It's all about the Zoom
Discussion
Hi all. I am going to a number of sporting events shortly and I will need a fair amount of zoom to get the shots I'm after, so I feel a new camera coming on lol
I've been a simple compact camera man previously (Panasonic TZ20).
I'm not sure I'm ready for the SLR camera just yet, so was looking at these bridge cameras as they seem to offer a half way house and some of them offer fantastic zooms. I've been looking at the Panasonic FZ72 which seems to have the ability to go to 102X optical zoom with an accessory lens! I'm not sure how this equates in SLR lenses, but I'm guessing that would be extremely expensive?
Has anyone any views, or recommendations of alternatives (bearing in mind the zoom is probably at the top of the must haves when it comes to features).
Cheers all.
I've been a simple compact camera man previously (Panasonic TZ20).
I'm not sure I'm ready for the SLR camera just yet, so was looking at these bridge cameras as they seem to offer a half way house and some of them offer fantastic zooms. I've been looking at the Panasonic FZ72 which seems to have the ability to go to 102X optical zoom with an accessory lens! I'm not sure how this equates in SLR lenses, but I'm guessing that would be extremely expensive?
Has anyone any views, or recommendations of alternatives (bearing in mind the zoom is probably at the top of the must haves when it comes to features).
Cheers all.
Bridge cameras quite an often discussed topic in here 
Couple of FZ72 (apparently it's TZ70 in the US):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/...
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_...
I've not seen any samples of the massive zoom range images but I'd repeat the often used phrase: the more you ask a lens to do the less it does well. In general, huge range leads to a reduction in image quality.
You're right that a very long zoom on a DSLR will be expensive - I think one of those reviews says it's a 1200mm equivalent on an SLR(!!).
Tbh, bridge cameras aren't often recommended in here, many people opting for a compact & DSLR setup. Bridge cameras can span a strange area: they aren't small enough to be easily portable, yet don't offer the benefits of larger equipment (sensor size, low light ability, more depth-of-field choice, etc.). Could feel like all of the disadvantages.
That being said, if you're happy with the image quality and price and need that sort of range then it might suit your needs
Couple of FZ72 (apparently it's TZ70 in the US):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/...
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_...
I've not seen any samples of the massive zoom range images but I'd repeat the often used phrase: the more you ask a lens to do the less it does well. In general, huge range leads to a reduction in image quality.
You're right that a very long zoom on a DSLR will be expensive - I think one of those reviews says it's a 1200mm equivalent on an SLR(!!).
Tbh, bridge cameras aren't often recommended in here, many people opting for a compact & DSLR setup. Bridge cameras can span a strange area: they aren't small enough to be easily portable, yet don't offer the benefits of larger equipment (sensor size, low light ability, more depth-of-field choice, etc.). Could feel like all of the disadvantages.
That being said, if you're happy with the image quality and price and need that sort of range then it might suit your needs
Cheers, yes it says the equivalent lens is 20-1200mm and theres a 1.7x tele lens accessory which would take it to 34-2040mm apparently! God knows what that would cost on a SLR?
I agree the quality is going to be nothing like an SLR, but I'm not going to be going crazy and blowing them up to anything bigger than 6x8 and I just can't justify the cost of an SLR with any kind of decent sized zoom lens (my budget would top out at £350-£400)
I'm struggling to find any example pictures with this 1.7x tele lens on, but there's reports that you could easily photograph craters on the moon with it!!!
Might just bite the bullet and get one. Any recommendations for places to buy from? There seems to be little movement in price (i.e. most websites seem to be about £315) so is there any that offer 'extras' like extended warranty, free cases or cashback (costco/nectar points/etc)
Thanks again!
I agree the quality is going to be nothing like an SLR, but I'm not going to be going crazy and blowing them up to anything bigger than 6x8 and I just can't justify the cost of an SLR with any kind of decent sized zoom lens (my budget would top out at £350-£400)
I'm struggling to find any example pictures with this 1.7x tele lens on, but there's reports that you could easily photograph craters on the moon with it!!!
Might just bite the bullet and get one. Any recommendations for places to buy from? There seems to be little movement in price (i.e. most websites seem to be about £315) so is there any that offer 'extras' like extended warranty, free cases or cashback (costco/nectar points/etc)
Thanks again!
Edited by audi321 on Thursday 28th November 00:57
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Panasonic/Panas...
Tbh, I'd probably get it from John Lewis / Jessops on that list, I don't know the cheaper stores. That way if there's any issue it's easy to take back (plus you'd get to look at one in a store beforehand)
Tbh, I'd probably get it from John Lewis / Jessops on that list, I don't know the cheaper stores. That way if there's any issue it's easy to take back (plus you'd get to look at one in a store beforehand)
I'd be interested to see how well you manage to hand-hold the camera at the far end of the zoom.
Chances are that without a tripod or other fairly solid means of support your pictures will be quite blurry.
Still, I'd like to see the results if you go ahead and get one, just out of mild curiosity really, so please post a pic or two when you do it.
Chances are that without a tripod or other fairly solid means of support your pictures will be quite blurry.
Still, I'd like to see the results if you go ahead and get one, just out of mild curiosity really, so please post a pic or two when you do it.
audi321 said:
God knows what that would cost on a SLR?
800mm Nikkor: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-800mm-5-6E-NIKKOR-Digi...Edited by audi321 on Thursday 28th November 00:57
Have a look at the Olympus Stylus 1 that is coming out soon. Technically a compact camera but using a larger sensor (same as in most high end compacts) but with a 10x constant f/2.8 lens. 28-300mm effectively. Obviously not as much as some bridge cameras quote but they lenses will be s
t covering such a huge length.
Looks like a cracking bit of kit. Much better than your regular bridge camera with their tiny little sensors. A bit out of budget though... http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/89760...
Could also look at the Panasonic Lumix FZ200. It is a bridge with a tiny little sensor but the lens on it also has a constant f/2.8 which is great considering the length of the thing. 25-600mm equivelant. Don't expect amazing results from it though. As with the vast, vast majority of bridge cameras, it's still just a cheap compact with a fancy body and long lens.
t covering such a huge length.Looks like a cracking bit of kit. Much better than your regular bridge camera with their tiny little sensors. A bit out of budget though... http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/89760...
Could also look at the Panasonic Lumix FZ200. It is a bridge with a tiny little sensor but the lens on it also has a constant f/2.8 which is great considering the length of the thing. 25-600mm equivelant. Don't expect amazing results from it though. As with the vast, vast majority of bridge cameras, it's still just a cheap compact with a fancy body and long lens.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Thursday 28th November 11:56
MysteryLemon said:
Could also look at the Panasonic Lumix FZ200. It is a bridge with a tiny little sensor but the lens on it also has a constant f/2.8 which is great considering the length of the thing. 25-600mm equivelant. Don't expect amazing results from it though. As with the vast, vast majority of bridge cameras, it's still just a cheap compact with a fancy body and long lens.
It might be a very nice camera, but it worries me that after listing what SLR zoom it is equivalent to, why don't they list the aperture equivalence? Is it because it is still not very good?DP Review think it's equivalent to f15.5.
alock said:
It might be a very nice camera, but it worries me that after listing what SLR zoom it is equivalent to, why don't they list the aperture equivalence? Is it because it is still not very good?
DP Review think it's equivalent to f15.5.
Could well be, but it's still going to perform better than other bridges and compacts with the same sized sensor.DP Review think it's equivalent to f15.5.
My previous awful experience of Zoom compacts is what made me buy a DSLR in the first place.
However it does seem like an interesting lens. I have to say its an impressive performance here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cvEV9X3Sok
I am impressed they managed an aperture of that size ( f.5.6 ) at the maximum zoom for that price. However, 5.6 is still relatively small ( aperture numbers go backwards, 1.4 is a big aperture, 16 is a small aperture ) so I worry about its low light performance. The sister camera FZ200's has a constant f2.8 aperture, and each stop doubles the light, f2.8 is a full stop faster than f4 which is a full stop faster than f5.6. So a f2.8 lens will take in 4 times as much light as an f5.6.
- And my suspicions are confirmed by this review's sample pics:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/130...
You notice from those sample pics that the sister camera gets more detail and better pics at the same 600mm zoom.
I forsee a couple of problems as well with sports - I saw reports that it is rated at 9fps. However it can't actually shoot at 9fps as the small buffer fills up and it drops to 1.5 frames a second, which is not ideal.
The next problem is shutter speed. I saw reports that it tends to pick a low shutter speed. This is due to the small aperture and small sensor combine to require a low ISO film speed. This is because small sensors can't do fast speed without a LOT of noise, and then reducing that noise kills the detail. You are restricted to ISO 200 and below to get non grainy properly detailed shots on a small sensor. This is because the 2/3inch sensor has approx quarter the surface area of a standard consumer DSLR 1.6 APS-C sensor.
So to get round this, the only variable you can modify is the shutter speed, which needs to be slow to get around the low ISO and the small aperture. The reports say it picks 1/250 which is too slow and will produce blurring.
In my experience, you need a shutter speed of around 1/800 at f.5.6 to stop motion and get a good sports picture. ( 1/500 is about body speed, 1/1000 is good for motor racing )
In today's light outside, at F.5.6 and ISO 200 you need a shutter speed of 1/60 to produce the correct exposure. You won't be getting a sports shot with that. If you go up to ISO 1600 you can go to 1/500 sec shutter speed, but from the test shots the camera does very badly at 1600 ISO. A decent DSLR can take shots at 3200 ISO without too much graining or noise reduction which allows you to go to 1/1000 shutter speed which is ideal for sports.
You will also notice a lot of chromatic aberration on the test shots from the review above at max zoom and reports of poor autofocus - this is an area where the cheapness of the lens really shines through as its really, really, hard to get a lens that is good all the way from 20mm to 1200mm- those 400mm prime lenses that cost £4000 plus will not have those problems.
So, I do think it does some things which are good, I don't think you can buy a DLSR that gets that close to the action for the money, so it fills a niche. I think that tripod stabilised, on a very bright sunny day, you could take some nice photos of slow moving sports at max zoom. For bird photography on a bright sunny day, where the subject is not moving, ideal tool.
However, I think you will get either noisy or blurred photo's of fast sports on overcast days. And if you want to take photos of football matches, most won't allow a tripod into the stands.
This is why the pro's use the full frame sensor cameras, that do high ISO properly, and have the expensive lenses with the low aperture numbers, in order to get the shutter speed really low to freeze the action. Most I have seen use a 400mm or 300mm with a F.2.8 and stand next to the pitch so they don't have to use a big telephoto lens with a F.5.6
Hope this helps.
However it does seem like an interesting lens. I have to say its an impressive performance here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cvEV9X3Sok
I am impressed they managed an aperture of that size ( f.5.6 ) at the maximum zoom for that price. However, 5.6 is still relatively small ( aperture numbers go backwards, 1.4 is a big aperture, 16 is a small aperture ) so I worry about its low light performance. The sister camera FZ200's has a constant f2.8 aperture, and each stop doubles the light, f2.8 is a full stop faster than f4 which is a full stop faster than f5.6. So a f2.8 lens will take in 4 times as much light as an f5.6.
- And my suspicions are confirmed by this review's sample pics:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/130...
You notice from those sample pics that the sister camera gets more detail and better pics at the same 600mm zoom.
I forsee a couple of problems as well with sports - I saw reports that it is rated at 9fps. However it can't actually shoot at 9fps as the small buffer fills up and it drops to 1.5 frames a second, which is not ideal.
The next problem is shutter speed. I saw reports that it tends to pick a low shutter speed. This is due to the small aperture and small sensor combine to require a low ISO film speed. This is because small sensors can't do fast speed without a LOT of noise, and then reducing that noise kills the detail. You are restricted to ISO 200 and below to get non grainy properly detailed shots on a small sensor. This is because the 2/3inch sensor has approx quarter the surface area of a standard consumer DSLR 1.6 APS-C sensor.
So to get round this, the only variable you can modify is the shutter speed, which needs to be slow to get around the low ISO and the small aperture. The reports say it picks 1/250 which is too slow and will produce blurring.
In my experience, you need a shutter speed of around 1/800 at f.5.6 to stop motion and get a good sports picture. ( 1/500 is about body speed, 1/1000 is good for motor racing )
In today's light outside, at F.5.6 and ISO 200 you need a shutter speed of 1/60 to produce the correct exposure. You won't be getting a sports shot with that. If you go up to ISO 1600 you can go to 1/500 sec shutter speed, but from the test shots the camera does very badly at 1600 ISO. A decent DSLR can take shots at 3200 ISO without too much graining or noise reduction which allows you to go to 1/1000 shutter speed which is ideal for sports.
You will also notice a lot of chromatic aberration on the test shots from the review above at max zoom and reports of poor autofocus - this is an area where the cheapness of the lens really shines through as its really, really, hard to get a lens that is good all the way from 20mm to 1200mm- those 400mm prime lenses that cost £4000 plus will not have those problems.
So, I do think it does some things which are good, I don't think you can buy a DLSR that gets that close to the action for the money, so it fills a niche. I think that tripod stabilised, on a very bright sunny day, you could take some nice photos of slow moving sports at max zoom. For bird photography on a bright sunny day, where the subject is not moving, ideal tool.
However, I think you will get either noisy or blurred photo's of fast sports on overcast days. And if you want to take photos of football matches, most won't allow a tripod into the stands.
This is why the pro's use the full frame sensor cameras, that do high ISO properly, and have the expensive lenses with the low aperture numbers, in order to get the shutter speed really low to freeze the action. Most I have seen use a 400mm or 300mm with a F.2.8 and stand next to the pitch so they don't have to use a big telephoto lens with a F.5.6
Hope this helps.
Edited by ExPat2B on Thursday 28th November 13:53
Edited by ExPat2B on Thursday 28th November 13:54
Edited by ExPat2B on Thursday 28th November 13:56
Agreed with what expat says, it's all fair and well having so much zoom but with so little light hitting an already small sensor, it's going to be a ballache to use.
What is the camera being used for? Might be an idea to work out what range you want before taking a compromise for the sake of having vast amounts of zoom you'll never use.
I also tried the superzoom compact route, didn't work out.
What is the camera being used for? Might be an idea to work out what range you want before taking a compromise for the sake of having vast amounts of zoom you'll never use.
I also tried the superzoom compact route, didn't work out.
Edited by Janesy B on Thursday 28th November 16:09
Janesy B said:
Agreed with what expat says, it's all fair and well having so much zoom but with so little light hitting an already small sensor, it's going to be a ballache to use.
Interesting comment, as I have said camera (FZ72) and the pictures taken with it so far have been excellent especially given the price. The most impressive aspect is the image stabilisation - even at full zoom you can get decently focussed images even in less than ideal light (though of course given the sensor size and apeture the more light the better).Personally, it perfectly fits the 'bridge' description and I would highly, highly recommend it.
Stig said:
Interesting comment, as I have said camera (FZ72) and the pictures taken with it so far have been excellent especially given the price. The most impressive aspect is the image stabilisation - even at full zoom you can get decently focussed images even in less than ideal light (though of course given the sensor size and apeture the more light the better).
Personally, it perfectly fits the 'bridge' description and I would highly, highly recommend it.
Problem is every time I've looked at samples at long focal lengths for any type of compact/bridge they look distinctly soft, with a lack of contrast and bad fringing. I know for the cost you are not going to get perfect results but I don't think a bridge camera will be ideal for sport. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the FZ72 is a competent bridge camera, but not necessarily the right tool for the job.Personally, it perfectly fits the 'bridge' description and I would highly, highly recommend it.
Something like the following would do a good job, depending on how much reach you actually need. But I've used that lens at quite few race circuits and it's been an ideal lens for the money. Body is old, but good.
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
OP, I know you feel you're 'not ready' for an SLR, but in fact I find DSLRs easier to use than compacts!
Here's a sample using the same lens on a Canon 550D, at 300mm and f5/.6 - so wide open.
Masters_Brands_Hatch_2013-5571 by Bryan Janes, on Flickr
Another in not so good light
Donington Historic Festival 2013 - On Track by Bryan Janes, on Flickr
Edited by Janesy B on Thursday 28th November 16:39
ALthough I dont use Digital equipment, I would advise against a zoom. Go with a prime lens. Long focal length lenses are available on ebay very very reasonably, if you have a standard brand DSLR with interchangeable lenses ( Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax etc) adapters are cheap. THere is currently fer instance a 500mm on the bay looks like it will go for around 150, and a nice Bronica looks like ti will make 350. Dont go for a mirror lens; prime 500mm plus a converter gives you 1000mm . Robert is your fathers brother.
I'd agree with almost all the DSLR points (especially the ease of use compared to compacts) but for the money I can't think of an equivalent way of getting that sort of reach?
I would imagine taking shots at 1200mm is going to be pretty difficult though, you're probably going to need a pretty high shutter speed just to stop any camera-shake, and with a smaller sensor you may not want to up the ISO to 'buy' that faster shutter?
I'd want to try that sort of set-up before buying...
I would imagine taking shots at 1200mm is going to be pretty difficult though, you're probably going to need a pretty high shutter speed just to stop any camera-shake, and with a smaller sensor you may not want to up the ISO to 'buy' that faster shutter?
I'd want to try that sort of set-up before buying...
Hi guys sorry for no reply to my own thread but I've been underground all day (don't ask).
Anyway, I hear what you all say about the 'get an SLR', but for my budget, I won't even be able to afford the camera.......let alone any kind of zoom lens.
I think these sample pictures give me all the info I need (assuming they're not fibbing).
Now I'm not saying that I want to zoom into 1200mm every day, but it's nice to have it if needed. And with the 1.7x telephoto lens taking it up even further to 2040mm there should be some interesting results of daft things like the moon, planets, flying planes, etc. The Image stablisation is meant to be fantastic, so this should sort out the shake at max zoom?
However, I am interested about some of the things you have all been saying today, and when I get a minute later tonight I will go through them in more detail.
Thanks again all.
Anyway, I hear what you all say about the 'get an SLR', but for my budget, I won't even be able to afford the camera.......let alone any kind of zoom lens.
I think these sample pictures give me all the info I need (assuming they're not fibbing).
Now I'm not saying that I want to zoom into 1200mm every day, but it's nice to have it if needed. And with the 1.7x telephoto lens taking it up even further to 2040mm there should be some interesting results of daft things like the moon, planets, flying planes, etc. The Image stablisation is meant to be fantastic, so this should sort out the shake at max zoom?
However, I am interested about some of the things you have all been saying today, and when I get a minute later tonight I will go through them in more detail.
Thanks again all.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff