Superzoom cameras (Page 2): You shouldn't care. The camera gives you result that you like that's all the matter.

BebuLamar

311abe wrote:

I have had a superzoom now for over a year and am shocked at the quality of pictures. I know the purists like the fixed lenses but, unless your making poster, I find quality hard to distinguish. Am I missing something or am I just too much of a novice? I have both fixed lense cameras and superzoom.
The only thing lacking for superzoom is versitility and features that allow for providing more originality in some photos.
For wildlife an landscape, they're hard to beat.

You shouldn't care. The camera gives you result that you like that's all the matter.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

They are great for social media and cell phone image viewing, maybe an 8x10. But those itty-bitty sensors don't allow much room for cropping or for large prints. These cameras also tend to do very poorly in low light.

Still, depending on your needs, they may be just perfect. I plan on picking up what is arguably the best of the bunch, a Sony RX-10iv to compliment my interchangeable lens cameras.

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

Desert Gecko wrote:

They are great for social media and cell phone image viewing, maybe an 8x10. But those itty-bitty sensors don't allow much room for cropping or for large prints. These cameras also tend to do very poorly in low light.

Still, depending on your needs, they may be just perfect. I plan on picking up what is arguably the best of the bunch, a Sony RX-10iv to compliment my interchangeable lens cameras.

That is exactly what I did and couldn't e happier!

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

robertjerl wrote:

As long as you stick to posting on line you will n... (show quote)

This hit the nail on the head. If you are posting thumbnails, not much different. Printing larger is where you run into issues. Lots of issues

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I used a Canon SX50 for four years, primarily for far-distant birds and critters since I had a dslr for landscapes. I still have an 8x10 hanging on my wall from the very first day of using the camera. It is of two adult bighorn sheep + a charming tiny baby, and one mom is about to snack on some bright yellow flowers. The scene was so far away I could barely see the animals with naked eye (shot at digital zoom, equiv. 2400 mm angle of view). They are in focus and the image is well exposed. Do you think I care if the photo looks more "painterly" than sharp? Heck no

But I also think that anyone who obsesses about whether their gear is "good enough" should explore upgrades. Whatever it takes to be happy with the hobby!

williejoha

If you are happy with the results, nothing else matters. Keep doing what you enjoy.
WJH

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Hi Abe, welcome!! Whatever makes you happy is the right choice for you.

(From a fellow P900 user!)

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

I agree that super-zooms are excellent. I use a Leica V-Lux; the lens specifies 25mm-400mm, but in P program that pushes to 1600mm. Not sure where I can show you an example on this site, there aren't any attachment links. "I'll start a new subject called Super-zooms ?" and post the wideangle image of the Hudson River and a 2nd image of the tug boat on the right side of the image to demonstrate the range and quality.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Just learned how to attach a picture(s) to a reply; sample of zoom range: super-zoom Lieca V-Lux (114)

(Download)

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

You find it hard to distinguish because you don't want to. There's a huge difference but some people simply think some things are "good enough for them". But if you really get down to brass tacks, you'll never get the detail of a subject you are zooming in on like you would if you were using a DSLR with good glass. Yes, in some cases the super zooms do an adequate job and you can actually print and frame some nice images you get from them. A friend of mine had a Nikon P600 superzoom camera and she got a picture of some Green Heron chicks in a nest that was backlit perfectly and I asked her for a copy so I could print and hang on my wall. It's on my wall now. So I'm not totally against superzooms, but your statement is only as good as "you" think the camera is. It isn't viewed the same by others with a more critical view of photography.

311abe wrote:

I have had a superzoom now for over a year and am shocked at the quality of pictures. I know the purists like the fixed lenses but, unless your making poster, I find quality hard to distinguish. Am I missing something or am I just too much of a novice? I have both fixed lense cameras and superzoom.
The only thing lacking for superzoom is versitility and features that allow for providing more originality in some photos.
For wildlife an landscape, they're hard to beat.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

311abe wrote:

I have had a superzoom now for over a year and am shocked at the quality of pictures. I know the purists like the fixed lenses but, unless your making poster, I find quality hard to distinguish. Am I missing something or am I just too much of a novice? I have both fixed lense cameras and superzoom.
The only thing lacking for superzoom is versitility and features that allow for providing more originality in some photos.
For wildlife an landscape, they're hard to beat.

I've had a Sony A7R and A7 II, and currently own a Sony A7S and A7R II (and far too many lenses). I'm quite happy with the full frame performance; however, I also have Sony's RX10 III (and IV) with its 1" sensor and excellent 24-600mm zoom. I find I most often grab one of the RX10's on the way out the door simply because it is compact and captures pix that look almost identical to those off their full frame relatives...

bwa

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

311abe wrote:

I have had a superzoom now for over a year and am shocked at the quality of pictures. I know the purists like the fixed lenses but, unless your making poster, I find quality hard to distinguish. Am I missing something or am I just too much of a novice? I have both fixed lense cameras and superzoom.
The only thing lacking for superzoom is versitility and features that allow for providing more originality in some photos.
For wildlife an landscape, they're hard to beat.

My pocket Sony 90 V with 24-720 mm lens is CAPABLE of delivering a beautiful 16x24. As can my Nikon and Sony DSLR'S. It all comes down to knowledge, experience, and practice.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

billnikon wrote:

My pocket Sony 90 V with 24-720 mm lens is CAPABLE of delivering a beautiful 16x24. As can my Nikon and Sony DSLR'S. It all comes down to knowledge, experience, and practice.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Desert Gecko wrote:

They are great for social media and cell phone image viewing, maybe an 8x10. But those itty-bitty sensors don't allow much room for cropping or for large prints. These cameras also tend to do very poorly in low light.

Still, depending on your needs, they may be just perfect. I plan on picking up what is arguably the best of the bunch, a Sony RX-10iv to compliment my interchangeable lens cameras.

I've shot the RX10 III & IV at ISO 6400 and 12800. Yes, the pix had some noise but I HAVE a picture that isn't motion blurred. Sample below.

bwa

Heron @ 600mm, f/4, ISO6400 (Hyder Alaska)

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

jeep_daddy wrote:

You find it hard to distinguish because you don't want to. There's a huge difference but some people simply think some things are "good enough for them"....

Remember back to your topic of December 2015 when you posted photos of birds that were out of focus, shot in harsh light and most included horribly distracting backgrounds? Then two years later you posted a jaw-dropping stunningly beautiful shot of night fireworks!

Everyone is at a different point of their journey with photography as a hobby and criticizing someone's ability to discern "quality" isn't helpful. As is often pointed out on this forum and evidenced everywhere, photography is about much more than just sharp at 100%.