Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Anyone using one to good effect?
Went to a local nature reserve armed with my Lumix G1 & 45-200mm lens but I reckon i need some more zoomability. I'm not looking for award winning quality (which would be totally acceptable) but has anyone any suggestions for a superzoom that costs less than a big fat lens?
My Lumix TZ 60 has a pretty decent zoom, here's two pics taken from the same location in the field above the centre of Aviemore looking towards the Cairngorm Furnicular railway on the hill, both handheld pics.
[img] 
[/img]
And same pic,same location/time and fully zoomed in
[img] 
[/img]
another two, these were taken on my "For Jenn" bike ride, again same location/time and fully zoomed in.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
A fair bit of camera shake in that image but you can definitely see it's a jet rather than a seagull 😉
I'm probly more interested in taking pitchers of birds & stuff than aircraft at 30,000ft but what zooms is the TZ60?
Equivalent of a 24-720 in 35mm according to below review
[url= http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/reviews/compact-cameras/panasonic-lumix-tz60-review ]whatdigitalcamera review here[/url]
Cheers Soma. Looking at something around the 800-1000mm 35mm equivalent but under the £280 price tag of a Lumix 100-300mm lens for my G1
The new TZ70 has fewer pixels but the same zoom and better image quality
[url= http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/roundup/cameracomparison-roundup/panasonic-lumix-tz70-vs-panasonic-lumix-tz60-61203 ]TZ60 vs TZ70 here[/url]
If you shop around i imagine you'll find the TZ70 under your price range
Cheers Soma. Looking at something around the 800-1000mm 35mm equivalent but under the £280 price tag of a Lumix 100-300mm lens for my G1
I'd be surprised if you get better results from a super zoom rather than upscaling.
Beyond 200mm I'd be budgeting for a tripod as well if I were you.
'super-zoom' cameras generally have tiny sensors.
And all that zoom packed into a 'normal' camera means the lens aperture is also tiny.
tiny aperture + tiny sensor makes for poor low light performance.
if you're looking to take pictures of critters, you need something 'fast'.
proceed with caution, and be prepared for frustration when a family of Golden eagles soars magnificently past your hide at dusk, and your canon sx60* can't do better than a 4second exposure at iso 30,000**...
(*our 'super zoom' camera)
(**after taking about 10seconds to focus)
(out of focus)
The pictures are a bit washed out or grainy IMO. Fine for an identifying shot but not a great image. What about a 2nd hand manual lens maybe with an adapter to fit your g1?
1000mm manual focus lenses are for masochists 😯
The pictures are a bit washed out or grainy IMO. Fine for an identifying shot but not a great image. What about a 2nd hand manual lens maybe with an adapter to fit your g1?
I've looked around & can't find a 2nd hand 100-300mm lens, (well not a Lumix one) also I don't think there's a teleconverter available either.
Have you tried upscaling your 200? In camera digital zoom or in post. Again, I'd bet you'd better an 800-1000mm superzoom.
'super-zoom' cameras generally have tiny sensors.
+1. I recently changed from a bridge camera to a CSC with a bigger sensor and faster lens. I can take much better pictures now.
The pictures are a bit washed out or grainy IMO. Fine for an identifying shot but not a great image.
Pics were taken using fully automatic mode (or intelligent auto) on the lumix and they are jpegs without anything done to them, perhaps i should lean to use raw but that seems like such a faff. I guess i should use my copy of PSE as well but it's still sitting in the box, i only bought it 3 years ago so there's time yet to install it 😳
Sorry, that wasn't a dig at your pictures, more a sweeping generalisation of super zoom cameras. In fact the same is often true of even mildly zoomed images from compact cameras.Pics were taken using fully automatic mode...
No worries nickjb - absolutely no offence in your post and i realise the failings of such a camera. All i want is a point n' shoot pocket camera with the ability to tinker if i can be arsed to find out what does what.
I find i use the zoom most to explore hillsides looking for possible trails rather than taking pics 😀
some lumix 100-300s on ebay for £276 new :
you would need a tripod though to get decent results and a fast shutter speed - I think the rule is 1/length but you should use the effective length so 1/600.
I have one, use it to take piccies of the wife when she is sailing.
A superzoom with a small sensor is not going to get anywhere near the IQ I reckon.
No point getting a lens that long without stabilisation. Unless you're prepared to lug around a tripod.
[img] 
[/img]
£95.30 420-800 :
note the lens collar.
I have a TZ70 and it is a good take-anywhere camera. True the image quality is a bit variable and aperture range restricted but I have managed to get some reasonable hand held shots at full zoom. It's never going to be an SLR though.Compact Cameras are nearly always compromised in some way so you takes your choice. I'm generally very happy with the TZ70 though. The RX100 is a very good camera but I wanted a longer zoom range and a (very useful) viewfinder so had to make the choice.
TZ100 is coming out soon, but only 10x zoom I think. 1 inch sensor though.
I've got a Sony HX90
[url= http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dschx90v ]DP Review - Sony HX90[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
I also have a decent Canon SLR. The Canon does take nice photos, but it never usually makes it out of the house due to the faff. Since getting this camera we have taken way more photos. The picture quality is 90% as good as the SLR (if you can quantify such a thing). The zoom is the best bit though - the clarity from a long distance is astounding.
Downsides are:
- menu system isn't as intuitive as the Cannon
- the flash and viewfinder requires you to manually pop them up
Unless you're prepared to lug around a tripod.
Luckily my Manfrotto carbon job doesn't weigh much (except it's got my spotting scope on) 8)
Your 45-200 has stabilisation built in - so its already doing you a lot of favors .
Your G1 will take almost any lens with an adaptor - but you will be manual focus and no stabilisation .
Get a monopod otherwise your results will be based on luck and you will get tired.
A superzoom is not a great investment new - perhaps secondhand - so any have image stabilisation ?
Best investment might be the Panasonic lens and a monopod.
'super-zoom' cameras generally have tiny sensors.
It's the tiny sensor that allows them to have such a large optical zoom with a small lens, combined with larger pixel density (at the cost of more noise). Small sensors and lenses are cropping the field of view but increasing the resolution in the cropped area to give an effective zoom.
Optically there are many differences, in particular a far less shallow depth of field available.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Here's the current view from the rear patio door, taken with a Sony Z3 Compact phone:
[img] 
[/img]
and here's the top right of the tree in the distance with a G6 and the lumix 100-300mm at 300, auto-iso and 1/640 shutter - and 2 second timer:
[img] 
[/img]
and here's the branch in the foreground of that tree.
[img] 
[/img]
but with 10 seconds on the timer.
The tripod is carbon and lightweight - normally I would reuse a remote shutter and possibly hang a weighty bag from the middle of the tripod to solidify it.
Didn't spend too much timer on the focusing on the first one and only a little more on the second one.
stabilization in the lens is off as that is what some people recommend, although I haven't experimented myself.
I've got a Lumix FZ72 (60x zoom) and get great results to my eye - not pro quality - it's obvious that you're going to lose something by having one lens with such a wide capabiltiy, and i'm no Pro, but perfectly good for fairly decent quality photo's that look good when printed on large pictures for hanging on the wall. Definately better than a compact camera using a digital zoom and less hassle and overkill than a DSLR with a bag full of expensive lenses. Depends what you want out of your camera.
Unfortunately the model is discontinued and I don't think there is an equivalent in their current model line up.
The FZ200, which has been replaced so you can probably get it for a good price, goes to 600 equiv and holds 2.8 all the way through.
[img] 
[/img]
These cameras have come on a long way!
My Konica Minolta Z3 had the longest optical zoom on a bridge camera when it came out (around about 2004/5, I think) and that was 12x optical, with a stabilised sensor.