[Guest]

The only ones currently widely available new are the 240 and 260, hence I went for those.

 That 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.

 

The compact big zoom factor cameras are nice. In my wife's case, we went with a Sony HX20V, because exactly for traveling, the GPS is nice to have to locate an "off the normal spot" place. The GPS does seem to work reasonable well. The other reason was the in-camera panoramas to get a quick overview shoot. I don't know why Canon can't do it, so far all I have seen is you have to assemble it later on the computer.

As to the "smeary" look, indeed, when pixel peeping with the HX20, there is substantial processing applied. Of all the cameras compared at dpreview, still the HX20 seemed to have one of the best pictures.   Very few of these cameras provide RAW support (I didn't know one could do RAW with the CHDK on the canon P&S), and the one I saw (I think Fuji??) didn't have GPS. Seems though it should be feasible to get all in one package, nobody offers it.

 

There could also be issues with sensor (or near sensor) dust in the HX20 and related camera. We had a big piece of lint in the image that they cleaned under warranty. That's clearly a disappointment for a P&S where the sensor does not get exposed unlike a dSLR. However, I am wondering if large-range zooms in P&S act like dust pumps in general (like the Canon 100-400 is supposed to be a dust pump), so they may be more prone to dust, since they are hardly seriously sealed?

 

As to the Canon SX50, not long ago I posted (here?) about estimates of the limits of resolution due to diffraction. These 1000-1200mm lenses have small sensors and small apertures (5.6 or smaller). Taking this into account, achievable resolution seemed only around 2 Megapixels, which is still fine for Movies, but for stills you might get the same effect with a shorter lens on a bigger sensors, or a shorter faster lens.