Superzoom cameras
Jun 7, 2018 16:42:21 #
fergmark wrote:
Excellent point! First, look at the bigger image size on that blog to get the true picture, so to speak:Though the two photos are indeed flamingos, I’m not sure they make for a meaningful comparison. His intension was not the same as yours...
https://tonybritton.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-SX50-HS-Hints-Tips/i-kDFRjT3/A
But also, Tony mentions shooting that in jpg (and why), and that settings are at zero (no additional sharpening for example). He ends with "I always remind myself that the reason I enjoy bird & wildlife photography is to be near to these amazingly beautiful living works of art. Even though I'm using technology to record the image, what's most important in my photography is that I want to capture the beauty of the birds & wildlife, not just pixels." My kinda guy...even if he was paid by Canon to promote that camera
Jun 7, 2018 17:03:50 #
OK, I got ya. You need a video editor. Thanks.
bwana wrote:
I use NCH VideoPad Editor for video processing. It allows you to capture whatever frame you have displayed. Most video editing packages allow the same functionality.
Capturing video frames is handy when you have fast moving targets and/or are shooting in low light environments; allows you to (maybe) get a couple of frames with minimal motion blur... The bird image was impacted by both issues.
bwa
Capturing video frames is handy when you have fast moving targets and/or are shooting in low light environments; allows you to (maybe) get a couple of frames with minimal motion blur... The bird image was impacted by both issues.
bwa
Jun 7, 2018 17:06:30 #
Yes, his is much better on this site. That is if you like sharp stuff.
Linda From Maine wrote:
Excellent point! First, look at the bigger image s... (show quote)
Jun 7, 2018 17:09:27 #
And boy did he soften it? Which is good if you like soft stuff.
fergmark wrote:
Though the two photos are indeed flamingos, I’m not sure they make for a meaningful comparison. His intension was not the same as yours. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tony did not soften his in pp to achieve what he was after. And boy did he.
Jun 7, 2018 17:23:07 #
Fotoartist wrote:
And boy did he soften it? Which is good if you like soft stuff.
I think you are missing the point of his presentation. Detail or texture would have spoiled it. It’s about beautifully blended colors done in a very graphic way.
Jun 7, 2018 18:02:08 #
hj
Loc: Florida
But there are some who think the forum is a game of competition and "na-na-na-na-na... mine is better than yours." My camera is better than yours - or - my photos are better than yours - or -
my technique is better.
my technique is better.
jeep_daddy wrote:
I might also add that this is the Main Photography Discussion section. The key word being Discussion
Jun 7, 2018 18:02:15 #
I love the give and take I generated with a simple comment that I was impressed with the quality of my superzoom. I agree, good photography is 80% photographer. I have seen some rather poor quality photos that are award winners because of the expertise of the one taking the picture, and what he or she was able to capture. Some of the most spectacular photographs have been just with a telephone because you had it when the time was right.
Jun 7, 2018 18:19:07 #
hj
Loc: Florida
Kind of like trying to compare a ford fiesta with a BMW. I'd say Tony's photo from a bridge camera is might fine, yours from a full-frame DSLR not that much better.
Fotoartist wrote:
As far as Tony Britton and his SX-50, here's one of his shots of a flamingo (top) with one of mine (bottom) from a full frame DSLR.
Jun 7, 2018 19:01:45 #
311abe wrote:
Sorry to carry on if you're ready to move on I love the give and take I generated with a simple comment that I was impressed with the quality of my superzoom...
But I've been a champion of bridge cameras since 2013 and my main point is that, for the money (my Canon SX50 was $375) and for the convenience, they are a fantastic option. Folks should not feel limited or lacking if their interest is something other than being able to see every crack and crease on a flamingo's beak.Fotoartist's bird photos click here are of course technically without fault. But what if we're interested in the experience of seeing nature and distant wildlife "up close and personal" or of capturing something other than documentary? Are these "good enough" for a $375 investment?
-
The closest eagle I ever shot :)
(Download)
With Topaz
(Download)
Another very distant photo op: American White Pelican at rest in the Yakima River
(Download)
The nest tree is so far in the distance that an adult eagle fills less than 1/9 of the frame at 1200 mm equiv angle of view.
(Download)
Jun 7, 2018 19:19:18 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
I have a fuji finepix S8650 that zooms from 25 to 900mm. I also have my D3200 and D3100 (with separate lenses on each). Two years ago I, while visiting family in California, I took the fuji to San Francisco because I didn't want to lug around all the other gear. While standing at the yacht basin, I photographed San Quentin, it took a few takes because of "photo shake" but I took a really good photo! I enlarged it to 11x14 without any distortion. I also used it to photograph the Golden Gate from China Beach (not at 900mm), and it is a beautiful photograph (again at 11x14). I photographed the Golden Gate from the Presidio and again enlarged to 11x14 for a superb photograph. The only drawback for the Fuji S, is that it doesn't shoot RAW, but I work around it when I use that camera.
I originally bought the Fuji because I cannot afford a 1000mm lens; the little camera is a champ (although the focus is sometimes slow).
I originally bought the Fuji because I cannot afford a 1000mm lens; the little camera is a champ (although the focus is sometimes slow).
Jun 7, 2018 19:40:18 #
hj wrote:
I agreed with your first sentence, since I recently bought the Canon 70-300 IS II USM lens and am very pleased with it. Sold My Canon 70-200L lens as I didn't need that much money wrapped up in a lens I don't use that often. I'm happy with the Canon 70-300 IS II USM replacement. You turned me off though with your last SNARKY sentence. Kinda like a photographic snob.
Not snarky and and not snobbish at all - as I am a POOR photographer like MOST here on UHH - if you can not see the difference and you are HAPPY - that is all that really MATTERS - and, MUCH cheaper that way 8-) - just that some of us can/have seen the differences - and it has spoiled us and COST us. 8-( But the reality is there ARE BETTER things out there - and ignorance IS bliss in many genres- not just photography !
..
Jun 7, 2018 20:44:02 #
apitic
Loc: Down Under
I have both the D850 and P900. The P900 covers for the missing long focal lenses for D900.
I found the quality quite acceptable. Check the little white spot on the sky.
I found the quality quite acceptable. Check the little white spot on the sky.
Jun 8, 2018 01:39:23 #
I'm quite satisfied to be receiving three figures from what comes out of my superzoom bridge. One lens for everything I want to shoot.
Jun 8, 2018 02:56:07 #
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.
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 started in digital photography with a 2MP Canon A40 in 2002. I moved up to a 6MP Canon S3 IS Superzoom next, followed by a 12 MP Canon SX 40 Superzoom. I was happy with my photos (something like 100,000), except the low light performance was poor due to the small sensor. I really liked the light weight and not having to change lenses. However, friends and family with DSLRs were getting photos that were noticeably better. I have many very good photos from my previous cameras. I resisted getting a DSLR until a year and a half ago when I bought my Canon 80D; I'm thrilled with the results I'm getting. For me, the extra weight and cost are worth it.
Jun 8, 2018 10:10:49 #
I have both kinds of camera's, they both have there purpose, but a $400 super-zoom camera image does not compare to a more professional camera, I use a Nikon B700, nice lightweight zoom camera-takes great macro to, but my D7100 takes much better pictures no matter if I am using kit lens or prime on it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.