Advice needed please.
Discussion
My wife always takes our dog for a walk when i am at work.She is always telling me how many bunnies she saw and how many holes our dog got her head stuck down,so xmas just gone i bought her a Samsung pl 120 with x5 optical zoom and over 4mpix.
The camera takes great photos on normal mode but the trouble starts when you zoom in as all the images are fuzzy and hard to make out.
I have been looking at digital slr's with zoom lenses but they are expensive,would a bridge camera with a good zoom be better than the Samsung?
hope my post makes sense.
All she wants is to show me the animals she sees on her travels (about 60ft away) clearly.
thanks in advance.
The camera takes great photos on normal mode but the trouble starts when you zoom in as all the images are fuzzy and hard to make out.
I have been looking at digital slr's with zoom lenses but they are expensive,would a bridge camera with a good zoom be better than the Samsung?
hope my post makes sense.
All she wants is to show me the animals she sees on her travels (about 60ft away) clearly.
thanks in advance.
It's a minefield I'm afraid. And and expensive one. At 60 ft to get 'clear' pics she really needs a DSLR and something like a 70-300 lens. Nikon or Canon best. Cost about £700 new. Bulky too.
Bridge camera will be better but not best.
ETA: almost exactly 60 ft with a crop sensor (entry level Nikon). Click to enlarge
Bridge camera will be better but not best.
ETA: almost exactly 60 ft with a crop sensor (entry level Nikon). Click to enlarge
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 19th July 16:08
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 19th July 16:09
A dSLR is good if she's keen - but the cost is not so much the camera as the lenses.
If she just wants pictures of wildlife far away, I'd recommend a bridge camera - such as one from Lumix. The new one they've just brought out has the equivalent of a 25-600mm f2.8 lens, which means you can take pictures of 3 people sat on your sofa when you're standing in the grate, to a picture of a squirrel up a tree at the end of your garden.
The quality won't be quite as good as a dSLR with an equivalent lens, but the package will be a lot more convenient and affordable. My old Lumix FZ-10 isn't a patch on my Pentax if you're taking a picture of a house or something - but despite that the Lumix is better for things a long way away, simply because I don't have a long lens for my Pentax yet.
Bridge cameras are a bit 'slower' to use than an SLR - the viewfinder on my 8 year old one has some lag that you just cannot get on an SLR as the viewfinder literally changes at the speed of light. I'm sure newer ones are much better in this regard though.
If she just wants pictures of wildlife far away, I'd recommend a bridge camera - such as one from Lumix. The new one they've just brought out has the equivalent of a 25-600mm f2.8 lens, which means you can take pictures of 3 people sat on your sofa when you're standing in the grate, to a picture of a squirrel up a tree at the end of your garden.
The quality won't be quite as good as a dSLR with an equivalent lens, but the package will be a lot more convenient and affordable. My old Lumix FZ-10 isn't a patch on my Pentax if you're taking a picture of a house or something - but despite that the Lumix is better for things a long way away, simply because I don't have a long lens for my Pentax yet.
Bridge cameras are a bit 'slower' to use than an SLR - the viewfinder on my 8 year old one has some lag that you just cannot get on an SLR as the viewfinder literally changes at the speed of light. I'm sure newer ones are much better in this regard though.
What about a digiscope? Or would that be to bulky to carry?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Praktica-B5170F-Digiscopin...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Praktica-B5170F-Digiscopin...
It would be helpful if you could post up an example of a problem picture. This would help to determine whether the problem is a camera malfunction or a user malfunction. Ideally, save it on Flickr or somewhere similar, as this will also let us see the EXIF information about the photo (shutter speeds, aperture, etc).
It is possible that the camera is faulty, but it is equally possible that she's accidentally managed to put it into a manual or semi-automatic mode, and then chosen the wrong settings.
If the camera is trying to use too slow a shutter speed - either because the shutter speed has been set too low, or because the aperture has been set to narrow, forcing the camera to compensate with longer exposures. This would become increasingly noticeable as you zoom in, as camera shake becomes increasingly evident the longer the lens focal length.
It is possible that the camera is faulty, but it is equally possible that she's accidentally managed to put it into a manual or semi-automatic mode, and then chosen the wrong settings.
If the camera is trying to use too slow a shutter speed - either because the shutter speed has been set too low, or because the aperture has been set to narrow, forcing the camera to compensate with longer exposures. This would become increasingly noticeable as you zoom in, as camera shake becomes increasingly evident the longer the lens focal length.
Kermit power said:
It would be helpful if you could post up an example of a problem picture. This would help to determine whether the problem is a camera malfunction or a user malfunction. Ideally, save it on Flickr or somewhere similar, as this will also let us see the EXIF information about the photo (shutter speeds, aperture, etc).
It is possible that the camera is faulty, but it is equally possible that she's accidentally managed to put it into a manual or semi-automatic mode, and then chosen the wrong settings.
If the camera is trying to use too slow a shutter speed - either because the shutter speed has been set too low, or because the aperture has been set to narrow, forcing the camera to compensate with longer exposures. This would become increasingly noticeable as you zoom in, as camera shake becomes increasingly evident the longer the lens focal length.
To be fair, although these are all valid point in general, you'll always be fighting loosing battle with a short zoom lens no matter what your technique. From Samsung's website the lens in question is a "Samsung 5X Zoom Lens f = 4.7 ~ 23.5mm (35mm film equivalent : 26~130 mm)". 60 feet away from a rabbit, 130mm equivalent focal lenght is going to mean an enormous amount of cropping and although the camera has 14mp, resolution from a small sensor will often be poor. It is possible that the camera is faulty, but it is equally possible that she's accidentally managed to put it into a manual or semi-automatic mode, and then chosen the wrong settings.
If the camera is trying to use too slow a shutter speed - either because the shutter speed has been set too low, or because the aperture has been set to narrow, forcing the camera to compensate with longer exposures. This would become increasingly noticeable as you zoom in, as camera shake becomes increasingly evident the longer the lens focal length.
Not much else to add that hasn't been said. A bridge camera with a decent zoom range will be a big step up, a DSLR with a decent telephoto lens will be a big step up again but will cost. I don't know much about the alternatives, but in Nikon land about the cheapest means to achieve top quality results for this stuff would be something like a used D3000 and a used 70-300 VR lens. You'd get change from £500. Downside compared to a bridge camera would be that, unless you bought another lens as well, it would be crap for anything other than long stuff and pretty bulky but nothing comes without compromise somewhere.
Gad-Westy said:
To be fair, although these are all valid point in general, you'll always be fighting loosing battle with a short zoom lens no matter what your technique. From Samsung's website the lens in question is a "Samsung 5X Zoom Lens f = 4.7 ~ 23.5mm (35mm film equivalent : 26~130 mm)". 60 feet away from a rabbit, 130mm equivalent focal lenght is going to mean an enormous amount of cropping and although the camera has 14mp, resolution from a small sensor will often be poor.
I wouldn't disagree at all, but the OP did say blurry rather than "too small", and without seeing a pic, we don't actually know if it's blurry from over-cropping, or blurry for some other reason before cropping. It does rather sound like it has a digital as well as an optical zoom and that's also being maxed out.Kermit power said:
I wouldn't disagree at all, but the OP did say blurry rather than "too small", and without seeing a pic, we don't actually know if it's blurry from over-cropping, or blurry for some other reason before cropping. It does rather sound like it has a digital as well as an optical zoom and that's also being maxed out.
Indeed, quite possible. Just think that, no matter what else might be wrong, 60 feet sounds an awful long way for a pretty short zoom. Kermit power said:
I wouldn't disagree at all, but the OP did say blurry rather than "too small", and without seeing a pic, we don't actually know if it's blurry from over-cropping, or blurry for some other reason before cropping. It does rather sound like it has a digital as well as an optical zoom and that's also being maxed out.
Have to say that was my first thought when reading the original post. I guess too slow shutter speed could also be the culprit, at full zoom the aperture may be a lot smaller than when zoomed out (which could also force a higher ISO setting > more grainy image).cindychops said:
Thats what all the pictures look like when zoomed in?
Even the standard no zoom indoor shots are not that good for a
12.0 megapixel camera.
The EXIF on the sample shot seems to be suggesting it thinks the camera is a SonyDS-W310 and the shot was taken on 30th Dec 2010. Even the standard no zoom indoor shots are not that good for a
12.0 megapixel camera.
Wrong link?
cindychops said:
This pictures not too bad i suppose.
1/45th of a second is a tad long (even with flash) for a critter when fairly close and the plane of best focus looks like it may be right on the nose (although probably measured on the cage bars lower down). That means the rest of the hamster will be tending towords out of focus but not badly so in the context. Predictably the white fur is almost blown out (too bright) but recoverable, probably, with a little careful editing. I would say the camera has done pretty well on balance. The sample doesn't help with the long zoom problem though. The story might be different there.
cindychops said:
HI this was not zoomed in that far but is still blurry?close up shots are super detailed though. 
The Exif data for this one suggests the zoom is at 135mm (which is probably max?) and then a 5 times digital zoom. So in effect it is taking the image from the optical 135mm zoom (35mm equivalnet) and blowing it up to 500%. Add to that the lens is quite light restricted (f5.9) and the shutter is 1/60th of a second the omens are not good. Distance is recorded at 18.666 mtrs. The file size is quite small too given the dimensions of the image. Not sure if this implies a low quality setting or that the resulting image couold be heavily compressed with out los of detail since there is little to lose!I think basically you are at and beyond the capability of the camera or indeed probably nearly every camera currently on sales in that part of the market. Looking at the subject matter I suspect quite a few dslrs might find a challenge too depending on what your expectations are.
A 'Superzoom' category camera might well help. I have no recent experience of the market there so would refer you to the group tests on dpreview.com and similar sites. (Steve's Digicams too). Look for something that claims an 'equivalent' OPTICAL zoom of about 600mm or more and has image stabilization.
Others may know better of course having more 'exposure' to more recent cameras.
LongQ said:
cindychops said:
HI this was not zoomed in that far but is still blurry?close up shots are super detailed though.
The Exif data for this one suggests the zoom is at 135mm (which is probably max?) and then a 5 times digital zoom. So in effect it is taking the image from the optical 135mm zoom (35mm equivalnet) and blowing it up to 500%. Add to that the lens is quite light restricted (f5.9) and the shutter is 1/60th of a second the omens are not good. Distance is recorded at 18.666 mtrs. The file size is quite small too given the dimensions of the image. Not sure if this implies a low quality setting or that the resulting image couold be heavily compressed with out los of detail since there is little to lose!I think basically you are at and beyond the capability of the camera or indeed probably nearly every camera currently on sales in that part of the market. Looking at the subject matter I suspect quite a few dslrs might find a challenge too depending on what your expectations are.
A 'Superzoom' category camera might well help. I have no recent experience of the market there so would refer you to the group tests on dpreview.com and similar sites. (Steve's Digicams too). Look for something that claims an 'equivalent' OPTICAL zoom of about 600mm or more and has image stabilization.
Others may know better of course having more 'exposure' to more recent cameras.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff