If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
On 2014-11-15 23:01:40 +0000, John McWilliams said:
On 11/13/14 PDT, 2:02 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-11-13 20:57:14 +0000, John Turco said: With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? Discuss, please! John The old resident expert on these things seems to have dropped off the planet, and all of us are thankful for that. Who, Steve Young?? Nope! I speak of the troll who went by any of many shifting identities one of which was "Superzooms". Needless to say, he was a rabid advocate of the super zoom cameras of the 2008-2010 era and attacked anybody shooting with, or recommending any other type of camera. Fortunately he hasn't been around for 3-4 years now. I think his mother's basement, somewhere in Minnesota, must have got flooded. Most of his rants went something like this, perhaps you recall him: "I am here to be sure to correct all the blatant misinformation, misconceptions, and lies that you resident-troll pretend-photographer scum (or just really crappy snapshooters) incessantly spew to the world. Why should someone who actually OWNS or wants to buy a REAL camera get the wrong advice from all of you totally ignorant role-playing boobs. Tattoo that on your forehead in case you forget tomorrow. But flip it right to left so you can read it." -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
On 11/15/14 PDT, 4:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-11-15 23:01:40 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 11/13/14 PDT, 2:02 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-11-13 20:57:14 +0000, John Turco said: With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? Discuss, please! John The old resident expert on these things seems to have dropped off the planet, and all of us are thankful for that. Who, Steve Young?? Nope! I speak of the troll who went by any of many shifting identities one of which was "Superzooms". Needless to say, he was a rabid advocate of the super zoom cameras of the 2008-2010 era and attacked anybody shooting with, or recommending any other type of camera. Fortunately he hasn't been around for 3-4 years now. I think his mother's basement, somewhere in Minnesota, must have got flooded. Most of his rants went something like this, perhaps you recall him: "I am here to be sure to correct all the blatant misinformation, misconceptions, and lies that you resident-troll pretend-photographer scum (or just really crappy snapshooters) incessantly spew to the world. Why should someone who actually OWNS or wants to buy a REAL camera get the wrong advice from all of you totally ignorant role-playing boobs. Tattoo that on your forehead in case you forget tomorrow. But flip it right to left so you can read it." Oh, yeah, now I recall. Was that the same boob that went on and on about some dodgy software and how it was going to blow Adobe away? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
On 2014-11-16 01:48:46 +0000, John McWilliams said:
On 11/15/14 PDT, 4:01 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-11-15 23:01:40 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 11/13/14 PDT, 2:02 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-11-13 20:57:14 +0000, John Turco said: With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? Discuss, please! John The old resident expert on these things seems to have dropped off the planet, and all of us are thankful for that. Who, Steve Young?? Nope! I speak of the troll who went by any of many shifting identities one of which was "Superzooms". Needless to say, he was a rabid advocate of the super zoom cameras of the 2008-2010 era and attacked anybody shooting with, or recommending any other type of camera. Fortunately he hasn't been around for 3-4 years now. I think his mother's basement, somewhere in Minnesota, must have got flooded. Most of his rants went something like this, perhaps you recall him: "I am here to be sure to correct all the blatant misinformation, misconceptions, and lies that you resident-troll pretend-photographer scum (or just really crappy snapshooters) incessantly spew to the world. Why should someone who actually OWNS or wants to buy a REAL camera get the wrong advice from all of you totally ignorant role-playing boobs. Tattoo that on your forehead in case you forget tomorrow. But flip it right to left so you can read it." Oh, yeah, now I recall. Was that the same boob that went on and on about some dodgy software and how it was going to blow Adobe away? That and discovering/finding unique species of moths, and how he was capable of surviving for weeks in the wild and swamps while on his moth hunts. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
On 2014-11-16 02:11:34 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 18:05:48 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-11-16 01:48:46 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 11/15/14 PDT, 4:01 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-11-15 23:01:40 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 11/13/14 PDT, 2:02 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-11-13 20:57:14 +0000, John Turco said: With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? Discuss, please! John The old resident expert on these things seems to have dropped off the planet, and all of us are thankful for that. Who, Steve Young?? Nope! I speak of the troll who went by any of many shifting identities one of which was "Superzooms". Needless to say, he was a rabid advocate of the super zoom cameras of the 2008-2010 era and attacked anybody shooting with, or recommending any other type of camera. Fortunately he hasn't been around for 3-4 years now. I think his mother's basement, somewhere in Minnesota, must have got flooded. Most of his rants went something like this, perhaps you recall him: "I am here to be sure to correct all the blatant misinformation, misconceptions, and lies that you resident-troll pretend-photographer scum (or just really crappy snapshooters) incessantly spew to the world. Why should someone who actually OWNS or wants to buy a REAL camera get the wrong advice from all of you totally ignorant role-playing boobs. Tattoo that on your forehead in case you forget tomorrow. But flip it right to left so you can read it." Oh, yeah, now I recall. Was that the same boob that went on and on about some dodgy software and how it was going to blow Adobe away? That and discovering/finding unique species of moths, and how he was capable of surviving for weeks in the wild and swamps while on his moth hunts. Wasn't he the guy who photographed a Florida panther? He posted a postage stamp sized image that was mostly black that could have been anything from a feral cat to a discarded mop head. Yup! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
John Turco wrote:
With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? The problem is that if you want high quality and a large zoom range it's going to be very large and costly to make. It can be done: there is a Fujinon 8.9-900mm f/1.7-4.7 HDTV lens, the XA101x8.9BESM . (The 35mm equivalent field of view is 35mm - 3537mm.) It's designed for a 2/3" sensor, i.e. 3.93* crop factor. It is very expensive: $182,980. Oh, and if 3537mm isn't enough there is a 2* teleconverter. You've probably watched its images on TV: it's great for tight zoomed pictures of faces from hundreds of yards away, e.g. at stadiums and very large festivals. So, you can have it today: the only questions are whether you really want something that big and how much money you've got. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/...xa101x89-besm/ Andrew. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
In article , Andrew
Haley wrote: With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? The problem is that if you want high quality and a large zoom range it's going to be very large and costly to make. not necessarily. the panasonic fz200 has a 25-600mm (equivalent) constant f/2.8, which itself is rather impressive, but even more so when on a fairly decent camera which is not at all large and not at all costly. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 It can be done: there is a Fujinon 8.9-900mm f/1.7-4.7 HDTV lens, the XA101x8.9BESM . (The 35mm equivalent field of view is 35mm - 3537mm.) It's designed for a 2/3" sensor, i.e. 3.93* crop factor. It is very expensive: $182,980. Oh, and if 3537mm isn't enough there is a 2* teleconverter. You've probably watched its images on TV: it's great for tight zoomed pictures of faces from hundreds of yards away, e.g. at stadiums and very large festivals. So, you can have it today: the only questions are whether you really want something that big and how much money you've got. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/...xa101x89-besm/ how is that relevant for a normal everyday camera? oh yea, it isn't. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
On 2014-11-17 19:02:00 +0000, nospam said:
the panasonic fz200 has a 25-600mm (equivalent) constant f/2.8, which itself is rather impressive, but even more so when on a fairly decent camera which is not at all large and not at all costly. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 Actually for the shooter looking for a camera with long reach, and who isn't concerned about sensor size (APS-C, or FF) the FZ200 is a surprisingly good performer and pretty good value at less than $500. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
In article 2014111713095140194-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: the panasonic fz200 has a 25-600mm (equivalent) constant f/2.8, which itself is rather impressive, but even more so when on a fairly decent camera which is not at all large and not at all costly. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 Actually for the shooter looking for a camera with long reach, and who isn't concerned about sensor size (APS-C, or FF) the FZ200 is a surprisingly good performer and pretty good value at less than $500. it is indeed. there's another model with a longer zoom but not a constant f/stop. either way, they're quite good. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
In article , Andrew
Haley wrote: John Turco wrote: With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? The problem is that if you want high quality and a large zoom range it's going to be very large and costly to make. It can be done: there is a Fujinon 8.9-900mm f/1.7-4.7 HDTV lens, the XA101x8.9BESM . (The 35mm equivalent field of view is 35mm - 3537mm.) It's designed for a 2/3" sensor, i.e. 3.93* crop factor. It is very expensive: $182,980. Oh, and if 3537mm isn't enough there is a 2* teleconverter. You've probably watched its images on TV: it's great for tight zoomed pictures of faces from hundreds of yards away, e.g. at stadiums and very large festivals. So, you can have it today: the only questions are whether you really want something that big and how much money you've got. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/...xa101x89-besm/ Andrew. For a whole lot less you can get a spotting scope with a camera attachment. Of course you're talking about f/32. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Super Zoom" Cameras
nospam wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: With these devices now having reached 65x optical zoom (35mm equivalent), where will it end? What's the practical limit? Will 100x ever be achieved? The problem is that if you want high quality and a large zoom range it's going to be very large and costly to make. not necessarily. which itself is rather impressive, but even more so when on a fairly decent camera which is not at all large and not at all costly. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 Unless I am very much mistaken, 600 / 25 = 24. Not 100. The question is "What is the practical limit" for a zoom range, and the OP already mentioned 65x, so 24x is irrelevant as an answer. The right answer is that there isn't a limit, really: it depends on how much quality you want and the cost and weight you're prepared to tolerate. At the long end of that Panasonic's range, f/2.8 is a 38mm aperture. Impressive (if true) but nowhere near 100 x, which would require the lens aperture to be 160mm. The things which matter are physical limits, and the big Fujinon exemplifies what you must do if you want a large zoom range, high quality and fast aperture. Andrew. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony uses "pellicle" approach in new EVF "SLT"cameras (a33 and a55). | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | August 27th 10 09:32 PM |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
Are "D" and "Di" zoom lenses the same? | Jeff | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | December 12th 06 11:16 AM |
Q: "baby" Linhof Super Technika | D. | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | April 2nd 06 08:51 PM |