kittykat23uk
Well-known member
LCE are next on my list! 
-
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.
Superzoom compact cameras - any good? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter kittykat23uk
- Start date
Ruby
Well-known member
Hi,
As mentioned previously, I have the FZ7 and it has both some failings and also redeeming features, but as rgds the menu/usability etc it is very intuitive...
It comes with a manual the size of a small telephone directory which you'd need a good long while to read, but as long as you've got some understanding of photography terms and basics, you can really just pick it up and go through the options yourself - they really do make them pretty simple these days...
I guess the FZ8 would be much the same...
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
I quite agree with Norm. When travelling, my field kit is comprised of a pair of lighweight quality bins (10x32 Ultravids, generally) and a high quality all-in-one 12x optical zoom digital camera (the V-Lux by Leica, essentially a Lumix remake, w/35-420 mm range). No scope. The increased mobility and ease of use results in more viewing, better pictures overall, and less time lost to fussing about. Plus, with all the equipment fitting in one convenient carry-on gear bag, the risk of theft is greatly minimized as it never leaves my side. Good luck!
kittykat23uk
Well-known member
Hi everyone,
I got the chance to have a quick play about with the FZ8 today and am still deliberating. It's nice and light which is a plus but seemed very shaky at the long end of the zoom, more so in IS mode 2 than IS mode 1. It would help me greatly if any users of these superzooms could show me your wildlife shots with details of how far away you were from the subject. The good and the bad please. Also opinions please on which I should place in order of priority?
Optical zoom- is there much visible difference between 10x, 12x, 15x and 18x? The Oly SP550 has the 18x, Sonys go up to 15 and the Panasonics are at 12x
Flip out and swivel screens on the Canon vs RAW on the Panasonic? how useful are these features? I find I do us the flip up function of my 5050 quite a bit but is this function more useful for getting the shot than being able to shoot RAW?
Sony cameras seem to be the most expensive, are they "that" much better than the others to warrant the extra expense? I'm not sure I can see that myself.
ETA: I note that the Canon S3 IS can take a teleconverter. Can the others do so as well?
I got the chance to have a quick play about with the FZ8 today and am still deliberating. It's nice and light which is a plus but seemed very shaky at the long end of the zoom, more so in IS mode 2 than IS mode 1. It would help me greatly if any users of these superzooms could show me your wildlife shots with details of how far away you were from the subject. The good and the bad please. Also opinions please on which I should place in order of priority?
Optical zoom- is there much visible difference between 10x, 12x, 15x and 18x? The Oly SP550 has the 18x, Sonys go up to 15 and the Panasonics are at 12x
Flip out and swivel screens on the Canon vs RAW on the Panasonic? how useful are these features? I find I do us the flip up function of my 5050 quite a bit but is this function more useful for getting the shot than being able to shoot RAW?
Sony cameras seem to be the most expensive, are they "that" much better than the others to warrant the extra expense? I'm not sure I can see that myself.
ETA: I note that the Canon S3 IS can take a teleconverter. Can the others do so as well?
Last edited:
Kittykat,
The Sony H9 is more expensive probably because it has a better lens. If you can find one do have a play with it and see how it performs.
Cost wise the Canon S3, is still a bargain, but have a look at the new S5, it has the new chip in it. Whether that’s enough of an advantage only you can decide.
I would go for recorded image over any enlargement factor.
The press has slagged-off the Oly, which I don't entirely agree with.
The Panasonic is a nice camera as well.
I think each camera has an advantage over its rival, if only you could mix-and-match features from each individual camera and make up one for your own specification.
The Sony H9 is more expensive probably because it has a better lens. If you can find one do have a play with it and see how it performs.
Cost wise the Canon S3, is still a bargain, but have a look at the new S5, it has the new chip in it. Whether that’s enough of an advantage only you can decide.
I would go for recorded image over any enlargement factor.
The press has slagged-off the Oly, which I don't entirely agree with.
The Panasonic is a nice camera as well.
I think each camera has an advantage over its rival, if only you could mix-and-match features from each individual camera and make up one for your own specification.
Ruby
Well-known member
Hi,
Not sure about the FZ8, but on the FZ7 which I have, the theoretical max zoom of 12x is upgraded to 16x if you downsize the size of the image from (from memory!!) 6 mega-pizels to 4.
I did some test shots when I first got the camera and could see no discernable difference in quality between these 2 settings, so have been using it at 4mp ever since.
In my own opinion zoom power is a very important consideration if you are going to take photographs of birds - you can rarely get that close, and every metre or 'reach' helps!!
As rgds the screens - personally I use the viewfinder, finding it pretty-much impossible to follow a moving bird on the screen, but this might just be down to me....I only use the screen for playback. I guess ambient light would be a problem too if trying to use the screen on bright days.
Ruby
Not sure about the FZ8, but on the FZ7 which I have, the theoretical max zoom of 12x is upgraded to 16x if you downsize the size of the image from (from memory!!) 6 mega-pizels to 4.
I did some test shots when I first got the camera and could see no discernable difference in quality between these 2 settings, so have been using it at 4mp ever since.
In my own opinion zoom power is a very important consideration if you are going to take photographs of birds - you can rarely get that close, and every metre or 'reach' helps!!
As rgds the screens - personally I use the viewfinder, finding it pretty-much impossible to follow a moving bird on the screen, but this might just be down to me....I only use the screen for playback. I guess ambient light would be a problem too if trying to use the screen on bright days.
Ruby
The optical zoom on these cameras is based on magnification from the wide angle, not based on how what you see (as bins are). So it is quite possible that a 12x optical zoom may offer you less 'real' magnification than a 10x! If you look at the equivilent focal lengths of these cameras lenses it will give a clear indication of 'real' magnification.... hope that makes sense.
joannec
Well-known member
I don't really understand the technicalities of the magnification of, say 12x of the wide angle. But I do have a Canon S2 with 12x optical zoom and I also have a 1.5 teleconverter lens making it 18x optical zoom. I do know that the "view" through this(and ultimately the picture) is NOT as close as my 10x bins......not very technical I know, but based on what you see, it is less. Does that make sense?
OK, I'll try to explain a bit better...
A 28-280mm lens and a 50-500mm lens are both 10x zooms as the top end is 10x greater than the bottom, however the 50-500 will get you much closer to the subject. In terms of focal length a 50mm lens is taken to be roughly as you see it (no magnification), so anything lower gives a wider angle and higher actually gives zoom. As a rough guide if you divide a (35mm or 35mm equivilent) focal length by 50 you'll get the magnification. So a 500mm lens will give you about the same as a 10 binocular... Just to confuse things field of view can alter how we 'see' magnification, a wider FOV gives an illusion of less magnifigation.
reading back I'm not sure that made it any clearer!
A 28-280mm lens and a 50-500mm lens are both 10x zooms as the top end is 10x greater than the bottom, however the 50-500 will get you much closer to the subject. In terms of focal length a 50mm lens is taken to be roughly as you see it (no magnification), so anything lower gives a wider angle and higher actually gives zoom. As a rough guide if you divide a (35mm or 35mm equivilent) focal length by 50 you'll get the magnification. So a 500mm lens will give you about the same as a 10 binocular... Just to confuse things field of view can alter how we 'see' magnification, a wider FOV gives an illusion of less magnifigation.
reading back I'm not sure that made it any clearer!
kittykat23uk
Well-known member
I think you have explained it well actually. So looking at the focal length equivalent, the Oly SP-550 UZ has a 28 to 504 mm equivalent, all the canon and Panasonics have 36 to 432 mm. It also seems to have the closest macro setting (1 cm). As I do a lot of macro this could be a good plus point for the olympus. But I am still concerned about the review re focus problems.
Similar threads
