User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: You don't need the insane zoom that camera makers are shilling

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Veteran tandeejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 2015
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    3,128
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    You don't need the insane zoom that camera makers are shilling

    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


    love the pic of the 2000mm DSLR lens

  2. #2
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,830
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What!?!?! A bit early for an April Fool's story.

    He's right, though. A lens/camera/gizmo that's all things to all people.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    06 May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    24-2000 zoom!!!! There better be some mind blowing Image Stabilisation on that.
    “The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible” – Oscar Wilde

    My Flickr feed: http://www.flickr.com/photos/100090825@N04/

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Aug 2010
    Location
    shepparton
    Posts
    2,682
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    pretty strong flash setup

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    tandeejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 2015
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    3,128
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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...
    John Blackburn

    "Life is like a camera! Focus on what is important, capture the good times, develop from the negatives, and if things don't work out take another shot."


  6. #6
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tandeejay View Post
    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
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •