Anyone here with a DSLR also using a P&S super zoom

[vbuggy]

Let's take astroidea's assertion and extrapolate it to reality.

I don't have the NEX or the SX30 with me at the moment, but I do have the Leica X1 and the HS20 to hand.

As I said, with an APS-C DSLR the maximum sort of focal length you'll get for the same size as these superzooms in a short zoom is around 135mm. So let's extrapolate the 135mm APS-C vs ~400mm superzoom compact comparison to a 35mm vs 105mm (i.e. 400/135 = ~3, so we'll do 105mm vs 35mm), with the Leica standing in for a DSLR.

I shot the headphone from 60" away in challenging light conditions - it's getting dark and there's a soft, relatively dim light behind me.

First, the unmolested JPEG crop of the earcup from from the Leica X1:

Now let's take a look at an unmolested crop of the Fuji shooting at the same 35mm focal length (Oh all right, it wasn't exactly at 35, but close enough).

So I think we've established the level of inferiority of a compact sensor against an APS-C sensor. But let's deploy that zoom, dial in 105mm and shoot/crop the same thing, resizing it to the same image size.

I don't think you even need to squint to see which is better.

Bottom line is that superzooms give you options and versatility in one box, at the expense of outright image quality. As I said if you shoot using the lens rather than the sensor, it definitely generates good-enough results.

 

[Throckmorton]

Zoom is really underrated.

1x:

20x:

The caveat is that at full zoom you get a little fuzziness. It's not apparent on pictures resized for the internet. I'm guessing with a DSLR and a giant telephoto 20x lens, the image is sharp. But are you going to carry a lens the size of a baby on your vacation?

 

[Throckmorton]

Here's another 20x zoom pic. How are you going to crop something like this from 12 megapixels?

 

[Munky]

Zoom is overrated, IMO. What kind of vacation shot requires 800mm-equivalent zoom, that wouldn't look better if the lazy tourist bothered to walk closer instead of zooming in? You can argue that he might not be able to get closer, but chances are his 800mm shot is gonna look like crap compared to a closer one.

If you only have a wide or normal lens, then you chose and compose shots appropriate to that length. When I'm on vacation with only a 28mm-equivalent phone cam, I compose for wide-angle shots, and rarely do I miss having a 800mm zoom. Obviously if you're going on a safari, then you pick equipment for long zoom, and I wouldn't be dragging around wide-angle lenses in addition to a telephoto. Superzoom users probably fall into the same category as those DSLR enthusiasts who feel under-equipped on a vacation unless they're lugging around a body with a 24-70 f2.8 slung on one shoulder, with a second body and a hulking 70-200 f2.8 slung on the other shoulder, and a bag-full of filters, flashes and extra lenses around their waist.

 

[Throckmorton]

Zoom is overrated, IMO. What kind of vacation shot requires 800mm-equivalent zoom, that wouldn't look better if the lazy tourist bothered to walk closer instead of zooming in? You can argue that he might not be able to get closer, but chances are his 800mm shot is gonna look like crap compared to a closer one.

If you only have a wide or normal lens, then you chose and compose shots appropriate to that length. When I'm on vacation with only a 28mm-equivalent phone cam, I compose for wide-angle shots, and rarely do I miss having a 800mm zoom. Obviously if you're going on a safari, then you pick equipment for long zoom, and I wouldn't be dragging around wide-angle lenses in addition to a telephoto. Superzoom users probably fall into the same category as those DSLR enthusiasts who feel under-equipped on a vacation unless they're lugging around a body with a 24-70 f2.8 slung on one shoulder, with a second body and a hulking 70-200 f2.8 slung on the other shoulder, and a bag-full of filters, flashes and extra lenses around their waist.

But I just gave you examples of pictures that would be impossible without zoom!

 

[Munky]

But I just gave you examples of pictures that would be impossible without zoom!

Did you take those pics yourself, or copy from promotional marketing material taken with a professional camera by a professional photog? Extreme zoom photos are often plagued by softness and lack of contrast due to atmospheric interference with light. And I prefer the look of the wide shot in your example. The second shot might have been impossible without zoom, but that doesn't mean it's a good shot. A better photog would have gotten closer to the beach and the water instead of shooting the surfer from a hilltop using an 800mm zoom lens.

 

[A5]

Did you take those pics yourself, or copy from promotional marketing material taken with a professional camera by a professional photog? Extreme zoom photos are often plagued by softness and lack of contrast due to atmospheric interference with light. And I prefer the look of the wide shot in your example. The second shot might have been impossible without zoom, but that doesn't mean it's a good shot. A better photog would have gotten closer to the beach and the water instead of shooting the surfer from a hilltop using an 800mm zoom lens.

These cameras aren't designed for or marketed to people you would call photographers. They're for tourists who want to snap some pics while they're on vacation and don't care about any of the stuff you're talking about.

I can buy a Nikon 9100 super-zoom for $220 on Amazon - how much would I have to spend on a DSLR and lens to get a zoom picture at that distance?

 

[Throckmorton]

Did you take those pics yourself, or copy from promotional marketing material taken with a professional camera by a professional photog? Extreme zoom photos are often plagued by softness and lack of contrast due to atmospheric interference with light. And I prefer the look of the wide shot in your example. The second shot might have been impossible without zoom, but that doesn't mean it's a good shot. A better photog would have gotten closer to the beach and the water instead of shooting the surfer from a hilltop using an 800mm zoom lens.

I took the pics myself. I mentioned the softness at full zoom. There's also the haze that shows up over long distances, which is pretty bad here sometimes thanks to sugar cane harvesting and volcanic fog.

A lot of the time you can't get close. In that spot the hilltop is the only place with a good view of where the waves break. That's the whole point of having a camera that can go from 28mm to 700mm.

The bird was also shot at 20x IIRC, and I was already pretty close to it, probably 20ft. Zoom is great for taking pictures of small things at moderate distances.

 

[Munky]

These cameras aren't designed for or marketed to people you would call photographers. They're for tourists who want to snap some pics while they're on vacation and don't care about any of the stuff you're talking about.

I can buy a Nikon 9100 super-zoom for $220 on Amazon - how much would I have to spend on a DSLR and lens to get a zoom picture at that distance?

First, the 9100 is what I'd call a travel zoom - you can easily slip in into a pocket compared to a bulky superzoom like a Canon sx30, selling for $350 which is not pocketable by any reasonable measure. Second, you give up a lot of capabilities in exchange for that zoom. I personally would take the bigger sensor of a compact Canon s95 any day over some superzoom. Maybe some typical tourist doesn't care about anything but zoom, but even so, that zoom capability comes at a cost of other capabilities. There's no free lunch.

 

[sixone]

Zoom is overrated, IMO. What kind of vacation shot requires 800mm-equivalent zoom, that wouldn't look better if the lazy tourist bothered to walk closer instead of zooming in? You can argue that he might not be able to get closer, but chances are his 800mm shot is gonna look like crap compared to a closer one.

If you only have a wide or normal lens, then you chose and compose shots appropriate to that length. When I'm on vacation with only a 28mm-equivalent phone cam, I compose for wide-angle shots, and rarely do I miss having a 800mm zoom. Obviously if you're going on a safari, then you pick equipment for long zoom, and I wouldn't be dragging around wide-angle lenses in addition to a telephoto. Superzoom users probably fall into the same category as those DSLR enthusiasts who feel under-equipped on a vacation unless they're lugging around a body with a 24-70 f2.8 slung on one shoulder, with a second body and a hulking 70-200 f2.8 slung on the other shoulder, and a bag-full of filters, flashes and extra lenses around their waist.

If you're happy being limited, be happy. Doesn't mean anyone else should.

A less-than-perfect image is infinitely better than no image at all.

 

[vbuggy]

First, the 9100 is what I'd call a travel zoom - you can easily slip in into a pocket compared to a bulky superzoom like a Canon sx30, selling for $350 which is not pocketable by any reasonable measure. Second, you give up a lot of capabilities in exchange for that zoom. I personally would take the bigger sensor of a compact Canon s95 any day over some superzoom. Maybe some typical tourist doesn't care about anything but zoom, but even so, that zoom capability comes at a cost of other capabilities. There's no free lunch.

Which is why I carry an S90 as well, while some might carry phones. No-one says it's got to be your only camera - there's no need to brandish a superzoom at the evening party for example.

And by the way, 'bigger sensor' is, in comparison to a compact vs APS degree, almost irrelevant.

 

[ElFenix]

is there any IQ advantage to using a superzoom type rather than a travel zoom? most of the superzooms have the tiny sensor nowadays.

 

[vbuggy]

is there any IQ advantage to using a superzoom type rather than a travel zoom? most of the superzooms have the tiny sensor nowadays.

Better glass, in case it's not obvious

 

[Munky]

Better glass, in case it's not obvious

I never considered superzooms as having better glass. Would you say the Nikon 18-200 is better glass that something like an 16-85? Maybe if "better" means more zoom, but from what I've seen, the 18-200 lags behind in sharpness and distorts heavily. Again, there's no free lunch.

 

[Munky]

Which is why I carry an S90 as well, while some might carry phones. No-one says it's got to be your only camera - there's no need to brandish a superzoom at the evening party for example.

And by the way, 'bigger sensor' is, in comparison to a compact vs APS degree, almost irrelevant.

Compare side by side the dprevew test shots of Canon s95 against the sx20. The s95 easily has a 1 stop advantage in noise performance, not something I'd call irrelevant.

 

[yhelothar]

If you're happy being limited, be happy. Doesn't mean anyone else should.

A less-than-perfect image is infinitely better than no image at all.

I'm arguing that you can get about the same zoom capability per size with a superzoom DSLR lens and crop.

If you go a bit bigger with a 18-300mm lens, you might even end up with better image quality for the same framing you'd get with a superzoom P&S.

 

[Throckmorton]

is there any IQ advantage to using a superzoom type rather than a travel zoom? most of the superzooms have the tiny sensor nowadays.

Interesting.. The Sony HX100V has a 1/2.3" sensor, and the Panasonic ZS10 travel zoom has a 1/2.33". The HX100V does have a CMOS sensor while the ZS10 has a MOS (whatever that is).

But... the superzooms at least have bigger diameter lenses so they capture more light.

 

[Throckmorton]

Oh yeah, one advantage of a superzoom over a travel zoom is the viewfinder. I prefer taking pics through a viewfinder, and you get more stability because you don't have to hold it out in front of you.

 

[sixone]

I'm arguing that you can get about the same zoom capability per size with a superzoom DSLR lens and crop.

If you go a bit bigger with a 18-300mm lens, you might even end up with better image quality for the same framing you'd get with a superzoom P&S.

I have both, and 300 isn't close enough.

And if I'm in a situation where I need to go back and forth between wide angle and the end of the zoom, I either need two bodies or I'm missing shots while I'm changing lenses. Never mind getting dust inside while I'm swapping.

 

[alexruiz]

Pentax K100D dSLR as main system.
Panasonic Lumix ZS1 as backup
Panasonic Lumix LZ8 as backup of the backup

 

[ElFenix]

Better glass, in case it's not obvious

well, the diameter is better but there's still a ton of elements in each. i'd think moreso in the superzooms as they've had to pile on more Xes as travel zooms have gotten into the 10x+ range.

Interesting.. The Sony HX100V has a 1/2.3" sensor, and the Panasonic ZS10 travel zoom has a 1/2.33". The HX100V does have a CMOS sensor while the ZS10 has a MOS (whatever that is).

But... the superzooms at least have bigger diameter lenses so they capture more light.

the fuji hs20 uses a 1/2" sensor so it's slightly larger than the 1/2.33" sensor. but that's smaller than the former S200EXR's 1/1.6" sensor. panasonic used to put larger sensors in the FZx0 series, with a 1/1.8" in the FZ50 (compared to the smaller sensor 1/2.5" in the FZ7)

 

[vbuggy]

I'm arguing that you can get about the same zoom capability per size with a superzoom DSLR lens and crop.

If you go a bit bigger with a 18-300mm lens, you might even end up with better image quality for the same framing you'd get with a superzoom P&S.

Yes, but as I pointed out the argument is completely moot if you're in a situation where you just want to carry something reasonable and for it to be able to reach out when necessary.

Now, a mirrorless plus a 200 as I pointed out is more practical, but once again, there are the demerits I mentioned.

 

[corkyg]

Demasiado technobabble from folks who haven't been there or done that. Unless you have a DSLR and have also used a superzoom, your words are strictly opinion. Read OP's original question.

 

[vbuggy]

That's not going to stop people though is it. It's the internets

For the record, I will probably be buying an HS20 though I might hold out until I can fondle a SX40. Still, I'm happy enough with the HS20 and how it fits into the way I like shooting and where I intend to shoot.

 

[yhelothar]

Yes, but as I pointed out the argument is completely moot if you're in a situation where you just want to carry something reasonable and for it to be able to reach out when necessary.

Now, a mirrorless plus a 200 as I pointed out is more practical, but once again, there are the demerits I mentioned.

I don't understand this. How is a DSLR with a 28-300mm lens any less out of reach than a SX40? Sure it does weigh twice as much, about 2lbs vs 1lb, but both aren't going to fit in your pocket anyways and are most likely going to be strapped onto you. If you want to talk about something more reasonable, that's what travel zooms are for.

For the record, I had a Panasonic FZ20 and upgraded to a Pentax DSLR, albeit Pentax are known to make small and light DSLRs. I haven't found a need to take the FZ20 because it's more convenient. On the other hand, I have a Canon SD compact P&S that I sometimes take in place of the DSLR for convenience.