Zoom capabilities of Cameras (1 Viewer)

Could someone please explain to the difference between 20x zoom for example on a Superzoom camera and a DSLR with a of say 70-300mm or any lens size in fact.

I understand the 20x zoom etc but how does it compare to a lens in terms of getting closer to your subject. What I am trying to say is is a 20x zoom the same as 70-300mm or 100-400mm or whatever

Cheers

It depends on the camera.

An FZ50 has a wide angle of 35mm equivalent and a 12x zoom, giving a max telephoto of 420mm.

An FZ18 has a wide angle of 28mm and an 18x zoom, giving a max telephoto of 504mm.

The zoom is just the maximum focal length (mm) divided by the minimum focal length, which gives the range of the lens. For example, 50-500mm = 500/50 = 10X 'zoom'.
The zoom is not a measure of how close up things become - this is focal length.
The higher the number in mm, the more magnified a subject will become. 50mm is said to be about the same as the human eye, so working on this basis, a 400mm lens gives about 8x magnification.
You can see then, that zoom is not a measure of how close something is - a lens that zooms from a focal length of 50-500mm would have a 10x zoom, and so would a 30-300mm lens. However, the former would give more magnification as it has a greater focal length.

The only thing to add to the above answers: in superzooms, there are two focal ranges given, the real focal range and the one that the lens corresponds to if you had had the same magnification on a 35mm film SLR. The second set of numbers, often stated as "35mm eqviv." are 28-504 for the pana FZ18 as stated above. When you compare to a lens on an SLR, the range is normally not given in "35mm eqviv." because the correction depends on which camera body you would use. The 70-300 mm lens on a full frame SLR would be just that, 70-300 mm eqviv. The same size lens on a canon smaller sensor camera with a crop factor of 1.6x would be eqvivalent to 112-480. The same size lens on an olympus camera body with a 2x crop factor would be eqvivalent to 140-600mm.

Niels

Clear as mud lol, thanks guys for trying to explain the differences. I think I probably will get a DSLR as it gives you a lotmore options while being a lot more expensive. If money was no object I would get a Superzoom and a DSLR.

Could you explain why you need a few different lenses for different occasions, I would have thought if you get a biggish lens it would cover most things near and far.

I normally take to anything technical quite easily, I work in IT, but I have to say I am struggling with photography. Having said that I have not even bought anything yet or even been in a shop. Just trying to build a little knowledge before I do.

To be honest, you probably wont need multiple birding lenses to start out with. I think you are reffering to pro's or semi pro's with different lenses that are preferable for different styles - birds in flight for example. A half decent lens like a canon 100-400 or 400 prime will keep you more than satisfied for most occasions, as they are good all rounders. There will always be a bird too far away - no matter what equipment you have, a closer bird - given the same conditions - will result in a better photograph.

If you mean different subject matter, then yes, a different lens will be required for things like landscapes and portraits. Whilst there are specialist lenses for these subjects, a standard zoom lens - something like the lens bundled with a camera or the sigma 17-70 should cover most situations your big lens cannot. If you are worried about having different lenses, the versatility of the canon 100-400 or a similar zoom means you will be able to cover more situations than with a fixed focal length lens.

Think about the 70-300 linked up with a canon housing giving you the equivalent to 112-480. At the far end, that is like looking through a 9x pair of binoculars, so the area you can cover is limited. If a bird is far away, you may still feel limited, and wish you had something longer.

At the other end, the angle of view is not great but covers around 3x more in any direction. That will be good for certain types of outdoors usage, but not good if you try to capture a dinner party, then you need something with wider angle of view, or smaller numbers of equivalency. A long zoom lens may or may not be OK for close ups of butterflys, flowers, etc. If it does not do well enough, then you may end up buying a lens for that purpose as well.

A superzoom due to covering a larger span will be more of a jack of all trades; for some, it becomes "and a master of none", as it may not be able to shoot quite as sharp images as the dSLR if you can afford the expensive high quality long lenses.

Niels

Cartman said:

Clear as mud lol, thanks guys for trying to explain the differences.

Click to expand...

Everything everyone else said is correct, but if you want it in a nutshell:

Take the highest number on the "35mm equivalent" zoom spec and divide by 50. That gives you the "magnification".

For example, on a superzoom camera, if it says a 10x lens and says 36-360mm equivalent, divide 360 by 50 = approx 7x

On a DSLR lens it can be harder because they often just give the speicifcation without converting to 35mm equivalent, so you have to do it yourself. For example, an Olympus 70-300mm lens has a 35mm equivalent of 140-600 (2x factor on an Oly DSLR). Then just divide 600 by 50 = 12x magnification.

RAH said:

Everything everyone else said is correct, but if you want it in a nutshell:

Take the highest number on the "35mm equivalent" zoom spec and divide by 50. That gives you the "magnification".

For example, on a superzoom camera, if it says a 10x lens and says 36-360mm equivalent, divide 360 by 50 = approx 7x

On a DSLR lens it can be harder because they often just give the speicifcation without converting to 35mm equivalent, so you have to do it yourself. For example, an Olympus 70-300mm lens has a 35mm equivalent of 140-600 (2x factor on an Oly DSLR). Then just divide 600 by 50 = 12x magnification.

Click to expand...

Cheers mate, I get it now lol...thanks again