Help me decide to buy a camera for telephoto shots ?

[MINUS12]

Basically im looking for a decent well priced quality camera and lens for for shooting very long distances (something like 30x zoom)with sharp pictures . Problem is im stuck between buying a bridge camera and dlsr


Reason being that the dslr route seems a lot more expensive and that you need to buy multiple lenses ,fliters,tripods,etc. I feel its a bit over the top but maybe thats just me.


Originally i was going to buy these superzoom bridge cameras the Fuji Finepix S9600 or Samsung Pro 815, they seem very tempting considering the price vs features and the both have very long zooms ( i want longer than 15x zoom)but also they both have their limitations compared to dslr.


Then i considered these Dslrs but was slightly put off but the prices:

Nikon d80

Canon d400

And one of these lenses to go with them :

Tamron 200-500mm F5-6.3 AF SP Di LD (IF)

Sigma 170-500 f5-6.3 DG APO Lens


I dont know the layman terms for dlsr i just know the bridge interpretations like 10x,12x,etc.


What do you think i should do to get high quality long shots, will the above lenses give me more than 15x zoom, or should i just get a superzoom bridge?



Thanks a lot...

 

[L0rdMike]

30x zoom err, the lenses you picked are 2.5x and 2.9x.

Dont think there is a 18-540 lens around?

 

[33L]

dslrs are more expensive however they will produce superior pictures. As for the bridge cameras i know you can get a teleconverter which effectively doubles your magnification. How good they are i dont know.

the dslrs you have quoted are quite capable without going into a nikon/canon argument. I cant comment on the lenses though as i have no experience with them.

 

[MINUS12]

Thanks guys


How come these bridge cameras can do 15 x zoom , are these correct ratings

So what would be the best dlsr lense for me.

Im stuck ?

 

[Messiah Khan]

Thanks guys


How come these bridge cameras can do 15 x zoom , are these correct ratings


Im stuck ?

15X zoom for example is a bad way of descripting how 'close' you can get to a subject as the rating depends on how wide the lens goes as well. On a full frame SLR (Ie, the old film cameras) a 50mm lens gives you about the same field of view as your eyes. Anything less than this, ie 10mm, 30mm etc is considered as a wideangle lens. Anything more than 50mm, ie 300mm is considered as a telephoto lens. What you are after is a long telephoto lens. However its not quite as simple as this as something called 'crop factor' comes into play. This basically means that the smaller the sensor in the camera, the larger the image will appear (As the sensor is only showing a smaller portion of the centre of the image produced by the lens.) Im not sure what focal length bridge cameras have, but I suspect its the equivalent of 18-300mm ish.

When you say sharp pictures, it depends on how sharp you mean. At the long end of a Bridge camera you are going to be really pushing the lens, and to get the best results you should really be using a tripod to minimise camera shake. If you go down the DSLR route, then expect to potentially pay LOTS of money for sharp super telephoto lenses.(Ie, many thousands of pounds).

Edit; Another option to consider is Digiscoping.

 

[robmiller]

Thanks guys


How come these bridge cameras can do 15 x zoom , are these correct ratings

So what would be the best dlsr lense for me.

Im stuck ?

A 600mm prime is a 1x zoom, but it'll get you a million times closer to your subject than a bridge camera will. Zoom multiplication is not magnification.

 

[robmiller]

a 50mm lens gives you about the same field of view as your eyes.

This is silly, btw. Our eyes are ultrawides, far far wider than 50mm. Bad ultrawides at that (try and make out the detail of a stationary object in your peripheral vision, for example: it's worse than even a Sigma 10-20 ).

A better rule of thumb for what makes lenses "normal" is that their focal length is the same size as the diameter of the film/sensor. The diagonal of 135 film is ~44mm, so 45mm and 50mm lenses are generally deemed "normal" for that film; the diagonal of a cropped sensor on a DSLR is ~27mm, so 28mm and 30mm lenses are generally deemed "normal" on those.

 

[GeX]

what are you are taking picturegraphs of? knowing that will help with picking the most suited kit. also what is your budget?

At full zoom, a S9600 is around f/4.9 300mm and lacks an image stabliser.. and the samsung will be f/4.6 at 420mm

 

[MINUS12]

Well i want to shoot boats ie: tugs,trawlers,rescue on the sea from a long distance.


Also shooting aerial masts which are 10 miles away in the night which light up beautifully

 

[rpstewart]

Well i want to shoot boats ie: tugs,trawlers,rescue on the sea from a long distance.

Even with a 400mm lens on a 1.6x crop body I used to struggle to get a small boat to fill the frame from anything more than about 200yds. Any further than that and it needs to be a big subject or it'll be very small

Also shooting aerial masts which are 10 miles away in the night which light up beautifully

Just get closer to them

 

[Messiah Khan]

This is silly, btw. Our eyes are ultrawides, far far wider than 50mm. Bad ultrawides at that (try and make out the detail of a stationary object in your peripheral vision, for example: it's worse than even a Sigma 10-20 ).

A better rule of thumb for what makes lenses "normal" is that their focal length is the same size as the diameter of the film/sensor. The diagonal of 135 film is ~44mm, so 45mm and 50mm lenses are generally deemed "normal" for that film; the diagonal of a cropped sensor on a DSLR is ~27mm, so 28mm and 30mm lenses are generally deemed "normal" on those.

Yeah I realise that. Its easier to say that 50mm is standard on a full frame though. Our eyes are as you say ultrawides, but only the centre portion (Ie the 50mm bit) of that is actually considered as focused, the rest being peripheral vision.