Jersey guy Loc: New Joisey

I just bought an expensive Canon and opted for their 15-85mm lens which I love. As I start my research for a longer zoom telephoto (say, around 70-250 or so) I am puzzled by the plethora of medium priced lesser-capable cameras that have incredible zoom ratios.

My 15-85 cost the better part of the camera body and even if I get a lens of 250mm, my effective shooting range for the two (15-250) is still less than some of these super zooms, about 17X.

What can the effective aperture of these "supers" be at the extreme and how do they cope with camera shake, IS notwithstanding.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

They vary, you can check that out by doing a comparison ar www.dpreview.com or www.snapsort.com and there are other sites as well. Most are 3.5 to 5.6 or 6.5. The Panasonic FZ200 is 24 ( I think) to 600 mm ( I'm sure) with a fixed aperture of 2.8. It's the only one I know of that's a constant 2.8 and it's a Leica lens. That said the FZ200 struggles a little with focus on moving subjects. Otherwise I've seen some amazing sharp shots at 600mm

Jersey guy Loc: New Joisey

I just looked at the dpreview of this camera and I have to admit it's impressive. It makes me wonder why I spent almost 3x as much on my DSLR body + lens and suffer a reduced 5.6ƒ at the max FL which is nowhere near the 600mm equivalent of the Panasonic. Curiously, I don't think the dpreview says anything about the IQ. The sensor is obviously on the small size, given that the real FL of the FZ200 is 4.5mm yielding the same effective 24mm as my 15mm Canon lens. Any thoughts?

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

The numbers are misleading, biased, limited and there are so many other critical variables involved.
By themselves, stated numbers often do not compare.
Most reviews are biased, and many reviewers do not truly understand the specifications (numbers).
Based on numbers alone, I don't need a DSLR or a P&S, when I have my new i-phone in hand. And it has two cameras!

If you are really interested in how digital cameras are marketed to various consumer groups, look into the quality of pixels versus how many megapixels a camera has.
For many years cameras were judged by "how many megapixels does it have?". By itself, that is not a useful or reliable comparative metric.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Festina Lente said in part... "The numbers are misleading, biased, limited and there are so many other critical variables involved.By themselves, stated numbers often do not compare.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, it is indeed a confusing world of numbers. Example $600 Sony X100 shooting a bird at full zoom 3.3, vs a $119 Panasonic sz7 shooting same bird at 10x. Once cropped to the same bird size, then the Panasonic has the edge on pixels. Of course the Sony will shoot raw, has larger f opening etc. So numbers are indeed not as simple and clear cut as we would see them after the 3rd beer.

All those calculations having been said, I would buy the Panasonic sz7 10x 14 megpix because it is very small, improved over the Panasonic TZ3 10x 7 megpix I have used happily for 7 years (fits small belt pack); which with Post-Processing will give great results. P&S super zooms are superior to a DSLR because they are with you and not at home on the closet shelf when that of-the-moment never-happen-again shot is there for the shooting.

PS: Also all the lens adapters for filters, fisheye, tele boost etc that I made for the TZ3 fit the SZ7. Just bought a $15 junk TZ1 to disect to check on making the TZ3 into a IR camera, of course a DIY project.

Radioman Loc: Ontario Canada

[quote=dpullum]Festina Lente said in part... "The numbers are misleading, biased, limited and there are so many other critical variables involved.By themselves, stated numbers often do not compare.
-----------------------------------------------
...... P&S super zooms are superior to a DSLR because they are with you and not at home on the closet shelf when that of-the-moment never-happen-again shot is there for the shooting.[/b]

That is a very good answer: Douglas Kirkland, a fairly well known professional photographer was asked "What is the best camera". The expected answer was about the relative merits of Nikon, Cannon etc. His answer was substantially the same as yours: " Whatever camera you have with you when you see a picture you want to take". He also commented that even with a cell phone camera, one can hold one side of a pair of Polaroid sunglasses in front of the lens as a polarizing filter.

achesley Loc: SW Louisiana

I can give you an example of two shots that came out of my Minolta Dimage Z6 at Chief Crazyhorse Memorial in '06. The first is no zoom and the next is full zoom. The camera is in my truck but I think full zoom is 12X .
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/achesley1943/Summer%20of%2006/28CrazyHorse3800x600.jpg

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/achesley1943/Summer%20of%2006/29CrazyHorse4800x600.jpg

I still have and use this camera along with my Canon G12 which I sold a Canon D1000 to get so it would fit my tank bag better.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have some P&S to carry for convenience, but for serious shooting I use a DSLR. The whole lens situation can be very confusing. Here's how I see it.

As others have said, buy the best lens you can afford. However, are you going to see any real difference between a $500 lens and a $2,000 lens? It's the difference between buying four different lenses or just one.

Before I buy a lens, I read all the available reviews. If it's a toss-up in quality between a Nikon and Tokina for half the price, I'd go with the Tokina. If the reviews mention many shortcomings in the Tokina, then I'd pay extra for the Nikon. I also look on ebay and on Nikon's site for refurbished lenses.

Tarzan Loc: Brazil

I am an amateur that takes the hobby seriously. Many Sundays are dedicated to taking pictures of specific places, and in these occasions, I carry a Pana G3 with 14/45, 50/200 and 100/300 lenses. This stuff replaced a Nikon D 5000 DSLR and lenses up to 300, with a small but real gain in image quality, and gratitude from my backbone. But even a micro 4/3 with lenses can be cumbersome, so, most of times, I carry a Canon SX40, with a zoom of 35x. For wildlife, at maximum zoom, it's image quality is on a par with G3,- (sounds heretical, I know...) and much more user-friendly. Many shots that would have been lost while changing lenses of the G3 were done because I had the SX40 at hand.
Best regards.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

I keep reading these post questioning the quality of the supper zoom bridge cameras and it just flashed on me - why don't these guys try one - go to B&H or Androma and buy a used one - say the fz150 for example - try it and then send it back before the return time runs out.

My bet is you will end up keeping it.
JMHO
Harvey

cecilia delacroix Loc: near Seattle

A huge advantage of a DSLR (for me, anyway) is that it records the image instantaneously, whereas with a P&S there's usually a pause of a second or two. After a whale watching excursion - where I got only one decent shot out of many - was when I decided to step up to DSLR. I do still carry my little Sony/Zeiss P&S around with me for unexpected pictures, such as the one taken in Las Vegas that I use as my avatar snapshot.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have noticed that delay with some P&S, although it seems to vary by model. I have a Canon A480 that takes its time and a Canon SD800 that has no lag at all. My Sony WX9 P&S doesn't keep me waiting.

Jersey guy Loc: New Joisey

Thanks for all of you who have repsonded! And so the philosophical and technical dilemma deepens. If some of the newer non-DSLRs (I won't call them P&S) are so good why are professionals not converting over? In fact, all of the pros that I know disdain even the relatively large APS-C sensor (vis a vis P&S) in favor of the full frame sensor.

To the responder who said some of the figures are distortions, etc., I am compelled to ask how the laws of physics, especially optics, can be waived as in the case of the Panasonic FZ200. A prime 2.8 lens at 600mm according to my calculations, requires an aperture of 215mm....over 8.5 inches. What am I missing here? Please don't answer, "I don't know how it does it, but it does". That doesn't cut it for me.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

JERSEY GUY, are you sure that those immutable laws of physics do not wiggle a little in the real world... if you care to read a short 64 page article... please go to...
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/index.html#part_4
This may not clarify your puzzlement, but it will keep you busy reading it several times to understand.

Do remember that there is a lot of in camera PProcessing and this whole thing is not really photos, rather 1 and 0s and a lot of algorithms... and for companies... hype... and for those Pros.. conviction that their full size sensors are justification for big $$$ and that O'Bama is not a US citizen... and a lot of other convictions.

Let me know how you enjoyed the 64 pages.. perhaps additional information.

Oh one last thing... the image... how are the images displayed.. you get a full frame camera to then reduce the image to 4x6 or to cell phone size, or to be on a 52" TV or a billboard at 10 dpi... like back to the VW or Corvette to the corner store???? OH confusion they name be camera hype

Tarzan Loc: Brazil

As to why profissional photographers stick to high-end full frame DSLRs, compared to lesser models or superzooms:

1. - They are rain, dust and shock resistant.
2. - Their full frame sensors provide better performance in low light
3. - Their full frame provides better image quality and PP flexibility
4. - Their range of controls is much more extensive
5. - Their speed/accuracy in focusing is much better
6. - They use long-lasting batteries, accessory batteries and 2
memory cards
7. - Tradition?

BTW, in my humble opinion, superzooms are practical tools for amateurs, not 'so good', just fairly so. They are frail, limited in operation and almost 'nothing-proof'. Their chief quality is portability and versatility.