Super-zoom cameras

[system]

Robin2:
Another Thread put me in mind of asking if anyone has any experience with these cameras.

No. I have a couple C&G qualifications in digital imaging. One precludes the other, if you like.

I have a Fuji Finepix HS50 which has a x42 zoom and manual control of the zoom. Generally I am very pleased with it but it is 4 years old and the plastic covering is starting to get sticky and grubby so I have been wondering is there anything better on the market.

I have no interest in cameras with interchangeable lenses - they are too inconvenient and too expensive.

A DSLR can outperform in every respect, including cost / convenience. However, a deep seated prejudice is so difficult to beat, the manufacturers invented bridge cameras. Super Zoom bridge cameras are, generally speaking, for those people who do not want to understand the compromises they make - Those who might 'buy numbers' like megapixels or Ghz.

To be fair, Fuji make some of the very best bridge cameras (IMO). I am currently waiting for an X30 to appear on e-bay at a price I can justfy spending on a compact for secondary use. Regardless of manufacturer, you don't get anything for nothing where capturing light is concerned. There are no circumstances I would trade a DSLR for a super-zoom, for wide or telephoto shooting.

Lenses. Your 24-1000mm is 'optical equivalency' compared to the apparent focal length of a 35mm 'full frame' sensor. As the sensor size decreases the crop factor and apparent focal length increase. The APS/C sensor in my DSLR is roughly 2/3 of 35mm, so the crop factor and equivalent focal length is 1.5 times. When fitted to my APS/C camera a 28-300mm zoom is optically equivalent to 42-450mm. Your Fuji's EXR sensor is smaller again. So, your 24-1000mm is roughly similar to my 28-300mm.

Cost. I would not dream of replacing a camera after only 4 years. I bought my wife a D70 back in 2005, to replace her 10 year old F50. I bought myself a D7000 in 2010, mainly for the weather proofing. Both cameras get a lot of use and abuse and neither of us feel any need to upgrade. Even after 12 years my wife's D70 has a residual value, which is more than can be said for your 4 year old HS50.

however it has electric zoom control and no manufacturer seems to be making a camera with manual zoom.

Demand for such a bridge camera has dried up. The price of entry level DSLRs has fallen a great deal, while potential buyers at that price point have become more educated and more likely to choose a DSLR.

If anyone has experience of the Canon or any other camera that I should consider I would like to hear from you.

You should be considering the D3000 and D5000 ranges, including second hand - If you can get past your prejudices, that is. Thanks to a previous investment in film I am a 'Nikon nut' but there is nothing wrong with the equivalent Canons. You might also look at the smaller, lighter, cheaper 4/5s (Olympus, Pentax) DSLRs.

Imagine that the camera is switched off and it and the lenses are sitting on a table.

How long does it take to attach the correct lens and take a picture? Less than 20 seconds?

My wife has the equivalent 28-300mm permanently attached to her D70. It takes maybe 2 seconds to power up and maybe 1.5 seconds for the exposure and auto focus to lock. That is a 12 year old camera. My D7000 can go from cold to shoot in < 2 seconds. Both cameras are more than likely left in manual, so add another 1 second to switch to an auto mode. In any case 'composition' is by far the greatest bottleneck, by an order of magnitude or two.

How much is a 1000mm lens for a DSLR?

How much is a 24mm lens?

My wife uses her Sigma 28-300mm for just about everything. Light weight, easy to find second hand and in good condition at £100 or less. If you need to go any wider, 18-55mm and 18-110mm are popular 'retail kit' zoom lenses. As such, they are plentiful, cheap to buy new and ridiculously cheap 2nd hand.

How much is a 24-1000mm zoom lens?

Whatever it cost the images would be rubbish. Too much diffusion at the wide end and not enough light at the telephoto end. See previous crop factor rule.

[Robin2]

msssltd:
You should be considering the D3000 and D5000 ranges, including second hand - If you can get past your prejudices,

It is not prejudice that causes the inconvenience of having to change lenses.

And how much will a 24 - 1000mm lens cost for a DSLR? - more than £200 I suspect.

...R

[system]

No-one who owns a DSLR would buy a 42x zoom lens, regardless of cost.
Hell, it's not been that long that zoom lenses have even been taken seriously by SLR users.

[Robin2]

AWOL:
No-one who owns a DSLR would buy a 42x zoom lens, regardless of cost.

I know.

I don't own a DSLR - but @msssltd was trying to persuade me to.

...R

[system]

Robin2:
I know.

I don't own a DSLR - but @msssltd was trying to persuade me to.

...R

I am pointing out that your 24-1000mm is not really 24-1000mm. Read what I wrote about crop factors, focal lengths and sensor sizes again. Your 24-1000mm is the optical equivalent of a 28-300mm on an entry or mid-range DSLR.

So, were you to buy an entry level DSLR and fit a 28-300mm zoom lens permanently, like my wife. You would have roughly the same apparent range of focal length as your Fuji, with manual zoom and without any inconvenient lens changing. However, the DSLR would out perform your Fuji in every other respect.

A good 28-300mm zoom lens with macro capability, like my wife uses, is easy to find 2nd hand for £100 or less.

[Robin2]

msssltd:
I am pointing out that your 24-1000mm is not really 24-1000mm. Read what I wrote about crop factors, focal lengths and sensor sizes again. Your 24-1000mm is the optical equivalent of a 28-300mm on an entry or mid-range DSLR.

As far as i can see my camera enlarges things (like a bird in a tree) by 42 times from one extreme of the lens to the other. I don't see how a 28-300 lens can do more than 10.7x

I do appreciate that the super zoom cameras use smaller sensors. If they did not the lens would have to be enormous.

Nevertheless, based on your comments, if I can find a camera shop that will let me try a DSLR with a 28-300 zoom I will look at it.

...R

[system]

Robin2:
As far as i can see my camera enlarges things (like a bird in a tree) by 42 times from one extreme of the lens to the other. I don't see how a 28-300 lens can do more than 10.7x

We don't see images as much as we perceive them. Due to perspective, how much bigger the bird appears will depend on how far you are from the tree and the focal length of the lens.

The magnification factor of a zoom lens is found by dividing the longest focal length by the shortest.
1000 / 24 = 41.66
300 / 28 = 10.71

Apart from making things appear bigger, moving the viewpoint closer by zooming in, narrows the field of view. The magnification factor actually describes by how much the angle of view will be narrowed between the extents of focal length.

Take a look at the specs of this Canon 28-300mm SLR lens. The 10x magnification factor is apparent in the angle of view numbers.

Angle of view
Horizontal 65°–6°50’
Vertical 46°–4°35’
Diagonal 75°–8°15’

Other SLR zoom lenses are available and they all narrow by around their magnification factor between the extents of focal length.

Zooming in with your HS50 does not make the subject 42x bigger - It makes the scene 42x smaller.

I do appreciate that the super zoom cameras use smaller sensors. If they did not the lens would have to be enormous.

Modern zoom lenses bounce light back and forth between lens elements to increase the focal length, way beyond the physical dimensions. The main purpose of reducing sensor size is to reduce the overall production cost. Larger sensors require lenses with higher quality glass and more of it; both components are subject to very steep curves of diminishing yield in manufacturing.

Where things get confused is with manufacturers cherry picking numbers 'equivalent' to 35mm film.

The sensor in my DSLR is 23mm (2/3 of 35mm) making the crop factor 1.5. What that means is that if I take a picture on my DSLR, print it at 7 x 5, then compare it to the same scene, taken with the same lens on a 35mm film camera and printed at the same 7 x 5. The print from my DSLR will look like the centre 2/3 of the scene was cropped out in the darkroom and magnified to fill the paper - With all the degradation that brings. To produce a similar 'magnified' image on the 35mm film camera without cropping and without the degradation, I would have to use a lens with a focal length 1.5 times longer (75mm).

The 'equivalent' focal lengths of my 28-300mm are then
1.5 x 28 = 42mm
1.5 x 300 = 450mm

The sensor in your Fuji is 6.4mm; a relatively whopping crop factor of 5.41. The equivalent focal lengths are quoted by the manufacturer (24-1000mm), so we have to divide by the crop factor to find the focal lengths which produce similar 'size' images on a 35mm film camera.
24 / 5.41 = 4.5mm
1000 / 5.41 = 185mm

To get the same images from my 1/3 smaller, 23mm DSLR sensor, the focal lengths are shorter again.
4.5 / 1.5 = 3mm
185 / 1.5 = 123mm

When I said your 1000mm was similar to my 300mm, before I looked up the crop factor for your EXR sensor, I was being rather kind. We can tell from the short focal lengths that Fuji mounted the lens a darn site closer to the sensor than an SLRs rear element and it won't be as wide the numbers suggest.

Nevertheless, based on your comments, if I can find a camera shop that will let me try a DSLR with a 28-300 zoom I will look at it.

...R

Excellent news. If there is a London Camera Exchange nearby, their staff are usually clued up and don't mind customers handling the goods. Try to order your priorities first, size, weight, features etc. You may still decide you prefer a bridge camera but at least you will have given the DSLR a chance.

For all the maths there is no substitute for picking up a camera and having a go with it. I took a couple of snaps with my 28-300mm Sunday evening with this thread in mind. Not great shots but I happen to know the navigation mark highlighted is around 1 mile away.

28mm

300mm

[Robin2]

I crudely measured the yacht in the two pictures on my PC and the small one is about 5mm long and the big one about 47mm which is close enough to the expected 1:10.7

I would expect it to be about 200mm with my 1:42 lens - i.e. it would not fit within the bounds of the image which is about 126mm wide on my PC.

Nice picture.

...R

[Robin2]

Just thought I would share some pics to illustrate the Fuji HS50 zoom. The lighting was poor and the air was not clear and it was starting to rain, so all done in a hurry. (The numbers are the equivalents for a 35mm camera)

24mm

300mm

1000mm

...R

[Robin2]

travis_farmer:
I would be more impressed if i could read the tire size on that white car

Maybe you can figure out the make of car from this and then the tyre size

This is cropped directly from the camera image with no other enhancement. For the previous images I reduced the image size to 1280x960

...R

[MorganS]

Modern zoom lenses bounce light back and forth between lens elements to increase the focal length, way beyond the physical dimensions.

No, that would be a mirror lens. That type of lens is relatively rare and almost always a fixed focal length, not a zoom. They are also very light, as well as compact as there's only 2 mirrors and the glass elements are always small and light. (The most common optical layout does have glass at the big end, but it's not thick.)

Telephoto lenses are never as long as the nominal focal length. The focal length refers to an idealised lens which can never exist in the real world. Multiple glass elements always compress the physical length of the lens to be less than the focal length.

You can get "reverse telephoto" lenses which are longer than their focal length. That's a technique used for short focal lengths like 16mm or less, where you can't actually put the lens 16mm away from the image sensor, due to the swinging mirror in the SLR. Ditching the mirror makes the lenses so much more compact and efficient than the equivalent SLR lens.

[Robin2]

msssltd:
Your 24-1000mm is the optical equivalent of a 28-300mm on an entry or mid-range DSLR.

As promised I did look at a DSLR camera with a 300mm lens when I got the opportunity and, as I expected, its magnification was very much less than my 42x Fuji HS50.

After a lot of deliberation I decided to buy a Nikon Coolpix P900 which has the daddy of all zooms at 83x. Just got it yesterday but so far I am delighted with it.

...R