Look, it's pretty useless, OK. Just ask reader and fellow blogger Ray. He has tried a couple of these super-zoom cameras, and all we hear is questions about why the pictures look like they're taken through a dirty plastic bag. (Update: I exaggerate... in good light and at short zoom levels, there are no problems.)
For good picture quality you need a biggish sensor, a short zoom at best, and no digital zoom at all. And you don't need anymore than 10 megapixels for prints and five for the web.
Update:
(I didn't even remember that Ray has the predecessor.) Ray says:
That Pentax X90 you show in the blog looks very similar to this X70, and probably is, except for a bit more of optical zoom. The right lighting has a big effect on zoomed pictures, I think... If the light's good, the results are much better - not so much noise in the images. I've noticed that for shots after dark, of lights or objects in the sky, there's a lot of noise in them. Shots in bright daylight come out much better. But I guess that's true of any camera, really...
That is true, only it's true in inverse ratio to the size of the sensor. These kinds of cameras look like they might have a rather big sensor, but it's really very small (less than ten milimeters to a side), which makes it not great for weak light. A camera like the big Canon 5DII, on the other hand, has a great big sensor (24x36mm), and you can hand-hold night-time pictures with it if you do it right (the right lens etc).
The downside is cost and size, especially for long zoom lenses, which will get huge.
7 comments:
There are some other cameras that have 30x optical zoom, maybe more already (the number gets bigger each season). You're correct about the sensor being small, it has to be in order to allow such huge zoom range in a camera that you can hold in your hand without being a bodybuilder. This also explains why pictures aren't such high quality; compromises must be made in these lenses to accommodate the small size.
I tested the Fuji HS10 recently - 30x zoom. At 720mm (!) I found it damn near impossible to get a decent picture. Even at shorter foca lengths it was tough. Miserere is right about the sensor size being a problem. Not a fan of these types of cameras, personally.
One benefit to a superzoom is that you can run the zoom out near the bitter end while hunting for something to take a picture of when you get closer to it :)
The phrase jack of all trades, master of none springs to mind in relation to such cameras. I've previously owned a 12x compact zoom, to be honest I never came across a situation where I was left thing "I wish I had more zoom". Of course I have to acknowledge that may simply be just the kind of photography I do...
I think that practically, the equivalent of 300mm or maybe 400mm is all you can hand-hold with good results, even with stabilization. And a 12x zoom will go to there from wide-angle, so I agree, more is pretty pointless.
I think 28mm to 100mm is a good all-round zoom. Maybe 24-120, but then quality issues come in.
I shot with a 105mm f2.5 Nikkor straight lens for many years. Street shooting, studio work, in the rain, and in the almost-dark always served me well. That range is perfect for most anything.
And I used a tripod for a lot of the advertising and industrial shots I did. The concept of the super-zooms is a nice idea, but doesn't over ride the quality and talent of just plain good photography.
Yep, around 100mm is a very nice lens. I had one for Pentax back in the day, I have one for Canon full frame, and I have an equivalent for Pentax reduced-frame, 70mm 2.4, brilliant optic.
Post a Comment