Would you recommend this camera for taking pictures on an African safari? Do you think it would adequately capture mountain gorillas in low-light settings? We're deciding between this camera and the SX50, so any input would be greatly appreciated! Would you recommend this camera for taking pictures on an African safari? Do you think it would adequately capture mountain gorillas in low-light settings? We're deciding between this camera... » Read More Would you recommend this camera for taking pictures on an African safari? Do you think it would adequately capture mountain gorillas in low-light settings? We're deciding between this camera and the SX50, so any input would be greatly appreciated! « Show Less
1436026
I love this camera, but if you're laying out the money for an African safari, I hope you're bringing a DSLR...
1436027
I'm fairly sure that no camera can capture mountain gorilla's. Even if a camera had arms and legs, most models are way too small and light to subdue a gorilla.
1436028
que tipo de baterias usa? son de litio? o si son AA cuanto tiempo duran. Gracias
1436029
I had the same choice. I went Nikon and am very happy. Although I have never taken photos of gorillas in low light I have taken photos of my children who can occasionally behave as such in low light. This camera is superb. After owning 10 years worth of nothing but Cannons I finally strayed from the reservation and bought this Nikon after three months worth of contemplation. I am very happy. The 3D effect for very still shot photos might be some of the sharpest non professional photos I have ever seen. I would buy this again, or take on an African safari knowing the zoom will be a huge asset. Best of luck on whatever you decide. I had the same choice. I went Nikon and am very happy. Although I have never taken photos of gorillas in low light I have taken photos of my children who can occasionally behave as such in low light. This camera is superb. After owning 10 years worth of nothing but Cannons I finally strayed from the reservation and bought this Nikon after three months worth of contemplation. I am very happy. The 3D effect for very still shot photos might be some of the sharpest non professional photos I have ever seen. I would buy this again, or take on an African safari knowing the zoom will be a huge... » Read More I had the same choice. I went Nikon and am very happy. Although I have never taken photos of gorillas in low light I have taken photos of my children who can occasionally behave as such in low light. This camera is superb. After owning 10 years worth of nothing but Cannons I finally strayed from the reservation and bought this Nikon after three months worth of contemplation. I am very happy. The 3D effect for very still shot photos might be some of the sharpest non professional photos I have ever seen. I would buy this again, or take on an African safari knowing the zoom will be a huge asset. Best of luck on whatever you decide. « Show Less
1436030
I have taken pictures at sunset with no problem. You have to give it time to adjust to the lighting. The zoom is great however lighting levels do suffer because of it. I would not hesitate to take mine to Africa.
1044696
I would say, a great camera that never let me down... this SX40 with its super zoom very steady with full zoom although with DigZoom on, it's harder to stay steady without a tripod but this is normal with 140X zoom.On the other hand, I would recommend the new model of this one (SX50HS) featuring panoramic mode & even more stable shooting mode. hope this helps :)
792518
I have been wondering the same thing & still can't decide. I was wondering if you have decided yet & if so which way you went? I have a Pentax Optio A10 right now & I love everything about it except the shutter speed so I have been looking for a new one & can't decide between the Sony DSCW80 & the Canon SD1000.
1076847
I got excellent pics, but only used it outside for snorkeling and while hanging out on the beach and as a secondary camera at Chichen Itza in Mexico. I also had my Nikon D5000, which obviously is a much more advanced camera, but this one did good enough that I was comfortable leaving the Nikon D5000 behind for some of our activities, knowing this camera would capture anything I needed and I wouldn't lose out on memories :) My snorkeling pics turned out good!
849561
Yes I think this is the perfect traveling camera because of its small size and light weight. The lens that you selected would be perfect for a safari.
490818
I am also looking at these two cameras. My needs are a good low light performance as well as action sport shots. I had purchased the Panasonic FZ8 but have returned it because the inside low light pictures were very noisy and grainy. It took great outside pictures and was responsibly fast. I'm currently wanting to try the Sony but don't like the idea of having to buy a memory stick for it, I have a few sd cards that the Canon takes.
755317
The Sony does very well including situations with mixed light sources such as daylight and house lamps. It also works surprisingly well in low light situations, however the longer exposure times required can lead to blurred images because of the longer shutter time. I often have better results using available light than I do using the flash which is not powerful enough to reach too far. This is not to suggest that the Canon wouldn't work as well or better.
2174466
The 70-300 wouldn't be recommended for bird photography. Although the 100-400 is better, most of what I've read suggests a 500 is needed.As to whether the 70-300 would work for wildlife photography, I think it depends on what you'd exactly be doing. For safari-type situations, where vehicles get reasonably close, I think a 70-300 would work. For some examples with the original 75-100 IS (and I believe the 70-300 IS is an improvement), see www.thesafariadvisor.com. Almost all the photos (other than the ones specifically indicated to be from Tanzania, which were taken with a 100-400) were taken with the 75-300. The 70-300 wouldn't be recommended for bird photography. Although the 100-400 is better, most of what I've read suggests a 500 is needed.As to whether the 70-300 would work for wildlife photography, I think it depends on what you'd exactly be doing. For safari-type situations, where vehicles get reasonably close, I think a 70-300 would work. For some examples with the original 75-100 IS (and I believe the 70-300 IS is an improvement), see www.thesafariadvisor.com. Almost all the photos (other than the ones specifically indicated to be from Tanzania, which were taken with a... » Read More The 70-300 wouldn't be recommended for bird photography. Although the 100-400 is better, most of what I've read suggests a 500 is needed.As to whether the 70-300 would work for wildlife photography, I think it depends on what you'd exactly be doing. For safari-type situations, where vehicles get reasonably close, I think a 70-300 would work. For some examples with the original 75-100 IS (and I believe the 70-300 IS is an improvement), see www.thesafariadvisor.com. Almost all the photos (other than the ones specifically indicated to be from Tanzania, which were taken with a 100-400) were taken with the 75-300. « Show Less
1094989
Yes, you can get pretty good pics under low light conditions. I've tried similar cameras, and I didn't get better quality pics than the ones I've got from the WX50.
1180028
I am planning to get Canon SX20is since I am hiking the Sierras again late Summer. I like the fact that it uses 4 AA alkaline batteries - which I can easily purchase. It has 20X Optical Zoom so hopefully I can get a lot of wild life pictures from afar. I took several pictures of a bear and her cubs last year with Olympus(4X optical zoom) and they turn out very disappointing :(
646654
I'm also trying to decide between the Nikon Coolpix P90 and Olympus sp590uz. I mostly take pictures of wildlife, but need an occasional picture of family or knitting projects in doors. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks,
392883
Hi, Douglas! I saw what you discussed about the lances and the whole camera and I want to ask you if you have any experiance with Nikon Coolpix 5700 (I have that one) and how is it against Canon DigitalRebel XT? Is it much more I'll "earn" if I switch to Canon? Thank you in advance!Ivan Hristov, Houston, TX
261672
I took several pictures with both and the Sony seems to have more reddish tints in the pictures. I even used the P mode and used the natural setting. It did not help when in the landscape, etc modes. That is the only complaint I have so far. Neither the Canon or the Sony had real good picture quality, I did not think. Maybe I should try something else all together. I liked the idea of having a larger zoom on a point and shoot but maybe it takes away from teh quality??
849563
The autofocus works very fast, accurate and it is easy to quickly select the focus point. To get the best results you should select the smallest focus point and change the release lag time to short. The auto-focus tracking is not as good as DSLR. I am not sure how it compares to comparably priced mirrorless like the sony a6000. It does 3.5 fps with continuous autofocus and 8 fps without continuous autofocus, its not bad, but not as fast as the EM-1 or A6000. The 75 - 300 is not fast on the long end f6.7mm. I think you will be fine, but the EM-1 or A6000 is probably a better choice for a Safari. The autofocus works very fast, accurate and it is easy to quickly select the focus point. To get the best results you should select the smallest focus point and change the release lag time to short. The auto-focus tracking is not as good as DSLR. I am not sure how it compares to comparably priced mirrorless like the sony a6000. It does 3.5 fps with continuous autofocus and 8 fps without continuous autofocus, its not bad, but not as fast as the EM-1 or A6000. The 75 - 300 is not fast on the long end f6.7mm. I think you will be fine, but the EM-1 or A6000 is probably a better choice for a... » Read More The autofocus works very fast, accurate and it is easy to quickly select the focus point. To get the best results you should select the smallest focus point and change the release lag time to short. The auto-focus tracking is not as good as DSLR. I am not sure how it compares to comparably priced mirrorless like the sony a6000. It does 3.5 fps with continuous autofocus and 8 fps without continuous autofocus, its not bad, but not as fast as the EM-1 or A6000. The 75 - 300 is not fast on the long end f6.7mm. I think you will be fine, but the EM-1 or A6000 is probably a better choice for a Safari. « Show Less
9878
The autofocus works very fast, accurate and it is easy to quickly select the focus point. To get the best results you should select the smallest focus point and change the release lag time to short. The auto-focus tracking is not as good as DSLR. I am not sure how it compares to comparably priced mirrorless like the sony a6000. It does 3.5 fps with continuous autofocus and 8 fps without continuous autofocus, its not bad, but not as fast as the EM-1 or A6000. The 75 - 300 is not fast on the long end f6.7mm. I think you will be fine, but the EM-1 or A6000 is probably a better choice for a Safari.
775022
It worked very well for me in Africa. I was able to take great pictures of Lions without being up close.
609060
It takes fine pictures at night. It isn't SLR quality, and occasionally even my iPhone does as well, but where it really shines is under water. We dropped ours in 36ft off of the bow of our sailboat and it did fine, even after spending several hours down there until we could recover it (no dive gear on the boat and that is beyond my free diving capability). It is still a point and shoot with a small lens. I am happy with it, but it is far from a perfect camera. Our Canon SLR is superior, but that is to be expected. Its a great travel camera for those active moments where you can't take an SLR.