ultra/super zoom questions and recommendations (1 Viewer)

Hello all,

I am looking for a lightweight camera to take in the field to make occasional bird and perhaps other types of photos. I want to use it without a tripod. I have been looking at super and ultra zoom cameras, and had a few questions.

1. I see some posters use a tele-converter to increase the zoom on these cameras. I assume that no tripod is used without the tele-converter. Do people generally use a tripod if they also opt for a tele-converter?

2. Are there disadvantages to using a tele-converter?

3. I have seen stated as a rule of thumb that the "power" of the zoom lens is equal to the number of millimeters divided by 50. However, my recollection is that the human eye is equivalent to a 58 mm lens. Would a more exacting formula be the number of millimeters divided by 58?

I have been reading other threads and some reviews and it looks as though the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 ultra zoom might suit my needs. Are there other cameras I should be considering? (The only other ultra zooms I am aware of are the Olympus, which seems to be widely panned (though I just read that the SP-560 currently corrected some of the 550's faults), and the Fuji, which I read an unflattering review of). In addition to light weight, I am also looking for a camera that:

-- is intuitive and easy to use
-- has either an LCD or EVF that can be used in bright sunlight
-- has mechanical image stabilization
-- and of course good image quality (though I am not expecting perfection in this camera class of course)

Thanks for any help,
Jim

Hi Jim,

I recently purchased a Panasonic FZ18 for my trip to India and I am so glad that I did. The 28 to 504 mm range really came in handy and another guy who was with us for part of the trip brought his Panasonic TZ1 (10x optical) and was just not getting close enough with his shots. I found that I was frequently using the 5 and 3 megapixel extended zoom options to get close enough to the birds.

The camera is very light, easy to use, fast and responsive and the battery does last about a full day's shooting even in Burst mode, which I used pretty much all the time. You can get a teleconverter for it. Most people recommend the Olympus TCON-17. Actually I have just invested in one because I would like to be able to extend the zoom range without going down to 3 meg. Of course, this adds weight to the camera and I understand that most people recommend using a tripod.

The general opinion over on DPreview is that the FZ18 is the best of the 18x superzooms with marginally reduced picture quality over the 12X FZ8. However, the extended wide angle and zoom range more than make up for this shortcoming IMHO. Focus is fast and pictures are pretty good quality up to about ISO 300. You probably know that above this, all of the superzooms suffer from a lot of noise because of the size of the sensor and the amount of megapixels the manufacturers try to cram in.

I would say to you to judge for yourself by the following shots. Most of the shots I posted were taken just using P mode and intelligent ISO 400 max. The fireworks were taken using the Fireworks scene mode.

My other camera is a Fuji F31FD which I use for digiscoping. When I have time to set up a shot, I have found that so far, in lower light, the IQ is a lot better than my Panasonic (although I have been advised that If I spent more time using the manual settings I would have got better results on some of my shots, but you live and learn), but it is obviously more fiddly to set up so I hardly took any shots with this camera on holiday.

Another one you might wish to consider is the Canon S3IS or S5IS. If you want to shoot movies this is better because you can use the zoom function and it also has a flip out screen. The panasonic doesn't allow you to use zoom in movie mode. However, it is not as wide as the panasonic (36mm as opposed to 28 mm) and is only a 12x optical zoom. Panasonic's FZ18 also shoots Raw if that rocks your boat.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8773601@N03/sets/72157603341038890/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8773601@N03/sets/72157602909218691/

Hope this helps.

Jo

Hi Jo,

Those are some great photos! I bet you were glad you had the zoom when that tiger came around. ;-) I had a couple of questions though.

I was having some trouble figuring out the EXIF data though. I was not sure what figure, if any, gave the zoom level the picture was taken at. I thought it might be the 35mm equivalent figure, but some of those were in the 800s, so that did not seem right. (Unless they are reflecting the addition of digital zoom or a teleconverter?) Were many of those taken at maximum zoom? Are you getting good results without a tripod at maximum zoom?

I also noticed that one of the owl photos was listed as being taken at an ISO of 1600, but seemed quite sharp. Was the 1600 figure accurate?

Finally, do you find the "digital zoom" useful at all?

Cheers,
Jim

J. Moore said:

1. I see some posters use a tele-converter to increase the zoom on these cameras. I assume that no tripod is used without the tele-converter. Do people generally use a tripod if they also opt for a tele-converter?

2. Are there disadvantages to using a tele-converter?

Click to expand...

Whether you should use a tripod or not depends on how much magnification you are using, whether the camera has stabilization, and how steady you are. The usual rule of thumb is that you use a tripod if the shutter speed is less than the focal length - e.g. say you are using a lens with 500mm, then you should use a tripod if the shutter speed will be less than 1/500. However, image stabilization can add about 2 stops, so you could probably go down to about 1/125 shutter speed.

Adding a teleconverter just adds more magnification to this equation. So, if you are out to 800mm, you should use a tripod if your shutter speed will be less than 1/800, again with the IS factor added in.

Plus, of course, teleconverters are usually large, so that adds somewhat to the problem of keeping the thing steady.

The main disadvantage of teleconverters is that they are usually big and heavy - my Olympus TCON-17 is almost as large as my Canon S5IS camera. Also, they prevent you from zooming out more than about 1/3, because at that point you get vignetting. Also, they usually prevent you from using the camera's built-in flash because their diameter covers part of the flash - you get a big shadow! This isn't much of an issue with a teleconverter, but it is a big factor with a wide-angle converter, where you might actually want to use the flash.

One thing that is NOT a disadvantage is that most super-zoom teleconverters that mount in front of the lens do NOT decrease the amount of light coming in. This is in marked contrast to DSLR converters (that sit between the camera and the lens), which cut down the light a lot (about 2 stops for a 2x converter).

J. Moore said:

Hi Jo,

Those are some great photos! I bet you were glad you had the zoom when that tiger came around. ;-) I had a couple of questions though.

I was having some trouble figuring out the EXIF data though. I was not sure what figure, if any, gave the zoom level the picture was taken at. I thought it might be the 35mm equivalent figure, but some of those were in the 800s, so that did not seem right. (Unless they are reflecting the addition of digital zoom or a teleconverter?) Were many of those taken at maximum zoom? Are you getting good results without a tripod at maximum zoom?

I also noticed that one of the owl photos was listed as being taken at an ISO of 1600, but seemed quite sharp. Was the 1600 figure accurate?

Finally, do you find the "digital zoom" useful at all?

Cheers,
Jim

Click to expand...

Jim,

thanks for your comments. Yes I wouldn't have got any good shots without this fantastic camera!

The Dusky Eagle Owl was one of the few shots I took with my Fuji and yes, it was at ISO 1600 (through my telescope).

The ones with focal lengths in the 800 mm range (e.g. crested serpent eagle) I think were using the extened optical zoom at 3 megapixels. Those in the 700s like the Jackal were probably using the 5 meg option. The tiger was taken with the 8 megapixel option. I didn't use the digital zoom as the results aren't great. All the panasonic shots are hand held and the optical Image stabilisation works very well.:t:

RAH said:

The main disadvantage of teleconverters is that they are usually big and heavy - my Olympus TCON-17 is almost as large as my Canon S5IS camera. Also, they prevent you from zooming out more than about 1/3, because at that point you get vignetting.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the information RAH. I was thinking you might be able to get better image quality than is offered by the 18x cameras by going to a lower zoom camera and then adding a teleconverter. But "big and heavy" is definitely something I want to avoid.

Jim

The ones with focal lengths in the 800 mm range (e.g. crested serpent eagle) I think were using the extened optical zoom at 3 megapixels. Those in the 700s like the Jackal were probably using the 5 meg option.

Click to expand...

This is the first I have heard of the "extended optical zoom" option; I have not seen this mentioned in the reviews. I see on the Panasonic website it says "With the Extended Optical Zoom function, zoom power is boosted to around 28.7x (in 3-megapixel resolution mode). " That seems pretty incredible to me. I am not aware of any use for getting resolution above three megapixels for most purposes, so that looks like a great option to have.

It really is amazing how much sophisticated technology Panasonic can pack into a camera weighing only 12 ounces and for a relatively low price!

Jim

Yep it is a very useful function indeed! And I'm going to further boost its capabilities with the TCON-17.

kittykat23uk said:

And I'm going to further boost its capabilities with the TCON-17.

Click to expand...

I think you have gone "power" mad. ;-)

Jim

Bwahahaha!!!!

J. Moore said:

1. I see some posters use a tele-converter to increase the zoom on these cameras. I assume that no tripod is used without the tele-converter. Do people generally use a tripod if they also opt for a tele-converter?

Click to expand...

Never used a tripod, or had any interest in using one. A monopod helps, but is by no means necessary. I found the handling of my FZ-7 to be much improved when the teleconverter was attached, making it somewhat easier to hold steady.

2. Are there disadvantages to using a tele-converter?

Click to expand...

With a teleconverter you won't be able to focus close up, and there will be a bit of vignetting if you try to zoom out for a bit wider angle photo. Obvious, since those are the exact opposite of what the teleconverter is designed to do.

-- is intuitive and easy to use

Click to expand...

This will be an entirely personal preference, learned through handling the cameras - nobody else can tell you what you'll find intuitive and easy to use.

-- has either an LCD or EVF that can be used in bright sunlight

Click to expand...

Alas, the LCD will never be useful in bright sunlight.

I used the EVF all the time, even in bright sulight and it was fine.

I realize this thread is a little older, but one question I would like to add: Is there any of these cameras that are good if you want to catch a flying bird? is the autofocus, shutter lag, etc, short enough that it actually works? I used to be pretty good at that kind of thing with my old film SLR, but really want something less heavy and bulky for standalone shooting

Niels

Super-zoom point-and-shoots (e.g. Canon S5IS, Olympus 560, Panasonic Fz-*) are generally not good at birds-in-flight shots. Their autofocus is usually too slow, and also their electronic viewfinder (EVF) display is often too unresponsive and slow to refresh. A DSLR is much better (and much more expensive with a big lens, of course)

RAH said:

A DSLR is much better (and much more expensive with a big lens, of course)

Click to expand...

And heavier ...

Niels

Well there are always sacrifices with whatever equipment you choose, but it is not impossible to get birds in flight with a superzoom, if the light is good. And personally it beats carrying around a camera which weighs more than my scope!

Some examples attached.

Jo

Those are some pretty nice flight shots kitty; I will have to try that. I imagine "burst mode" would be good for that.

In any event, since my old thread has been revived, I wanted to do a couple of things. First, I wanted to add that some knowledgeable people have suggested that the Panasonic's "extended optical zoom" does not really provide additional magnification, but rather is a form of in camera cropping (I think it has been described as "cropping the sensor"). I have not seen anything definitive on this, but my own informal tests seem to confirm it.

Second, I have been very pleased with the results I have achieved even after using the FZ18 for only a few weeks. Below is a sample of some of my better shots.

Best,
Jim

Thanks for these examples! It does look like the panazonic is a camera I will have to take a good strong look at :t: :t:

Thanks
Niels

It's a great little camera, with a Raynox macro and a TCON-17 lens it's a corker.

It's keeping me amused |:d|

I see there's an FZ28 now with 1OMP. Would this be a better choice than the FZ 18 or is there a catch?

Sean