Discussion
On the other hand, I consider myself to be serious about photography and have got biggish prints (15x10 on paper and 20x30 on canvas) that I'm perfectly happy with from a superzoom lens (Sigma 18-125mm) with a digital SLR.
For some people nothing short of 8x10 inch film and >£1000 German lenses will give the quality they desire, others get photos that are good enough for them with £50 compact cameras, so I don't think it's possible to give a definitive answer without knowing where you are between those two points.
Fixed focal length and non-superzoom lenses and cameras will tend perform better, but that's not to say a superzoom might not be good enough for you. The big benefit is their flexibility allows you to get photos that would otherwise be impossible or too impractical.
To help answer you question a bit more specifically, what camera/lenses are you currently using and do you find them to be good enough quality?
For some people nothing short of 8x10 inch film and >£1000 German lenses will give the quality they desire, others get photos that are good enough for them with £50 compact cameras, so I don't think it's possible to give a definitive answer without knowing where you are between those two points.
Fixed focal length and non-superzoom lenses and cameras will tend perform better, but that's not to say a superzoom might not be good enough for you. The big benefit is their flexibility allows you to get photos that would otherwise be impossible or too impractical.
To help answer you question a bit more specifically, what camera/lenses are you currently using and do you find them to be good enough quality?
If you are likely to end up not taking all your lenses because they are too big/heavy and miss a great shot because of it, then superzoom is a great idea. At least you are able to take a shot regardless of quality. It's really difficult to answer this...... I don't think there is an answer.
Gemm said:
If you are likely to end up not taking all your lenses because they are too big/heavy and miss a great shot because of it, then superzoom is a great idea. At least you are able to take a shot regardless of quality. It's really difficult to answer this...... I don't think there is an answer.
this. I borrowed my old mans DSLR Nikon and big zoom recently to take to the BTCC. I bought a superzoom the next week instead. It's very much horses for courses, but I decided could never live with the lenses and faff, especially with kids around. Other people are for sure the complete opposite to this.I don't have anything that I'd call a superzoom at present but I can certainly see the appeal for traveling light.
As things stand I have two zoom lenses, one that covers wider shots (18-55) and one for little things that are far away (70-300). If I'm out hill walking I want to have both with me as although I'd predominantly be shooting landscapes, you never know when an RAF Tornado is going to fly past or an eagle hover above your head. Neither lens is particularly heavy but obviously carrying two of them, the weight adds up. The biggest problem though is having to change over lenses constantly. Not only might you miss a window of opportunity but when it's cold, wet and windy, it's a pain in the arse. I'm going away to the hills this weekend and right now I'm debating whether to carry the SLR with me. I know that if I had a 'superzoom' one lens does all available, I probably wouldn't be questioning it.
So anyway, I don't think they're a replacement for good specialist lenses but on the occasions when you don't know what you're going to be shooting and/or want to travel light I think they'd be great.
The Nikkor 18-200 is the one I fancy but I hear it's quite a heavy beast which sort of defeats the point.
ETA Are we talking about superzoom lenses for a SLR here or have I totally missed the point?
As things stand I have two zoom lenses, one that covers wider shots (18-55) and one for little things that are far away (70-300). If I'm out hill walking I want to have both with me as although I'd predominantly be shooting landscapes, you never know when an RAF Tornado is going to fly past or an eagle hover above your head. Neither lens is particularly heavy but obviously carrying two of them, the weight adds up. The biggest problem though is having to change over lenses constantly. Not only might you miss a window of opportunity but when it's cold, wet and windy, it's a pain in the arse. I'm going away to the hills this weekend and right now I'm debating whether to carry the SLR with me. I know that if I had a 'superzoom' one lens does all available, I probably wouldn't be questioning it.
So anyway, I don't think they're a replacement for good specialist lenses but on the occasions when you don't know what you're going to be shooting and/or want to travel light I think they'd be great.
The Nikkor 18-200 is the one I fancy but I hear it's quite a heavy beast which sort of defeats the point.
ETA Are we talking about superzoom lenses for a SLR here or have I totally missed the point?
Edited by Gad-Westy on Thursday 16th December 09:57
agentsmith said:
PS. LUMIX FZ-45. and very good it is too.
Really? According to the review I'm reading...- You're limited to 1.8 fps in jog mode, and you can't even do bursts in RAW!
- It has a wide end equivalent of 25mm, which seems pretty restrictive if you like taking landscapes and so on.
- Picture quality apparently sees a huge backwards jump compared to its predecessor, as the increase in resolution on a sensor the same size makes for very poor noise at all but the lowest ISOs.
Above all, though, could you really cope with giving up pretty much all control over depth of field that comes with such a small sensor? Are you really never going to wish you could throw a background out of focus?
I can see plenty of situations where it would make lots of sense to compromise image quality somewhat by putting a superzoom onto a decent body, but I really can't see why anyone would buy a camera like this if they were in any way serious about their photography.
The camera would be a replacement for a Sony DSC N2, which I am really not a huge fan of. This would be my first "real" camera.
The main things I am looking for are relative ease of use, nothing too bulky, good print reproduction (nothing too big required) decent zoom with HD movie recording.
Cheers
The main things I am looking for are relative ease of use, nothing too bulky, good print reproduction (nothing too big required) decent zoom with HD movie recording.
Cheers
Grant76 said:
The camera would be a replacement for a Sony DSC N2, which I am really not a huge fan of. This would be my first "real" camera.
The main things I am looking for are relative ease of use, nothing too bulky, good print reproduction (nothing too big required) decent zoom with HD movie recording.
Cheers
So the OP was asking about Superzoom CAMERA, not a superzoom lens. The main things I am looking for are relative ease of use, nothing too bulky, good print reproduction (nothing too big required) decent zoom with HD movie recording.
Cheers
So off topic then - after trying few different options, my camera bag consists of Sigma 50MM 1.4 for when I really care about image quality and Sigma 18-200MM for "all the other times" and I'm really happy with it. I'd much rather have slightly less sharp photo than no photo at all.
I was in a similar position about 6 months ago and plumped for a Panny Superzoom...
I'm under no illusion that it's up there with even the cheapest of DSLRs, but have no regrets over my purchase...
It IS a comprimise - and I can see why many people would say it's the worst of both words - too bulky to slip into a trouser pocket and doesn't have the flexibility and quality of a DSLR, but it's great for travelling, where I want to be able to compose a shot through a viewfinder and have a large zoom range at my disposal to cater for whatever my trip yields, but wouldn't always want to carry/ risk a more expensive camera and a selection of lenses!
It has, however whetted my appetite for more (the usual vices - low light/ shallow DoF (which can be done but only with lots of zoom)/ action shots etc!) and I shall be upgrading to a DSLR when funds allow in a year or two - but with a much better feel for what I'm looking for!
I'm under no illusion that it's up there with even the cheapest of DSLRs, but have no regrets over my purchase...
It IS a comprimise - and I can see why many people would say it's the worst of both words - too bulky to slip into a trouser pocket and doesn't have the flexibility and quality of a DSLR, but it's great for travelling, where I want to be able to compose a shot through a viewfinder and have a large zoom range at my disposal to cater for whatever my trip yields, but wouldn't always want to carry/ risk a more expensive camera and a selection of lenses!
It has, however whetted my appetite for more (the usual vices - low light/ shallow DoF (which can be done but only with lots of zoom)/ action shots etc!) and I shall be upgrading to a DSLR when funds allow in a year or two - but with a much better feel for what I'm looking for!
rottie102 said:
Grant76 said:
The camera would be a replacement for a Sony DSC N2, which I am really not a huge fan of. This would be my first "real" camera.
The main things I am looking for are relative ease of use, nothing too bulky, good print reproduction (nothing too big required) decent zoom with HD movie recording.
Cheers
So the OP was asking about Superzoom CAMERA, not a superzoom lens. The main things I am looking for are relative ease of use, nothing too bulky, good print reproduction (nothing too big required) decent zoom with HD movie recording.
Cheers
From what I can see, you have a grand total of one camera to choose from!
The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1, available on Amazon for £760.
It has a 35mm equivalent of 28-280mm, HD recording, it's tiny, and has a reasonable sensor size, plus the benefit of interchangeable Micro 4/3 lenses should you choose.
There are compact cameras with decent-sized sensors from Sigma and Leica, but they both have fixed focal length lenses. There are plenty of bridge cameras with silly zoom ranges, but they have equally silly small sensor sizes which will hugely limit the results you can get from the camera.
You could choose a different Micro 4/3 body to go with this lens of course, but this is the only one I've seen as a pre-packaged kit.
Kermit power said:
From what I can see, you have a grand total of one camera to choose from!
The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1, available on Amazon for £760.
Or even cheaper from John Lewis or Jessops.The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1, available on Amazon for £760.
I bought one of these to take on a trip to Indo-China as a compromise between
carrying my heavy DSLR outfit and everything I dislike, and is limiting about a true compact.
Image quality of both the sensor and the superzoom lens were surprisingly good but the build quality or quality control of the camera
gave some problems, and I later returned it for a refund (I think that the later examples were better).
Looks like a few have missed the point... i would see a superzoom camera as a fair compromise on performance, flexiability, and cost. I've a Lumix FZ38 and love it to bits as it does everything I want from a camera and at £250 didn't break the bank. Much better than my old Sony compact in every way including HD video and much sharper photo's. I'm sure there are loads of reasons why it isn't as good as a full DSLR, but it's a good camera for £250!
If you don't need all the controls of a DSLR, or have the skill to exploit it, it's not always worth spending £500 plus just to be able to swap lenses....
Paul
If you don't need all the controls of a DSLR, or have the skill to exploit it, it's not always worth spending £500 plus just to be able to swap lenses....
Paul
The Surveyor said:
Looks like a few have missed the point... i would see a superzoom camera as a fair compromise on performance, flexiability, and cost. I've a Lumix FZ38 and love it to bits as it does everything I want from a camera and at £250 didn't break the bank. Much better than my old Sony compact in every way including HD video and much sharper photo's. I'm sure there are loads of reasons why it isn't as good as a full DSLR, but it's a good camera for £250!
If you don't need all the controls of a DSLR, or have the skill to exploit it, it's not always worth spending £500 plus just to be able to swap lenses....
Paul
You may well be right, but there were 7 posts after the original, ambiguous post. Of those, six immediately assumed superzoom meant superzoom lens on a DSLR, and even the seventh only added a superzoom camera as an afterthought once he'd already commented on superzoom lenses.If you don't need all the controls of a DSLR, or have the skill to exploit it, it's not always worth spending £500 plus just to be able to swap lenses....
Paul
Before I got my DSLR, I was perfectly happy with my bridge - in my case an Olympus C-750 UZ. As soon as I saw what even an entry-level DSLR could do, even left in the same auto modes as those on my bridge, the bridge instantly became unacceptable.
For me there are 4 things which really make the difference, in order of importance to me:
- Not being able to control depth of field (for example to blur backgrounds in portraits)
- Poor quality shots in low light
- Shutter lag (press the shutter then watch the birdie you're trying to photograph fly off before the shot is taken)
- Not having a viewfinder
Of the above, the first two are directly related to the very small sensor size in most compact and bridge cameras. That's why I went off looking for the Sigma and Leica compacts to maybe recommend - they both have DSLR-sized sensors in a compact body, meaning the OP could blur out backgrounds and get far better image quality, especially in low light.
Unfortunately, neither of those have the zoom lenses that the OP is looking for, or the HD capability. That's why I recommended a Micro 4/3 camera instead. It has most of the benefits of a DSLR (the sensor is still smaller, but far larger than compact sensors) whilst also being far smaller than a DSLR.
There would just be no point in recommending anything with a tiny little sensor, as I'd worry that the OP might actually buy it and be disappointed with the results.
Kermit power said:
The Surveyor said:
Looks like a few have missed the point... i would see a superzoom camera as a fair compromise on performance, flexiability, and cost. I've a Lumix FZ38 and love it to bits as it does everything I want from a camera and at £250 didn't break the bank. Much better than my old Sony compact in every way including HD video and much sharper photo's. I'm sure there are loads of reasons why it isn't as good as a full DSLR, but it's a good camera for £250!
If you don't need all the controls of a DSLR, or have the skill to exploit it, it's not always worth spending £500 plus just to be able to swap lenses....
Paul
You may well be right, but there were 7 posts after the original, ambiguous post. Of those, six immediately assumed superzoom meant superzoom lens on a DSLR, and even the seventh only added a superzoom camera as an afterthought once he'd already commented on superzoom lenses.If you don't need all the controls of a DSLR, or have the skill to exploit it, it's not always worth spending £500 plus just to be able to swap lenses....
Paul
Before I got my DSLR, I was perfectly happy with my bridge - in my case an Olympus C-750 UZ. As soon as I saw what even an entry-level DSLR could do, even left in the same auto modes as those on my bridge, the bridge instantly became unacceptable.
For me there are 4 things which really make the difference, in order of importance to me:
- Not being able to control depth of field (for example to blur backgrounds in portraits)
- Poor quality shots in low light
- Shutter lag (press the shutter then watch the birdie you're trying to photograph fly off before the shot is taken)
- Not having a viewfinder
Of the above, the first two are directly related to the very small sensor size in most compact and bridge cameras. That's why I went off looking for the Sigma and Leica compacts to maybe recommend - they both have DSLR-sized sensors in a compact body, meaning the OP could blur out backgrounds and get far better image quality, especially in low light.
Unfortunately, neither of those have the zoom lenses that the OP is looking for, or the HD capability. That's why I recommended a Micro 4/3 camera instead. It has most of the benefits of a DSLR (the sensor is still smaller, but far larger than compact sensors) whilst also being far smaller than a DSLR.
There would just be no point in recommending anything with a tiny little sensor, as I'd worry that the OP might actually buy it and be disappointed with the results.
rottie102 said:
I think you're confusing things here - sensor size has nothing to do with ability to blur the background, that's the aperture of the lens. Which also affects the low light performance - much easier to shoot at low light with f/1.4 lens than with f/4
No, I'm not confusing things. Lens aperture makes all the difference with regards to depth of field on any given sensor, but actual sensor size often has a far greater impact.A full frame sensor will allow a narrower depth of field than a crop sensor for the same lens aperture, and a crop sensor will, in turn, allow for a hugely narrower depth of field at the same lens aperture than a compact sensor.
ETA - Sensor size also absolutely impacts low light performance!
The lens aperture controls the speed with which light reaches the sensor, but the amount of noise you get in low light images is mostly down to the size of the photosites which capture the actual light. Being simplistic, the larger the individual photosite, the less noise there will be. A typical DSLR photosite will be 8 to 12 times the size of a compact camera photosite. Do you really think this doesn't impact on low light shot quality?
Edited by Kermit power on Thursday 16th December 14:48
Kermit power said:
rottie102 said:
I think you're confusing things here - sensor size has nothing to do with ability to blur the background, that's the aperture of the lens. Which also affects the low light performance - much easier to shoot at low light with f/1.4 lens than with f/4
ETA - Sensor size also absolutely impacts low light performance![/footnote]
However I will still argue that for reasons you've posted, mainly background blur, lack of fast lenses is a bigger problem than the sensor size.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff