- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 475
I'm talking about cameras that have 42x optical zoom i.e. 25-1000mm. Why is it only bridge cameras that seem to have this feature?
Why do bridge cameras have ridiculous zoom ranges?
- Thread starter support_bae
- Start date
They can fit that sort of lens on the front because of the stupidly small sensor behind it resulting in garbage image quality mixed with something thats totally unusable hand held.
I honestly don't see the point in them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,298
- Location
- Bristol
And because to the average person, it'll look better on paper than one which doesn't zoom as much.
Because they can.
Camera/lens design is all about tradeoff. If you have more of one thing, you have less of another. There are lots of variables that designers can play with, but if you adjust one, others will move as a result. Some of the variable include:
Cost
Aperture
Sensor size
Weight
Lens length
lens diameter
Zoom factor
Resolution
Light sensitivity
Sensor noise
Focal length
When you live in the 35mm sensor world, getting a long focal length with a large aperture (small f-stop) means large size, lots of weight and lots of money. 400mm f2.8 will cost you £8k (prime - forget about zoom). It will weigh nearly 4Kg and people will rave about how light it is. If you talk about 600mm f2.8, people will think you are a loony.
When move to the bridge camera world, you reduce the sensor size (which costs you some noise and resolution) but you can also get the equivalent of 25-600mm at f2.8 for pocket change: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/fz200/index.html
I'm thinking about getting one myself... I can't always take 20kg of glass with me.
Andrew
It's a marketing tactic - most megapixels, longest zoom etc. I used a Canon S5IS until recently (14x optical zoom I think, which was a lot when it was released in 2006ish). It was still possible to get good quality images with it, though usually only in good light.
I must admit I was tempted with that new 50x zoom Canon when I saw it zoom right up to the Moon's craters...
I must admit I was tempted with that new 50x zoom Canon when I saw it zoom right up to the Moon's craters...
Compact cameras also have stupid high zoom levels now as well....
My HX20V Digital compact camera has
20x Optical Zoom
40x Clear Image Zoom
Last edited:
It's easier to say 30x than say 28-800mm equivalent etc. because nobody has any idea what that is in that market. I don't think I've ever seen any actual lengths given like 3mm-70mm simply because it highlights how tiny and pathetic the sensors are.
My prime reason for upgrading to a DSLR instead of the Canon SX50 (50x zoom) was that while the reach on my current bridge 16x zoom Sony (64x with digital!) was enough to fill the frame the image quality it produced at that zoom was terrible, really really terrible and I didn't want to get the same end result with yet another superzoom.
^^ Digital zoom is just cropping, it's a marketing sham to compensate for people making rubbish bridge cameras with 20 30 50x optical zooms that are rubbish throughout the range. It allowed manufacturers to make a slightly less awful camera for the wider end of the zoom range but still being able to say 60x zoom etc.
I just use the max focal length (x1.52 on a crop) / 24 when people ask what the zoom is because it's easier than trying to explain zoom.
So my 70-300mm is a 19x zoom on my D7000. 
Last edited:
Does it?
At that sort of distance, heat haze, dust and water vapour in the air between photographer and subject have a huge impact on the quality of the image.
Without an image taken with different equipment to compare to, i can't tell whether I am looking at issues with the lens or the air.
By way of illustration, here is an animated GIF that I made to illustrate the mess that the atmosphere was making of my subject over a distance of just a few 10's of meters on a sunny day. Taken with £10k of Canon 800mm f5.6 lens and I just couldn't get a sharp image. All the problems were between lens and subject.
Yes of course it does. If you struggled with with a D800 & £10k 800mm lens to get anything usable then it just shows the pointless nature of it in a £300 compact.
With a bridge camera you are already starting from a position of low image quality from a small sensor.
Mix that with the degradation of the image as the zoom get further out, the need for higher ISO's due to loss of light and then throw in the environmental effects such as those you have highlighted and it all points to results that are not worth the effort.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
bridge camera's have there place
I have kept mine as at the download festival they don't let you in with a DSLR
I have had my camera checked by security when going in a few times and at another gig I have been stopped taking the DSLR in and have had to take it back to the car.
you cant always use or want to take the DSLR and the bridge camera does just fine
I have kept mine as at the download festival they don't let you in with a DSLR
I have had my camera checked by security when going in a few times and at another gig I have been stopped taking the DSLR in and have had to take it back to the car.
you cant always use or want to take the DSLR and the bridge camera does just fine
Download with a DSLR
After some of the pits I've been in I'm scared taking my 10y/o mobile phone never-mind a decent camera you loon Thats a good point, I was thinking about selling my 16x Sony but stopped myself for this very reason.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
Download with a DSLR
Thats a good point, I was thinking about selling my 16x Sony but stopped myself for this very reason.
lol I stay away from the pits
but they don't let you in the gate with a DSLR anyway