• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

What Superzoom? Dissatisfied with the Nikon P100 (3 Viewers)

I have a very strong reluctance to buy anything from Sony these days given their inexcusable and unethical activities placing hidden tracking software to infect people's computers.

:eek!: Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Actually, I have a reluctance to buy anything Japanese because of their whale killing activities, but does anyone else make cameras? I find the quality of Japanese products very good (until the Nikon) and I would love to be able to buy guilt-free.
Sue
 
I took a look at the Panasonic. http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz100/4505-6501_7-34150249.html

I have never worked with RAW and while I could see getting interested in trying to do that on some special photos, generally I would not.

I am not looking for a dedicated wildlife camera but something that will also be general purpose.

The comment about quality tanking out at ISO400 scares me a bit. But it uses a battery pack and is lighter weight than the Canon... It's in the running.
 
:eek!: Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Actually, I have a reluctance to buy anything Japanese because of their whale killing activities, but does anyone else make cameras? I find the quality of Japanese products very good (until the Nikon) and I would love to be able to buy guilt-free.
Sue

The Sony HX100 does seem to have the right specs for my needs. Not due to actually hit the stores until May 1 so no hands-on reviews yet.

Sony.. hmm... I'd rather not but..
 
EDIT: On the subject of dslr's--I carry my bins around my neck and the camera slung on my right shoulder. Would a dslr have a non-collapsible, long lens attached if it was capable of zoom? If I can carry a dslr easily without it getting in the way of my bins, I would explore that route.

On some other threads I have detailed why I got so fed up with the lack of performance in poor light of my old FZ18 that I decided to take a strong look at the dSLR sector. The only camera with low enough weight of the long lenses for me to get exited was the micro4/3 option. I have therefore purchased a Panasonic GH2 and 100-300 lens (which after some calculations equates to a longer maximum reach than the FZ18). That lens and that camera comes out at about 900g (= 2 lbs). But, to have a full complement of range, I am also buying a 14-140 mm lens, which again adds about 1/2 of that weight. I imagine that I will have the camera with birding lens over the shoulder and the other lens in the rucksack when out and about.

This is written a little in future sense because I have not actually received the camera yet, I got someone to hand carry it here.

In total that camera body and two lenses is about 5x more in price than a superzoom. I don't hope I will be pining for an even longer lens, because I suspect that there won't be one available for a good long while.

Niels
 
I have therefore purchased a Panasonic GH2 and 100-300 lens (which after some calculations equates to a longer maximum reach than the FZ18).

I will be very interested to hear how you make out with this Niels. One thing that makes me hesitate to go that route is that even with the extra weight and expense, the FZ18 with 1.7 teleconverter would still have more magnification than the DSLR by my reckoning. But looking at the samples in the other thread, image quality should be much improved!

Best,
Jim
 
FZ100 thoughts

Hi SueO, I thought I may as well throw my thoughts into this mix. To begin with, I have the FZ100 and while at first I wasn't happy with the image quality, I have played with the "in camera" settings and now get quite an acceptable photo. I think the Canon SX30 does have a better image and longer zoom, but loses out on burst rates and video to the FZ100. The FZ100 is the only one in this group where you can alter shutter and aperture settings in the video mode. That means you can get better shots of birds flapping their wings, as when you do a frame by frame analysis of your video you don't get blur of movement. I'll add a couple of images from my video to help illustrate that. Also, the Canon seems to be much slower at focusing than the FZ100. If you do a You Tube search for "ghough" (who does lots of camera reviews) you'll find a comprehensive comparision of these two cameras and you'll see what I mean about the slower focus. I can't comment on the Nikon and Sony, as I don't know too much about them, but from memory the Sony is definitely the better of the two. I understand what Hobes is saying about the zoom, but he/she has it wrong that the FZ8 has a longer zoom than the FZ18, the FZ8, according to the specs I've seen the FZ8 only goes out to 432mm, which is a bit shorter than the FZ18's 504mm. With regards to the images I've attached the first two were taken with video and the others using 40 frames/sec burst mode.
Hope I haven't added too much to your confusion.
 

Attachments

  • bee.jpg
    bee.jpg
    243.9 KB · Views: 90
  • hoverfly.jpg
    hoverfly.jpg
    106.5 KB · Views: 85
  • swallow2.jpg
    swallow2.jpg
    138.7 KB · Views: 95
  • wren.jpg
    wren.jpg
    271.4 KB · Views: 93
  • dragonfly.jpg
    dragonfly.jpg
    151.7 KB · Views: 87
The below in response to Jim's post:

It should arrive here late this month, so sometime next month I probably should be able to say something sensible.

I do not have the 1.7x, I have a cheap 1.4x that I think degrades the image at least some.

Niels
 
Hi SueO, I thought I may as well throw my thoughts into this mix. To begin with, I have the FZ100 and while at first I wasn't happy with the image quality, I have played with the "in camera" settings and now get quite an acceptable photo. I think the Canon SX30 does have a better image and longer zoom, but loses out on burst rates and video to the FZ100. The FZ100 is the only one in this group where you can alter shutter and aperture settings in the video mode. That means you can get better shots of birds flapping their wings, as when you do a frame by frame analysis of your video you don't get blur of movement. I'll add a couple of images from my video to help illustrate that. Also, the Canon seems to be much slower at focusing than the FZ100.

scodgerott, do you have the Canon SX30? If so, while you say focus is slow, does it generally manage to focus well on an animal at long zoom?
 
Hi SueO, no I have the Panasonic FZ100. I think the focus at long zoom is quite fast most of the time, occasionally it does hunt, but it will do that at any point in the zoom. Most of the time it is very fast though. See the dragonfly, you don't have much time to focus on those beasties and I was very happy with the way the focus picked it up. I have taken quite a few dragonfly shots now and the camera works really well. The same with the swallow, they give you very little time to get a shot.
 
Last edited:
The only swallow shots that I have that are somewhat similar (using the FZ18) were pre-focused and waiting for the swallow to appear, if the FZ100 can focus at that speed, that is a step up.

Niels
 
Hi Niels, I think the FZ100 is faster in focus speed then the FZ18 (which I also have), but I was a bit lucky with the swallow, as it was quite windy and they were tending to hover for very short periods. Even so, I don't think I would have got that shot with the FZ18. The FZ100's 40 frames per sec burst rate also helped. One other factor is shutter lag and the FZ100 is definitely faster there as well.
 
<snip>I understand what Hobes is saying about the zoom, but he/she has it wrong that the FZ8 has a longer zoom than the FZ18, the FZ8, according to the specs I've seen the FZ8 only goes out to 432mm, which is a bit shorter than the FZ18's 504mm. <snip>

Hi there
Re: the FZ8, with extended zoom (reducing the resolution to 5MP), the optical zoom increases to 14.4x, thus, 14.4 x 36mm = 518.4mm lens (35mm equivalent). Like you, I was going by the specs for the FZ18, which indicated the zoom was 18x, thus, 18 x 27mm = 486mm lens (35mm equivalent). Anyway, regardless of what the exact figures are, the point of my post was to show that the crucial number is not the zoom multiples but the zoom range i.e. FZ8 36mm-518.4mm, FZ18 27mm-486mm.

Re: the new superzooms, the Nikon P500 has a 36x zoom, the Sony HX100V has a 30x zoom but they both have the same reach, extending to the same maximum focal length (810mm, 35mm equivalent). The Nikon lens starts at 22.5mm, the Sony at 27mm.
It's important you compare like with like otherwise you might get a nasty shock ;)
Hobbes
 
Last edited:
I went the rechargeable AA route a few years back. Tried to power my flashlights and kids toys, etc.... Got the best ones I could find. They all ended up running out way faster than regular alkalines.
I used rechargeables with my Canon S3, and had a lot of trouble till Sony Eneloops came out.

My problem was not that the standard NiMH batteries didn't hold enough charge, it was that they discharged themselves significantly over a week or so. That meant that my spare set was already half flat by the time I changed them over, if not fully flat.

Eneloops stay charged for months, so I was very happy with them after that. There may be other long life NiMH batteries available now.
 
I will be very interested to hear how you make out with this Niels. One thing that makes me hesitate to go that route is that even with the extra weight and expense, the FZ18 with 1.7 teleconverter would still have more magnification than the DSLR by my reckoning. But looking at the samples in the other thread, image quality should be much improved!
I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if you've got a telconverter or are thinking of getting one.

In my opinion they are a good low cost alternative to getting an SLR, although SLRs have lots of other advantages. Just for interest, here are some comparison shots I took with my Canon S3, with and without 1.7x teleconverter. I found the improvement astounding.
https://picasaweb.google.com/pshute...LDH175817xTelephotoConversionLensComparisons#
 
Hi there
Re: the FZ8, with extended zoom (reducing the resolution to 5MP), the optical zoom increases to 14.4x, thus, 14.4 x 36mm = 518.4mm lens (35mm equivalent). Like you, I was going by the specs for the FZ18, which indicated the zoom was 18x, thus, 18 x 27mm = 486mm lens (35mm equivalent). Anyway, regardless of what the exact figures are, the point of my post was to show that the crucial number is not the zoom multiples but the zoom range i.e. FZ8 36mm-518.4mm, FZ18 27mm-486mm.

Re: the new superzooms, the Nikon P500 has a 36x zoom, the Sony HX100V has a 30x zoom but they both have the same reach, extending to the same maximum focal length (810mm, 35mm equivalent). The Nikon lens starts at 22.5mm, the Sony at 27mm.
It's important you compare like with like otherwise you might get a nasty shock ;)
Hobbes

On the side of my FZ18 it says 28-504. This camera just like the FZ8 is capable of extended zoom, so it is most fair to compare the native lens without extended zoom first, and only compare with extended zoom if you do that for both cameras. FZ18 with extended zoom (5MP) reports 23x so maximum of 28x23 = 644 mm equivalent.

Niels
 
Hi SueO, I thought I may as well throw my thoughts into this mix. To begin with, I have the FZ100 and while at first I wasn't happy with the image quality, I have played with the "in camera" settings and now get quite an acceptable photo. I think the Canon SX30 does have a better image and longer zoom, but loses out on burst rates and video to the FZ100. The FZ100 is the only one in this group where you can alter shutter and aperture settings in the video mode. That means you can get better shots of birds flapping their wings, as when you do a frame by frame analysis of your video you don't get blur of movement. I'll add a couple of images from my video to help illustrate that. Also, the Canon seems to be much slower at focusing than the FZ100. If you do a You Tube search for "ghough" (who does lots of camera reviews) you'll find a comprehensive comparision of these two cameras and you'll see what I mean about the slower focus. I can't comment on the Nikon and Sony, as I don't know too much about them, but from memory the Sony is definitely the better of the two. I understand what Hobes is saying about the zoom, but he/she has it wrong that the FZ8 has a longer zoom than the FZ18, the FZ8, according to the specs I've seen the FZ8 only goes out to 432mm, which is a bit shorter than the FZ18's 504mm. With regards to the images I've attached the first two were taken with video and the others using 40 frames/sec burst mode.
Hope I haven't added too much to your confusion.
Hi Codger;),
I appreciate your input. It was nice of you to post your images. Your Superb-fairy Wren is Superb! And the Swallow(Welcome?) is a good freeze of a fast bird. At first glance, I could easily live with this quality. I don't expect profession images, but I do expect sharpness and focus.
I guess what I need to do is write down the choices and look at a few images.
I loved my time in your country. I will always remember the flute playing of the Butcherbirds in the old euc forest I often walked and the laughs of the Kookaburras especially when one of a group caught a lizard.
Sue
 
Hi All,
My other half, GeneO, has just read this thread because I was unclear about some things. I wanted to know how far a lens on a dslr would stick out. I walk narrow paths sometimes and I can't have a lens half my body length sticking out as I bird. Birding is the primary objective for me, not photography. My husband thinks the cost of the 'point and shoots' is too much for a 'throw-away' camera and I should get a dslr. I can only envision the photographers at Bolsa Chica, California with their lens that look like they should be in an observatory. I remember coming home from there one day and telling Gene I had 'lens envy'.
I wanted to know how far the lens would stick out and how far away the subject can be to get a good image. He started in with the '400mm by whatever' lingo and I cut him off. I just want to take a clear shot of a bird up to 30 ft (well, maybe 40) away. Most of the time the birds are closer, but sometimes something is perched at a distance. He got down to basics for me by saying, "Do you want to be able to take a clear photo about the same distance as you can see clearly in your binoculars?" "Yes." Okay. I got out my Nikon and he showed me now far a dslr zoom lens would probably stick out. I can then twist it open to make it longer. I think I would be fine with that.
Then, I thought about weight. I put my old Bushnell's on my digital food scale and got: 1 lb 11oz--766g. I used to walk around with those on my shoulder for some time before getting a 'harness' and I was ok with that. Next, I weighed my Swarovski's (with the harness attached) 1lb 8 5/8oz—696g. the Nikon is 1lb 2 3/8oz—520g. Now I have to check weights of dslr. I think I can carry one that may be a bit heavier that the one Niels is getting and spend a little less? I don’t need top of the line; just a camera that takes a crisp, clear photo.
So, after all your help and links, I think I may look in a different direction.
Edit:
After writing this up, I said something to Gene about a zoom on the dslr and he said it’s not a zoom, it’s a telephoto. The lightbulb went on. Well, if it’s telephoto, what happens if I come up on a bird that’s three feet away? Obviously, that is often the case as I walk on roads or paths and I come up on a bird. So now I have this telephoto lens and a close up bird? Gene says it depends on how close the lens will focus, but I wouldn’t be able to macro my caterpillars. I feel like after all this thought I’m back to square one.
Sue
 
Somebody in this thread suggested Nikon D3100 and 70-300mm, as an alternative combination that should be possible to get at a reasonable cost. That would get you a reach equivalent to 450 mm at a weight of about 1200 g. for comparison the option I chose will give me a reach of about 600mm and your nikon p100 has a reach of about 678 mm. That means that using the nikon D3100 at full zoom (nominal 300), the bird in the view finder would like to be about 2/3 to 3/4 of the size compared with the same bird in the viewfinder of your current p100 (I think, unless there is some math I have forgot about).

A 400mm prime for a dSLR -- aren't they horrendously expensive?

I have no idea if those lenses will give you anything like a macro option - and I do not know that yet for the option I did choose.

Niels
 
Hi All,
My other half, GeneO, has just read this thread because I was unclear about some things. I wanted to know how far a lens on a dslr would stick out. I walk narrow paths sometimes and I can't have a lens half my body length sticking out as I bird. Birding is the primary objective for me, not photography. My husband thinks the cost of the 'point and shoots' is too much for a 'throw-away' camera and I should get a dslr. I can only envision the photographers at Bolsa Chica, California with their lens that look like they should be in an observatory. I remember coming home from there one day and telling Gene I had 'lens envy'.
I wanted to know how far the lens would stick out and how far away the subject can be to get a good image. He started in with the '400mm by whatever' lingo and I cut him off. I just want to take a clear shot of a bird up to 30 ft (well, maybe 40) away. Most of the time the birds are closer, but sometimes something is perched at a distance. He got down to basics for me by saying, "Do you want to be able to take a clear photo about the same distance as you can see clearly in your binoculars?" "Yes." Okay. I got out my Nikon and he showed me now far a dslr zoom lens would probably stick out. I can then twist it open to make it longer. I think I would be fine with that.
Then, I thought about weight. I put my old Bushnell's on my digital food scale and got: 1 lb 11oz--766g. I used to walk around with those on my shoulder for some time before getting a 'harness' and I was ok with that. Next, I weighed my Swarovski's (with the harness attached) 1lb 8 5/8oz—696g. the Nikon is 1lb 2 3/8oz—520g. Now I have to check weights of dslr. I think I can carry one that may be a bit heavier that the one Niels is getting and spend a little less? I don’t need top of the line; just a camera that takes a crisp, clear photo.
So, after all your help and links, I think I may look in a different direction.
Edit:
After writing this up, I said something to Gene about a zoom on the dslr and he said it’s not a zoom, it’s a telephoto. The lightbulb went on. Well, if it’s telephoto, what happens if I come up on a bird that’s three feet away? Obviously, that is often the case as I walk on roads or paths and I come up on a bird. So now I have this telephoto lens and a close up bird? Gene says it depends on how close the lens will focus, but I wouldn’t be able to macro my caterpillars. I feel like after all this thought I’m back to square one.
Sue

Lots of SLR telephoto lenses zoom. It's not like you have to have a fixed magnification lens stuck on. But that can be large. Don't have to be but can.

If I were you I'd google "SLR zoom lenses" and see what's out there for the zoom you need.

I would personally not get such a large camera as I know from my younger days that a large and or heavy camera will get left behind. But clearly you know your needs/desires and I don't.
 
Lots of SLR telephoto lenses zoom. It's not like you have to have a fixed magnification lens stuck on. But that can be large. Don't have to be but can.

If I were you I'd google "SLR zoom lenses" and see what's out there for the zoom you need.

I would personally not get such a large camera as I know from my younger days that a large and or heavy camera will get left behind. But clearly you know your needs/desires and I don't.

Wish I did.;) I will have to look at things when I get home. I need to see and hold some of the dslrs. I may stick with the superzoom after all. I just don't know. I'm really, really sorry I dropped my Sony.:-C
Sue
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top