ePhotozine article:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/top-10-best-ultra-zoom-bridge-digital-cameras-2014-16928

Which Binoculars for Birding: Insights into Optical Design

Following up my post on the new Zeiss Victory SF binoculars, the most useful website for those seeking real information on the optical design of binoculars is that of Holger Merlitz who is Professor in the Department of Physics at Xiamen (Amoy to old China hands) University in China. His articles and papers are well worth reading and I have included links below to those of particular interest to this post in relation to the history of optical design, the introduction of intentional distortion and the characteristics of binoculars from different manufacturers.

The first major point to bear in mind is that the design of lenses for cameras differs (or should differ) from that for binoculars because the imaging system of binoculars includes the human eye which has its own distortions. The camera lens is aimed at the ideal of distortion free imaging; the binocular is aimed at the optimal image on the human retina, taking the binocular and eye as the integrated unit.

The history of the realisation that the unit to consider is binocular+eye is interesting and is outlined by Merlitz. Before 1950, optical designers tried to produce binoculars that, like camera lenses, were free of distortion (roughly defined as an absence of barrel or pincushion distortion). In 1949 Zeiss (Jena) picked up on the complaints of some army, presumably German, officers in two World Wars that when panned across the battlefield their binoculars or field glasses produced a strange effect that made them feel nauseous. As Merlitz puts it:

…appeared to display a rather strange kind of distortion, which became particularly obvious whenever that binocular was used for panning. The moving image appeared to roll over a curved, convex surface. This phenomenon, henceforth denoted globe effect, seemed to be absent with the static image, but it miraculously reappeared with the moving image each time the binocular was panned.

Koehler and Sonnefeld at Zeiss Jena, then in East Germany, suggested and demonstrated that this globe effect could be eliminated by introducing a degree of pincushion distortion into the binocular design. The human eye counteracts that pincushion bending of verticals and horizontals to send an image to the brain that is undistorted. Such a design of binocular would therefore be fine for both static spotting and panning. From the 1950s binocular manufacturers began introducing pincushion distortion. However, the degree of pincushion distortion employed can be noticeable and from about 2005 some manufacturers reverted to pre-1950 practice but in so doing exposed their customers to the globe effect and the feeling of nausea that it may induce.

More recently there has been renewed interest in the amount of pincushion distortion that should be added. Merlitz has tried to determine whether there is a point at which the globe effect is eliminated and noticeable pincushion distortion is minimised. I will not go into any detail of the geometry and trigonometry used to calculate theoretical levels of distortion here since they are fully described by Merlitz. suffice it to say that Sonnefeld, it seems, overestimated the degree of pincushion distortion required to overcome the globe effect. If k is the amount of pincushion distortion deliberately introduced and k = 1 is no distortion at all (termed the tangent condition and where the globe effect is evident), Sonnefeld suggested a value of 0 for k (the  angle condition). Other calculations from the work on human vision by another member of the Zeiss design team in the 1940s suggest a value of 0.5 (the circle condition).

More recent research by a group at Delft University in the Netherlands as well as that by Merlitz suggested that k should be between 0.6 and 0.8.

The more recent research brings out the second major point: there is variation between individuals on the value of k at which pincushion distortion can be perceived. For those interested, Merlitz shows Helmholtz checkerboards you can use to find your value of k (subject to variation in experimental conditions). Merlitz argues that the true average of k in the 56 people who responded to his request for help was around 0.7. Three of us here did the same study, finding values of 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8.

The major points throw up interesting challenges to the binocular manufacturer, as Merlitz points out:

Which consequences are to be drawn for the binocular manufacturer? With a choice of pincushion distortion near k=0.7, the majority of users would not complain about any globe effect. To be on the safe side, one might want to go a little lower, perhaps between k=0.6 and k=0.7, accepting a little bit of an extra pincushion distortion. In any case, the extremes should be avoided, namely values of k<0.5 (too much pincushion) or k>0.8 (too much of a globe effect).

and

It therefore appears that the ideal amount of distortion for handheld binoculars should be chosen between k = 0.6 and k = 0.8, a choice that would leave both the globe effect and the pincushion distortion (with the rolling eye) on a reasonably low level.

Merlitz also stated:

Binocular designers might also considering building oculars that would enable the user to modify the amount of distortion. In this way, the observer would be able to optimize the distortion characteristics of his instrument according to his own individual preferences and the particular mode of application.

As far as I know no manufacturer has yet done this and until one does, given the variation in different individuals, binoculars from one manufacturer may be more suitable for some individuals than those from another, depending on which k value is being incorporated in the optical design. If manufacturers stated the degree of pincushion distortion they have employed and retailers could test the k value of individual customers using Helmholtz checkerboards under proper test conditions, a better match might be achieved than by competitive birders buying binoculars for their brand badges—‘I’ve got to ‘ave Swarovskis ‘cos all my mates would laugh at me if I didn’t’, as I heard one checklist ticker say to another.

So what do we know of different manufacturers and their newer products. Well, here Merlitz helps again: From modern Nikons returning to pre-1950s undistorted optics and, therefore, the rolling ball effect when panning to the latest Zeiss Victory SF adopting a k value of 0.7, as recommended by Merlitz.

Of course there are many other optical and ergonomic factors in buying binoculars in a given price range, a sufficient number in fact to provide binocular nerds with hours and hours of discussion. But if you use binoculars to pan across the landscape, you need to read Merlitz and take note or you could end up with an the unpleasant rolling ball phenomenon and motion sickness if you choose a brand with undistorted optics.

---------------

1. These are all key pages in Holger Merlitz’s Website:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de

Merlitz, H. 2010. Distortion of binoculars revisited: Does the sweet spot exist? Journal of the Optical Society of America A 27, 50-57

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion_final.pdf

Distortion of the new Zeiss Victory SF: A paradigmatic shift on the binocular market?

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/newk/newk.html

2. Globe effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe_effect

3. Oomes AH, Koenderink JJ, van Doorn AJ, de Ridder H. 2009. What are the uncurved lines in our visual field? A fresh look at Helmholtz's checkerboard. Perception 38, 1284-1294

Zeiss Victory SF Binoculars: Zeiss Are Really Fighting for Market Share

There is a lot of interest in birdwatching forums about the new Zeiss Victory SF binoculars. Zeiss, remember, went from being the brand everybody aspired to own in the 1950s and 1960s to also-rans in the competition with Leica and, later, Swarovski. My binocular tally saw a few more users of modern Zeiss binoculars over the past few years but this latest release, seen and used by only a chosen few, is an attempt to taker over the top end of the market. Zeiss describe them as: World's Best Birding and Nature Observation Binoculars.

It seems that Zeiss recruited a new designer—from Swarovski, and the new binoculars certainly bear more than a passing resemblance to Swarovskis. How much of the blurb in the press releases is hype only time will tell; the mere fact that they will be dearer than all the others will ensure healthy sales.

In looking up further information on the design features, this binocular-owning family has learnt a lot about the evolution of binocular optical design and I will follow up this post with the rest of that story.

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/sports-optics/en_gb/landingpages/world-s-best-birding-binoculars.html
http://lauraerickson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/falling-in-love-all-over-again.html
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=284346

A Bridge Superzoom NOT a DSLR for Birders

Bad advice given in photographic magazines soon gets picked up and batted back. A reader of Amateur Photographer (5 July 2014), Paul Robinson, soon pointed out that superzoom bridge cameras, in this case the Canon SX50 HS, were what birders use to photograph birds and that DSLRs for shots in the field were pretty useless.

The photographic magazines are really not staffed to provide reliable information on anything other than amateur 'pictorial' photography (as the meaning of 'pictorial' has changed over the years) and subjects covered by professionals in the world of commerce.

There is much better advice available online on almost anything in photography.

Cameras for Birding: The ‘Bridge’ Camera Zoom War: Now There Are Six (Canon SX50, Fuji S1, Nikon P530, Olympus SP-100EE, Panasonic Lumix FZ72, Sony HX300)

I last looked at the superzoom ‘bridge’ cameras last August. Since then others have come in to join the competition. Eighteen months ago there was only one—the Nikon P510. Taking the cut-off point as the 35 mm equivalent of a 1000 mm lens, I can now find six in the category from Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

In some respects, comparison is now easier. All have stabilisation; all have 1/2.3 sensors; all have very similar maximum apertures (approximately f/3 to f/6). In the following table I have only shown those features that are of key importance to birders and that I have found information on: zoom range, resolution, output, weight and price.

	Optical Zoom (equiv)	Resolution (Mpixels)	Output Still)	Weight (g)	Price (GBP)
Canon SX50	24-1200	12	RAW/JPG	595	319
Fuji S1	24-1200	16	RAW/JPG	680	399
Nikon P530	24-1000	16	JPG	494	329
Olympus SP-100EE	24-1200	16	JPG	589	349
Panasonic FZ72	20-1200	16	RAW/JPG	660	289
Sony HX300	24-1200	20	JPG	623	319

The prices in the table are those quoted by WEX today. The Canon, Panasonic and Sony appeared in my last post on this subject. The Olympus and Fuji models are new, with the Fuji S1 yet to appear in UK.

In this comparison, there is very little to choose, in terms of theoretical performance, between them. The Canon has a smaller sensor but should suffer less from noise in low light.

The biggest disadvantage in using my Nikon P510 at full zoom is the speed of focusing. I do not know if there is any real difference between the cameras I have listed in this, to me, important respect. The times stated for autofocus may not have much meaning when aiming at a small bird at full zoom. Some have focus limiters, presumably to save the ‘hunting’ for focus throughout the entire range.

There are other fatures, not key ones for birding, that are worth considering. Fuji say that their new S1, is ‘weather resistant’ and has an intervalometer for time-lapse sequences. And yes, I am tempted even though it is much heavier than the Nikon.

Digiscope or Superzoom Bridge Camera for Birding?

A correspondent who sells secondhand optical equipment for birding on eBay tells me that the prices of digiscoping adapters for major brand telescopes are falling. He thinks the rise of the Superzoom ‘Bridge’ cameras I have discussed in this blog is the reason. The extra focal length gained by using a scope (see my Post of 19 August 2012) is now of marginal advantage when we can get the 35 mm equivalent of 1200 mm focal length from a superzoom. Add the large number of pixels captured and the fact that there is image stabilisation in the superzoom, then I can see why the digiscoping may become a thing of the past fairly quickly.

It is obviously much quicker to point a superzoom camera at a bird than it is to mount the scope on a tripod, aim and focus the scope, attach the camera by whatever attachment you have and then press the shutter.

Another correspondent says he has just had a rare bird accepted from a photograph at 1000 mm equivalent with his Nikon P510 handheld.

Over the next few weeks I will eventually get round to comparing my two systems (Nikon P50 Superzoom vs Leica Televid and Panasonic Lumix on adapter) side by side at the mouth of the river and in the garden.

Cameras for Birding: The ‘Bridge’ Camera Zoom War: Panasonic Lumix FZ72 Joins The Fray

Panasonic have now joined the zoom war in the increasingly popular superzoom ‘bridge’ camera category that is so good for birding.

I have added this camera to the table I prepared for my post of 9 March 2013. These are the key features as far as using the camera for birding are concerned but it would be good to know how it handles noise at high gain (ISO setting) and the chracteristics of its autofocus.

	Nikon P520	Canon SX50	Fuji HS50	Sony HX300	Panasonic FZ72
Optical Zoom (equiv)	24-1000	24-1200	24-1000	24-1200	20-1200
Max Aperture	3-5.9	3.4-6.5	2.8-5.6	2.8-6.3	2.8-5.9
Sensor Size	1/2.3	1/2.3	1/2	1/2.3	1/2.3
Resolution (Mpixels)	18.1	12.1	16	20.4	16.1
Output Size (pixels)	4896x3612	4000x3000	4609x3456	5184x3888	4608x3456
Stablisation	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Output	JPEG	RAW/JPEG	RAW/JPEG	JPEG	RAW/JPEG
Video	Full HD	Full HD	Full HD	Full HD	Full HD
Weight g	550	595	758	623	562

I haven’t seen a review of this new camera yet but how the market has changed in little over a year: from only a Nikon to a five superzooms from all the main manufacturers. Given the reputation of the Lumix series, I suspect this new one will provide the others with stiff competition.

Canon SX50, Fuji HS50, Nikon P520, Sony HX-300 Reviewed in AP

Amateur Photographer (20 March) has a useful comparative review of these 'flagship bridge cameras' in the 'zoom war' I have followed in earlier posts.

I have covered the main points previously as far as birding/wildlife are concerned. By comparing the handling and output of all four, the AP review adds further information.

Some issues AP raised are:

Canon SX50. Difficult to grip. LCD and EVF (the thing that passes for a viewfinder these days) worst on test.
Fuji HS50. Largest and heaviest. On/off switch turns too easily.
Nikon P520. Autofocus (contrast detection) slow compared with the others. No quick menu. Handles well.
Sony HX300. Handling very good. Large but lightweight.

In terms of resolution, the Sony and Nikon were best but the Fuji and Canon were better at higher ISO settings, as would be expected from the size of, and number of photoreceptive sites on, the sensor.

At the 24 mm equivalent to 35 mm end of the zoom, the Fuji showed marked barrel distortion. The Nikon and Sony were best. However, for chromatic aberration, Fuji was the best, followed by Sony and then the Nikon and Canon.

AP gave an overall mark of 81% to the Canon (why?) and Sony, 79% to the Fuji and 78% to the Nikon, which, surprise, surprise, correlates with the price. They regarded the Sony HX300 as the best overall, despite its lack of RAW output.

I would be hard pushed to choose now that Nikon has been joined by the others in this market. Since my P510 is used for birding/wildlife and travel as an additional camera, only if one of the others showed a marked superiority in speed of focusing would I consider defecting from the really light Nikon to one of the others.

The player missing in this market at the moment is Panasonic. Will they come up with a competitor?

Here is an Easter Bunny, taken a couple of days ago using one of the family Nikon P510s with the zoom fully extended.

180 mm (equivalent to 1000 mm full-frame 35 mm). ISO 320, f5.9, 1/500. AJP Photo

Cameras for Birding: The Zoom War Hots Up — Sony HX300

For bird and other wildlife watchers needing a light camera to record sightings, there was no choice a year ago. There was only the trend-setting Nikon P510 with its 24-1000 mm (35 mm equivalent) lens.

'Bridge' cameras have been selling very well (much to the tut-tutting of the mainstream photographic magazines who do not realise that carrying heavy binoculars and, often, a tripod and telescope as well means that an SLR with a long lens (often of inadequate length at that) is out of the question).

Canon soon followed Nikon, then Fuji and now Sony have followed with basically similar products; Nikon have followed up the P510 with the P520 (see my posts of 19 February 2013, 18 October 2012, 31 August 2012, 15 July 2012).

The Sony HX300 will be available in UK in early April. It is very difficult to say which model has the edge at the moment. The new Sony has more pixels but to see whether that compromises noise reduction we shall have to wait for the reviews. Disappointingly, it does not offer RAW, although with a 1200 mm equivalent lens and an output of 5184x3888 pixels, it could give that extra push that birders are always striving for. It is heavier than the Nikon but not so heavy as the Fuji

Here is my extraction of data from the technical details that are important to birders:

	Nikon P520	Canon SX50	Fuji HS50	Sony HX300
Optical Zoom (equiv)	24-1000	24-1200	24-1000	24-1200
Max Aperture	3-5.9	3.4-6.5	2.8-5.6	2.8-6.3
Sensor Size	1/2.3	1/2.3	1/2	1/2.3
Resolution (Mpixels)	18.1	12.1	16	20.4
Output Size (pixels)	4896x3612	4000x3000	4609x3456	5184x3888
Stablisation	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Output	JPG	RAW/JPG	RAW/JPEG	JPEG
Video	Full HD	Full HD	Full HD	Full HD
Weight g	550	595	758	623

On Amazon UK prices of these models today are: Nikon P520 £355 (the P510 is still available at £239); Canon SX50 £362; Fuji HS50 £470; Sony HX300 £419 (pre-order).

Fuji HS50 - The Zoom War Continues

Fuji has now joined Nikon (P510) and Canon (SX50) in producing a 'bridge' camera with very long lens that is ideal for wildlife photography (see my post of 14 October 2012). I have sung the virtues and few vices of the P510 — it was first on the scene and clearly established that there is a demand for light cameras with a long lens (and, of necessity, a small sensor).

The specifications of the Fuji HS50 are very similar to the P510 with (as with the SX50), a few key differences: zoom range of 24-1000 mm in 35 mm equivalents; a slightly wider maximum aperture (f2.8 at 24 mm, decreasing to f5.6 at 1000); similar size of output (4609 x 3456). Like the Canon, but not the Nikon, there is RAW and full HD (1080) video output. In terms of weight, the Nikon (555 g) scores over the Canon (595 g) and the Fuji (758 g).

The prices of these cameras today on Amazon UK were:

Fuji HS50 £419.99
Canon SX50 £394.99
Nikon P510 £235.82

I also see that the Nikon P510 has disappeared from the WEX website. It is still on the Nikon UK list but its obvious replacement, the P520 (labelled 'new') is a disappointment. Nikon have gone for the same basic camera with the same lens but have added 3D and a few other irrelevant features (why? — stereoscopic photography has only ever had short waves of popularity and already looks on the wane again). An opportunity to add RAW output has been missed. For a price today of £399 for the P520, the Fuji and Canon seem more suited to the wildlife market. Nikon may have missed a trick after having been first in the field.

The value of a camera like the P510 to the birdwatcher wanting to get a picture quickly before a bird flies away has been demonstrated by my Number 2 son. The P510 I so kindly bought him for his birthday has already been used to provide evidence, acceptable to an expert committee, for a range extension of a rare bird, as well as allowing rare migrants to be identified in the comfort of air-conditioning and with the assistance of the full range of reference books. He keeps the camera set up with a central 'sniper' autofocus site when he is out, as I described in my post of 31 August 2012.

With Canon and then Fuji joining in the zoom war, will Panasonic come up with something longer than 600 mm to join them?