Newspaper Article

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

MJW - 29 Jun 2006 06:30 GMT

I was reading in the "connect" section of The Daily Telegraph yesterday,
an article on digital cameras. I was surprised/confused by 2 cameras
reviewed, regarding their optical zoom capabilities.

1st one was the Fuji FinePix S5600. It comes with 10x optical zoom,
which the review says is the equivalent of a 38mm-380mm lens. Is this
correct? I remember a friend showing me his Fuji earlier this year ( not
sure if it was the S5600, but it is 10x optical) & don't recall the zoom
capabilites being anywhere near my 75-300 lens!

2nd one was the Panasonic FZ7. It has 12x Optical which it says is
equivalent to a 36-432mm lens.

Both these cameras come in well under $1000, so i'm wondering are their
focal claims true, or are they using digital zoom to back up their claims?

Signature

>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

Reply to this Message

Jeff R. - 29 Jun 2006 07:06 GMT

> 2nd one was the Panasonic FZ7. It has 12x Optical which it says is
> equivalent to a 36-432mm lens.
>
> Both these cameras come in well under $1000, so i'm wondering are their
> focal claims true, or are they using digital zoom to back up their claims?

Its true.
I have the FZ30, with 10x optical zoom. The sensors in these cameras are
very small, so the mass of glass required to make a 10x zoom is not as
overwhelming as it would be with a larger sensor.

The trade-off is the potential for noise.

I do a lot of stage photography, with dark backgrounds. The FZ30 is
hopeless for this - flash notwithstanding.
Outdoors - bright light - no worries.
Low light - not so good.

Also, the auto-focus hunts badly - especially at long focal lengths.

These "super-zoom" zSLRs are a great concept (I could prattle on) but the
reality is not so good.

HTH

--
Jeff R.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 29 Jun 2006 08:45 GMT

> Its true.
> I have the FZ30, with 10x optical zoom. The sensors in these cameras are
> very small, so the mass of glass required to make a 10x zoom is not as
> overwhelming as it would be with a larger sensor.

Yep.

> The trade-off is the potential for noise.

Potential! :-)

> I do a lot of stage photography, with dark backgrounds. The FZ30 is
> hopeless for this - flash notwithstanding.
> Outdoors - bright light - no worries.
> Low light - not so good.

You should have done your homework first then unfortunately. I'd never
recommend one for stage shots.
Even a DSLR with long zoom suffers somewhat from the small apertures usually
offered in that type of lens.

Most people are horrified though when they see the cost of something
*really* suitable.

> These "super-zoom" zSLRs are a great concept (I could prattle on) but the
> reality is not so good.

That's the point after all, to blind the uninitiated with numbers.
Not only sells a camera, but almost guarantees further sales, for better
equipment, down the track :-)

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Jeff R. - 29 Jun 2006 13:31 GMT

>> The trade-off is the potential for noise.
>
> Potential! :-)

Yes... "pootential". It's quite satisfactory given adequate light.

>> I do a lot of stage photography, with dark backgrounds. The FZ30 is
>> hopeless for this - flash notwithstanding.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> usually
> offered in that type of lens.

Oh - I did my homework. The FZ30 is good, for many of the features I
wanted. Overhead tiltable EVF, for example. Absolutely silent operation for
another. I drag out the Nikon with the *marvellous* SB-something-or-other
flash for the stage work - and bounce off the 30 foot ceilings with ease.
The FZ-30 would be more convenient, but...

> Most people are horrified though when they see the cost of something
> *really* suitable.

Actually, the Nikon with the 24-120 wasn't so bad. Reasonable, even.

>> These "super-zoom" zSLRs are a great concept (I could prattle on) but the
>> reality is not so good.
>
> That's the point after all, to blind the uninitiated with numbers.
> Not only sells a camera, but almost guarantees further sales, for better
> equipment, down the track :-)

Hey! Don't get me wrong. The FZ30 is by far the best of the of the twenty or
so non-SLR-digitals I've owned. It can't match the SLRs, but they can't
match its portability and convenience *and* silence. I know its
limitations, so I work around them - and 8Mp provides a lot of elbow room
for post-processing.

> MrT.

--
Jeff R.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 29 Jun 2006 14:41 GMT

> Oh - I did my homework. The FZ30 is good, for many of the features I
> wanted.

You said it was hopeless for stage photography. I agreed.

> > Most people are horrified though when they see the cost of something
> > *really* suitable.
>
> Actually, the Nikon with the 24-120 wasn't so bad.

But still a fairly slow lens. OK if you only ever want to use that flash I
suppose. Too bad for those times when you can't, or you actually want to
capture the effect of the stage lighting.

>Reasonable, even.

It's all relative I guess. Quite a bit for camera, lens & flash and still
wouldn't do what I want.

> Hey! Don't get me wrong. The FZ30 is by far the best of the of the twenty or
> so non-SLR-digitals I've owned.

Wish I had that much money to waste :-)
I'd much rather have one good camera though.

(not that the *one* non SLR digital I have ever owned is any good, but I
never use it anyway)

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Jeff R. - 29 Jun 2006 15:30 GMT

>> Oh - I did my homework. The FZ30 is good, for many of the features I
>> wanted.
>
> You said it was hopeless for stage photography. I agreed.

You suggested I didn't do my homework. I knew it would be noisy. For many
apps, that doesn't matter. Bright sunlight for example.

>> Actually, the Nikon with the 24-120 wasn't so bad.
>
> But still a fairly slow lens. OK if you only ever want to use that flash I
> suppose. Too bad for those times when you can't, or you actually want to
> capture the effect of the stage lighting.

Hnhh.
A stop or two?
I *do* use the flash most of the time - the stage lighting where I shoot is
not good enough to warrant special attention. I wouldn't like to carry
around the bucket-sized lens that would be *usefully* faster than the one I
use. -or- I would attach the f/1.2 prime. Plenty options.

> It's all relative I guess. Quite a bit for camera, lens & flash and still
> wouldn't do what I want.

In *one* app.
Fine for the others. Good even. Did I mention *quiet*?

>> Hey! Don't get me wrong. The FZ30 is by far the best of the of the twenty
> or
>> so non-SLR-digitals I've owned.
>
> Wish I had that much money to waste :-)

Not wasted. Over - what?- ten years? Thats two a year. Chicken feed. Less
than I used to spend on film and processing. Plus, I learnt a lot about the
limitations and advantages of P&S.

> I'd much rather have one good camera though.

Ye-e-e-s-s-ss... Your point?
I've got *one* good camera. Four times over.
Horses for courses.

> (not that the *one* non SLR digital I have ever owned is any good, but I
> never use it anyway)

Well - *that* was a waste.
Should've done your homework. :-)

Can you slip your "one good camera" in your shirt pocket?
*Sometimes* that's an advantage.

> MrT.

--
Jeff R.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 30 Jun 2006 06:10 GMT

> > But still a fairly slow lens. OK if you only ever want to use that flash I
> > suppose. Too bad for those times when you can't, or you actually want to
> > capture the effect of the stage lighting.
>
> Hnhh.
> A stop or two?

2 or 3 stops makes a world of difference.

> I *do* use the flash most of the time - the stage lighting where I shoot is
> not good enough to warrant special attention. I wouldn't like to carry
> around the bucket-sized lens that would be *usefully* faster than the one I
> use. -or- I would attach the f/1.2 prime. Plenty options.

Yep, a good prime is usually my first choice for such work. I find an 85mm
f1.8 or 135mm f2 more useful for such work though. 3 stops faster than the
zoom, and much better quality to boot.. Hardly "buckets" either!

> Not wasted. Over - what?- ten years? Thats two a year.

Two camera's a year *is* a waste IMO. Still it's your money.

> > (not that the *one* non SLR digital I have ever owned is any good, but I
> > never use it anyway)
>
> Well - *that* was a waste.
> Should've done your homework. :-)

I did. I needed it for a particular job at the time, and it earned it's
keep.

> Can you slip your "one good camera" in your shirt pocket?
> *Sometimes* that's an advantage.

My Olympus XA still fits fine, as does my digital P&S. Never felt the need
to buy another 18 camera's for that purpose.
(And the XA is about 20 years old not 10 :-)

MrT.

Reply to this Message