04-12-2013, 04:55 PM
Quote:I have one of the sx cameras (I think 230)The only ones currently widely available new are the 240 and 260, hence I went for those.
Quote:If you could relax your lens requirements to a 28-200 equivalentThat is not an option. Note how I put the tele reach 2nd on my list of requirements, only after size. Speed is not really important to me. Of course I'd take it if it was there as well as the reach, but I wouldn't take it instead of the reach.
Perhaps I should have added, I intend to use this as my sole camera when on work travel, and regardless of where I go, wildlife is a main interest. Any number of cameras can do the wide angle side, but I do need the long end too. Getting closer is not an option for any foot zoom fans. 300mm full frame equivalent is only barely adequate actually, and 300mm on APS-C is my preferred range = 480mm equiv. 200mm really isn't worth any consideration.
The SX50, if it weren't for its size, seems to offer very good quality too, as well as an almost silly 1200mm equivalent that actually looks pretty good. Actually I may still get one later on if I see it at a good price. It's just not quite pocketable though, not without a questionable bulge anyway.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.