EOS Rebel Cameras

Just one of many shots taken over the past few years with my Canon EOS Rebel camera.  My friend, using the camera, took Robin and I "in flight", as it were.  I will post more photos here, showing macro mode shots, a moon shot or two, and my favorite, landscapes and other natural scenes.  

Having used Canon SLR cameras for a few years now, the only complaint I have is the expense - not of the camera, so much, but mostly - the lenses. 

I am amazed that Canon now has a point-and-shoot selling at local stores for $399 that has a 50x zoom (that would be, in 35mm/SLR terms, 1200mm).  The SX50 HS looks like a great camera.  It's true the sensor on the camera is smaller than full frame or even EF-S sensor on the Rebel series, so therefore the lens can be somewhat smaller and still have the same specs - but that's getting down to details.

Yes, I am picky about image quality, but I've gotten great quality photos, and was able to enlarge them up to 16x20 or larger, from a 4.1MP Olympus point-and-shoot with a 10x zoom.  Consider that the new Canon is more than 12MP and has the 50x zoom, if you can keep the camera stable enough at an extended zoom so that camera shake doesn't disrupt your photos, you could get some AMAZING photos.

The longest zoom I have now, on the EOS, is 300mm, and with it, I have taken some really good photos (and some that weren't so good).  In a moment I'll post a link to a really intriguing shot that shows the EOS with a 1200mm lens compared to the SX50!

But first, another great camera on the market today is a new Panasonic, the Lumix DMC-FZ200 which only has a 24x zoom.  The really great thing about this camera is the aperture rating - that is, the amount of light it lets in.  From the wide angle end all the way up to the fully zoomed end of the range, it has an aperture of f2.8.

Compared to the Canon SX50, the Lumix has only half the zoom but at any point in that range, it lets significantly more light than the Canon, as much as 6x as much light (or 4x approximately at the 24x zoom level).  With that much more lighting available, you can leave the ISO settings lower, getting less grain in low-light shots.

For fun, take a look at this photo... http://j.mp/Y3MkoG  - it compares the two cameras discussed here, along with my EOS Rebel XSI, but with a lens added to it that would give it the equivalent lens power of the Canon SX50 (that is, 1200mm).  That lens would cost many, many thousands of dollars (quick google search didn't find one available, but I am sure they're out there (time to go get the b&h catalog).  A similar but smaller lens, at 600mm, matches the Lumix zoom range but at an f4.0 aperture (lower light levels than the Panasonic's) and costs almost $13000.

I'll note that the $13000 lens paired with a full-frame SLR could take better quality photos as compared to the Panasonic, so if you were blowing them up to put on the side of a side-scraper, you'd probably want to own the many-thousands-of-dollars lens and camera option.  But for most of us, the $499 for the Panasonic would be the more affordable option and more reasonable option.

But hey, if price is no option, you could always spend more!