Help me choose a good value bridge/superzoom camera please

[Wonderful Pork]

Single me out - I've read a brazillion "equivalence" articles in the last 6 months.

But the context here is against another 1/2.3" sensor in the SX40/50.
The SX50 starts at 3.4 on the wide end and ends up at 6.5 (!!!!) on the long end.

In this context, that f2.8 of the Panny compared to f6.5 of the Canon is a TERRIFIC difference.

That was my point.

Yup, and it was a good point to make, the Panasonic has a far superior aperture compared to the Canon.

Again, I find equivalence comes into play when you see a photo and try and mimic it with another camera. If we're talking same sensor size, its a non-issue. If you're taking photos in a vacuum and don't care about this stuff, then its irrelevant as well.

I was taking umbrage with the vendor/amazon page saying 24-600 f/2.8, when it really isn't quite equivalent to that. It would be better describe as 24-600 f/15 35mm equivalent, for what its worth.

 

[ElFenix]

Yup, and it was a good point to make, the Panasonic has a far superior aperture compared to the Canon.

Again, I find equivalence comes into play when you see a photo and try and mimic it with another camera. If we're talking same sensor size, its a non-issue. If you're taking photos in a vacuum and don't care about this stuff, then its irrelevant as well.

I was taking umbrage with the vendor/amazon page saying 24-600 f/2.8, when it really isn't quite equivalent to that. It would be better describe as 24-600 f/15 35mm equivalent, for what its worth.

could do absolute apertures and angle of view

 

[CuriousMike]

Again, I find equivalence comes into play when you see a photo and try and mimic it with another camera.

Now days, not only does the camera come into play, but your post-processing skills.

When I see a photo that I think is truly exceptional, it's hard to know how much of it is
a) the camera + lens
b) the lighting
c) the photographers ability to "paint" the exposure in PS.

I was a total amateur snob a few years back, "If it's PP'd, you can't like it. That's illegal."

Photography isn't just the camera + lens nowadays.

 

[blastingcap]

Yup, and it was a good point to make, the Panasonic has a far superior aperture compared to the Canon.

Again, I find equivalence comes into play when you see a photo and try and mimic it with another camera. If we're talking same sensor size, its a non-issue. If you're taking photos in a vacuum and don't care about this stuff, then its irrelevant as well.

I was taking umbrage with the vendor/amazon page saying 24-600 f/2.8, when it really isn't quite equivalent to that. It would be better describe as 24-600 f/15 35mm equivalent, for what its worth.

Ugh that's the Tony Northrup line and is technically not correct for reasons that would take WAY too long to explain here.

That said, the rule of thumb where you have to multiply both the focal length and aperture by the crop factor is true to a first approximation. It SHOULD say 24-600 f/15 equivalent both in terms of depth of field, and in terms of noise-equivalency.

 

[Wonderful Pork]

Now days, not only does the camera come into play, but your post-processing skills.

When I see a photo that I think is truly exceptional, it's hard to know how much of it is
a) the camera + lens
b) the lighting
c) the photographers ability to "paint" the exposure in PS.

I was a total amateur snob a few years back, "If it's PP'd, you can't like it. That's illegal."

Photography isn't just the camera + lens nowadays.

Again - completely agree. But you have to be in the ballpark, no amount of post processing can fix a "bad" photo, especially regarding noise & focus (as I'm finding from my Honeymoon pictures).

I wouldn't even consider myself a decent photographer - but I'm headed to Disney soon and so I looked up some pictures others took for practice ideas. Kind of like looking at a recipe while cooking. At the same settings (not equivalent), my RX100 will produce a different image than my D5300 versus the 5DM3+L glass from the example pictures EXIF. Even if I shoot RAW. Even if I PP the crap out of them in LR or DXO.

So, that's all my point is - calling half the specs "equivalent" is marketing BS and misleading. I do understand the full technical reasons why you don't have to calculate equivalent aperture and ISO, I really get it, the focal length and aperture don't change when you put it in front of a different sensor, but the effect of the focal length and aperture absolutely depend on the sensor size.

Ugh that's the Tony Northrup line and is technically not correct for reasons that would take WAY too long to explain here.

That said, the rule of thumb where you have to multiply both the focal length and aperture by the crop factor is true to a first approximation. It SHOULD say 24-600 f/15 equivalent both in terms of depth of field, and in terms of noise-equivalency.

OK, how about we say that the Panny superzoom would let in the equivalent amount of light as a 35mm 24-600 f/15? That means they have the same field of view and the same iris diameter, which in my mind, makes it a better measuring stick, versus saying the field of view is the same, but letting people think that the iris diameter is the same as the 35mm lens, which would be a whopping 8.57mm at 24mm focal length.

The "24mm" iris diameter of the Panny is 1.71mm (about f/14 equivalent on 35mm).

Again, I'm not talking photography for experienced photographers (in which case the gear matters less and less versus how you frame it, etc) - just your average Joe walking into Best Buy and thinking his $400 panny is the same as a $3k body + $20k lens cause the box said so it was 24-600 f/2.8 or whatever.