Zoom lenses [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

sweetpeakaris

02-06-2006, 08:47 AM

Hi,

I really need to make a decision fast so that I can buy my new camera and have time to play with it before our trip. I was looking at the Sony H1 or the Canon S12(i think, the one similar to the H1). I was also looking at another Sony Camera DSC-N1 that came out a few months back, it has 8.0 mega pixels. How important is having 12x zoom, 5.1 mg pixels? or is 8.0 mg pixels and 3x zoom better? Is having 12x zoom really that important, to get lower mega pixels? I would like to find a Camera for no more than $500 that will take very nice photos, so any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I would like to stick with Sony since I can use the accessories I have, but open to other brands as well, just need a great camera for at or under $500. I also have no clue of how far you can zoom with 12x vs 3x, would 3x zoom be enough? Please Help, I'm a camera dummy , lol :)

Link to the 8.0 Mega Pixel
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dscn1.asp

LordAthens

02-06-2006, 09:01 AM

Most people don't need and 8MP camera. I would personally go with the Canon, it's a far better camera for more than just the zoom.

Don't forget, that sensor is behind glass. You could have a 100MP sensor, but if the glass in front of it isn't very good, you've already lost resolution and won't get as sharp of a picture as you would with say a 5MP camera with a better \ longer piece of glass in front of it.

ndelaware

02-06-2006, 09:04 AM

If you want 8 megs you are better off looking at the S80.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80/

CleveRocks

02-06-2006, 09:24 AM

Number one, when you're talking 3x zoom versus 12x zoom, make sure the zoom you're talking about is OPTICAL and not DIGITAL. IMHO, the amount of digital zoom is a worthless number. Without going into too much technical detail, let me explain digital zoom this way: Get closer and closer to your TV screen, and as you get closer the image quality degrades, right? That's digital zoom. Digital zoom is done by computer. OPTICAL zoom is done by the lens itself, and as long as it's "good glass" as someone else above said, it can serve you well.

To me, the most important thing about zoom is composition. Composition means, for lack of a better explanation, what you see in the finished photo. The more zoom you have, the greater control you have over the composition of your photo. You can literally zoom in on just one piece of what you see with your naked eye, and make that one piece the whole picture. The trade-offs with zoom are that you need more light (everything else being equal), and your photos are slightly more susceptible to camera shake.

GOOD LUCK, AND HAPPY HUNTING!

Kelly Grannell

02-06-2006, 09:34 AM

For that kind of money I think you can get a Canon S2 IS. Very fast AF, includes optical Image Stabilizer, enough MP to enlarge to at least 8"x12".

Put it this way, using my dRebel (6.3 MP), I did a product shot that's blown up to 20"x30" with no problem whatsoever. The picture was used last year by a Japanese electronics company for their posters at various electronic stores in the US and Canada. If you've been to Best Buy in the past 3 years and you've been in their audio/video section, you've seen my works using a 6.3 MP camera (well, last year I used 8MP, but that's because they don't make 6.3 Canon dSLR anymore)

handicap18

02-06-2006, 02:13 PM

Here are a few to get you started:
Canon PowerShot S80; Canon PowerShot A620; Canon PowerShot S2 IS; Sony Cyber Shot DSC-H1; Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1; Olympus Camedia C-4000 Zoom; Nikon Coolpix 7900.

Take a look at cnet.com, amazon.com, www.dpreview.com, www.epinions.com, www.steves-digicams.com, and www.imaging-resource.com to get more indepth reviews from "experts" and consumers. You'll also get reviews of other camera's just from looking at one of the above. Most places will give you a list of other items people looked at or another camera will be referenced in the review itself.

The actual size of each camera can differ greatly so you may need to take a trip to a Ritz Camera (or similar) or Best Buy or another electronic store just to be able to get your hands on the camera to see how it feels in your hands before buying.

Good luck and happy shopping.

sweetpeakaris

02-06-2006, 04:07 PM

Thanks Guys, all of the posts are very helpful to me, this is such an Awesome board, I love DIS :goodvibes

Longhorns99

02-06-2006, 07:10 PM

I just recently purchased the Canon S80 and it takes wonderful pictures. I do alot of nature photography with my wife and daughter and the macro zoom is awesome on the camera. Also you can purchase it from beachcamera for well below retail cost with fast shipping. I ordered mine on a Friday had it on Tuesday and saved almost $140.00 off of what it would have cost at the local retail store.

mcgrawfan

02-16-2006, 09:10 PM

I am wanting to get a new digital camera with a better zoom. I currently have an Olympus Stylus 3.2 mp. I like the camera because of its size and it does take great pictures. I would like something with a little more zoom. I don't want to spend a fortune. I appreciate your opinions. Thanks in advance.

Kelly Grannell

02-16-2006, 09:31 PM

at the risk of being accused for being "on a rampage", I strongly suggest Canon S2IS, or if budget permits, Panasonic Lumix 30 (can't remember the exaxt model number).

They both have image stabilizer, clean enough high ISO. Canon is smaller though and runs on AA batteries. Panasonic fits better in my hands.

manning

02-16-2006, 10:19 PM

It's panasonic FZ30

They have just announced The Lumix DMC-TZ1 - the world’s smallest 10x optical zoom digital still camera for US $349.95. And it has image stabilization too.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021405panasonictz1.asp

Here's more info on it:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Announces-Compact-TZ1-With-10X-Optical-Zoom-.htm

mhutchinson

02-17-2006, 07:22 AM

I would second both of Kelly's suggestions for the Canon or the Panasonic DMC-FZ30. Optical zoom over digital and what is more comfortable to use. If you did not want to spend as much for the higher zooms you could look at a lower cost camera with higher resolution and crop your shots on your PC to give a similar result. You can check out sites like www.dcresource.com and www.dpreview.com to help with your decission and see some good samples of each to help compare.

If you are comfortable in that price range you might also want to take a look at the Nikon D50 or the Canon Rebel XT which are both DSLR, but will open up the possibility of optical zoom range with interchangable lens (some available with stability control...but that gets into an an entirely different price area.

I had started by looking at the S2 IS and DMC-FZ30 and quickly decided I wanted to get back in SLR mode..after that there where rebate offers and I ended up buying way more than I intended...but I am happy with it...feel like a kid going to Disney again :cool1:

Dan Murphy

02-17-2006, 07:52 AM

Do a search on this board for that Canon mentioned above, lots of happy users, me among them.

manning

02-17-2006, 08:53 AM

Konica Monalta just announced they are getting out of the camera business. The camera assets are being turned over to Sony.

You may want to stay away from them.

anne930

03-29-2006, 10:58 PM

Help!! We are looking to purchase a new digital camera this year - one that is light enough to take to the parks, but also one that has a decent zoom. It would most likely be used 95% of the time on automatic or on one of the preset modes. We have had our eye on the Canon A610 and like all the features, except I was hoping for a better zoom. Can someone explain to me whether I should be looking at the optical or digital specs? My DH says to look at the optical specs, but the Canon website states the digital zoom specs in their comparisons - this is confusing me. All I know is when I compare the A610 zoom to my old 35 mm film camera, it doesn't seem as good.

Thanks,

Chickysmom

03-29-2006, 11:03 PM

Well I cetainly am no professional and someone else here can make it very clear in pre terms...but, the bigger the optical zoom the better. If you have a camera with 20X total zoom, a camera with 10X optical and 2X digital is better than one with 5X optical and 4X digital....clear as mud? Hoe this helps.

ndelaware

03-29-2006, 11:25 PM

Hi Anne, Don't even look at the digital zoom number. Digital zoom is just your camera making a picture bigger much like you do on your computer. It doesn't get you closer and the picture quality goes down as the digital zoom increases. Optical zoom is the important thing an is done with the lens. That way you get the same quality picture at 1X zoom as 12X zoom.

If you are looking at a fairly small camera like the 610 I think you will only find 3X or 4X zoom for the most part. If you are lookiing for 10X or 12X zoom you are more than likely to end up with a slightly larger camera like the Canon S2 IS, the Sony DSC H-1, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5S, or one of the high zoom Kodaks. They are not big cameras but they will not fit in a shirt pocket.

Have a look at this link, it will give you a pretty good idea what is out there in digital cameras. http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html

Anewman

03-29-2006, 11:27 PM

First thing I would do is turn off Digital zoom. Digital zoom is garbage, all it really is doing is cropping your image and upsizing it back upto stated megapixels. You can do that with any photoediting app.

Also the same way so many get caught up in the megapixel race, optical zoom race can also be missleading. I would rather have good quality optics/sensor with a short zoom than long zoom with terrible optics/sensor combination. The Canon A series cameras have decent sensors paired with decent lens, hard to match at those price points. Some of the Panasonic Lumix cameras may(opinion) have better lenses but their sensors are very noisy.

tony64

06-11-2006, 12:50 PM

How can I tell if this lens is suitable for D50 if I'm buying over the Net???
PS. is there a breakdown of the codeing for lenses somewhere?????

G, ED, iS :confused3 what does it all mean???????

JR6ooo4

06-11-2006, 01:05 PM

IS usually refers to image stabilisation.
any other (non canon) info is not in my brain.
Mikeeee

PoohJen

07-03-2006, 06:54 PM

geez, only one week with the new camera and am already itching for a stronger zoom...

I've got a Rebel XT with a Sigma 18-125. I borrowed a Canon 70-300 at my son's baseball tournament last week and was not thrilled with the pics I took with that lens (although I'm willing to blame my inexperience to a large extent; also, I didn't use a tripod, but usually braced myself against the fence).

Suggestions? I'm not in the L series budget (but go ahead and make me salivate), and I fear the IS will be too much $$ right now too, but please feel free to convince me otherwise! pirate:

As always, TIA!

Kelly Grannell

07-03-2006, 07:17 PM

you're not happy with 70-300 IS?

handicap18

07-03-2006, 08:01 PM

Get the 70-300 (I'm assuming by your post you were using a non IS version that was a lot less expensive) and a tripod. Get a decent tripod with a good head for moving around and you'll be a lot happier with the baseball pictures.

Though Sigma makes a 80-400mm with OS (their version of IS or VR) that comes in under $1000. But you'll still need a tripod as that is a beast of a lens. Something like 61 ounces.

Kelly Grannell

07-04-2006, 06:25 AM

and the Sigma's AF is so dead slow it's almost like using MF.

PoohJen

07-04-2006, 08:05 AM

Thanks; the 300 was not an IS. (and I know it was a 300; I guessed at the 70 part...) Pics were not sharp, in general - this the result of not using a tripod?

Also, probably having nothing to do with the lens, but the pics were a bit washed out looking (EXTREME sun/heat that day). I can adjust via computer, but suggestions for the next time I shoot on such a bright day? :sunny:

spoon2003

07-04-2006, 09:32 AM

Someone on our local Craigslist is selling this for $400, any opinion? I know it is a first gen. IS lens, but 300mm plus IS is very tempting. Mostly will use for kids indoor/outdoor sports (Basketball, soccer, swimming)

Thanks

Sue

JR6ooo4

07-04-2006, 10:17 AM

jann1033

07-04-2006, 10:36 AM

What is your budget?
$300 - 550 - 800 - or up?
THis is the 70-300 with IS:
http://mnmstudios.smugmug.com/photos/79382442-L.jpg

fire guy shot at full 300mm
http://mnmstudios.smugmug.com/photos/61829428-L.jpg

I love it and have not seen any of the problems, from shooting in portrait orientation, that a few others have reported.

The stunt show fire guy was from this far away...
at 28mm
http://mnmstudios.smugmug.com/photos/61829403-M.jpg

Mikeeee
can you draw a circle or something where the fire guy was located? i can't figure it out just by loooking

and for any except you with nerves of steel that never shake types ;) ...is it really normal to be able to use a 200-300 mm ( with out lightening fast shutter)without a tripod? does the is do that much to make it possible to take that minus tripod?

Kelly Grannell

07-04-2006, 10:45 AM

portrait orientation problem only happens on lenses with serial number:

xx0xxxxx
xx1xxxxx
and some of xx2xxxx

if you have xx3xxxxx or xx25xxxx (and beyond), you're safe.

JR6ooo4

07-04-2006, 10:47 AM

Ooooooh, that would take me a while.

He was (will be, moments later in the show) just to the right side of the wide shot and about 1/3 up from the bottom.
He rides a motorcycle from left to right and in the middle area he crashes it and starts sliding. The dark stripe in the pavement going up and to the left of the guy in the blue jacket is flammable liquid and would be lit on fire. He slides thru then walks about 20' before being extinguished.
Mikeeee

jann1033

07-04-2006, 10:49 AM

thanks even with my magnifying glass i couldn't figure it out :rotfl2:

JR6ooo4

07-04-2006, 10:51 AM

portrait orientation problem only happens on lenses with serial number:

xx0xxxxx
xx1xxxxx
and some of xx2xxxx

if you have xx3xxxxx or xx25xxxx (and beyond), you're safe.

THey progress numericaly, correct?
My 08003578 is way past the bad numbers?

Mikeeee

PoohJen

07-04-2006, 10:58 AM

mikeee, fabulous shots! I am drooling!!! :thumbsup2

I'm thinking $300 range (I'll need to earn some stripes before I can spend the $$ on the IS). Any thoughts on Tamron or Sigma? Or does the non-IS canon usurp both?

pisco

07-04-2006, 12:33 PM

What I learned in my research was that the Sigma is the best of the 7x-300 non IS zooms. However, the Canon 70-300 is optically superior to the Sigma even without the IS. Adding IS made it a no-brainer for me.

Anewman

07-04-2006, 12:51 PM

Little late I know.

PoohJen, while I do recommend the IS versions of Canon lenses. IMO they are not really optimal for sports, except maybe golf(or other more stationary sports).

The number one mistake made by newish sports shooters is shutter speed too slow, for high school sports at full zoom you really should be aiming for 1/1000th and minimum 1/800th. And maybe a little slower with girls sports, but only if light does not allow the desired shutter speed. The use of IS may actually slow down the shutter a couple stops, which is not really the goal.

These were taken with the $140 Canon 70-300mm, I only use this when I have no access to the field and shoot through the chain link fence. Never use a tripod, but If I have sideline access I do take a monopod.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/Manobeer/baseball/IMG_7784.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e110/SpartansSoftball2006/5x7_8269.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e110/SpartansSoftball2006/Old%20Pictures/IMG_7524.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g219/SchurrBaseball/IMG_7765.jpg

I'm thinking $300 range (I'll need to earn some stripes before I can spend the $$ on the IS). Any thoughts on Tamron or Sigma? Or does the non-IS canon usurp both?

I am not sure about the "OPTICS" compared to Canon, but USM on the Canons is faster IMO. We are talking about shooting sports right...

PoohJen

07-04-2006, 05:12 PM

As always, love your baseball (& softball) shots, anewman!! Yes, talking about sports shots, mostly. mine were thru a chainlink fence too; nowhere near as clear as yours! I need to practice, practice, practice! I tried playing w/ speeds, but mostly used the sports setting on the XT.

I just checked the info on some of the shots I took w/ the 300 - the shutter speed was way too slow - 1/500! :confused3 Dunno how I did that. I did notice on some of the clearer shots at 300mm that I could see my sons freckles clearly! Pretty impressive!

spoon2003

07-04-2006, 07:38 PM

Looks like this highly recommended Canon 70-300 IS lens is back ordered in most of the reputable, resonably priced sellers. (B&H, Adorama, Beach, I even checked the dreaded Dell !!)

Sue

Kelly Grannell

07-04-2006, 07:51 PM

It's extremely in high demand. I sold mine used for MORE than brand new because it's out of stock anywhere. Nothing wrong with my lens but I find that f/5.6 is way too slow of a lens for my needs (y'know, indoor, crazy low-light)

PoohJen

07-10-2006, 08:03 PM

as follow up to an earlier post...

I'm looking for a zoom lens for my XT. Currently have a Sigma 18-125.

I have read mixed (i.e., poor) review on the canon 75-300 and the canon 100-300 (both not IS). What do the DisBoard experts thinK?

Also, a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro has been recommended. Thoughts?

Finally (thanks Crash!) the canon 70-300 IS was recommended, but I think too pricey for me at the moment. (also, what about the out-of-production 75-300 IS?)

This would be mostly for sports and shooting animals/birds from a distance (I like to go kayaking on remote creeks).

TIA!

spoon2003

07-10-2006, 08:33 PM

someone was selling one locally for $300, I went and tried it and was not impressed. It was not sharp (I can't tell the technical stuff), I just wasn't happy with it, can't really tell if IS did anything. Could be that particular copy or just me not knowing much about IS lenses :rotfl2: .

I'm saving my pennies for the Canon 70-300 IS. Figure I have a little time since it's backordered everywhere. Hopefully production will be back on track and it'll be available in the fall for kids' soccer season; or winter for basketball season; or our April cruise!!

Sue from Boston

Furgus

07-10-2006, 08:35 PM

I have a Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6, and I like it. I have a D50 and it is my first dSLR, so hopefully next year I can get a nice prime Marco lens and a nicer zoom lens. BUt I have been pretty pleased with it. If you want to see some of my shots you can look at my blog listed as my website.

Anewman

07-10-2006, 08:47 PM

For sports the old faithfull lens is the 70-200L(2.8 or 4.0).

But if on a budget get the 75-300 USM, Focus speed is more important than OPTICAL quality when it comes to sports. Canon USM is much faster than the Sigma or tamron offerings.

IS is great, but it is of no real use when it comes to shooting sports.

0bli0

07-10-2006, 11:31 PM

avoid the Canon 90-300 (both USM and w/out USM) and 100-300 as they're slow AF and optically fairly poor.

the 70-300 IS is a very nice lens. sure, it's not an 'L', but the contrast is decent, there isn't too much chromatic aberation, and the IS works well (for animals, not sports). the 75-300 was a decent lens, but the IS was the first - very hard on batteries and not as good as the recent generations.

and yes, the Canon 70-200 models are all very good.

sigma does make a few very good zooms:
-120-300 F2.8 EX - fantastic lens and worth the price
-50-500 EX (aka 'Bigma'). this is my primary outdoor sports lens. i personally prefer this over the Canon 100-400 IS because i hate push/pull
-70-200 F2.8 EX - great colour, quick AF, and fantastic sharpness. almost as good as the Canon 2.8L

and a few decent Sigma zooms
-100-300 F4 EX colour is pretty good - beautiful bokeh for a lens this long. not as sharp until about F7.1
-300-800 EX - only lens at this distance. needs a very good tripod. not as sharp as most EX glass. if you have to ask the price, it's not for you...

also the 300 F2.8 is a great lens. sharp almost wide open, fast (AF and aperture), and great contrast. the only downside is for all that money, you want want a white label (aka look at me with my 'L'!).

avoid the following Sigma lenses:
-170-500 - soft and slow
-135-400 - slow AF. not too bad over F8. needs to be rechipped if you are getting the non DG version. not worth the price, IMHO.
-28-200, 28-300 - who are they kidding with the red stripes? these are often sold as quantary through Wolf/Ritz. slow, no Hypersonic. lots of chromatic issues.
-80-400 EX OS - the OS is no where as nice as Canon IS. it under-compensates, over-compensates, and eats the batteries. mode 2 when shooting landscape orientation isn't as bad - presumably because it's only compensating in one direction (designed for panning like motorsports). with OS off, it's nicely sharp and beautiful bokeh. but it's only a few bucks cheaper than the 100-400 IS L...

PoohJen

07-11-2006, 07:06 AM

For sports the old faithfull lens is the 70-200L(2.8 or 4.0).

LOL Anewman, I am hopelessly green with all the technical stuff, but the one thing I have learned about lenses is L = $$$ ;)

Thanks for the answers! Looks like I've got a little more research ahead of me... :thumbsup2

mhutchinson

07-11-2006, 11:10 AM

The 70-200 f/4 L is a very nice outdoor lens (or flash supported inside), I took this option instead of the 70-300 IS USM because the price is so close and the picture quality is better with the L. Of the two IS models 75-300 and the newer 70-300, you might want to avoid the 75-300 because it does go soft near 200mm. But if you really want an investment pick up the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS with a 1.4X teleconverter II, you'll get about the same range (70-200mm @f/2.8 and 98-280mm @f/4.0) PLUS it is a great way to drop a lot of money at once.... :rolleyes1 :lmao: with a bonus of Lens envy to others around you :rotfl2:

The lens is an investment, it usually stays around after the camera bodies have changed. I will still grab some of the older 35mm EF lenses that I have to mount on my 20D and they work just fine.

Mike

jann1033

07-11-2006, 01:24 PM

poohjen i sent you an email as your pm box is full so if you see a weird "janf2" address it's me

chirurgeon

07-16-2006, 01:08 PM

I have a Rebel XT, and I want a macro lens for it. I don't want to spend a fortune. This is a hobby, I already spent my fortune on the camera. Any suggetions?

Kelly Grannell

07-16-2006, 01:31 PM

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro.

TSBRN

09-06-2006, 08:06 PM

Currently I have an Olympus Sylus with a 3x zoom. I need to take pictures of my sons from the stands into the stadium (marching band). Any idea of how much zoom I need for something like that? Also, I am new to digital photography and would need a camera that is easy to use if anyone has recommendations. Thanks for any help you can offer! :sunny:

Bojo

09-06-2006, 08:12 PM

One can never have too much zoom. Stay away from digital zoom - optical is where its at!

If you want individual faces from the stands, you will need at least 10X optical zoom. You may also want something that offers image stabalization as well.

TSBRN

09-06-2006, 08:25 PM

Thanks Bojo :)
I already learned how bad digital zoom is firshand!

alsipd

09-06-2006, 08:47 PM

As BOJO says, 10x optical is good. anything over that you risk camera shake if handheld. I did sports photography for a long time and I nerver had more than a 6x zoom. Try positioning yourself in a different location than the stands. For high school or college, you should be able to get near or on the field with a little coaxing. Getting the good shot is usually good position and lucky anticipation.

Good shooting!

0bli0

09-06-2006, 08:49 PM

remember the zoom 'X' doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a specific length telephoto lens. generally speaking, the 3x zoom means: at the long end, the focal length is 3 times longer than the focal length at the wide end. the standard 3x zooms (for most small p&s) today are roughly 6mm at the wide end and 18mm at the long end (roughly 40mm-120mm on a 35mm camera). yes, the 10x zooms typically will go out to around 400mm equiv, so they are longer telephoto. some of the bigger 'zooms' are wider at the wide end and then not quite as long.

as for the OP's question, i'm guessing the 3x zoom (which is roughly going to be under 150mm compared to a 35mm camera) will be pretty short to capture the boys in the marching band from the stands.

MarkBarbieri

09-06-2006, 08:58 PM

Be careful with terms like 3x or 10x zoom. Those typically refer to the ratio between the widest and longest zoom the camera offers. A 3x zoom could start really, really wide and only zoom to moderately wide. A different 3x zoom could start barely wide at all and zoom pretty close.

In the 35mm SLR world, a 24mm-105mm lens and a 100mm-400mm lens could both be described as 4x zooms, but they obviously cover very different ground.

JR6ooo4

09-06-2006, 09:15 PM

Right alsipd. Zoom is only as big as the starting (wide) mm length. I have a canon 70-300 IS. 300/70 is only a 4.2 zoom. But 300mm is pretty far.

Marching band is similar to theater. The choreography is the same every time. You can go watch the practice and learn when to shoot. If you have that many hours free. But in practice you can get real close!

Mikeeee

dang I'm slow....

so this point is clear.... I may assume?

aliwolly

09-06-2006, 09:23 PM

Oooh... Marching Band! I was in the color guard when I was in school! Don't forget to take some wide angle shots of the whole field too - I used to get so embarrassed when my parents would photograph (and video) just me on the field and was always curious about how the whole band looked and if we were getting our drill right.

Have fun!!!

TSBRN

09-09-2006, 06:42 PM

Thanks everyone for their helpful tips! :thumbsup2

brer rabbit 28

10-13-2006, 09:57 AM

Groucho

10-13-2006, 10:13 AM

i currently have a sony camera with the usual x3 optical zoom.Now i would really like to upgrade to something with more optical but i am unsure if it will make so much difference.Would like to stay with sony purely because i have all the memory sticks.
Could anyone advise me if it is worth it please?
Make so much difference in what way?

The longer zoom makes a huge difference IMHO. I started with a 6x then went to a 12x before I got a DSLR - I really missed the extra zoom when I'd use my wife's compact 3x camera.

I believe that the Sony H5 is very popular at the moment, if your budget allows. It has a 12x zoom.

Caitsmama

10-13-2006, 10:54 AM

Also, the sony H2 has a 12x zoom for about 100.00 less than the H5, only difference is the amt. of MP (6.0 for the H2, and 7 for the H5) .. Also the Canon S3 has 12x zoom as well..
To the OP - i too have a sony 3x zoom right now, and hope to upgrade before we go to WDW next mo. and i have been looking hard at the Sony H2. (the H5 is nice too, just can't justify the 100.00 more right now). But, i have also looked at the Panasonic version, which also has the 12x zoom.

manning

10-13-2006, 11:44 AM

I have the H5 and like it. The only other difference from the H2 than MP is it has a huge 3" LCD.

Don't pay any attention to the battery meter. It is inaccurate. It will show you need to change the battery way before you need to. With rechargable AA batteries being cheap I ignore it and carry spares. I let it shut down then change them.

The flash is slow to recycle but it is one of the strongest around. I haven't done it yet but I think you can vary the strength and this will recycle it faster.

It uses the Duo Memory sticks.

brer rabbit 28

10-13-2006, 12:00 PM

thanks for your advice.I hav recently been getting frustrated with the x3 zoom so will have a look at the above options.

manning

10-13-2006, 12:22 PM

I also have the Panasonic TZ1 that I like. It is a 10x zoom and is small.

The Panasonic fz50 is a 12x zoom. It also has an external flash shoe and shoots RAW format in addition to JPEG.

AllNamesTaken

10-13-2006, 04:57 PM

Manning, I just bought the same camera. Have you burned video from your camera to a dvd yet? If yes, how is the quality. I'm not sure if I should invest in a dvd burner or not. I bought the camera mainly for taking pictures not video. But if the video will be good quality I'll get the burner. Would be interested in any info you have. Thanks! :thanks:

Groucho

10-13-2006, 07:54 PM

A DVD burner is only $30 or so nowadays... it's worth getting in any case IMHO!

DVD media is much cheaper "per meg" than CD media now, too.

brer rabbit 28

10-13-2006, 08:08 PM

thanks guys,had a look at the H2 and H5.Can feel a shopping spree coming on!!

WDWAurora

10-13-2006, 08:43 PM

Do the H2 and H5 take your kind of memory sticks? We were going to try to stick with Sony, but the memory stick styles have changed. None that we saw still used the rectangular sony memory, but rather a new, shorter, more "squared" version. We ended up going with the famed (on this board anyway) Canon S3-IS because if we were going to have to buy new memory anyway...we wanted that camera.

You may already know all of this, but I thought I'd try to help, just in case. Our old camera is only like a year and a half or so old, and it was still on the longer memory sticks.

manning

10-13-2006, 08:48 PM

Manning, I just bought the same camera. Have you burned video from your camera to a DVD yet? If yes, how is the quality. I'm not sure if I should invest in a DVD burner or not. I bought the camera mainly for taking pictures not video. But if the video will be good quality I'll get the burner. Would be interested in any info you have. Thanks! :thanks:

Do you already have a burner on your computer? If it is relatively new I think they are equipped with a burner. I may be wrong. If you don't have one I would get one, they are relatively cheap.

I haven't burned any yet, just taking test shots which look good. I also have a camcorder.

JR6ooo4

10-13-2006, 10:40 PM

MarkBarbieri

10-14-2006, 12:11 AM

stay with sony purely because i have all the memory sticks.

I wouldn't chose the camera based on its needing memory sticks. In fact, I'd lean towards getting something that used CF or SD cards rather than Sony's proprietary memory stick format. The others are industry standards that enjoy widespread support. With memory sticks, you are essentially tying yourself to Sony equipment in the future because no one else supports it.

Also, memory is pretty cheap these days. It's easy to find a 1 gig SD or CF card for under $20.

My advice is to pick the best camera for your needs and not to worry about the type of memory it uses. If anything I'd lean towards a camera that uses SD or CF because you are more likely to be able to share that memory with other devices (my GPS uses micro SD, my phone uses micro SD, the Nintendo Wii uses SD, my camcorder uses CF).

Caitsmama

10-14-2006, 10:26 AM

Just an FYI - if cost is an issue, the Panasonic FZ50 that was mentioned above is over $600, however, the Panasonic DMC-FZ7K Digital Camera is 12x zoom as well, but is only about $300 .. less MP, but how much do you REALLY need, for the extra $300 or so .. I have researched the sony, canon, and panasonic, and now i think i am going to go with the panasonic.. It is cheaper, and uses the SD card vs the exclusive Sony sticks..

brer rabbit 28

10-14-2006, 04:49 PM

I think you are all right about the memory issue.I was only going to stick with sony as i have all the sticks (they are still quite expensive in UK).However,i could get a smarter camera with 1 memory card and then buy a few when i get over there.
So which camera would any of you advise?Don't want anything especially fancy,just better optical zoom.

Thank you everyone for making me think it through. :thumbsup2

JR6ooo4

10-14-2006, 07:43 PM

Heck I will buy memory and send it to you if that is the cheapest way. As long as it is not illegal for me. You can send funds to my paypal account. I won't even charge for an envelope!

Mikeeee

majimikate

10-14-2006, 09:56 PM

Just an FYI, I have a Sony with a 3x optical zoom, a Panasonic Lumix FZ-5 and a Canon Rebel XT. The Sony is hugely frustrating due to it's lack of zoom, and the fact that it has a great deal of lag time between shots, the Panasonic (which has a 12x optical zoom, a 432mm equiv) solves both if those problems but has a LOT of noise at any ISO over 200, and only is capable of a 400 ISO, limiting for shooting any type of indoor sport. The only way I have found to solve all of the above problems.....the Rebel XT. Other than the ISO issues I like the Panasonic, but if you shoot sports I would suggest looking elsewhere for another camera with less noise issues. Good luck!!!!

brer rabbit 28

10-15-2006, 05:08 AM

Heck I will buy memory and send it to you if that is the cheapest way. As long as it is not illegal for me. You can send funds to my paypal account. I won't even charge for an envelope!

Mikeeee

aw that is so kind of you :grouphug:.When i bought some memory for the sony i actually did buy it from america via ebay (it really is so much cheaper over there).
When i decide on my new camera i may take you up on the offer of getting it for me -thank you so much.

Scottl

10-29-2006, 09:12 AM

The Nikon 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 G is what I have with my D50 and it's a great lens.

As far as the designations, Nikon hasn't made it easy for the Layman to figure out. Nikonians has a pretty detailed site but I can't post links yet. If you send me your email privately, I will forward you the link.

fitzperry

10-29-2006, 09:17 AM

This chart does a pretty good job of explaining the various designations: Nikon Lens Compatibility (http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html)

Scottl

10-29-2006, 09:22 AM

That was what I was trying to post. Thanks fitzperry.

handicap18

10-29-2006, 12:51 PM

How can I tell if this lens is suitable for D50 if I'm buying over the Net???
PS. is there a breakdown of the codeing for lenses somewhere?????

G, ED, iS :confused3 what does it all mean???????

This lens is compatible with the D50.

G = the lens does not have an aperture ring on the lens, so aperture can only be set using the camera.

D = the lens does have the aperture ring on the lens. f/stops can be set on the lens manually or using the cameras onboard computer chip. This type of lens will work on any Nikon SLR camera body, even the old ones before metering and auto focus and stuff.

AF = auto focus

AF-S = auto focus super (maybe) its just a better/faster auto focus system than regular AF

DX = compatable with digital only. Will work on film, but the edges will be useless as the DX lens is made based on the digital sensor size which is smaller than a frame of film. So you will have to crop the film picture to get rid of the bad areas.

ED = Extra-Low Dispersion glass elements (the number varies from lens to lens, the more elements there are the more expensive the lens is) that deliver superior optical performance. ED glass minimizes chromatic aberrations, contributing to superb contrast and resolution performance.

IF = Internal Focus which provides fast and quiet auto focusing without changing the length of the lens.

VR = Vibration Reduction

Hope this helps.

jann1033

12-28-2006, 03:04 PM

wallpod, treepod, monopod whatever your "pod" of choice is? would most need one for a 200mm f4 lens do you think? i mean in normal daylight conditions, not low light/fireworks etc. ( not IS either)

MarkBarbieri

12-28-2006, 05:11 PM

Charade

12-28-2006, 10:33 PM

Without IS, the rule of thumb for a 200mm focal length is a shutter speed of 1/200. Given that you use a 1.6x body (if I recall correctly), that should be adjusted to 1/320. At f/4.0, you can shoot in even bright overcast conditions with a reasonable ISO.

.

Ok, now you're confusing me. I thought the 1.6 CROP factor was just that, a crop factor. If you're suggesting to alter the 1/XXX rule to allow for a 1.6 CROP factor, wouldn't that mean that it changes the focal length (or magnification)? Magnification is the reason for the 1/XXX rule.

MarkBarbieri

12-28-2006, 11:13 PM

I thought the 1.6 CROP factor was just that, a crop factor.

For camera shake purposes, the crop factor effectively increases the focal length of the lens. It would just be a crop factor is you scaled everything, including your final print/screen image, down when you scaled down the sensor. However, you probably magnify the cropped image more so that it is as large as a full frame image would be. In that case, you have also magnified camera shake.

Let's use some real world sizes to compare what happens. Let's assume that you take a picture of a brick wall 10 feet away using a 50mm lens. On a full frame body, your image captures 7'2.4" x 4'9.6" of bricks. On a 1.6x sensor body, your image captures 4'6" x 3'0". Presumably, you will print them both on the same size paper (or display them on the same size screen). In that case, the bricks from the copped sensor appear larger, which is another way of saying that they are displayed with greater magnification. Now, while you took the picture, the amount of actual camera shaking was probably not affected by the sensor size. However, since you magnified the final image more with the cropped sensor, you also magnified the image problems cause camera shake more as well.

It's functionally the same as taking the full frame image, cropping it to match the smaller sensor image, and then enlarging it back to the original size. In both cases, you have magified the subject by the same amount. You may have jacked with your resolution, but camera shake is resolution independent.

The crop factor also affects DOF. You get more DOF with a smaller sensor image than a larger one, but the explanation is much more complicted.

The crop factor does not directly affect perspective. Perspective is the same regardless of focal length and sensor size and is only changed by moving the photographer or the subject. Typically using a different focal length of crop factor causes the photographer to move to get the composition that they want, but it is the movement of the photographer and not the change in focal length or crop factor that changes the perspective. A 17mm lens and a 400mm lens have the same perspective.

Charade

12-29-2006, 12:32 AM

Let's use some real world sizes to compare what happens. Let's assume that you take a picture of a brick wall 10 feet away using a 50mm lens. On a full frame body, your image captures 7'2.4" x 4'9.6" of bricks. On a 1.6x sensor body, your image captures 4'6" x 3'0". Presumably, you will print them both on the same size paper (or display them on the same size screen). In that case, the bricks from the copped sensor appear larger, which is another way of saying that they are displayed with greater magnification. Now, while you took the picture, the amount of actual camera shaking was probably not affected by the sensor size. However, since you magnified the final image more with the cropped sensor, you also magnified the image problems cause camera shake more as well.

.

This is true but that magnification occurs in the post processing. The amount of camera shake that might have influenced the image quality didn't change because the focal length didn't change. So I don't see the need to modify the 1/xxx rule. Anytime you use a faster shutter, you reduce the chance of introducing camera shake.

0bli0

12-29-2006, 06:55 AM

MarkBarbieri

12-29-2006, 06:58 AM

This is true but that magnification occurs in the post processing.

That is true, but it doesn't matter. Magnification is magnification. However you slice it, you are magnifying the errors from camera shake more with a cropped sensor than a full frame sensor and so you must hold the camera steadier to get back to the same sharpness. The difference in magnification is directly proportional to the difference in effective focal length, so you should treat a 100mm lens on a 1.6x body the same as you would a 160mm lens on a full frame body for camera shake purposes.

Andrew Bichard

12-29-2006, 08:12 AM

Without IS, the rule of thumb for a 200mm focal length is a shutter speed of 1/200. Given that you use a 1.6x body (if I recall correctly), that should be adjusted to 1/320. At f/4.0, you can shoot in even bright overcast conditions with a reasonable ISO.

That is true, but it doesn't matter. Magnification is magnification. However you slice it, you are magnifying the errors from camera shake more with a cropped sensor than a full frame sensor and so you must hold the camera steadier to get back to the same sharpness. The difference in magnification is directly proportional to the difference in effective focal length, so you should treat a 100mm lens on a 1.6x body the same as you would a 160mm lens on a full frame body for camera shake purposes.

And, of course, if you have enough pixels and it is your intention to crop tight at the printing stage to enlarge your target even further, or to make big enlargements, you should use an even faster shutter speed than this rule of thumb would suggest as you will be increasing the blur as well as the image.

Andrew

Charade

12-29-2006, 08:43 AM

deja vu? i'm sure this has come up a few times. the reason the 1/over rule includes the crop factor is you have to consider motion against the medium. yes, the focal length doesn't change, but the physical size of the recorded image does. so 'movement' as represented as a percentage of the total recorded image increases by a factor 1.6.

if you have a full frame camera and a long zoom, you can do a real world image test by taking a picture of the moon with a slow shutter speed and well stopped down aperture. you will see the moon moves farther across the recorded image on the crop shot than it does on the full frame.

If that's true, then the crop factor is also a magnification factor. When I think of crop factor, I think of a mask. Like taking a 5x7 matte and putting it on an 8x10 picture. The magnification didn't change. You just see a cropped portion of the 8x10 picture. However, if you want the 5x7 masked area to fill an 8x10 matte, you'll have to enlarge the image.

Again, if what you say is true, then why are there "DX" (digital only) lenses? DX lenses do not work properly on film SLRs because they mask (or vignette). It would be interesting to see what the picture looks like when a DX lens is used on a film camera.

Regarding your example of the moon shot. The moon movement distance won't be any different as long as you account for scale if the magnification factor doesn't change. If indeed the crop factor is also a magnification factor, then the movement will appear different using the same lens on a film vs. a digital camera (not full frame). However, if the magnification doesn't change, neither will the movement. If the movement is 5mm at 1:1 scale, then the movement will appear to be 10mm at 2:1 scale. Or 2.5mm if the scale is 1:2.

Or..... I could be completely wrong!!! :rotfl:

Charade

12-29-2006, 08:54 AM

And, of course, if you have enough pixels and it is your intention to crop tight at the printing stage to enlarge your target even further, or to make big enlargements, you should use an even faster shutter speed than this rule of thumb would suggest as you will be increasing the blur as well as the image.

Andrew

Right but that applies to any camera. Personally, I'd take my chances with less optical and more post processing "zoom" if I couldn't get the shutter fast enough (or a lack of a stable support) to eliminate camera shake. It's a lot harder (or impossible) to work with an image if the image is blurry from camera movement vs. a slightly less raw pixel count.

IOW, I would shoot at 100mm vs. 200mm and the do a 200 percent post processing digital resizing/crop if I couldn't get the 200mm shot stable enough to eliminate camera movement.

MarkBarbieri

12-29-2006, 09:29 AM

If that's true, then the crop factor is also a magnification factor. When I think of crop factor, I think of a mask. Like taking a 5x7 matte and putting it on an 8x10 picture. The magnification didn't change. You just see a cropped portion of the 8x10 picture.

I'll agree with you only on the condition that when a typical user moves from a film camera to a Rebel, they switch from 4"x6" prints to 2.4"x3.6" prints.

Let me walk through the process with two specific cameras to help illustrate my point. I'll use the Canon 5D and the Canon Rebel XTi.

With the 5D using a 100mm lens, an image is captured on the 1.41 x 0.94"sensor. With the Rebel XTi, using the same lens, an image is captured on a 0.87 x 0.58 " sensor. The image is different in that the the Rebel XTi has cropped the image generated by the lens, capturing only the portion that landed on the smaller sensor.

Now let's assume that both photographers decide to make 6 x 4" prints. The 5D photographer magnifies the sensor image 4.26 times to enlarge the sensor image to 6 x 4 inches. The Rebel XTi photographer magnifies the sensor image 6.90 times to enlarge the sensor image to 6 x 4 inches.

However, if you want the 5x7 masked area to fill an 8x10 matte, you'll have to enlarge the image.
That is precisely the point I'm trying to make in saying that the inverse focal length rule should be modified based on sensor size. At the point of capture, while the image is on the sensor, no magnification has occurred on the Rebel XTi. However, we don't tend to view images on our sensors. We enlarge those images with output devices (monitors, printers, etc). Because the sensor image is much smaller on the Rebel XTi, it is enlarged more when we view it. When it is enlarged, the shake blur is also enlarged.

So if the inverse focal length rule worked for you with film and you want to apply it to a non-full frame DSLR, you should either adjust the rule based on the increased magnfication you will be using to view your images or you should print smaller.

Groucho

12-29-2006, 10:01 AM

Deja vu indeed. :)

Color me right in the middle on this one. I think the crop matters, but I do think that it's no different from actually cropping a larger image. If we take a digital photo and crop off the edges, we still say that it's the original focal length, even if 1/3rd or more of the original is removed. Furthermore, the sharpness of the focus is the same no matter how much you crop off. If your original photo was sharp, it's still sharp when cropped. If it was out of focus, it'll still be out of focus.

An out of focus picture may look a little better when cropped, though, as the smaller image will hide it. But I don't really buy that you need to use the same rule for shooting, say, a 400mm on a DSLR as you would a 600mm on a 35mm.

I think that the truth, as it usually does, lies somewhere in the middle.

Groucho

12-29-2006, 10:12 AM

One other thing to remember is that we rarely look at the photos in their native resolution. At native resolution, you can be hypercritical of focus and sharpness, but much of that resolves itself when shrunk down to a more viewable size. Similarly, you probably won't notice such issues too much on a 4x6 print versus an 8x12 or larger.

There are just too many factors for one "rule" to cover everything.

Charade

12-29-2006, 12:23 PM

I'll agree with you only on the condition that when a typical user moves from a film camera to a Rebel, they switch from 4"x6" prints to 2.4"x3.6" prints.

Let me walk through the process with two specific cameras to help illustrate my point. I'll use the Canon 5D and the Canon Rebel XTi.

With the 5D using a 100mm lens, an image is captured on the 1.41 x 0.94"sensor. With the Rebel XTi, using the same lens, an image is captured on a 0.87 x 0.58 " sensor. The image is different in that the the Rebel XTi has cropped the image generated by the lens, capturing only the portion that landed on the smaller sensor.

Now let's assume that both photographers decide to make 6 x 4" prints. The 5D photographer magnifies the sensor image 4.26 times to enlarge the sensor image to 6 x 4 inches. The Rebel XTi photographer magnifies the sensor image 6.90 times to enlarge the sensor image to 6 x 4 inches.

That is precisely the point I'm trying to make in saying that the inverse focal length rule should be modified based on sensor size. At the point of capture, while the image is on the sensor, no magnification has occurred on the Rebel XTi. However, we don't tend to view images on our sensors. We enlarge those images with output devices (monitors, printers, etc). Because the sensor image is much smaller on the Rebel XTi, it is enlarged more when we view it. When it is enlarged, the shake blur is also enlarged.

So if the inverse focal length rule worked for you with film and you want to apply it to a non-full frame DSLR, you should either adjust the rule based on the increased magnfication you will be using to view your images or you should print smaller.

Are we in agreement that the crop that we get on a APS sensor is caused just by the fact that the sensor is physically smaller than the film frame and not by any magnfication of the image before it hits the sensor?

If I take a piece of paper and cut a hole in it to mask out 37 percent of the last element (the one closest to the body) of the lens, I've effectively created the same thing as putting that lens (without the paper mask) on a DSLR (assuming a crop factor of 1.6). The film will just "see" 37 percent less of the scene and the same amount of the scene as the digital sensor will "see".

I understand fully what you're saying but where I think I'm losing you is that crop factor is just that. It's not a magnification factor that happens at the sensor. Magnification of the image to make the print output the same size happens during post processing. Of course any flaws in the image would also be magnified. But that happens with any lens/camera combination whenever you optically magnify the image that's dropped on the film or sensor. If you use different magnifcation ratios to get the prints to be the same size, you've introduced another variable. And of course the detail or flaws in the image that's been magnified (all other things being equal) will not be the same as the image that had a lower mag ratio.

IOW, to fully compare the output from a 5D to an Xti and eliminate the extra variable (the different mag ratios to get the prints the same size) you would have to compare a (approx) 5x7 print (from the 5D) to a 4x6 print from the Rebel. The scale would be the same. The Rebel print would just be a crop of the 5D print.

MarkBarbieri

12-29-2006, 03:48 PM

It sounds like we are pretty close to agreeing.

Magnification of the image to make the print output the same size happens during post processing. Of course any flaws in the image would also be magnified.

I agree with this, but I see this as critical to the inverse focal length rule and you appear not to.

Magnification of the image to make the print output the same size happens during post processing.
Why do you think this is relevant? What difference does it make whether the magnification occurs before the image is recorded, after it is printed, or even by the observer moving closer to the image? The visual impact of motion blur the same regardless of how it is enlarged.

IOW, to fully compare the output from a 5D to an Xti and eliminate the extra variable (the different mag ratios to get the prints the same size) you would have to compare a (approx) 5x7 print (from the 5D) to a 4x6 print from the Rebel. The scale would be the same. The Rebel print would just be a crop of the 5D print.

I agree with this and agree that if you are comparing what shutter speed you need to take a reasonably sharp 5x7 with a 5D vs a 4x6 with a Rebel XTi, then you can use the same rule. However, if you are trying to determine what focal length you can hand hold for similar same sized prints, you need to compare the effective focal lengths and not the actual focal lengths.

Let me illustrate that point by bringing in a third camera, the Canon S3. It's sensor is 0.28x the size of a piece of 35mm film, so it has an effective focal length multiplier of 3.5x. It's longest physical focal length is about 120mm, which results in a 35mm equivalent focal length of 420mm. If we didn't need to adjust the inverse focal length rule, you could hand hold (without IS) at 1/120 of a second (using the inverse focal length rule). Try it sometime. You'll see that it is a hold lot more like trying to handhold a 400mm lens than it is a 120mm lens.

jann1033

12-29-2006, 09:09 PM

boBQuincy

12-29-2006, 09:37 PM

uhummm, readers digest condensed version please then you may all continue your discussion .:lmao:
so basically since i have a rebel xt, i am crazy to even think about general use of a 200mm lens without some kind of added stability, correct?

I don't think so, I sometimes use my 70-200 at 200 without a support and get decent images. Not as sharp as if I used a support, and they probably wouldn't look good at 13x19, but still decent and very useable.

Go for it! :)

JR6ooo4

12-29-2006, 10:30 PM

TIME!

3 months 13 days 4 hours 12 seconds since the last Crop factor / camera shake discussion.

WHo picked the closest to that time in the betting pool?

John is holding the money.

MIkeeee

Charade

12-29-2006, 11:54 PM

It sounds like we are pretty close to agreeing.

Good! :)

The implication made earlier in this thread is that the inverse focal length rule must be modified because of the crop factor. That's where we disagree. The addition of the crop factor doesn't change the focal length of the lens (nor it's optical magnification (same thing)).

You could also argue that the inverse focal length rule must be modified if you desire to print 16x20 prints from a film camera vs. a 4x6 from the same negative. If 1/300 will not produce visible motion flaws in a 4x6 print but might be visible in a 16x20 print, then the inverse focal length rule must be adjusted. I've never heard of that being suggested until the digital crop factor is brought into the discusion in this thread. The inverse focal length rule is a minimum setting rule for handheld shots. Put the camera on a tripod (another variable) and the rule doesn't apply as much any more.

Let me illustrate that point by bringing in a third camera, the Canon S3. It's sensor is 0.28x the size of a piece of 35mm film, so it has an effective focal length multiplier of 3.5x. It's longest physical focal length is about 120mm, which results in a 35mm equivalent focal length of 420mm. If we didn't need to adjust the inverse focal length rule, you could hand hold (without IS) at 1/120 of a second (using the inverse focal length rule). Try it sometime. You'll see that it is a hold lot more like trying to handhold a 400mm lens than it is a 120mm lens.

Well now you've brought up an interesting point. At 120mm, the S3 has the same magnification as a 35mm film camera with a 420mm lens. That's why your illusration is valid and I agree. The inverse focal length rule deals with camera motion blur intruduced by magnification. So the S3 would have a different rule than a 35mm camera system. It would be 1/the 35mm equivelent focal length.

0bli0

12-30-2006, 12:44 AM

if the xti had 1.6x less pixels than the 5d, then yes... it would be merely a crop. but because this is not the case, the physically recorded detail resolves more detail of the camera shake. i completely that there is no difference to the focal length and that all things being equal and reasonably small (i.e. not blown up very large - say on a 4x6) it's not going to make much of a difference. but if you were to crop a 1000x1000 square of the 5d image and 1000x1000 square of the xti image, you will be able to notice any apparent camera shake more in the xti's image.

a so-called digital lens will work on a SLR (when they fit). i have used a sigma 30mm on a canon film body. it just vignettes at the edges. it does so on my 1dmk2, but far less noticeable.

handicap18

12-30-2006, 04:03 PM

0bli0

12-30-2006, 05:30 PM

here is an early morning picture from our african safari - bigma (50-500mm) @ 417mm. handheld @ 1/250 of a second

http://www.pbase.com/iagrafx/image/45407925.jpg
juvenille male lion - Londolozi, ZA

here is one using the 24-70L @ 50mm. handheld for 1/2 a second @f/11

http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/disney/tokyodisneyland/l111.jpg
waterfall - Tokyo Disneyland

lastly, here is one taken sitting on my bum with my elbows resting on my knees - also with the 24-70L @24mm, F5 for 1/3 second

http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/disney/tokyodisneysea/l363.jpg
mister at night - Tokyo Disneysea

MarkBarbieri

12-30-2006, 06:22 PM

Jan, I would probably say that prime lenses 300mm and above would need a tripod for the majority of the people. Some people would need to use a tripod/monopod all the time for a 70-200mm f/2.8 whether it has VR/IS or not as it is a heavy lens. The 80-400mm lenses that Nikon and Sigma put out are very large. Not quite as long as the 70-200mm f/2.8's, but are thicker and heavier. Now that I look at it, the 200mm f/4 lens will probably need mono/tripod. Its really dependent on the person using the lens. Me being 6' 275 (and at one time a heavy weight lifter) can hand hold lenses that my DW, at 5' 4", wouldn't even think of touching.

Plus, I think that any lens that comes with a mono/tripod mount probably means that you should think about using a mono/tripod with it.

I think that you overstate the need for a tripod. I'm a pretty small guy and I lugged a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 all over the Animal Kingdom with me and never used a tripod. It's a bit over seven and half inches long and just over three pounds.

The 70-200 f/4.0 that Jan is talking about is just under seven inches and a mere pound and a half. You'll definitely not need a tripod for size/weight reasons. You'll want one when shooting in low light especially when using a 1.4x extender on it. Still, I know of plenty of people that are quite happy using theirs handheld.

handicap18

12-30-2006, 06:45 PM

I think that you overstate the need for a tripod. I'm a pretty small guy and I lugged a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 all over the Animal Kingdom with me and never used a tripod. It's a bit over seven and half inches long and just over three pounds.

The 70-200 f/4.0 that Jan is talking about is just under seven inches and a mere pound and a half. You'll definitely not need a tripod for size/weight reasons. You'll want one when shooting in low light especially when using a 1.4x extender on it. Still, I know of plenty of people that are quite happy using theirs handheld.

Your quite right Mark. Thats why I stated that some people would use one, meaning that some people wouldn't use one. For low light a tripod is highly recommended for any size lens, but even that can be accomplished hand held depending on the person (and looking at 0bli0's pics).

In the end it really comes down to personal preferance and what each person is willing to or can handle. As they say YMMV.

Now that I think of it, I belive there was a picture posted earlier in the year of someone with a 1000mm f/5.6 lens maybe?. Yeah, that you absolutly must have a tripod for!!!

http://www.pentaconsix.com/C369_7.jpg

or how about the 800-1250mm zoom?
http://www.mizar-optical.com/bino/images/lg/bic-808ze-lg.jpg
Though this one only weighs a little more than 3lbs. Guess because its an f/8-12.5. But at 1250mm and f/12.5 you better have some seriously bright light. :teeth

MarkBarbieri

12-30-2006, 06:52 PM

Though this one only weighs a little more than 3lbs. Guess because its an f/8-12.5. But at 1250mm and f/12.5 you better have some seriously bright light.

Now if you used that on a small sensor body, you'd.....never mind.

smnornes

02-11-2007, 05:57 PM

I have a digital Canon EOS DS6041. I use a Tamron 18-200 mm, 1:3.5-6.3 macro lens as my "everyday" lens. I also have the Canon 18-55mm lens that I got with the camera body. The Canon lens pretty much just stays in my bag now that I have the Tamron lens.

I'm in the market for a new zoom lens. I'd like to go to a 400mm, I think, especially with another Alaska trip coming up. How would a using a 100-400mm lens work? I never use a tripod right now. I'm assuming with a lens like this, the tripod would be a must? What about size and mounts? Do I need anything special with the camera body I have? I'm going to use this lens almost exclusively outdoors, photographing wildlife and nature.

Any recommendations? Thank you!

tinksdad

02-11-2007, 08:38 PM

I'm a Nikon guy, but the Canon 100-400mm looks like a very nice lens. Check out SLR.Gear (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/77/cat/11)for their take and some reviews on the lens. I prefer the twist zoom vs the push/pull but that's not a huge deal. That kind of a lens will set up back a dollar or two, but it will work on the future Canon camera that you will end up getting so should be a wise choice. You might look at the 70-200 f/2.8 as well, it's a very highly touted lens.

A rule of thumb for large focal length lenses is to keep the shutter speed above your focal length. So at it's furthest reach, you will have to keep the shutter speed around 400. With the image stabilization, you can get that down a couple of stops but a tripod would be a GREAT idea. Plus that is a huge lens, and the tripod will definitely help steady the shots.

AKLforever

05-28-2007, 12:25 PM

MarkBarbieri

05-28-2007, 01:16 PM

While not quite technically accurate, the term telephoto is used for lenses that make things look much closer. A zoom is any lens that lets you zoom in and out. Some zooms go from extremely wide angle to regular wide angle, so no one would call those telephotos.

As for what you should get, it depends on what your budget is, what camera you have, what you want to do with it, how much you are willing to spend, and how big of a lens you are willing to carry.

MIDisFan

05-28-2007, 02:04 PM

Mark, I was looking at your WDW pictures and was wondering what camera you were using during the 2005 trip. I was looking at the detail information and noticed those don't have as much information listed as the 2006 pictures. I am just curious because I would like to step up to a DSLR but am overwhelmed with all the controls. I am used to just setting my Canon P/S on auto and shooting. The most manual control I ever do is turning the flash off for some night time shots. My WDW trip is coming up in about a month and I'm not sure that would be enough time for me to learn enough.

I know the whole point behind a DSLR is for manual control, but do they have a auto mode that I could fall back on if I don't feel comfortable enough yet while I am WDW?

MarkBarbieri

05-28-2007, 03:10 PM

On my 2005 trip, I used a Canon 10D. I upgraded to a 1D Mark II not long after that trip.

Most DSLRs (the 1D and 1Ds models are exceptions) have a full-auto mode in which they can be used essentially like a p&s. There are other modes that give you some control but still automate other things like exposure and focus. So with just about any DSLR suited for a beginner, you should be able to go from fully automatic to fully manual as you learn and as the need arises.

handicap18

05-28-2007, 03:40 PM

Im looking for a lens to zoom in on things far away, like 10X or 20X zoom, but can also take very clear shots as well.
Im not sure which one I would need, telephoto or zoom? Or are they the same thing?

IIRC you recently picked up a Pentax. I'm not completely familar with Pentax' telephoto zoom line up. I know they do have a 50-200mm that the Pentax folks say is very good. Though I wouldn't think of it as a really long telephoto. Sigma makes a very nice 70-300mm. They have a few versions. One is about $130 and another that is closer to $200. The later has APO which is better overall. (from Sigma's site re: APO (APO Lens)
In order to attain the highest quality images, the APO lens has been made using special low-dispersion (SLD) glass and is designed to minimize color aberration.)

There are also 80-400mm lenses. They are MUCH more expensive, but do have the longer reach.

Others would be 100-300mm f/4, 135-400mm, 170-500, oh and Sigma's BigMa 50-500mm. These would be more expensive than the 70-300mm and also quite a big bigger and heavier.

AKLforever

05-28-2007, 09:58 PM

IIRC you recently picked up a Pentax. I'm not completely familar with Pentax' telephoto zoom line up. I know they do have a 50-200mm that the Pentax folks say is very good. Though I wouldn't think of it as a really long telephoto. Sigma makes a very nice 70-300mm. They have a few versions. One is about $130 and another that is closer to $200. The later has APO which is better overall. (from Sigma's site re: APO (APO Lens)
In order to attain the highest quality images, the APO lens has been made using special low-dispersion (SLD) glass and is designed to minimize color aberration.)

There are also 80-400mm lenses. They are MUCH more expensive, but do have the longer reach.

Others would be 100-300mm f/4, 135-400mm, 170-500, oh and Sigma's BigMa 50-500mm. These would be more expensive than the 70-300mm and also quite a big bigger and heavier.

Wow, nice, thanks. That 50-500 seems like the one I would like. On amazon, I saw this one that was a Phoenix 650-2600mm Telephoto Lens with Mount. Thats seems a bit over kill, I was shocked to see something so far out there. Cheap too, for the range. But Im thinking the range is insane for me, lol. thanks

Master Mason

05-28-2007, 10:36 PM

One of the things you really want to get rid of in the SLR mentality is the 10X or 3x or whatever zoom. What you want to look at is the mm range of the zoom, and the appeture range as well. Those are the 2 important parts of the equation in an SLR lens.

Groucho

05-29-2007, 03:38 PM

When it comes to telephoto or long-focal-length zooms... "if you wanna play, you gotta pay". :teeth: You can get cheap 70-300mm lenses but I think you'll get mediocre results. You'll also find lenses getting slower (high F-stops) unless you really dump some money into it - and you have to expect those lenses to get fairly pricey, too.

I picked up an ~30-year-old Vivitar 400mm F5.6 lens late last year, it's a Pentax screwmount so you need a small adapter to use it on the K-mount bodies - ie, every Pentax for the past few decades. $90 for the lens, ~$25 for the adapter, and away I went. Quality is OK, it's reasonably sharp but the colors are a little dull (I posted a couple shots in the zoo thread that YEKCIM starts a week or two ago), and it's big and heavy and kind of a pain to focus correctly.

You can keep an eye on eBay to look for used lenses floating around... a telephoto prime will probably be your best bang for the buck. A K-mount Vivitar that looks identical to mine just sold for $185 w/shipping - maybe I should sell mine and see if I can make some money. :) But a Tokina 400mm F5.6 (with autofocus) sold on a Buy-It-Now for $464 - like I said, you gotta pay if you want to play. :)

You also may want to check local camera shops to see if they sell used lenses. My Vivitar came from a local little tiny camera consignment shop that is stuffed with old stuff, usually for a decent price.

Pentax does have a 300mm F4 lens on their roadmap for September, but I don't know anything about price. Generally, Pentax makes exceptional primes so I'd expect good things from it. It's also a DA (digital) lens, so it will probably be smaller and lighter than a 300mm designed for 35mm. They also have a DA 55-300mm coming later, and a DA* 60-250mm F4 targeted for December - the "*" is their top-line stuff, like Canon's "L", and this will probably be quite an expensive lens.

bostran1

08-06-2007, 12:50 PM

I've decided I need more reach for my Rebel XT so I'm starting to look at zoom lens. Below are three lenses I have found and I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions or experience with the lenses.

I'm looking for something that reaches far (at least 200 and perferably 300)and is still sharp when zoomed in. Unfortunately, a sub-$200 price is very important for me. While IS would be nice, I think its out of my price range. One of the lenses is a Canon USM lens, I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks the extra cost is worth it for that lens. My understanding is that the USM functions to make the focusing faster. I have used the non-USM lens before and haven't really had a problem with the focus speed.

Anyway, here are the lens I have looked at with links. Any opinions and comments (and suggestions for different lenses) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004THCZ/ref=wl_it_dp/102-5323504-8626569?ie=UTF8&coliid=I21JTXR2VCDFSM&colid=3VRECZQ8S481O)

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004THD0/ref=wl_it_dp/102-5323504-8626569?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2P8U29SGHN8YH&colid=3VRECZQ8S481O)

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000AM7CJ0/ref=wl_it_dp/102-5323504-8626569?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3M6WD1DYCFV7P&colid=3VRECZQ8S481O)

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000ALLMI8/ref=pd_cp_p_1/102-5323504-8626569?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3M6WD1DYCFV7P&colid=3VRECZQ8S481O&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=1N6D367WTPAGWY2NK2F4&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=250314001&pf_rd_i=B000AM7CJ0) I realize this lens also has macro capabilities but could the others also function like that?

Also, just because I linked to the lens on Amazon does not mean that is where I am going to buy it from.

ukcatfan

08-06-2007, 01:24 PM

Here are a couple lens review sites.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

http://www.photodo.com/products.html

You might also want to consider used to get more for your money. I bought two used lenses from http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx that I have been happy with.

Kevin

ktulu

08-06-2007, 02:22 PM

I'm not too happy with my 75-300 and plan on replacing it as soon as I can, just not sure with what yet (wife has not signed off on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS).

bostran1

08-06-2007, 02:46 PM

I'm not too happy with my 75-300 and plan on replacing it as soon as I can, just not sure with what yet (wife has not signed off on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS).

Any ideas other than the one the wife won't approve? :thumbsup2

Also, what don't you like about the lens?

ktulu

08-06-2007, 02:51 PM

Any ideas other than the one the wife won't approve? :thumbsup2

Also, what don't you like about the lens?

Lack of IS and I want a lens that will produce shaper photos. I've gotten photos that I'm happy with from that lens, but only after putting the camera on a tripod. If I was to do it over again, I'd save my money and either get the 70-300 with IS or the 70-200 f/4L if those are a bit more in your price range (and I'd go with the 70-200 f/4L over the 70-300).

jann1033

08-06-2007, 08:18 PM

imo, i'd save my money until you can spend a little more than $200. i have the 70-200 f4( i spent $499 for it new, usually it's closer to 550 i think) and it's a really good lens. the 70-300 is around the same price. the reason i decided on the 200 vs 300 was the 200 build was better and i figured i could get a converter eventually for the extra reach.
just for what it's worth,
every lens i bought that was cheapish i regretted so now i wait but get a better quality( with a reasonable price, under $600 is my limit) and i think truthfully for me that is a better value than buying a cheap one and wishing i had a better on.

boBQuincy

08-06-2007, 08:50 PM

Canon's 55-200 meets most of your requirements. It can deliver sharp images at 1 or 2 stops from wide open, probably as good or better than most in the $200 price range.

bostran1

08-06-2007, 09:44 PM

Thanks for the comments. I was a little leary of spending "too little" on a crummy lens. I have the 70-300 non-USM right now as a loaner so I'm going to play around with that. I also saw the 50-200 and that looks too be much better suited for long-term use.

Does anyone know what the advantages of the USM lenses are?

minie_meese

08-06-2007, 10:09 PM

i have the Canon 70-200 f4.0 L series lense and just love it. I need to balance weight with function and and with price, for me this lens was the best compromise. I love the clarity of my photos and the color saturation is outstanding. It is fast enough so I don't need a tripod for most daylight situations and it is very sturdy. I have not no. It is a bit long but is pretty light compared with the 2.8 or the 2.8 IS versions. I tried my sister's Canon EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 (not sure if it was USM or not). It took goog photos in really good lighting conditions but it is way too slow for my liking and I could see the distortion at wide open exposure. If you can only spend $200 or so, the Canon lenses are going to give acceptable results most of the time.

I purchased my 70-200 used mail order at bh photo in NY City. I think I paid around $500. They are a pleasure to deal with and office 90 days to pay with interest through bill me later.

Magix

08-07-2007, 03:44 PM

I have an old Canon 75-300 (non USM) that I use as my primary lens. I've used it with 3 different cameras over the years (Rebel G, Elan 7E and now my 10D). I always use it handheld (don't even own a tripod) and I get great, sharp shots with it. I'm typically zoomed in all or nearly all the way. Check my website (in my sig) for shots. All were done with that lens, none are cropped.

boBQuincy

08-07-2007, 04:11 PM

I have a 70-200 f/4L and a 55-200 (series I), and no, you won't confuse the images from the two but for the price the 55-200 holds up well.

The differences show up in build quality, sharpness wide open, focusing speed and of course price. The 55-200 is a consumer grade lens, with plastic construction (not plastic lens elements), but when stopped down to f/8 the image quality is not bad. Of course a camera support helps a lot at long focal lengths.

woj68

08-07-2007, 05:40 PM

Here's my $.02...

I like to shoot sports, so when it came time to look at a quality zoom I bought the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM and I'm glad I did. It has yet to disappoint. :thumbsup2

It doesn't come cheap, however. This lens will run you about $1200 brand new. But that's because you're paying for the wider aperture. The Canon 70-200 f/4.0 USM might be the better suited for you if the 2.8 is out of your price range. You can pick one up for just under $600 new.

I don't own the 75-300mm but I'm sure it's a fine lens in its own right. But if it's tack sharp images you're after, you won't get it with this lens (no flames please):firefight . Review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Good luck with whichever decision you choose!

Here are some sample images taken with my 70-200mm f/2.8 this year.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/woj818/Storm084.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/woj818/Storm307.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/woj818/Bills089.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/woj818/Bills252.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/woj818/13sig.jpg

bostran1

08-07-2007, 10:03 PM

Thank you so much for the responses. Unfortunately, I do realize that getting a good zoom is going to cost me. But I want the reach and the best I can get for the money. That said...

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC Telephoto Zoom Lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001VQ12Y/ref=wl_it_dp/102-5323504-8626569?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1L9SF4LDIZL1H&colid=3VRECZQ8S481O)? From what I gather, its a little more solid construction and the front end does not rotate so once I decide to get polarizers, etc. it would be easier to use. Besides, it comes with a lenshood I believe. Any ideas on this one for a Digital Rebel XT?

tyedye

08-27-2007, 12:24 PM

ukcatfan

08-27-2007, 01:23 PM

I currently have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. I am looking to upgrade that because I like to take pics of my kids' sporting events. I usually use a monopod when taking pics of swimming and soccer which does help, and the 12x optical zoom gets me close enough. What I'm having problem with is by the time I press the shutter and it takes the picture, the action I wanted is now gone or the picture is blurry (out of focus).

Another parent has a Canon dSLR and telephoto (but I don't know what model, I think XT) and they seem to get plenty of decent pictures. I seem to only get decent pictures when I can focus on one place and then snap the photo when the child gets there and hope and pray it's an action shot if you know what I mean.

I see that Panasonic as well as Canon and others now have newer super zoom camera's out but I kinda think I may still have the same problem and that a dSLR might be a better option for me. Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm a novice at photography knowledge and basically only use the point and shoot option on my camera. I do occasionally select a different shooting scene (such as sports for soccer, or night for nighttime pics) but other than that, I pretty much use auto.

Any input or info you have is appreciated. TIA.

It sounds to me like you have two different things going on here, but the good news is that you might not actually have to buy a new camera. I cannot guarantee that, but it is a possibility. The blur is likely coming from the action being faster than the shutter speed can handle. You need to venture into shutter priority mode to guarantee that the shutter speed is maintained. As long as the aperture and ISO speed used result in a shot you like, then half of the problem is solved. If the image is too noisy for your taste then you might be looking at a DSLR. There is always noise reduction software to consider though. BTW... in case you do not know, the higher ISO speeds allow faster shutter speeds, but have the side effect of increase image noise (grainy appearance).

The other thing going on is that the shutter lag is causing you to miss shots. A DSLR could help a little here, but I believe technique would help more. Even DSLR users often pre-focus on the area that they expect the action to take place. That would be easier for the swimming than the soccer though. If you have a burst mode, that would also help. If you have one, it probably is something like 2-3 shots a second. With this you start taking the shots a second or so before you think the action will be at your spot and you then just keep the shutter button down while the camera keeps taking multiple shots.

Now that all that is said, a DSLR will improve the situation no matter what, but only if used correctly and with the right lens. Also, a DSLR naturally has a much smaller depth of field, so the room for focus error is extremely decreased. Plus, you would need to get a decent telephoto lens, which could make the DSLR option cost more than you realize. How much is your estimated budget for the purchase?

Kevin

handicap18

08-27-2007, 01:27 PM

the dSLR will have a much better/faster shutter lag (time it takes the camera to take the picture after your press the shutter) and also give faster focusing (even faster with higher end dSLR's and higher end lenses). You can also get better image quality at higher ISO's (aka film speed). Higher ISO's will get you faster shutter speeds which will help in stopping the action.

dSLR's aren't for everyone. They are more expensive (generally) and bigger/bulkier than PnS camera's. You can use them in full AUTO mode, but to get the most out of them one should take the time to learn at least what shutter priority and aperture prioity can do along with what ISO does and how these setting's effect the final image. The auto focus systems and meter's in these dSLR's are very good. You wont find as many people using full manual.

Go to a camera store and ask to look at some dSLR's. Hold it in your hands. Ask to try different lenses (the kit lens as well as a zoom like the 70-300mm). See how it is to switch lenses and how each lens effects the camera in your hands. Also see if one of the other parents can let you try the camera before one of the meets/games. Then go from there.

LPZ_Stitch!

08-27-2007, 01:30 PM

ukcatfan beat me to most of what I was going to say, but I'll add this:

Does your Lumix DMC-FZ20 have an option for Continuous AF (Auto-Focus)?

My Canon S3 does, and it helps a lot with action shots because the camera is always focusing on whatever the lens is pointing at (yeah, it does use up batteries a little faster, but so what). It speeds up the AF when you actually press (or half-press) the shutter because the camera's focus is already "near" where you want it to be.

Generally speaking, you can get better performance out of any superzom P&S by taking more control over the settings and getting away from Auto mode.

It's still not going to be as good as a DSLR, especially in the difficult-to-shoot areas (low-light, especially) but, as ukcatfan points out, the cost of a DSLR doesn't stop with the camera; there's "the right lens for the job" which can lead to serious spending! :)

tyedye

08-27-2007, 02:15 PM

Thanks for all the info/input. The FZ20 does have a continuous auto focus and I played with that a bit. I found that it was better to not use it as it seemed slow to focus that way. It seemed it was quicker to focus when ready to take the picture.

It also has a burst mode and over the summer I took pics of the swim team and so did another parent (he had a pentex dSLR) and he would get about 5 pics of the start before the swimmer entered the water and I would get about 2 maybe 3 when taking the exact same picture.

I know there are probably many features of this camera I don't use which may help, so I will try and experiment with them over the weekend and see what happens. If buying a new camera I was estimating around $1K for the camera and a telephoto, maybe a bit more. I read the review on steves digicam for the Canon Rebel XTi and it was very highly rated.

The FZ20 is 3 years old and certainly the technology has improved over that time which is why maybe I could also benefit from another large optical zoom (which are cheaper than dSLR) than go the dSLR route. The newer large optical zoom camera's may fill my needs but at the same time I don't want to be needing another camera in 3 years.

LPZ_Stitch!

08-27-2007, 02:53 PM

I know there are probably many features of this camera I don't use which may help, so I will try and experiment with them over the weekend and see what happens. If buying a new camera I was estimating around $1K for the camera and a telephoto, maybe a bit more. I read the review on steves digicam for the Canon Rebel XTi and it was very highly rated.

If you have $1,000 to spend, a DSLR is the way to go! :thumbsup2

ukcatfan

08-27-2007, 04:07 PM

If you end up getting a DSLR and you have $1,000, then you should also consider the Pentax K10D, Sony Alpha, and the various Nikons in that range. I have a Pentax K100D, but its only shortcoming is a smaller burst mode, so it might not be for you. The K10D has a much better burst mode. Any DSLR is going to do well, so it should come down more to how it feels in your hands and if the system offers the lenses that you want for the right price.

The DSLRs typically have a faster burst rate, so that explains why the other guy got 5 shots to your 2-3.

Before you go an invest that much money, it is without a doubt a good idea to see if what you have will work. I would not look at another bridge camera as it will likely have the same limitations.

Kevin

seashoreCM

08-27-2007, 08:42 PM

You will probably have to go to an SLR (or dSLR) to have a lens fast enough for indoor sporting events.

Having to zoom reduces the ability of the camera to take fast motion because the maximum f-stop is smaller the higher the zoom is. In turn the shutter speed has to be slower (more blur) and/or the ISO has to be higher (more graininess) to get the same correct exposure. If the lens is faster to begin with, so much the better.

Also, dSLR's generally have larger image sensors than typical digital point and shoots which in most cases translates to less graininess at higher ISO's.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr'/digicam.htm

Groucho

08-27-2007, 09:04 PM

Every DSLR is highly rated; they're all terrific.

For swimming, manual focus might help since you can easily predict where they'll be - to do manual focus effectively, you need either a DSLR or a PnS with a focus ring, and only Fuji makes those (like the very cool S6000.)

For soccer, you probably will want to stick with autofocus and continuous focus may work better.

You may also want to try zooming out a little, rather than going for max zoom. Zooming out and then cropping your photo later may give you a sharper photo, it's easier for the camera to focus when you're zoomed out a little, and hand shake will be less noticable.

tyedye

08-28-2007, 07:34 AM

The FZ20 does have manual focus but I haven't used it much. I really don't think I could focus manually fast enough to take pictures of my kids playing soccer. I don't have to be able to take professionally looking pictures, I just want to capture more action shots than I currently am. I have been quite pleased with this camera and it has taken some really good pictures and every now and then I get a decent swimming or soccer picture, but for those it just seems like I delete way more than I keep. At least I'm not paying for the film regardless whether I want to keep the picture or not, so digital has been the better of the 2 for me.

I just read where they are releasing an 18x optical zoom 10 mp next month but for the $400 that that would cost, I'm afraid I'll run into the same problems a year or so down the road and that I should put that money into a dSLR. When I read many dSLR reviews, it seems like the Canon XTi may be the right fit, as it does many things well including the action pictures. Any thoughts?

ukcatfan

08-28-2007, 08:29 AM

When I read many dSLR reviews, it seems like the Canon XTi may be the right fit, as it does many things well including the action pictures. Any thoughts?

Many DSLRs will fit the bill. I would put more weight on how it feels in your hands, how you like the button/menu layout, and if the system lens lineup matches your needs. I often recommend my Pentax K100D due to it likely being the most bang for the buck right now, but it does not have a large buffer, so it might not be the best for your sports needs. I personally do not like the feel of the Rebel even though my hands are not very large. Many people with larger hands do not like the Rebel feel as it is on the small side of DSLRs. The D40 is probably the smallest, but I have never taken the time to hold one.

Kevin

Groucho

08-28-2007, 08:37 PM

The FZ20 does have manual focus but I haven't used it much.
Yeah, my old Minolta Z5 (12x zoom 5mp IS point-n-shoot) had manual focus too, but it was just two buttons you pressed to change the focus. It was clunky enough to be almost unusable outside of maybe macro photography. A proper focus ring like on an SLR lens or that the Fuji S6000 uses makes all the difference.

I just read where they are releasing an 18x optical zoom 10 mp next month but for the $400 that that would cost, I'm afraid I'll run into the same problems a year or so down the road and that I should put that money into a dSLR.
I would agree with that - I can't see the sense in spending $400 for any point-n-shoot unless you just can't stomach the idea of a DSLR. The K100D just dipped below $400 with lens, and offers a huge amount more functionality. If you're after low-light ability, you'll probably continue to be disappointed with every point-n-shoot out there and will be ready to buy another before long.

seashoreCM

08-29-2007, 11:23 AM

It is my opinion that zooming out (and then enlarging and cropping the picture) reduces blur due to hand shaking only if the shutter speed becomes greater which it usually does. There may be other benefits with or other benefits without zooming out in terms of focusing depth of field or amount of megapixels or lens quality.

tyedye

08-30-2007, 07:28 AM

Thanks for all the info and replies. I don't just have an extra $1k laying around to spend, that's just what I thought I'd have to have if I wanted to go the dSLR route. In fact that is probably what is stopping from making the purchase is the money. My camera does work just fine and every now and than I get lucky and get a good sports picture. For pictures where the subject is standing or of scenery it does just fine.

I haven't used the continuous focus during soccer for a long time so I plan to try that again and see if it's any better. The FZ20 says it's iso is Auto / 80 / 100 / 200 / 400 and maybe if it went up to 800 or 1600 I might have better results? Also it has 2 settings for the image stabilizer and maybe I need to play with that some more too although I am usually using a monopod for soccer pictures. I usually set the scene mode to sports.

Anything I'm missing? Here's the review of the camera http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20.html

tyedye

08-30-2007, 07:54 AM

LPZ_Stitch!

08-30-2007, 08:00 AM

I haven't used the continuous focus during soccer for a long time so I plan to try that again and see if it's any better. The FZ20 says it's iso is Auto / 80 / 100 / 200 / 400 and maybe if it went up to 800 or 1600 I might have better results? Also it has 2 settings for the image stabilizer and maybe I need to play with that some more too although I am usually using a monopod for soccer pictures. I usually set the scene mode to sports.

Anything I'm missing? Here's the review of the camera http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20.html

Higher ISO wouldn't help with the focus speed ... ISO's the sensitivity of the sensor. The higher the ISO, the fast the shutter speed can be (it would reduce motion blur) but it doesn't affect the focus speed, AFAIK.

Also, using a higher ISO means more noise in your pictures. It's worse on P&S cameras because of the small sensors, but even DSLRs show noise at higher ISOs. Sometimes, noise reduction software can get rid of the noise and make a picture look clean, but it can also destroy some fine detail.

I've been looking at this review on DPreview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/page4.asp) and I'm surprised that you're having so much focus and lag problems; the timings of the camera would lead me to believe it's a pretty fast P&S ... it should be at least as fast as my Canon S3 and I've not noticed any lag problems....

Do you half-press the shutter or always full-press?

I think you should also look into the settings for the Continuous mode, you should be able to get 2-3fps and bursts as long as 4-7 pics (in large format mode) ... that's nearly as fast as many of the entry-level DSLRs and should cover just about any kids' sports action!

tyedye

08-30-2007, 08:58 AM

Do you half-press the shutter or always full-press?

I usually half press to get the focus lock. I do not have continuous auto focus on.

I think this camera came out just before the S3 or I probably would have bought that one. But they are probably similar. But in a soccer game with a child running around if I set the scene to sports, cont auto focus, and image stabilization mode 1, I'll see if I get better results. It's close to impossible to focus lock on a moving object.

I am going to get my book out again and read it and see if I cannot better understand all the features. There are probably different settings I should be using.

ukcatfan

08-30-2007, 09:37 AM

The Fuji S6000 is considered a p&s isn't it?

Also I do try to not have the zoom at 12x when taking sports pictures. One other thing I may try is that I have the image set to fine, maybe I would get ok results at normal. It also has 3 burst modes, not sure which one I have it set with, will have to check that out. Maybe after I learn more of the features and how to use this camera, I won't need to buy another...yet. :rolleyes1

Yes, it is a p&s.

The only time I would ever think of lowering the quality is if you are running out of shots on the memory card. Sometimes cameras have a faster continuous mode if you lower the resolution, but by doing that you have less to work with if you want to crop and a missed focus becomes more obvious.

As for IS mode, I have always heard that the mode that only activates it at the time of the shutter release is more effective than always on. I do not have data to support that though. It sounds like one of those compromise situations as always on helps with framing, but single shot mode is supposed to be more effective.

Kevin

LPZ_Stitch!

08-30-2007, 11:26 AM

As for IS mode, I have always heard that the mode that only activates it at the time of the shutter release is more effective than always on. I do not have data to support that though. It sounds like one of those compromise situations as always on helps with framing, but single shot mode is supposed to be more effective.

You know, I've heard that a lot, too ... but any time I've ever seen it actually tested (and my own tests with my S3) lead me to believe that the opposite is true:

for example: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page5.asp

And, to tyedye, according to the tests the PDreview guy did, "IS Mode 2" is better at the long end of the zoom: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/page5.asp....

tyedye

08-30-2007, 12:02 PM

according to the tests the PDreview guy did, "IS Mode 2" is better at the long end of the zoom:
I just read that on the site you gave too. I'm pretty sure I have it set at mode 1, I will have to check that later today.

I also think I have it set to spot AF as I thought that it would be better (read faster) to get the images I want in the frame then snap the photo, but maybe continuous AF is the way to go, with mode 2 IS. With 4 games this weekend I should have plenty of chances to try different settings!

Groucho

08-30-2007, 07:08 PM

Thanks for all the info and replies. I don't just have an extra $1k laying around to spend, that's just what I thought I'd have to have if I wanted to go the dSLR route.
Well, it's not THAT bad. The K100D combined with a 50-200mm lens (not quite as much reach as a 12x PnS but much better image quality) can be had for under $600 after rebate, and of course all the lenses will be image stabilized. I don't think that you'd have to spend $1k to get any entry-level DSLR with a basic lens plus a long zoom.

tyedye

09-03-2007, 10:22 AM

I changed the image stabilization to mode 2 and focus to continuous and didn't really notice much difference in the pictures. Although I didn't really get a good chance to take alot of pics because the glare from the cars in the parking lot put alot of streaks when looking to take a pic and my son hurt his knee and didn't play much.

So I'll try it out some more in the next few weeks as there are games every weekend. Although I am still kinda leaning toward getting a dSLR as I think it will help me get the pictures I want but then again, I don't know about spending the money for using it just for sports as my Panasonic is doing just fine with other pictures and there are tons of other things we need the money for right now.

tyedye

09-04-2007, 01:59 PM

There is a panning mode on this camera, anyone know if it's worth a try for soccer pics?

joellyn23

01-16-2008, 01:50 PM

A coworker is hoping to find a digital camera that allows him to zoom in/out while taking video. He currently has the Panasonic FZ7. I would imagine he'd be looking for a 10-12x optical zoom.

I see the panasonic TZ1 allowed zooming but their newer TZ3 model does not. is there an easy way to search for that feature?

TIA!

Melissa_E

01-16-2008, 06:05 PM

I have a Sony H5 and it allows zooming while taking video. :thumbsup2

AndrewWG

01-16-2008, 06:08 PM

I believe that the Canon S3IS and S5IS also zoom while taking video. I have the S2 IS and it does zoom while taking video so I assume the S3 and S5 are similar.

actionvaughn

01-16-2008, 08:33 PM

I believe that the Canon S3IS and S5IS also zoom while taking video. I have the S2 IS and it does zoom while taking video so I assume the S3 and S5 are similar.

The S5 and S3 both zoom during video, and take great quality as well. :thumbsup2

AndrewWG

01-17-2008, 04:56 AM

The S5 and S3 both zoom during video, and take great quality as well. :thumbsup2

I was always VERY impressed with the quality of the S2 so I can imagine that the quality of both the S3 and S5 are great as well. Even viewing the movies on TV wasn't all that bad. Sure there is loss of quality, but for not having to lug around a camcorder or something, it is more than acceptable in my opinion.

joellyn23

01-17-2008, 06:22 AM

THANKS so much -- I'll pass this along!!

collcass

02-23-2008, 07:22 PM

Okay, so a few weeks ago I was hopefully looking to replace my Canon S2 w/ a DSLR. After sitting down with out budget and realizing the actual investment required above the cost of the camera (lenses), I've decided to go the route (for now) of the the super zoom, or advanced P&S.

I've been researching on dpreview but there are just so many to choose from. I am really only familiar w/ the Canon S5.

I saw the Sony DSC-H9 at best Buy which looks like a great camera (also happens to be on sale)

here's a few others that caught my eye:
Panasonic-Lumix DMC-FZ250 and DMC-FZ18
Fuji Fine Pix S8000fd
Olympus SP-560UZ

Are there any others you think I should consider? Anyone NOT like any of the models I mentioned?

ETA: I 'played" with each of these for a few minutes over the past week but trying them out in a store and actually using them are, of course, two totally different things.

Also, in my daily life, the photos I take generally range from sports, candids, landscapes and portraits. I'd say 60% of my photos are close ups. On both my Canon S2 and old Minolta Film SLR, I did "dabble" with the manual setting but never became all that familiar with them.

Thx a bunch

Anewman

02-23-2008, 08:47 PM

collcass

02-23-2008, 08:57 PM

While there is is nothing wrong with staying away from DSLRs and going with super zooms, IMO you already have the S2 and will not see very much improvement by choosing a new super zoom.

Unless the S2 is done(broken), I would stick with it until you are ready to take a real step up.

It is broken. I loved the camera. If it wasn't broken I definitely wouldn't be updating. I'd be adding a DSLR:)

YEKCIM

02-23-2008, 08:57 PM

You might want to add the Fuji S9100 to your list. It has a little larger sensor, which should give better low-light results. Here is a side-by-side comparison (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_s5is%2Csony_dsch9%2Cpanasonic_dmcfz1 8%2Cpanasonic_dmcfz50%2Cfuji_finepixs8000fd%2Cfuji _finepixs9100%2Coly_sp560uz&show=all) between the models you listed and including the S9100.

~YEKCIM

MICKEY88

02-23-2008, 11:04 PM

old Minolta Film SLR, I did "dabble" with the manual setting but never became all that familiar with them.

Thx a bunch

is your minolta camera auto focus...if so, your lenses will work on the new Sony DSLRs

collcass

02-24-2008, 01:24 PM

is your minolta camera auto focus...if so, your lenses will work on the new Sony DSLRs

Yes, it did have auto and manual focus. I didn't realize those lenses fit the new Sony DSLRs. Thanks for the tip.

There's no denying what I really want is the DSLR, but I don't think I'd be happy unless I had a good telephoto lense, too. :sad2: maybe if I just post a photo of the camera on our fridge, something might appear for my bday:thumbsup2

awe147

02-26-2008, 08:58 PM

I'm looking for a pocket-sized digital camera with a decent zoom (at least 4x zoom). I was looking at the Canon PowerShots, but there do seem to be a lot of them to choose from.

Any experiences out there?

Thanks.

seashoreCM

02-26-2008, 09:18 PM

I have a Canon SD850 (with the 4x 35-140mm equivalent zoom) and am quite pleased with it.

As far as I know, Canon has just one other super small model with about the same zoom, the SD950. This one is slightly larger than the SD850 and costs slightly more, and has more megapixels (12 vs 8 for the '850.) I'm told it gives better quality at higher ISO settings.

There is the SD800 with a wider angle minimum zoom (28mm) and a maximum zoom the same as the ubiquitous 3x zoom (35 to 105mm zoom) cameras for a total of 3.8x worth of zoom.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

rhiansmom

02-26-2008, 09:56 PM

I have been happy with the Panasonic Lumix point and shoots (had two) and some have 10x optical zoom!

Mickey Fliers

03-26-2008, 07:03 AM

So, I have decided on the D80 and now am just trying to decide on lenses. Of course, I would love the 18-200 vr, but might have to settle for the 18-135 for a bit. Dang budget.

Anywho... here is my question. On my Fuji P&S, it says I have 10x Optical Zoom. What would that equate to in lenses? Just trying to get a feel for how long the 135 will reach. KWIM?

Thanks. Sorry I am such a pain. ;)

seashoreCM

03-26-2008, 07:45 AM

For now, ignore the millimeter ratings stamped on a digital P&S camera's lens barrel.

Your P&S camera instructions should state the "35mm film camera lens focal length equivalent" for example 38 to 380mm or 28 to 280mm for 10x optical zoom.

The 10x or 3x or whatever is relative to the widest angle that the zoom lens allows.

135mm (35mm film camera equivalent) is a little more than the typical 3x zoom (usually 38 to 115mm) of a P&S. 200mm would be roughly 5x or 6x zoom on a P&S.

By the way, 18mm makes available a much wider angle than practically all P&S's offer, too.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

TinksDH

03-26-2008, 07:51 AM

Most P&S cameras start with a 35mm equivilent focal length of 28-35mm, so your 10X zoom would translate into something between 28-280mm to 35-350mm. You could look on the front of the lens, but it will probably say something like "7.8mm" due to the sensor size.

Again, not to push you away from Nikon but if you are interested in that focal length the Sigma 18-200 HSM OS prices out in between the Nikon 18-200mm and the 18-135mm.

My check out my Flickr photostream (link in signature) if you want to see some shots from it.

YEKCIM

03-26-2008, 07:52 AM

The S5200 zoom (10X) is equivalent to a 38-380mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

The 18-135mm (7.5X) is equivalent to a 27-203mm lens, so you gain pretty significantly on the wide end, but lose a good bit on the long end. That will be remedied when you get the 70-300vr 105-450mm equivalent), though!

Just for comparison, the 18-200vr (11.1X) is equivalent to a 27-300mm lens on a film camera.

~Y

seashoreCM

03-26-2008, 08:26 AM

>>> Nikon vs. Sigma

Any given camera and lens combination gives a 35mm film camera equivalent focal length rating to the lens. If the lens is put on a different camera, the focal length rating may be different.

Any given DSLR camera (body) has a crop factor which should be published in the instructions. This is the number 43-1/4 divided by the actual sensor diagonal in millimeters. (For 35mm film cameras the crop factor is 1.0) (A number like 1/2.5 or 1/1.7 is not the actual sensor diagonal.)

When putting the lens on a different camera, you can start with the 35mm film camera equivalent rating for the original camera and lens combination. Divide by the crop factor of the camera the lens was originally on. Multiply by the crop factor of the camera the lens is going onto. This gives the new focal length rating for the lens.

As an example, a lens with 18-135mm rating and actually meant for a 35mm film camera, put on a DSLR with a sensor with half the diagonal (12x18mm versus 24x36mm film frame; crop factor of 2.0) will now have a 36-270mm rating.

YEKCIM

03-26-2008, 09:09 AM

FWIW, crop factors are as follows:

Canon: 1.6X
Olympus: 2.0X
Nikon, Pentax, Sony: 1.5X

Canon and Nikon also have full frame dSLR's; there is no crop factor on those.

~Y

emmabelle

03-26-2008, 09:53 AM

I have the Nikon D40 with the 18-135mm lens. Here's two examples of no zoom (18mm) and zoom (135mm).

18mm

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/lorabelle_2006/DSC_0709.jpg

135mm

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/lorabelle_2006/DSC_0715.jpg

I'm a visual learner, hope this helps. ;) Sorry the images are pretty weak, I just took them out the kitchen window.

AydensMom

03-26-2008, 05:17 PM

FWIW, crop factors are as follows:

Canon: 1.6X
Olympus: 2.0X
Nikon, Pentax, Sony: 1.5X

Canon and Nikon also have full frame dSLR's; there is no crop factor on those.

~Y

Yes no crop factor on the pro Canon and Nikon but aren't all the lenses described fall into the DX or DC camp so they won't work on a full frame camera anyways.

Pat.

YEKCIM

03-26-2008, 08:04 PM

Yes no crop factor on the pro Canon and Nikon but aren't all the lenses described fall into the DX or DC camp so they won't work on a full frame camera anyways.

Pat.

I simply included the full frame Canon and Nikons to be all-inclusive. It is my understanding, though, that the DX Nikon lenses will function on the full frame D3 and that the D3 will automatically produce a 1.5X crop image, so all the Nikon lenses are, I guess, backwards and frontwards compatible.

~Y

MrsJackSparrow

05-28-2008, 09:21 AM

Let me start by saying that I photograph for hobby and family enjoyment only. I have a Kodak EasyShare Z650 that takes very nice photos. I am looking into new cameras with image stabilization (I shoot mostly in sport mode to compensate for a slight tremor), a 2.5 to 3" screen, and a slimmer profile (currently 4 x 3.5") to fit better in a purse. The one I have now has 6.1 MP and a 10x optical zoom.

I use the zoom all the time and have come to rely on it quite a bit. My question is that in looking at the slimmer profile cameras, most are only at 3x optical zoom. Should I just do all of my zooming with editing software, cropping and resizing? They are pretty much just for 4 x 6 prints that go into albums or are scrapbooked. I am pleased with the performance of the Kodak, which I know is not a favorite, but as far as ease of operation and features, I am comfortable with it. I am not looking to get into professional photography and have no experience with SLRs. Looking strictly for a P&S.

Any suggestions? I do so love the zoom . . .

TIA!

MHolleman

05-28-2008, 12:03 PM

You may like this camera. Here is the link. I actually considered this one myself.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=8912&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=7423

I also saw them on Ebay, for a cheaper price.

jann1033

05-28-2008, 08:59 PM

the problem with cropping is you are not going to get the detail you would with a larger zoom. you can only crop so far then it looks blurry. 3x is not much zoom at all.
i am guessing your sport mode raises the iso...you might want to consider something that allows some creative controls. that way you could raise the shutter speed without raising the iso( more noise with higher iso). the only p&s i know anything about is canon but i know they have a set up so you can use straight auto or play with the shutter, aperture ...between a higher shutter speed and the IS it should help cancel out your tremor. you might also want to invest in a monopod if you don't get a camera with IS,( a monopod is about the same amount of control as IS,) i have them as well sometimes and use my IS lens at a high shutter speed when i do or a tripod

seashoreCM

05-29-2008, 07:00 AM

Optical zoom is always superior to cropping and resizing, although you may still need some cropping and resizing to get the finished picture the size you want.

Digital zoom is no different from cropping and resizing that you could have done yourself at your computer after uploading the pictures.

Digital zoom and cropping/resizing as an alternative will not give any improvement whatsoever in the finished picture in terms of reduced hand held camera shaking blurriness associated with higher amounts of optical zoom.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

DizzyV6P

05-29-2008, 08:16 AM

I've found the Panasonics have the best form factor with their 5x and 10x OPTICAL zooms.

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Cameras/model.DMC-TZ50S_11002_7000000000000005702

Most stores carry the Panasonic Lumix series so you should check it out to see if it meets your size requirements. Besides the Kodak V610(which I'm not sure they make anymore) most slim size cameras won't go beyond 3x.

webshark3

05-29-2008, 09:55 AM

Coming very soon:

http://www.h20camera.com/home

Optio W60 (5x zoom and thin; and waterproof)

MrsJackSparrow

05-30-2008, 01:44 PM

Thanks. I figured I'd lose something cropping and resizing. Looks like I'll be sticking with the giant camera for a while longer, although that new Kodak is appealing . . .

oldhag

06-05-2008, 05:36 AM

I don't know a whole lot about cameras but am thinking of purchasing the Nikon D60 because it is supposed to take pictures faster but does it have any optical zoom capability? I really like to zoom in on my pictures (I am using a Kodak easy share 650 - very slow between taking pictures). I would really appreciate any help. Thanks.

YEKCIM

06-05-2008, 05:59 AM

The ability to zoom will depend on which lens(es) you buy. A dSLR is a camera *system*, which can use a wide variety of interchangeable lenses. If you have deep enough pockets, the potential is nearly unlimited. That said, Nikon makes some very good "consumer grade" lenses, including the 55-200VR and 70-300VR. Coupled with the D60's 18-55VR, either one would give you a pretty decent range although none of them are great in very low light situations.

~Y

kldmom2000

07-23-2008, 09:34 AM

I'm spoiled with my Nikon D50 that I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE.... I love the sharpness of my photos and the clarity.

For the times I can't have my Nikon with me (ie. beach, etc..) I was using my Kodak 4megapixel digital that was 5 yrs old. It took great photos, but I wanted to upgrade. I did a lot of research online and asked around and the Canon SX100 10X zoom
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SX100IS/SX100ISA.HTM
seemed to get pretty good reviews. It had what I was looking for in a camera-the zoom, capability of taking photos indoors and not have them come out practically black, portability, video capabilities, etc...

I've had it for a few weeks now and the pics are "ok".... honestly, my 4 megapixel/5 yr old Kodak photos are crisper than those taken with the Canon. It's my first ever Canon and I'm trying to be optimistic, but I'm just not loving the outcome....

Any tips for me to get better photos? I'm mostly using Auto and then specific settings based on where we are (ie. beach, etc...) If there's even the slightest movement, I'm getting big blur :(

Thanks in advance for any advice/suggestions! :thumbsup2

DizzyV6P

07-23-2008, 09:57 AM

The more you zoom the more motion blur you will get if your not holding it still. Its just the nature of zoom cameras. Us DSLR folks have the same issues, hence the advent of IS, VR, Camera-sensor stablization, etc...

You can try going onto the Canon USA site and checking there. They usually have great tutorials for all their cameras ;)

Try posting some of your "OK" pictures so was can look at it to see what's wrong.

wenrob

07-23-2008, 10:02 AM

Is the 10x zoom all optical zoom or does it go to digital zoom after a certain point? On my hubby's Cannon (and my old one) we had to make sure to turn off the digital zoom or we got really fuzzy pictures.

DizzyV6P

07-23-2008, 10:06 AM

According to her link, its an all optical zoom.

wenrob

07-23-2008, 11:48 AM

According to her link, its an all optical zoom.
According to the specs it is also equipped w/digital zoom which if turned on will pick up where the optical left off at least that has been my experience. Just throwing ideas out there that may or may not try to solve the problem.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SX100IS/SX100ISDAT.HTM

kldmom2000

07-23-2008, 12:58 PM

Here are a few photos... I've found the blur seems to happen more when I'm taking pictures of people... not stationary objects. For instance... here is one I took to commemorate the gas prices for my girls' scrapbook and it's sharp...
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e223/dizneemom2/IMG_0017.jpg

My DD wanted me to take a picture of what her feet always look like after she takes her crocs off :rotfl: :rotfl: I took 8 and believe it or not, this is the clearest????
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e223/dizneemom2/July08048.jpg

A "decent" one with Grandpa and my older DD picking up seaweed @ the beach but still not as sharp as I'd like...
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e223/dizneemom2/IMG_0037.jpg

Most of them though even without really zooming in, come out blurry even after holding the shutter button down to focus and then snapping...

I will recheck the manual re: optical and digital zoom and mess with the settings.....

Thanks in advance for all your help! I gave my DH my kodak to use for work :scared: :rolleyes1 :scared1: but if I can't figure this camera out, I'm taking it back and giving him this one! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

jfulcer

07-23-2008, 11:49 PM

I can tell you about the one with the feet. :)

It's 800 ISO which will make it quite grainy. That's near the top of the camera's highest ISO - and will most likely always be 'grainy'. Also the shutter speed is 1/25. Anything handheld for that long of a shutter will have motion blur. I don't see flash information, didn't you use it?

For the one from the beach I'm not sure. I think the camera metered on the sky and grandpa ends up coming out a bit dark. Someone else may have other thoughts on that one.

It's also possible that you have the 'Recording Pixels' set to a low value. It appears that your options are 3,264 x 2,448 (Large), 2,592 x 1,944 (Medium 1), 2,048 x 1,536 (Medium 2), 1,600 x 1,200 (Medium 3), 640 x 480 (Small), 3,264 x 1,832 (Widescreen). You want to make sure that you are taking at the maximum resolution - large. If you have it set to a lower value the quality of the image will suffer.

MinnieMom73

07-24-2008, 11:55 AM

Hmm.. this is an interesting thread. I have the same camera with the same problems. I am admittedly a total camera novice so I should probably do more reading about ISO settings, etc. I'm going to subscribe here to see if anyone else has good tips..

MickeyMom2Boys

07-31-2008, 09:49 AM

DueyDooDah

07-31-2008, 09:57 AM

In a word - movement. When you are optically closer, movement shows up much more easily (Mark can probably give you numbers for different focal lengths). The longer the lens, the faster the shutter needs to be or you will need a tripod. For my 70-300mm, I have resigned myself to always use a tripod.

dr_zero

07-31-2008, 10:35 AM

Are you refocusing when you zoom out?
If you get a shot you like then decide you want to zoom in some you need to refocus.

He is right about the movement or shake making the shot blurry also try changing the ISO setting on the camera from Auto to say 400 and see if it helps some.
Most of the time the camera tries to go as slow as it can for the shot but sometimes a little faster is better to help with shake.

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/how-to-avoid-camera-shake/

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-camera-shake-or-poor-focussing/

http://markhancock.blogspot.com/2004/01/eliminate-camera-shake.html

mabas9395

07-31-2008, 12:11 PM

Since even the most basic of solutions can get past the best of us, I have to ask, is the switch on your lens turned to auto focus or manual focus?

Next, I would suggest posting an example. We can probably tell by looking at it and the EXIF info imbedded in the image.

Anewman

07-31-2008, 01:19 PM

Is it blur as in everything moved or blur as in out of focus(not sharp)?

I would guess motion blur/camera shake.

The more you zoom, the more light is required.

Really it is about shutter speed, but since you are shooting in auto mode more light allows you to get the shutter speed fast enough for shots taken with heavy zoom.

Example...
A hand held shot taken at 18mm, requires about 1/25th of a second shutter speed to cancel out any camera shake.
A hand held shot taken at 200mm, requires about 1/300th of a second shutter speed to cancel out any camera shake.

So even though there might be enough light to get a good exposure at 1/25th, there might not be enough to get a decent exposure at 1/300th.
Auto mode might not take camera shake into consideration when zooming in and just tries to get a proper exposure, and if available light yields a shutter speed that is too slow...

GrillMouster

07-31-2008, 03:28 PM

The blurring effect of camera shake and subject motion is enhanced as you zoom in. Even the steadiest of hands cannot hold a camera perfectly still. You can combat camera shake by either using a tripod (or some other stable surface) or using a faster shutter speed. Some lenses have Vibration Reduction or Image Stablization (different manufactures have different names for this feature) that helps reduce the effect of camera shake, but it's no substitute for a good tripod. You combat subject motion by using an even faster shutter speed. (VR or IS won't help with subject motion) When increasing shutter speed, you'll need to compensate for the loss of light entering the camera by using a wider aperture and/or increasing the ISO setting.

The problem could be any number of things: camera shake, subject motion, focus problems, dirty lens, poor optics. We might be of further assistance if you'd post sample images with the settings (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, focal length) and lighting conditions.

YesDear

07-31-2008, 03:47 PM

Everthing they said!

Under what conditions are you taking pictures, inside,outside? What kind of light do you have, sunlight, indoor, lowlight?

Those will tell us more about what you are doing wrong. The D50 is a great camera and those are good lens so not to be offensive it is probably operator issues. Not anything you cannot learn easily, just a learning curve.

I have a 18-200 and a 70-200 and rarely use a tripod.

jann1033

07-31-2008, 03:59 PM

GrillMouster

07-31-2008, 04:10 PM

all the above being said plus if you make sure you keep your arms in to your side, push your forehead into the camera, hold it with your hand securely under the lens, stand with your feet a part ( kind of so you make an a shape to steady yourself) it might help. i notice if i try to be more careful about my technique i have better longer zoom shots, everything else being equal. if i rush a shot i usually end up blurred.
if you are talking about the on camera flash i don't think it would help freeze the action for that length is that is what you are trying to do

Jann makes a great point about proper stance. We've all seen people with point & shoots holding the cameras in outstreached arms two feet in front of them. Even when I use a P&S, I use the viewfinder, and I've finally got my wife doing the same.

Spread your legs shouldter width apart, one foot slightly in front of the other, tuck your elbows in close to your body, cradle the camera/lens with your left hand, look through the viewfinder, resting the eyepiece against your brow (further steadying the camera), press the shutter halfway to focus, take a breath in, hold it, and gently press the shutter release button (don't jab at it).

handicap18

07-31-2008, 04:15 PM

If you can, post some pictures. This might give us a better understanding of your issue. As has been stated there could be a few reasons. So an image with the EXIF data (ISO, shutter speed, f/stop and focal length at the minimum). That info can tell a lot about possible issues along with seeing the results.

DisneySuiteFreak

08-03-2008, 08:25 PM

I have a Nikon D50 with an 18-55 wide angle lens and a 55-200 zoom lens (Both Nikkor). Let me start by saying I am a complete amatuer. I went with a DSLR to get the best reaction time - I was tired of the P&S cameras snapping the picture after my son was done whatever he was doing and missing the shot. I have not ventured off of auto mode much (but hope to eventually). Anyway, almost all shots with the 18-55 wide lens are crystal clear with exceptional quality. But when I try to use the zoom, everything comes out blurry. Am I doing something wrong? Does the zoom require a tripod? Does the distance require a better flash? :confused3 Thanks for any advice you can provide!

MickeyMom2Boys, Don't give up! When I first started shooting w/ my D80 I encountered similar problems; and I had previous experience shooting w/ a 35mm SLR film camera years ago. (Not that I remembered any of it!) If you would post a picture, some of the experts on this board could probably tell you exactly what the problem is. I suspect it is most likely shutter speed. Also are you adjusting your ISO at all? In DSLRs, ISO greatly influences the shutter speed and aperture that you can use. It's like an exposure triangle, and all 3 work together to create what the photo will look like and what your options are as a photographer. If you bump up the ISO, you will be able to achieve faster shutter speeds. At a certain point you will also introduce digital noise. However the noise in a DSLR is nowhere near as bad as a P&S. I had the same issues you experienced (Blur in photos of my kid/shooting long distances in low light) and the people on this board helped me by pointing out what I was doing wrong once I posted a few photos. I'm still learning too... Don't give up! Good luck!

kenny

10-01-2008, 12:31 PM

Recently purchased the D60 with kit lens (18-55 VR). I am debating purchasing the 55-200VR nikon lens or putting that money into a new video camera (really need to upgrade mine).

How much of a "must" is a zoom lens? I know in AK it is very useful but what about Epcot and MK. Am I going to be really upset I didn't get one or will the 18-55 be sufficient for "most" shots.

Pea-n-Me

10-01-2008, 12:43 PM

I guess it depends on how important the video camera is to you. For many of your photos, you can probably "zoom with your feet" more than you think. Sure, there will be times you'll wish you had it, but OTOH you can concentrate on getting to know your camera better and getting different types of shots.

One thing I will say is that last week we watched some video of a trip we took about 6 years ago when our kids were only 4yo, and it made me realize we really need to do video more often. Last trip, I don't think we did video at all (other than some short clips on the point and shoot), and after watching that, I'm regretting it.

RBennett

10-01-2008, 12:44 PM

Me personally, if I HAD to choose, I would go with the video camera for now. Like you said, at AK the zoom comes in pretty handy but I think you could use the video camera more than the zoom in my opinion. Now I still think that you should try and get a zoom lens as soon as you can, but especially if you have any kids..... go with the video. :thumbsup2

JimbobJimbo

10-01-2008, 12:47 PM

On our recent trip the only time I used my zoom lens was at AK on the Safari, and a for a few shots here and there throughout the week. I would say over 90% of my 1,200 photos were taken with either my 17-50mm or 50mm lenses. So I would probably invest in the video camera if it were me.

kenny

10-01-2008, 12:48 PM

Thanks for the quick replies.

That was my thinking. I would use the video camera more (have a 4yo DD).

I can always take more photo's in future trips but kids are only young once.

Thanks for the help.

rotlex

10-01-2008, 12:49 PM

I totally agree with the video cam suggestions. We have taken 3 trips to DW in the past 2 years. I took the video camera on one of them. The middle trip. Even now, a year later, I am wishing I took it more often. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE stills, but there is just something about watching my then 5 year old daughter in motion that just does not compare.

As far as zooms go. Our last trip, I never took the 24-105 off the camera, and it was MORE than sufficient. Most shots were probably in the 50-70mm range. I did have a 70-200 in tow for AK, but only used it a few times due to the size and weight. I have since moved to a Nikon body, and picked up a much lighter, and more compact 70-300 that I am DYING to take to AK however. :goodvibes

Pea-n-Me

10-01-2008, 01:09 PM

I can always take more photo's in future trips but kids are only young once.

It's so true. It's scary, but I "almost" didn't recognize my kids, they've changed so much (twins soon to be 11)! And the kids themselves got such a kick out of seeing how shy they were with the characters, how inquisitive about everything they were, some of the funny commentary to things, reaction to rides, my DS diving under the table from embarrassment at being sung Happy BDay to by the whole restaurant and Mary Poppins bending down trying to coax him out, etc - things you can't capture as well in still photos.

I hadn't even realize it but my DH actually captured a lot of "firsts" that trip including rides on ToT, HM, RnRC (himself) and the first time riding in the front of the monorail. The absolute funniest was this, I actually wrote about it in another thread that I'll quote here. Looking at the still pictures of this moment, you just don't get all the insanity that had preceded it:

One section of the video was really a classic of what our lives was like with young (4yo), active twins. They'd brought in two big bunches of balloons for the kids' bday along with some other stuff, signed pictures of Mickey, Cinderella, and some certificates. I sat them on the bed and propped up all this stuff around them while they held the balloons so I could get a picture. DH had the video camera rolling and I guess I didn't realize it. Of course, they were excited and jerking the balloons around, giggling, moving, etc, while all the stuff was falling down around them. :headache: I went back and forth around the front of the bed several times and tried to snap a picture when DS moved again while they laughed and some choice words slipped out of my mouth finally (not too bad). Then you hear DH chuckling on the video and I started laughing, saying "shut that thing off". He says, "why, so I can be the only one yelling at them on the tape all the time?" which in fact would be true :lmao: so we all started cracking up laughing for the longest time and just barely got the picture. (I wish my scanner was working so I could post it, LOL I was still using film then.) It reminded me I really need to do video more often.

Michele

10-01-2008, 03:19 PM

I 2nd the get a video camera vote.

I made that decision this year. DS started High School and is playing football. While I would love to have action picks of him running for a touchdown (of which he has a few so far :thumbsup2 ), I decided I would much rather see the whole play on video.

Looking at a still of him on the field with the ball in his hands doesn't really convey the excitement of scoring a touchdown like the video does. And compared to the price I'd have to spend on a lens that can shoot sports photography I was able to get a great video camera.

KarenAylwood

10-01-2008, 05:48 PM

I'm not into video cameras (I'm sure I will be once I have a family) but I wanted to reply that I took my Canon XSi to Disney for the first time early in September (2 weeks after I bought it mind you). I was thinking I'd REALLY miss the zoom since I only have the 18-55 kit lens, but I VERY rarely even thought about it!

I'm sure if I had one I'd bring it, but I don't regret not buying one especially for the trip like I had thought about.

Go with the video camera :thumbsup2

DueyDooDah

10-01-2008, 06:23 PM

Get the vcam. If you have a Nikon or Canon, you can rent a lens if you need to. But, as stated above, I too feel a telephoto lens is not needed. I use my 50mm for most everything. Infact, I'd go wider if I had it.

boBQuincy

10-01-2008, 07:06 PM

Actually, any lens that smoothly changes focal length is a zoom lens. It appears that what you are interested in is a long zoom lens, something that goes to 200mm or more.

Long lenses can be useful at all the parks. I got some good close-ups of the characters and dancers in "Dream Along with Mickey" at MK and some detail photos of the Earth Globe in Illuminations. A long lens is good for the "streetmosphere" and "Fantasmic" at the Studios and of course, for a lot of animals AK.

I would go for the long zoom and maybe an inexpensive video camera. I carry a tiny video camera (Flip) and that's about the extent of my video experience so of course I am biased toward still photography. ;)

Master Mason

10-01-2008, 07:47 PM

If you actually use video and like it, then you should get the vid cam. Personally I bought a video camera about 5 years ago, and have used it maybe 4 times since, and I have never watched the video I took. So a Video cam would be a total waste for me.

MICKEY88

10-02-2008, 11:26 AM

I agree with Master Mason ,

it all depends on your personal preference

I allowed myself to be talked into a camcorder about 9 years ago, spent 1000 on camera bag and accessories, used it once, never watched the video..
and delayed my purchase of my first digital camera , because of the expenditure...

I use my zoom a lot at WDW

this is what a good zoom allows you to do at wdw..parade shots... I like closeups of characters..

http://images19.fotki.com/v34/photos/8/86568/368395/008_5-vi.jpg

http://images19.fotki.com/v34/photos/8/86568/368395/010_7-vi.jpg

blackears

10-03-2008, 07:44 AM

We have the same camera and when the wife and I went this past summer (no kids!!), the main lens was the 18-55. It was light enough to wear most of the time, and it worked great on rides and such. So, get the video camera, enjoy the live actions and sounds after you are home!!!

alan

10-25-2008, 04:47 AM

DD(9) got a Canon 420 for Christmas last year. She has in fact come on very well with it, and some of her recent shots are as competent snapshots as many an adult's pictures.

She also likes taking videos with it, but - horror! - it doesn't record sound with the videos (had I realised that I wouldn't have chosen that model).

So this year she has very nicely asked for a video camera for Christmas. We talked about how she would need to carry around two cameras, one for stills and one for video. I then - stupidly - went on to explain how some moden stills cameras take first-class videos too, even allowing you to zoom while videoing. I should have kept my big mouth shut.

So she's now fixated on getting such a beast. I know of the Canon SX10is and its predecessors like the S5IS, and the Panasonic FZ28 and FZ18. But they're all a bit on the bulky side for a nine year old.

Are there any other digital cameras that allow zooming while shooting?

regards,
/alan

Groucho

10-25-2008, 07:10 AM

There's quite a few, I think. I know my old Minolta Z5 (12x zoom, 5mp) allowed true optical zooming during movie-taking, as did my old Fuji 2800 (6x zoom, 2mp). I think the higher-zoom ones are more likely to allow optical zooming than the pocket-sized 3x-5x zoom models, though there are almost certainly some exceptions. None of the 3x zoom PnSs we've had have allowed it.

Michele

10-25-2008, 11:03 AM

My Olympus FE-340 does.

alan

10-26-2008, 05:44 AM

Thanks for the suggestions. As it happens we were at a shop yesterday where she saw the Fuji f8000 (?) and she liked that. It's a good price, too, so we are likely to go for that.

regards,
/alan

Suburbanmom

10-28-2008, 01:49 PM

I am going to Disney World in 10 days! :) We are staying at PO Riverside...hopefully Alligator Bayou.

I have the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR. I'm totally in love with the 2.8. Even on my D50, I'm blown away by the sharpness and clarity. I know it's heavy, but I really don't mind carrying it around. I have an over-the-shoulder shoulder strap, so it doesn't weigh down on my neck. It is the lens of my dreams.

The 70-300 takes great images too. It's just not so fast. And...it fits in my backpack, meaning I can't quickly and easily change from the zoom to my walk-around lens. It's not so easy to change out the 2.8 because it won't fit in my backpack and don't really want to carry around a second bag...and neither does my DH who usually ends up carry around my equipment. (he is my caddy. :heart: )

I mostly see myself using the "Beast" only on the safari. Would you bring the 2.8 for just one shoot and then leave it in the hotel room the rest of the time? Or should I be content with the 70-300 and the ease of carry it around and having it whenever I want, not just the Safari.

Any suggestions that would make my decision easier?

YEKCIM

10-28-2008, 02:39 PM

As long as you don't mind hauling it around, I would suggest maybe considering taking it to Studios for the shows there (BATB, Indy, HSM3, LMA, Fantasmic!). You would probably not need it at Epcot or MK. Like you, I'm headed Mouse-ward soon and will probably use my 70-300VR a great deal of the time. If I had the 70-200VR, I'd have to really weigh (pun intended) whether it was worth it to lug it around all week. Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't have that option.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd leave a $XXXX.XX lens lying around my room while I was gone. We drive down so we have our car and always put all the camera gear in there when we leave the room for the day. YMMV.

~Ed

WebmasterAlex

10-28-2008, 03:32 PM

I prefer to think of my 70-200 2.8 vr as "optimally weighted for stabilization" not heavy :)

frugal_mar

10-28-2008, 04:44 PM

I would bring the 70-200 f2.8 and just carry a bigger bigger bag.

annnewjerz

10-28-2008, 04:49 PM

If I was ever lucky enough to own the 70-200mm 2.8, I probably would not bring it. I, too, would be worried about leaving something that expensive in the hotel room and since you don't plan on using it more than a trip or two to Animal Kingdom..I would just bring the 70-300mm VR.

While it's still expensive, I wouldn't be as upset if something were to happen to it. Plus, I like to pack as light as possible. If you start adding on bigger bags, bigger lenses, etc. before you know it, you may as well pay for another checked bag fee! :goodvibes

IMO, as long as you are bringing another lens that will be good in low-light, you can always get a better seat at a show/parade/etc. for those up close shots.

Quicklabs

10-28-2008, 05:08 PM

YesDear

10-28-2008, 05:08 PM

I took my 70-200 in September to a Sunrise Safari and felt it was well worth it to have it since we got to stop and seriously take pictures. I am not certain I would be excited about taking it on a regular Safari ride since they never stop and you are being bumped constantly.

I love the lens and actually enjoy the look of people when I use it. It attracts attention!

I feel as safe with my stuff at WDW as anywhere. My stuff is totally insured so I take care of it but do not worry about it.

Suburbanmom

10-29-2008, 12:58 PM

That's an easy one, IMHO! Take the 70-300. And leave the fantastic 70-200 with me for safekeeping while you're gone! LOL :-)
Are you taking a tripod or something with which to stabilize the 70-300? That could make up for the lack of speed.
Have a great time, Amy. I'll look forward to all of your pictures when you get back. Hope there will be a LOT of them.

That's your solution, is it, Laura???? :rotfl2: Nice try!
I am planning to take my tripod with me, so that may help.

"optimally weighted for stabilization"....I'm going to have to remember that one.

Today...I am planning to bring it. I like the looks I get too. :o

WendyLovesPeter

11-09-2008, 09:04 PM

Groucho

11-09-2008, 09:30 PM

yes, DSLR newbie - prob a stupid question, but I am trying to make sense of this.

My current camera has 12x range, so how does this compare to the lenses on a DSLR.... or am I comparing things that you can't really compare or???

I am now thinking of the sony alpha A300 and I want an idea how my zoomed out shots will compare. I am assuming I can't zoom out as far, but I can crop the photos to my delight when actually making prints.
Aperture (or f-stops) are not the same as focal length, which is like the 12x on a PnS camera. Aperture is how big the opening is in the lens, while focal length is how close the camera will appear to get to a subject. A higher focal length means that you will appear to be closer, or more zoomed in. (A sloppy and flawed explanation, but you get the idea!)

The closest thing we have to a "standard" in terms of measure focal length is how it compares to a lens on a 35mm camera. Most 12x point-n-shoot cameras are equivalent to about 36mm at the wide end and 423mm at the zoomed end - that is an awful lot of focal length.

Most DSLRs, including the Sony A300s, are "1.5x crop", which means that the lenses that you buy are marked for a 35mm camera and you multiple that by 1.5x to get the equivalent focal length. So in other words, a lens that may be an option is the Tamron 18-250mm, which is about as much zoom as you can get in a DSLR lens. Mounted on the A300, that works out to an equivalent of 27mm-375mm. It won't zoom quite as far as a 12x PnS (at 36mm-432mm) but it will be wider. The extra 9mm at the wide end will almost certainly be more useful and noticeable than the 57mm that you'll lose at the zoomed end.

Mind you, that's just one lens. The advantage of DSLRs is the flexibility of lenses, you can have one lens for wider shots and another for more zoomed shots. You can often find somewhat decent "consumer-grade" zoom lenses for reasonable prices that will go up to 300mm, which would equal 450mm on a 35mm camera, which is more zoom than you can get on your 12x PnS. You can also go much higher... 400mm, 500mm, whatever your pocket can handle. :)

By the way, you said "I am assuming I can't zoom out as far, but I can crop the photos to my delight when actually making prints". "Zoom out" usually means to go wider, which is something that digital PnS cameras, especially 12x zooms, generally don't do very well. I think you probably meant "zoom in", which gets you closer to the subject. If you can't zoom in as much, you can crop the photo later to give the appearance of having zoomed in further.

WendyLovesPeter

11-09-2008, 09:44 PM

thank you, Groucho!
You have helped me greatly - it now makes sense:)

boBQuincy

11-10-2008, 07:32 AM

Unfortunately "12x" doesn't really give any useful information, it could be 1:12, or 12:144, 30:360, or anything else. So what measurement system is any better? Well, for better or worse we are probably stuck with 35mm focal length convention, where we compare a lens & sensor combination to how it would look on a 35mm camera.

It is a flawed comparison but works ok for most purposes. On a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera the 18-55 "kit" lens is then figured to be equivalent to a "28-80" or thereabouts, a good range for a walkaround lens (about 3x).

cpbjgc

11-10-2008, 10:07 AM

I thought I would point you to an old thread (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1490064) with a number of book recommendations on DSLRs and photography generally. Pretty much any of the books listed would answer this question (which has already been ably answered) but also any future ones you might have.

GrillMouster

11-10-2008, 10:42 AM

Superzoom P&S cameras often have optical zoom and digital zoom. That 12x may include the digital zoom.

Optical zoom is "true" zooming, like that of a DSLR. Digital zoom is where the camera fakes additional zoom by cropping the image and artificially adding pixels to bring the cropped image up to the advertised megapixel count of the camera. Most knowledgeable photographers dislike digital zoom and turn if off, because "real" computers have a lot more processing power and do a better job of cropping and interpolating than does the tiny chip in the camera.

WendyLovesPeter

11-10-2008, 05:55 PM

thanks everyone.

I think I will take your advice and pick up a book - I am a definite book learner. Whenever we purchase anything I go right to the manual - drives my husband nuts!

Thanks again!

pjacobi

11-10-2008, 06:19 PM

The largest zoom range commonly available for a dSLR is the 18-200mm lens available from both Nikon and Canon. This yields about an 11x zoom range, but with very noticable distortion. Most Pro's probably would not touch it.

Zoom lenses are much easiler to implement for P/S, bridge (Super Zoom) and video cameras because the image sensor is much smaller than a dSLR camera.

Large image sensors, smaller zoom range lenses, or even fix focal length lenses of dSLR cameras will yield high quality images.

It's a trade-off between high quality images of dSLR vs. size and zoom range of P/S cameras.

-Paul

WendyLovesPeter

11-11-2008, 06:59 AM

jann1033

11-11-2008, 09:38 AM

so would a faster 50mm lens then cropping give better results than a slower 200mm lens?

I will be doing a lot of indoor pix - kids sports etc

i think you would have to pay a lot for a 50mm lens sharp enough to crop equal to a 200 mm good lens.( if it even exists) you can get canon 70-200 f4 L lens for about $600 and it is a tack sharp lens. it is when you have a really large zoom range ( ie 18-200) that you have a problem with softness ( usually) something like the canon 70-300 or 70-200 don't have that problem. and a 50mm i would think would be bad for sports, not nearly long enough to get anything close to a close up and you can't "zoom" without moving so unless they were right in front of you it would be a dinky little object. think tamron makes a 70-200 in an f2.8 ( I never shoot sports but guessing that would work :rotfl: ) canon also has lots of 2.8 lenses but the cost is close to $1000+ usually, don't know about sony. i know DVC Jen has gotten some great photos of her daughter's dance recitals with a 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS canon but don't know how well something like that would work for a sport that might be faster( ie basketball) since you'd need a fast shutter to stop the action which is where the f2.8 would come in

DragonSlyr

11-11-2008, 05:48 PM

Sigma 70 -200 f2.8 at 70mm
http://photopost.wdwinfo.com/uploads/108685/dd1.jpg

at 200mm
http://photopost.wdwinfo.com/uploads/108685/dd5.jpg

Wendy hope this gives you an idea of indoor sports images. The photo at 200mm was cropped and enlarged. Its a little noisy, the quality of the original is a little better, had to knock the size down to post.

Tom pirate:

Dis-Wiz

12-26-2008, 09:02 PM

I've been searching everywhere online to try and find out what is wrong with my camera but I can't seem to find anything that particularly addresses my problems. I'm hoping you guys might be able help me!

My Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 is refusing to zoom. It won't zoom in while taking pictures, and it won't zoom in when I'm viewing the pictures afterward. At first I thought it may be the lens, stuck perhaps, but you would think that I'd still be able to digitally zoom in while viewing my pictures. Personally, I think its the actual zoom switch that's broken, but I'm no camera pro. :confused:

There aren't any camera shops around me, and all I really want to know is what's wrong with it and if it's fixable. Other than the inability to zoom, the camera works fine! I love it so much, and I really miss my 12x zoom!!:sad1:

So if anybody has ever had this problem, or may know what the problem is, your comments would be greatly appreciated!! :hug:

seashoreCM

12-27-2008, 08:11 AM

As you manipulate the zoom switch before taking your picture, you should see the picture zoom in the LCD viewfinder and in most cases in the peephole viefinder also. If not, your camera is broken.

Many cameras have a combination of optical and digital zoom. And most cameras with this combination let you make a setting to suppress the digital zoom and the zoom then stops zooming at the optical zoom maximum.

The ability to enlarge the picture after taking it, to review the picture and see more detail in your LCD viewfinder, is a different function. Often it uses the same zoom switch so your suspicions about the zoom switch are real.

Personally I never use digital zoom when taking. Digital zoom can be accomplished just as well after uploading to your computer and does not provide any more picture detail when taking the picture.

Dis-Wiz

12-30-2008, 09:53 AM

Thanks for your input!

Hopefully I will be able to get my camera to a repair shop pronto!

vickalamode

02-17-2009, 05:52 AM

So I bought myself a Rebel XSi a couple of months ago but I haven't really had a chance to do much photography (This is pretty much the only set I've put online, if anyone is interested http://www.flickr.com/photos/24843362@N05/sets/72157612546153774/)
Anyways right now all I have is the lens it came with and I want to get a zoom/telephoto lens. Someone recommended a Canon 75-300mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169269-USA/Canon_6472A002AA_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_USM.html) to me because it is in my price range (I can afford to spend around $200, but not more...I'm only 19 and go to college full time and work to pay for my (nice)car/insurance/food/etc... and this is the 2nd Disney trip I've gone without my parents and paid for myself...so yeah not much money to throw around since I don't get everything in life handed to me like some kids, but I still make sure I get what I want :wizard: hehe.

So anyways, I want to buy a new lens before I go to Disney in less than 3 weeks! Would anyone else recommend the 75-300 lens? What I want to do with it (in Disney anyways) is be able to take pictures from far away-ish stuff...like maybe get decent shots of the Tree of life from across the bridge wherever, be able to zoom in on the Castle better, stuff like that...nothing crazy like expecting to see the detail in the animals on the tree but just nice, clear shots.

Would this lens work or can anyone recommend any other zoom lenses that work for a Canon that are around my price range (~$200 dollars, this is pretty much the most important part since my trip is in less than 3 weeks and I absolutely CANNOT spend more than that...) I've also looked into renting a lens for the trip but the price those places charge to rent isn't consistent with my budget since the price of renting + shipping + insurance is pretty much what I'd pay for half of a good lens...but after a week its just money thrown out the window and I might or might not get good pictures out of it!

Also, can anyone recommend a good portable tripod? I bought this camera mostly planning to do press photography at concerts and shows (aka a tripod is a BAD idea:rockband: :jumping1: <----crowdsurfers will kill me in the photo pit, I need to be able to save my camera if one is coming towards me...tripod wouldn't facilitate that lol) Long story short, I haven't gotten one yet but I'm at a point where I should probably get one.

TL;DR: Good zoom lenses for someone on a budget of around $200? Any portable tripod recommendations? :confused:

annnewjerz

02-17-2009, 06:23 AM

I don't shoot Canon, but the basic recommendation that I've gotten regarding telephone lenses is that IS is very important on the long end of the lens if you want to get sharp images and are not going to be using a tripod or monopod while you shoot. The lens you linked to doesn't have IS from what I can tell. You might want to look into Canon 55-250 IS USM lens, which seems to run about $250 on Amazon. It's a little more than you planned to spend, but not too much.

If you do plan on getting the 75-300 f/4 USM lens that you linked to, I would recommend getting some sort of monopod for when you are shooting and don't expect great pictures in low-light situations if you are planning to use this lens hand-held.

A lot of Nikon users have the kit lens (18-55) and the 55-200 to accompany it and seem to be very pleased with the resuts. My longest focal length is 200 right now and I find that there are very few situations where I feel I really need the extra reach.

Good luck!

jann1033

02-17-2009, 06:22 PM

double post

jann1033

02-17-2009, 06:29 PM

there is a canon 55-250 Is that is getting good reviews for the price of around 200-300. you might want to check out a gorillapod, around $50for the dslr one( i think last timei looked at it) since it is portable but attaches to fences etc.
lens.... used at B&H but you have to email forcondition...most i have heard feel their ratings on used is accurate http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/10209/Digital_Cameras_Accessories_SLR_Interchangeable_Le nses.html
http://www.google.com/products?q=efs+canon+55-250+IS&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=lF6bSaqdHY3Btgel0MjbBA&sa=X&**=product_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title
pod
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=t9a&ei=2V6bSezeF8H7tgen3fTrBA&resnum=0&q=gorillapod&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=216bSfDDO8H7tgfu3fTrBA&sa=X&**=product_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title

the thing is, for the price you are talking about you aren't going to get much of a zoom with a wide aperture which you need for low light( guessing the concerts etc are indoors). the IS will allow you a few stops lower but you are still talking about 5.6 at the long end of the zoom. so not sure you will be totally happy for one lens for both things

BorisMD

02-17-2009, 07:09 PM

I used to have the lens you are asking about. It works just fine for outdoor bright light situations.

It won't do well at night, or even twilight without a tripod.

You'll get plenty of zoom for the shots you're talking about as long as there's good light.

I sold mine on ebay a while back and have upgraded. If you aren't expecting pro quality build, it's a fine lens.

The shortcomings are slow speed, non-usm focus, lens rotates with focusing (only significant if using a polarizer), non-L-quality build.

Positives -- good zoom for a good price.

Regards,

Boris

boBQuincy

02-17-2009, 08:02 PM

From what I have read you might be happier with the 55-250 if the extra $50 or so is in your budget.
Either of these lenses will about max out the GorillaPod SLR-Zoom, it loosens over time and has trouble holding up long lenses.

gdk123

02-17-2009, 08:09 PM

I just went through the same debate and ended up with the Canon 55-250 IS. I only have used it a little but I am happy with it so far. Check out this site for some examples of pics using this lens. It was $255 shipped from BH and only took 2 days!
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=459569

vickalamode

02-18-2009, 07:39 AM

Thanks everyone :thanks: :disrocks: I really appreciate the advice. I ended up getting the 55-250, it's worth the extra $50 to have a better lens. My concern with posting a budget was I just didn't want people telling me "Oh you should just save up for this $800 lens instead its WAY better" well...of course its better...still doesn't mean I can afford it lol.

I ended up getting it on amazon.com as a kit for $269 with a UV filter, hood, a cleaning kit for my camera and a cleaning kit for the lens, since I didn't have any of those accessories, and I know I definitely need at least the cleaning kits!

Thanks for your advice :D I hope I'm happy with the lens, I'm sure I'll be happy with the pictures for a while until I can afford better lenses

the thing is, for the price you are talking about you aren't going to get much of a zoom with a wide aperture which you need for low light( guessing the concerts etc are indoors). the IS will allow you a few stops lower but you are still talking about 5.6 at the long end of the zoom. so not sure you will be totally happy for one lens for both things

Yeah I know I'm going to need different lenses for concerts....I don't really need to worry about zoom so much at concerts since if I get a photopass I'm in the photo pit (in between the barrier and the stage...closer than the audience can get :banana: :banana: ) My photographer friend recommended that I should get a fast lens but then again he is the one who recommended that I get the lens you guys all told me NOT to get hahaha.
While I'm taking your suggestions, anyone want to recommend me a lens for concerts? (bad lighting, musicians running around fast...) I took some pictures at a concert last night (Take Action Tour...Cute is What We Aim For was the headliner, I don't know if anyone here knows them...) and I'll post them when they go on my computer but it is taking forever :headache: :mad:

Anyways thanks for the suggestions everyone! I am sure I'll be happy with the 55-250