# High optical zoom cameras



## CubaMark

The first thing I do whenever I get my hands on a friend or family member's point-and-shoot is to go into the menus and disable the digital zoom. Seriously - that's just a bad design idea added by the marketing department.

With that in mind, I'm always keeping my eyes open for high-optical-zoom cameras. My Canon S3 IS is a great not-quite-a-DSLR with a 12x optical zoom.

Now, Nikon has released an attractive model with a wicked 36x wide-angle zoom 



(Gizmag)

Any other models coming to market we should look at?


----------



## eMacMan

Too bad it seems to be the small sized sensor. Other than that looks like a winner.


----------



## SINC

I use the Nikon Coolpix 8800 with 10X optical zoom and love it (see link to it in Gizmag story). Although this is a nice camera, I doubt I will move up just yet.


----------



## egremont

Wondering if this camera or one with similar specs would calm my yen to try digiscoping. Certainly cheaper than a scoping set up.


----------



## Guest

eMacMan said:


> Too bad it seems to be the small sized sensor. Other than that looks like a winner.


The small sensor is what allows them to do such big zooms without having to have a big bucks super long lens.


----------



## Max

'zackly. You want a bigger sensor for better image quality, you have to put up with less zoom. Optical logic, I'm afraid.

Too, the bigger the optical zoom, the more important a good image stabilization technology becomes.


----------



## Guest

Yep agreed, IS is very important, especially when you get into long lenses .. for that matter for long zooms so are tripods


----------



## Max

Tripods, fersure fersure.

I think these ultra long zoom bridge cams are cool if you're a birder. Otherwise, I would rather have a more modest zoom in combination with a significantly larger sensor, while still remaining in a smaller package.


----------



## z2000000

Quality seems to drop so dramatically with the longer zooms. I like the theory, not the execution so much. Even with IS, the speed of most long lenses is waaay too slow for me.


----------



## z2000000

By long lens, I mean big optical zoom. I like my actual long lenses, even when they aren't actually long.

Stop s******ing.


----------



## eMacMan

Been very happy with my Kodak Z915 and its 10:1 zoom. The stabilization is phenomenal and does not depend on high ISOs or fast shutter speeds. Steady shots at 350mm equivalent right down to 1/30th of a second. My major complaint with this camera complaint is the lack of a machine gun burst feature. Images do require more colour tweaking than Canon or Nikon but that is not an issue for me.

With the high Megapixel count P&S cameras one should not confuse over-interpolation with a poor quality image. Shoot at around 3 MPs and the images will seem sharp right out to 100%. Use maximum resolution and it will be very obvious that the pixel count exceeds the image captured.


----------



## Kleles

RyanJoseph said:


> So far so good. I haven't used it much yet, but everything seems great, although there is still a bunch to learn. The 12x zoom is incredible, but holding steady is really a problem for me....


What equipment are you referring to?


----------



## krs

Max said:


> 'zackly. You want a bigger sensor for better image quality, you have to put up with less zoom. Optical logic, I'm afraid.
> 
> Too, the bigger the optical zoom, the more important a good image stabilization technology becomes.


Can someone specify what constitutes a small and a large sensor?

I see specs such as 1/2.5" - does that mean the sensor is 0.4 inches (what?) - obviously not diameter since I assume the sensor is rectangular.


----------



## eMacMan

Large sensors are typically found on good DSLRs the sensor size is ~12mm x 16 mm. Typical lens focal lengths will range from 12 mm for a very wide angle (24mm equivalent) upwards.

Almost all smaller P & S cameras use a much smaller sensor ~4.1mm x 5.5mm. Typically these cameras do not really capture any more than a 3MP images with the 8, 12 or even 14 MP claims really being interpolated from that smaller image via software. Often one will look at the max resolution images at 100% and conclude the lens is not sharp or there must have been camera motion. Truth is there are more pixels than image captured. That having been said these cameras are quite capable of producing very crisp 8x10 prints and may even do OK with some subjects at larger sizes. These cameras will usually have a modest wide angle focal length of 5.5 or 6mm and then zoom in as much as 10-15 times depending on make and size of camera. That 6 mm is roughly the equivalent of a 35 mm lens on these cameras.

Eg. My Olympus Tough has a 5-18mm zoom lens which is about equal to a 28-100mm zoom on a 35 mm camera. Honestly if I shoot at 2MP and interpolate to 12MP the results are identical to shooting at 12 MP.


----------



## Max

Certain compacts use larger sensors... the Panasonic LX series, for example. My LX-5 has also got nice wide Leica glass (24mm). Makes for pretty crisp results for such a little cam. These beasts are much closer to an entry-level DSLR for image quality because the sensor is far larger than your typical point and shoot. I think Canon's got one or two models like this, as well.

Not all compacts are created equal - check the specs before you take the plunge.


----------



## Max

Krs, perhaps this will help clarify relative sensor sizes.

Also changing the game are the mirrorless cameras segment, especially Sonys offerings, and the micro four thirds family of cameras, which offer very good image quality in surprisingly compact form factors.

I'm looking at getting a Panny GH2 or possibly the new Sony A77 that's supposed to be hitting the market in the coming months.

Exciting times for shooters, methinks.


----------



## krs

Thanks for the quick replies.
Checking the specs is exactly what I'm doing - I understand what was posted but can't relate it to the typical spec like this one:










So the sensor here is specified as 1/2.5" and 6.2M pixels
1/2.5 inches or 0.4 inches (if that is what they mean) equates to 10.16mm - is that one of the dimensions of the actual sensor?
Horizontal? Vertical? Diagonal? or none of those.
Also - when the spec says 6.2M pixels, I expect the sensor to have that many pixels but The next line below states 6.0M *effective* pixels which to me means the* real* number of physical pixels is less.
So from this type of spec which is very common, how do I tell what the *actual size* of the sensor is and how many *real* pixels it has.
And most important - how does that translate into resolution of the photograph?


----------



## krs

Max said:


> Krs, perhaps this will help clarify relative sensor sizes.


Thanks, that explains sensor sizes.

What about the number of pixels?
It seemed from eMacMan's reply that a 12 Mpixel camera doesn't have a sensor with 12 million pixels but a sensor with a lot fewer *real* pixels which are then somehow interpolated by software to the 12M number.


----------



## Max

That's where my understanding breaks down and gets fuzzy. I only tend to pay attention to how many usable pixels there are.

Sensor size is but one factor. The quality of the optics is yet another.

You kind of have to know what you want in a camera first... things like how portable you want it to be, whether it's a system camera or just an all-in-one unit that's easy to carry around... whether you like wide glass or not, whether image stability or great jpegs out of the box are what turn your crank, etc. Another factor is how fast the camera is - as is how well it performs in low lighting conditions. Do you want to shoot sports or are you more into landscapes or cityscapes? They're all relevant to what your ultimate camera choice will be.


----------



## Kleles

I have recently downsized from a 6 year old Panasonic Lumix FZ20 to a Lumix ZS8. I love my old camera, but I got tired of travelling with it - its size and bulk are a factor when packing and flying. I've had the ZS8 for about a week, and so far it has met all my expectations. I like the wide angle (24mm equiv.) to telephoto (384mm equiv.) optical zoom and the stabilizer seems to work very well. The only thing I miss, and I knew this going in, is the absence of a hot-shoe for flash. But, If I foresee it's need, I can still use my FZ20 with my old Vivitar flash (with low-tirgger voltage adapter).


----------



## krs

Max said:


> You kind of have to know what you want in a camera first... things like how portable you want it to be, whether it's a system camera or just an all-in-one unit that's easy to carry around... whether you like wide glass or not, whether image stability or great jpegs out of the box are what turn your crank, etc. Another factor is how fast the camera is - as is how well it performs in low lighting conditions. Do you want to shoot sports or are you more into landscapes or cityscapes? They're all relevant to what your ultimate camera choice will be.


I have pretty much gone through that already.
It's just amazing how many different models there are to chose from even after one decides on the type and the basic specs and reads tons of reviews so I thought sensor size might be a parameter to help focus in on a smaller number.
I also like to understand of the stated resolution is directly comparable between makes - that prompted the last question.

Reminds me of LCD panels, 6-bit vs 8-bit where the resolution specified was almost the same but one was interpolated.


----------



## eMacMan

Kleles said:


> I have recently downsized from a 6 year old Panasonic Lumix FZ20 to a Lumix ZS8. I love my old camera, but I got tired of travelling with it - its size and bulk are a factor when packing and flying. I've had the ZS8 for about a week, and so far it has met all my expectations. I like the wide angle (24mm equiv.) to telephoto (384mm equiv.) optical zoom and the stabilizer seems to work very well. The only thing I miss, and I knew this going in, is the absence of a hot-shoe for flash. But, If I foresee it's need, I can still use my FZ20 with my old Vivitar flash (with low-tirgger voltage adapter).


You can also get a small adapter that triggers the secondary flash when the built-in flash goes off. That way voltage does not matter in the slightest as it would not be triggered by the camera. Some of those old Vivitar flashes could stun geese in flight. May dig mine out of storage one of these days.


----------



## Kleles

eMacMan said:


> You can also get a small adapter that triggers the secondary flash when the built-in flash goes off. That way voltage does not matter in the slightest as it would not be triggered by the camera. Some of those old Vivitar flashes could stun geese in flight. May dig mine out of storage one of these days.



Mine is a Vivitar 283 - a "blaster." I'm interested in your suggestion about a slave trigger. It could work well on my flash bar. Do you have a specific model in mind?
Thanks


----------



## Max

Krs, my sympathies. The compact market is very, very crowded and the mix of features is both exciting and bewildering.

In my experience no single factor makes me buy a particular camera, and all camera choices are trade-offs one way or anther. Sometimes you simply have to take the plunge and go with instinct.


----------

