Why can't DSLR's have 50x zooms like the SX50? I keep seeming to come accross threads on the sx50 here, and googled it and found it had a zoom equivalent of 14-1200mm, or 50x. That's...

samelcock

I keep seeming to come accross threads on the sx50 here, and googled it and found it had a zoom equivalent of 14-1200mm, or 50x. That's pretty impressive considering its only f6.3 at the tele, but how come you can't get lenses like this for DSLR's? Canon I know do their 18-200mm, but why couldn't they do a 14-1200 like on the sx50?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

The quality would never live up to the cost.

samelcock

BigBear wrote:

The quality would never live up to the cost.

But surely they could make a low quality plastic efs version, and people would still buy it for the zoom range? Like they did it on the sx50, and the quality can't be horrendous (I don't know but I'm assuming) with that?
The cost musnt be much more either? Camera and lens on the sx50 is around £300, which would be cheap for a DSLR lens

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

samelcock wrote:

But surely they could make a low quality plastic efs version, and people would still buy it for the zoom range? Like they did it on the sx50, and the quality can't be horrendous (I don't know but I'm assuming) with that?
The cost musnt be much more either? Camera and lens on the sx50 is around £300, which would be cheap for a DSLR lens

You just answered with low quality. I would never invest in it.
All of my lenses are Canon L series because of the quality.

samelcock

Not everyone cares about quality though, hence the thousands of people who are content with their 18-55 kits. besides, what goods a 14 2.8L if you're trying to shoot something 2 miles away, and you forgot to take your 800 5.6L with you? It'd be much better to have a lower quality zoom lens in such situations, when weight and space (those tele primes weigh a tonne) are an issue

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I carry 3 lenses and a 2x with me, 17-40 L f/4, 70-200 2.8 L IS and 300 2.8 L IS. Right now I cover the all the range I need without sacrificing quality.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

samelcock wrote:

Not everyone cares about quality though, hence the thousands of people who are content with their 18-55 kits. besides, what goods a 14 2.8L if you're trying to shoot something 2 miles away, and you forgot to take your 800 5.6L with you? It'd be much better to have a lower quality zoom lens in such situations, when weight and space (those tele primes weigh a tonne) are an issue

I guess I don't understand the argument... If you don't care about quality, then it doesn't matter what you shoot with, right? If you are willing to buy a cheap lens that supports 14-1200mm, then you can just buy the sx50. What am I missing?

samelcock

mdorn wrote:

I guess I don't understand the argument... If you don't care about quality, then it doesn't matter what you shoot with, right? If you are willing to buy a cheap lens that supports 14-1200mm, then you can just buy the sx50. What am I missing?

The versatility of a DSLR maybe? I don't know much about the sx50, but surely they have more technical features than a "compact", whereas at the end of the day, glass is glass?
I'm not saying that canon should definately go ahead and start making such a lens, but as a proof of concept I was just wondering if it could technically be done, but it doesn't sound like there would be the market for it, as as you said, why not just get an sx50? :p

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Sensor size is why. Small sensor needs less focal length to do the same job. What is the *actual* focal length of the sx50? I bet it's nothing like the equivalent focal length

If you go even further than a dslr, consider that a 8x10 camera needs something like 300mm just for a normal field of view, because the 'sensor' is so huge

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

I did some research last night, and found that a 1/2.3 sensor camera (typical bridge camera) is diffraction limited before f/5.6 - wish I would have known this before buying a 2x teleconverter for my bridge on Ebay! No problem though...f/11 will work just fine on micro four thirds when I upgrade later this summer.

Can you imagine the size of a 1200mm FF zoom lens at a decent aperture? I'd definitely stick to the SX50, which must have some damn good diffraction correction going on.

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

I would say the smart paparazzi would just buy an SX50 ....I have seen zoomed in pics with the SX50 outclass any pictures paparazzis actually sell for money!
I think jerryc41 is a closet paparazzi and has an SX50!(I may be wrong! lol)

Moray Loc: East Coast Canada

You can buy a cheap 1300 mm lense at amazon. I would like to see a photo taken with it.
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B000IMRTFO/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1370474378&sr=1-1&keywords=1200mm+lens

cesarakg Loc: Candelaria - Brazil

My 2¢...

I would love to have a 50x zoom lens (or a 30x) to play with the DSLR. Especialy if the image quality compares with a top superzoom (Fujifilm Finepix X-S1?).

On the other hand, these superzoom can have that long zoom because the small sensor size, AFAIK. So the glass is small too. This way you can have a 4.5-117mm lens working as a 23-600mm lens (extra-big-gigonormous croping, zoom of 26x).

Change the size of the sensor to APS-C, and the lenses will grow up a lot to maintain the same zoom range, and your small zoom becomes a pole-sized zoom.

Moray Loc: East Coast Canada

And just noticed you can get a 2X telephoto converter for this lens. That should reach Mars

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Definition-Telephoto-Converter-650-1300mm/dp/B000JSZ41S/ref=pd_sim_e_2

cesarakg Loc: Candelaria - Brazil

Opteka 650-1300mm (2x zoom?) photos in Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/opteka-650-1300/

Some discussion about it: http://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=opteka+650-1300