User avatar
TS-IOR
Topic Author
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 9:44 pm

Superzooms VS. Lenses/teleconverters

Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:13 pm

It is something that i do not understand much in photography... is zooming with a superzoom compact (those bridges SLR likes) at let's say 1000mm gives the same as using a 1000mm lens/teleconverter ? My idea is that the result is of course better with a lens and the zoom (getting closer) is more significant than when using a fixed zoom ! When zooming is needed, does a 250mm or 300mm lens can replace a 12x optical zoom (400mm) fixed zoom ? Don't get lost :-P
Next flight TUN-YUL Tunisair A330-243.
 
megatop412
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Superzooms VS. Lenses/teleconverters

Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:04 pm

When you use the terms the 'same', or 'can replace', or 'more significant' do you mean in terms of just focal length, or image quality? IQ is usually a product of sensor size, and in those cases the SLR wins(even on a crop sensor)
 
User avatar
TS-IOR
Topic Author
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 9:44 pm

RE: Superzooms VS. Lenses/teleconverters

Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:50 pm

I meant focal length and image quality...
Next flight TUN-YUL Tunisair A330-243.
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Superzooms VS. Lenses/teleconverters

Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:31 pm

Typically a bridge or compact camera is using a tiny sensor which is roughly a 5 or 6x crop compared to full frame.

Regardless of focal length, a bridge camera is always going to struggle compared to a DSLR simply because their pixel sites are that much smaller - this leads to two things ... less ability to resolve fine detail and more noise. And of course the noise suppression technology normally used by small cameras further reduces the image detail.

Also the lenses aren't really comparable. Most compacts and bridge cameras are built in a very cost concious manner - you won't find the same exotic glass and coatings that you'll get in a decent DSLR lens.

The very concept of a 12x zoom causes problems - providing good image quality across such a range is next to impossible - compromises have to be made ... typically you'll see a lot more chromatic aberration and less sharpness than you'll get with a typical DSLR lens. (from memory, I think the most extreme range you'll find in a DSLR zoom is 10x, and these too have issues).

Of course the question you have to ask yourself is how good is good enough? You can spend a lot of money chasing perfection!

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
megatop412
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Superzooms VS. Lenses/teleconverters

Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:40 pm

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 2):
I meant focal length and image quality...

There is no way a superzoom fixed lens "casn replace", be the "same", or be "more significant" than an SLR lens with a teleconverter. As I said earlier, IQ is a product of sensor size, and the smaller sensor of a fixed-lens superzoom compact will always involve more noise and less light sensitivity. If you had to be able to stick a camera in a pocket, then that's one thing but if you are after quality images, you should really be using an SLR with the lenses.

And by the way, just about any image(of an aircraft) @ 1000mm focal length is going to look pretty bad, shooting through all that atmospheric distortion. Stick with 500mm or less. If you need more than that, you're not close enough.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests