Comparing Superzooms (1 Viewer)

Hobbes2 · May 23, 2011

Hi Roger
Thanks for your reply and very interesting to hear about the fps reduction when using higher ISO. I guess it makes sense although you'd think they'd find a processor or circuitary which accommodated the dual requirements of high ISO and fast processing speed. Hey ho. Forewarned is forearmed - thank you.

Hobbes

scodgerott said:
Hi Hobbes, I am generally happy with the image quality and I can't say that noise bothers me very much. I find I am shooting at 800iso quite a lot and haven't really noticed the noise at all. Others who are more particular might spot it, but its not that much of a factor for me. With regards to the Sony 10 fps, just be careful, because the FZ100 will do 11 fps, but only if the iso is 100. Once you bump it up to more than 100 it slows right down, whereas the 40fps isn't dependent on the iso. This business of the frame rate slowing down with an iso of more than 100 (even when the light is good) isn't mentioned anywhere in the panasonic manual, so I'm a little disappointed in that. I suspect that the Sony may suffer from the same problem. The only way you will be able to find out about that is to try it, because I'm sure it won't be stated anywhere. It may appear in some reviews, but I haven't been able to find any of a production model as yet. The Sony doesn't appear to offer any other frame rate options, but I may be wrong about that. I do like the manual focus/zoom ring on the Sony, I wish the FZ100 had that sort of arrangement.

scodgerott · May 24, 2011

njlarsen said:
I guess that the framerate slows down at higher iso because the camera is trying to reduce noice and that takes away processing power from getting to the next image. If I am right, then you might get faster frame rate at higher iso if you reduce noise reduction in camera -- however, you may not like the result

Niels

Hi Niels, What you say makes sense, so I thought I'd try it out. I had the noise reduction on -2 and moved the iso to 100 shot off at around 11 FPS. Moved it to 200 and the FPS slowed, probably to somewhere around 5 FPS. Changed the noise reduction to +2 and it was still much the same about 5 FPS. That's one of the reasons I like the 40 FPS, as although you have to lower your file size to 5mp, its not dependent on the iso or light.

Murray Lord · May 24, 2011

High ISO shots are larger files (try seeing how many photos your camera tells you will fit on a card at ISO 100 versus ISO 1600). I imagine that impacts on how quickly the camera can write to the card. Whether that is enough to cause what you are observing, I have no idea.

scodgerott · May 24, 2011

Murray Lord said:
High ISO shots are larger files (try seeing how many photos your camera tells you will fit on a card at ISO 100 versus ISO 1600). I imagine that impacts on how quickly the camera can write to the card. Whether that is enough to cause what you are observing, I have no idea.

Hi Murray, Thanks for that, I looked at the manual, but it doesn't cover iso figures in the number of shots per card. It only seems to deal with different file sizes in MP, but I don't doubt that what you said is true.

scodgerott · May 24, 2011

njlarsen said:
I guess that the framerate slows down at higher iso because the camera is trying to reduce noice and that takes away processing power from getting to the next image. If I am right, then you might get faster frame rate at higher iso if you reduce noise reduction in camera -- however, you may not like the result

Niels

Hi Niels, I had another thought. I read in a review of the Sony A55 that it can only do its 10 fps when the aperture is set to its maximum. So I tried that on the FZ100. Didin't work, still slowed down as soon as I upped the iso. Back to the drawing board.

Murray Lord · May 24, 2011

scodgerott said:
Hi Niels, I had another thought. I read in a review of the Sony A55 that it can only do its 10 fps when the aperture is set to its maximum. So I tried that on the FZ100. Didin't work, still slowed down as soon as I upped the iso. Back to the drawing board.

I guess that would be the case with the A55 SLR because the aperture gets closed down for each shot and has to re-open, and at 10fps they are getting to that being the limiting factor. But with a compact the aperture would just stay stopped down.

Remote · May 26, 2011

Hi all

Just to give you the benefit of my recent experience...after looking at reviews for super zooms for weeks, I bought a Cannon SX30 yesterday. The build quality was very good, it had reeived great reviews, and it had once of the biggest zooms available - 35x. The one thing that I hadnt given much though to when reading reviews was the quality of the digital view finder (eye piece) on these types of cameras. After getting the Cannon home and giving it a try in the local park, I couldnt believe how poor the quality of the digital view finder was. Using the digital screen on the back is of course another option, but not this is not often easy to see on a sunny day. Trying to pick a bird out amongst tree foliage on full zoom was a virtually impossible task. The image is very small and the resolution, pretty poor. I took the camera back to the shop this morning (Jacobs in Liverpool...probably the best service Ive ever had in any shop!) and tried the Fuji HS20, Nikon P500 and Panasonic FZ100. All of these had greatly improved digital view finders (larger image and better detail) and the Nikon actually had a slightly more powerfull zoom (36x) and full HD video recording unlike the Cannon. Ive currently got the Nikon on charge for the first time but will let you know how I get on.

njlarsen · May 26, 2011

Good luck! One specific thing to look for is if the focusing on the nikon is improved enough over the P100 focusing that several members have complained about: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=193426

Niels

Winterdune · May 26, 2011

Remote said:
Hi all
The one thing that I hadnt given much though to when reading reviews was the quality of the digital view finder (eye piece) on these types of cameras.

Yes they are all pretty poor. I had a Panasonic FZ18 then an FZ35 and I couldn't believe that the EVF was actually WORSE on the latter camera than the former! I have just become reconciled to the fact that they are hopeless for tracking passerines in foliage and in similar situations, and have adapted my bird photography so that I don't really try to take such shots. I believe the EVFs on micro 4/3 cameras such as Panasonic G2 are much improved, but then again they cost around three times much once you include a lens of comparable reach. Good luck with your new camera anyway!
Sean

njlarsen · May 26, 2011

I have the pana GH2 and the EVF is great in my opinion

Niels

KenM · May 27, 2011

Since purchasing my Sony Cyber-shot HX 100V 30x (mid-May)..my learning curve still has some way to go!)...Grey skies and rain have dominated my Warbler/migrant 'hunting trips', perhaps reasonable conditions for product assessment? As with other respondents, I've found the LCD screen a waste of time for finding fast moving quarry through a uniform matrix of branches and leaves, but have persevered with the EVF which works much better! I've also experienced 'hunting' especially in poor light, where the quarry when found invariably under canopy and rain, is often out of focus when using the superior autofocus mode. However these images of Common Redstart were taken between 6-7m and hand held at 30x...considering the conditions I'm quite pleased...and of course they are c 90% compressed.

cheers

scodgerott · May 27, 2011

Hi Ken, It will be interesting to see how you go with this camera, as I've yet to see a recent review. All the reviews seem to date from its press release and basically just re-state what Sony had given them. Have you found the 10 fps affected by the iso value? I mentioned in a previous post that on the FZ100 the 11 fps can only be achieved if the iso is 100 or less and I suspect that the Sony is similar. Also, are there other burst rates on offer? I have looked at the Sony specs, but the only burst rate mentioned is 10. All these cameras suffer a bit from the focus hunting, especially when there is lower lighting. The Sony claims lightning quick autofocus and so does my FZ100. It is very quick most of the time, but will hunt on occasions, sometimes when you least expect it, ie the lighting and contrast is good. Anyway, keep us informed on you progress with this camera.

KenM · May 27, 2011

Scodgerott Hi, I haven't advanced beyond the 'Superior autofocus' mode yet! (Point and shoot for dummies), However I find that in this mode, (as one might expect?) I can't adjust shutter speed, aperture, or ISO value....this all changes with the ambient lighting conditions. As I progress...(If?) I will comment accordingly. However the 2nd image (centre) was taken at c13-14m. not c7m as the other two! Just in case you didn't see this previous image on another thread this was also taken in the gloom at c 80-100m. at 30x zoom, I was certainly impressed.

cheers

scodgerott · May 27, 2011

Looks good Ken. The auto mode probably works well 99% of the time if all you're taking is portraits and holiday snaps, but is still good for about 70% of the time with birds. As you get used to the camera, you will explore its capabilities further. Have fun.

pshute · May 28, 2011

Remote said:
Hi all

Just to give you the benefit of my recent experience...after looking at reviews for super zooms for weeks, I bought a Cannon SX30 yesterday. The build quality was very good, it had reeived great reviews, and it had once of the biggest zooms available - 35x. The one thing that I hadnt given much though to when reading reviews was the quality of the digital view finder (eye piece) on these types of cameras. After getting the Cannon home and giving it a try in the local park, I couldnt believe how poor the quality of the digital view finder was. Using the digital screen on the back is of course another option, but not this is not often easy to see on a sunny day. Trying to pick a bird out amongst tree foliage on full zoom was a virtually impossible task. The image is very small and the resolution, pretty poor. I took the camera back to the shop this morning (Jacobs in Liverpool...probably the best service Ive ever had in any shop!) and tried the Fuji HS20, Nikon P500 and Panasonic FZ100. All of these had greatly improved digital view finders (larger image and better detail) and the Nikon actually had a slightly more powerfull zoom (36x) and full HD video recording unlike the Cannon. Ive currently got the Nikon on charge for the first time but will let you know how I get on.

That's disappointing, it sounds like a good camera otherwise.

I used a Canon S3 for a few years, with reasonable success, but really wanted a better viewfinder. It has only a 115,000 dot EVF, vs the SX30's 230,000, so I thought it would be ok.

It's a bit hard to find out EVF resolutions, dpreview only quotes for the LCD. A bit of googling says the P500 is 230,000 as well, so it would be interesting to know why it looks better.

My luck with the S3 improved a lot when I turned up the EVF brightness.

Remote · May 31, 2011

Hi

The physical size of the image viewed through the eye piece on the Nikon is around 30% larger than the Cannon. It makes a huge difference when trying to get your (often moving) subject in the middle of the frame.

The Cannon actually had the smallest image coming through the eye piece of all the super zoom cameras Ive tires out.

I can only presume that the many people who give this camera such good reviews (on Amazon etc) arent in the habitit of using the electronic viewfinder.

pshute said:
That's disappointing, it sounds like a good camera otherwise.

I used a Canon S3 for a few years, with reasonable success, but really wanted a better viewfinder. It has only a 115,000 dot EVF, vs the SX30's 230,000, so I thought it would be ok.

It's a bit hard to find out EVF resolutions, dpreview only quotes for the LCD. A bit of googling says the P500 is 230,000 as well, so it would be interesting to know why it looks better.

My luck with the S3 improved a lot when I turned up the EVF brightness.

crazyfingers · May 31, 2011

Remote said:
Hi

The physical size of the image viewed through the eye piece on the Nikon is around 30% larger than the Cannon. It makes a huge difference when trying to get your (often moving) subject in the middle of the frame.

The Cannon actually had the smallest image coming through the eye piece of all the super zoom cameras Ive tires out.

I can only presume that the many people who give this camera such good reviews (on Amazon etc) arent in the habitit of using the electronic viewfinder.

Canon has a very useful feature though for framing something in high zoom. Frame assist. It's a button right by the right hand thumb. Press it and it zooms out. release it and it zooms back to where you had it. I've used it lots of times to relocate my subject when it has fallen out of the frame at high zoom.

crazyfingers · May 31, 2011

Remote said:
Hi all

Just to give you the benefit of my recent experience...after looking at reviews for super zooms for weeks, I bought a Cannon SX30 yesterday. The build quality was very good, it had reeived great reviews, and it had once of the biggest zooms available - 35x. The one thing that I hadnt given much though to when reading reviews was the quality of the digital view finder (eye piece) on these types of cameras. After getting the Cannon home and giving it a try in the local park, I couldnt believe how poor the quality of the digital view finder was. Using the digital screen on the back is of course another option, but not this is not often easy to see on a sunny day. Trying to pick a bird out amongst tree foliage on full zoom was a virtually impossible task. The image is very small and the resolution, pretty poor. I took the camera back to the shop this morning (Jacobs in Liverpool...probably the best service Ive ever had in any shop!) and tried the Fuji HS20, Nikon P500 and Panasonic FZ100. All of these had greatly improved digital view finders (larger image and better detail) and the Nikon actually had a slightly more powerfull zoom (36x) and full HD video recording unlike the Cannon. Ive currently got the Nikon on charge for the first time but will let you know how I get on.

I don't see the view finder quality as an issue. I would never manually focus anyway and it's fine for me to tell whether AF has locked onto the correct item for focus or not. I'm glad that they spent the money on other aspects of the camera rather than a higher resolution viewfinder.

IvanCavallazzi · May 31, 2011

crazyfingers said:
I don't see the view finder quality as an issue. I would never manually focus anyway and it's fine for me to tell whether AF has locked onto the correct item for focus or not. I'm glad that they spent the money on other aspects of the camera rather than a higher resolution viewfinder.

Same opinion here. It is not an SLR... so the view finder is actually a mini LCD. In other words, worthless(it is not even supposed to be there).

They could have done a better job in the LCD resolution and in the continuous shot speed(that is actually VERY slow).

But the viewfinder per se... considering it is not an SLR, is nothing but a just a mini LCD.

(But I sometimes manually focus it to infinity to save battery and to avoid misinterpretations of the camera. But then you must be sure that it is at infinity and turn off the servoAF... fixing it in the manual focus at infinity)

crazyfingers · May 31, 2011

IvanCavallazzi said:
Same opinion here. It is not an SLR... so the view finder is actually a mini LCD. In other words, worthless(it is not even supposed to be there).

I wouldn't say the viewfinder is worthless. To me the viewfinder is very important. On bright days I can't possibly see the screen and for long zoom, I can keep the camera much more steady using the viewfinder next to my face than the LCD screen held out to see it. I just don't need it to be top quality. It's good enough to do what I need it to do. I don;t think that a better viewfinder would be a good use of money for what I use it for.

Comparing Superzooms (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread