PDA

View Full Version : You don't need the insane zoom that camera makers are shilling



tandeejay
11-03-2015, 2:44pm
Just came across this interesting article on Gizmodo about cameras with super zoom capabilities:

http://reframe.gizmodo.com/you-dont-need-the-insane-zoom-that-camera-makers-are-sh-1689268277 (http://reframe.gizmodo.com/you-dont-need-the-insane-zoom-that-camera-makers-are-sh-1689268277)

love the pic of the 2000mm DSLR lens :D

ameerat42
11-03-2015, 4:08pm
What!?!?! A bit early for an April Fool's story. :D:D

He's right, though. A lens/camera/gizmo that's all things to all people. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

bowjac
11-03-2015, 8:04pm
24-2000 zoom!!!! There better be some mind blowing Image Stabilisation on that.

macmich
11-03-2015, 8:13pm
pretty strong flash setup

tandeejay
11-03-2015, 10:07pm
I've got the P520 and with its 24 - 1000mm equiv I find the long end of the zoom soft. Would hate to see what the longer P900 is like...

arthurking83
12-03-2015, 6:24pm
Just came across this interesting article on Gizmodo about cameras with super zoom capabilities ......

Errr .. I dunno about the article being interesting!

The author of the article is making an assessment based purely on a hypothesis .. and (basically) a negatively biased one at that too!

While it may transpire that (as is expected) that the camera may underperform at the long end of the focal length range .. it's not always a given that it WILL(as he speculates it will).

There is a difference between will and could.
So, he really should make a point to specify that his comments are based purely on an expectation .. and not simply make statements that the camera has shown not to be sharp and clean at making images!

And I'm curious as to what he means when he says:


"what you end up with are foggy-looking photos with high levels of smeary refraction, and low levels of detail and contrast"

Is he saying that the Nikon P900 produces some weird distorted images due to refraction or something?
We all know that refraction is the 'bending' of light into it's individual wavelength components.
(I guess he means diffraction .. not refraction)

Anyhow ... my overall assessment of this specific article is ... KR v2.0