Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82: Wildlife video at extreme range

Readers of my previous post on the Lumix FZ82 bridge camera will know that it is a mixed bag. Some features I like; some desirable features are missing; implementation of some features is poor. However, I have it for its very long focal length. With 4K video the 25 mm equivalent maximum focal length is 1,680 mm.

On the Tibetan Plateau in Sichuan, China, last November I used it to take videos of Blue Sheep a very long way away on an alpine meadow and of Pallas’s Cats also a long way away. I had the camera mounted on a Manfrotto Befree Live Video tripod. The wind was strong and gusting and even the crumbly soil (undermined by Plateau Pikas) caused a wobble. I could have done with having the tripod at minimum height but the camera does has not have a moveable screen!

At maximum focal length shimmer caused by warmed air rising is always a problem that nothing can be done about.

The footage is 4K. I was outputting at 1080 so could scale up by a factor of two if necessary, i.e. to the equivalent of about 3,500 mm. Yes, on a full-frame 35 mm camera and a non-telephoto design, that’s a lens 3½ metres or 11½ feet long.

Here are some examples:

Video at these extremes and under such conditions is like the dog that talked with a Birmingham accent. The remarkable thing is not the accent but the fact that it could talk at all.

I also used the camera at a long focal length to take close shots of a Plateau Pika. The distance—and, therefore, shimmer—was much less evident.

These are the full versions of the videos on Youtube (most of the footage is from my Sony AX33):

Is there a non-professional and light camera that in the conditions could have done better?

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. 

Sony FDR-AX33 Camcorder: On location

It is one thing testing and using a camcorder around the house and on tame holidays; it is another using it in the wild, in extremes of weather and on land, air and sea to video wild life varying in size from a Blue Whale to a small insect. Neither is it useful to read most reviews and forum comments from ‘film makers’; they are looking for something entirely different.

I have now put this camcorder through the wild test for the first time and so I can add to the comments I made in my post of 12 June.

The video quality was excellent in medium to good light; less so, with noticeable apparent compensation for noise, in poor light. I made use of infrared Nightshot as I thought I would (and a good reason to buy Sony). Active Steady-Shot (BOSS) proved to be superb.

However, the electronic viewfinder (EVF) although improved from the last Sony I had is still a weak point: too dark (with no control over brightness) and with a seemingly low refresh rate. It is still an essential in a camcorder but all I can say is that it is better than nothing. By comparison with the EVF on a modern CSC, it can only be rated as poor.

I missed the GPS built into my last Sony. I carried a separate battery charger (essential when travelling but not supplied with the camcorder) and four batteries.

One annoyance was that after being outside in the sleet in the mountains of Tasmania, condensation misted the lens when back in the warmth. The condensation was not simply on the outside of the lens. I eventually got rid of it by leaving the camera on (i.e. taking video) for about 10 minutes; as it heated up the internal condensation cleared. I though condensation problems disappeared with the last tape drive but this was clearly not the case. Incidentally, when cleaning the lens, it is a case of first catch your lens; the lens assembly moves on it gimbal as you try to clean the surface.

The USB lead which emerges from the side and is tucked into the strap was a small worry; it seems too vulnerable to damage.

I am, overall, very pleased with this camcorder. I am also pleased that that is the case because there are not many options in the fairly light and useable (for my interests) camcorder category. However, I do feel Sony could have done better, as I said originally, by including features like GPS and charging more.

One aspect has been puzzling me, and others too judging from the comments on forums. That is the non-digital zoom range with different Steady-Shot settings. That will be the subject of my next post.

'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

Video: Camcorder, Compact or DSLR? It all depends on the depth of field you want

The useful article The Definitive Camera Guide in the new magazine, Digital FilmMaker, together with a discussion in Amateur Photographer on whether to buy separate video and still cameras, prompted me to remind myself, in the headlong rush to use full-frame and APS-sized cameras for video, why a small sensor, as found in most amateur, 'prosumer' and some professional camcorders, is preferable for the type of video photography that I do – travel, wildlife and documentary. Film makers which I define as those setting out to make a movie with actors or a staged documentary, appear to be fixated on getting a film-like appearance. Since the appearance of film can be more easily achieved with the depth of field range of a larger sensor (as with 35 mm cine cameras) some follow the fashion and use a large-sensored DSLR. The fact that we see in such videos endless focus shifts that the dramatic effect is expected and therefore ruined is neither here nor there. Such is the world of arty film making.

For travel, wildlife, family and documentary videos there is one great disadvantage in using a DSLR for video. The depth of field is simply too shallow. I have seen some awful efforts. Even if the camera can be focused, the slightest movements lead to the autofocus hunting to regain focus; objects slightly in front or slightly behind the point of focus that are needed to be sharp to provide context are fuzzy. DSLR video is fine for controlled shooting. The many rigs now available can be used; focus can be pulled manually after rehearsing the shot.

Camcorders are not thought cool any more. But they do work and work very well, especially those in the prosumer ranges of the major manufacturers (even though the gimmicks, like the projectors now added by Sony for example are a real pain and very silly). The quality of the full HD video is superb. I have sold wildlife footage from my Sony camcorder.

So what is the advantage of using a small sensor for video? For stills, the bigger the sensor the better, particularly for the prevention of noise. The advantages of a smaller sensor in terms of depth of field are very great for travel and wildlife. In general, with the same final image size, depth of field increases inversely to the size of the format. That is because for the same picture size, a shorter focal length lens can be used with the smaller format. Shorter focal length equals greater depth of filed. Even though the circle of confusion has to be reduced as the format size decreases, the depth of field is still increased.

The first graph illustrates the point. I compare five formats: 1. Full-frame 35 mm; 2. APS (I know the various sensors vary in size a bit but I have taken one for comparison); 4/3 format as used on many modern non-DSLR cameras; 2/3 sensor as used on many professional camcorders; 1/2.88 sensor as used on many amateur, prosumer and some professional camcorders. I calculated for each the equivalent focal length of the lens and, using the circle of confusion appropriate to each format, read off the hyperfocal distance at f/11 and f/4. The graph shows the near point of acceptable focus (i.e. half the hyperfocal distance), the far point of course being infinity.

The difference in depth of field is clear and dramatic. At a small aperture and at focal lengths shorter than the equivalent of about 50 mm, it is difficult to be out of focus using a camera with a small sensor.

I used the same data to calculate the depth of field with the camera focused at 3 metres, again at f/11 and f/4.

It can be seen clearly why footage from a small-sensored iPhone (1/3.2 – similar to 1/2.88) often produces better results in casual photography than a DSLR.

These calculations were all for the equivalent of a 50 mm lens. At 200 mm the effects are even more marked. Imagine a subject moving (e.g. a child playing or a group of otters) in the frame of full-frame DSLR where the depth of field is only a total of 14 cm at f/11 compared with a camcorder with a depth-of field of 100 cm.

Shallower depth of field can be obtained with a small sensor (even if not to the extent possible with a large sensor) by using neutral-density filters (built-in in some professional camcorders) or a polarising filter.

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).