Help me choose a good value bridge/superzoom camera please

[TheNiceGuy]

Hi guys
I do a lot of photography. Mostly general stuff now with my iPhone 4s, and when my platform is working, some aerial photography with a gopro2. I've never owned a dedicated 'proper' camera and was looking at upgrading.
I'll stay with the gopro for aerial due to several technical issues. And the iphone can't be beat for availability, always in my pocket, lots of amazing shots that never would have happened otherwise.
Sorry, don't know the terminology and being a bit vague on desired specs - as I don't know how it will all unfold in "real life" use.
If it helps, The areas I noticed the limitations the most are no zoom (ie animals), poor low light performance(perhaps this is unavoidable in average price cameras?), difficult to adjust contrast/lighting etc (ie sunsets), image sharpness (ie all shots resolution), etc.
I guess at this point my idea is to get an easy to use, reasonable priced, best bang for buck, superzoom camera that does what my iphone cant. Keep it under 300$. I'm in Japan btw, Amazon Japan is convenient shopping.
The crazy 50x+ zoom cameras look like they'd open a new area of photography to me.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

As you might have noticed, if you glanced around this forum, the largest superzoom/bridge camera at the moment is the Canon SX60 with a 65x zoom, freshly announced at Photokina.

If that's outside your budget, you should consider its immediate predecessor, the SX50. It has a 50x zoom, which is still quite respectable, and is very likely to drop down in price, now that its successor is already coming to the market.

These cameras are also capable of taking 1080p/720p video with stereo sound and rich colours, which rival dedicated video cameras.

I particularly like the Canon superzooms, because they have swivel screens - which other camera makers don't usually implement, although they're really nice for any situation where you can't simply lift the camera to your eyes. These being said, Panasonic also makes really nice superzoom cameras, albeit with mostly fixed screens.

Do a bit of research, and you're bound to find something that fits your budget and needs.

 

[Rdmkr]

If you want something to replace an iphone you might want something more pocketable than the 9cm thick SXx0 series. Before I got my rx100 II I was looking into models like the Canon sx700 which fits that bill quite well. But from reviews I've read the sx700 is a bit on the flawed side, especially in low light. It's cheap though (< $300).

 

[Imp]

As you might have noticed, if you glanced around this forum, the largest superzoom/bridge camera at the moment is the Canon SX60 with a 65x zoom, freshly announced at Photokina.

If that's outside your budget, you should consider its immediate predecessor, the SX50. It has a 50x zoom, which is still quite respectable, and is very likely to drop down in price, now that its successor is already coming to the market.

Ya, SX60 release should bring the SX50 price down a bit. I got mine a year ago and it's pretty good. Sensor size is small, but huge zoom, flip-out screen, and a lot of options if you're not using auto.

 

[TheNiceGuy]

I've been reading a lot of reviews, and the fz200 and sx50 both look great. I was leaning towards the fz200 due to reviews like this:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R4B1ATE6K0GMT
It sounds like it has superior video, and the constant 2.8 apature means less messed up pictures in low light, better auto zoom, speed, etc.
The 50x zoom of the sx50 sounds neat, but not if it means poorer quality photos and video.
They're about the same price here, 330/350$ respectively.
Low light, long zoom lens would open up new photo worlds to me I've had to give up on with previous cameras.
It'd be nice to see side by side comparisons. Maybe something even cheaper would be good enough.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Then go to a camera store. Take your own SD card with you. Ask the people there to let you try the cameras you like. See how they fit in your hand, how you like the controls, and how intuitive the interface is. And take several pictures with them, using your own SD card - remember to take similar pictures with each camera, so you can compare them directly. Then go home - don't buy anything yet. Look at the pictures on a large-screen TV. Look at the color saturation, contrast and clarity. And only then go back to the store, to pick up the camera you like best.

 

[CuriousMike]

The FZ200 will likely create better photos at the expense of some zoom.

If you can, use Anita's advice and go to a store and try them.

You might find "20x" zoom is enough.... or that you really love 50x zoom and can take the quality hit.

 

[Rdmkr]

Do I read correctly that the FZ200 only goes up to ISO 1600? That could render it near unusable after sundown with its small sensor. Compensating for the iso with a lower shutter speed while zooming in is also no fun.

Zooming past 20x on a 1/2.3" sensor device sounds pretty dubious to me. Motion blur from passive hand shaking is going to be a problem. It gets worse as you zoom in more. It's probably alright in bright sunlight but not in anything dimmer. Hence why I think a compact 30x zoom 1/2.3" sensor inch camera is an appealing alternative.

 

[CuriousMike]

Do I read correctly that the FZ200 only goes up to ISO 1600?

Incorrect.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Zooming past 20x on a 1/2.3" sensor device sounds pretty dubious to me. Motion blur from passive hand shaking is going to be a problem. It gets worse as you zoom in more. It's probably alright in bright sunlight but not in anything dimmer. Hence why I think a compact 30x zoom 1/2.3" sensor inch camera is an appealing alternative.

Not really. I have the SX40, which goes "only" to 35x, but there's no camera shake to speak of ... the image stabilization is phenomenal (and that's where the ergonomics also come into play, including controls placement, camera weight and overall balance). I have no experience with the Panasonic, but I know many swear by its Venus engine.

 

[zCypher]

Not really. I have the SX40, which goes "only" to 35x, but there's no camera shake to speak of ... the image stabilization is phenomenal (and that's where the ergonomics also come into play, including controls placement, camera weight and overall balance). I have no experience with the Panasonic, but I know many swear by its Venus engine.

Kudos to you for not being a caffeine junkie! camera shake is sometimes a problem for me, but I'll admit that I drink too much coffee

superzooms definitely have their place. i've seen pretty nice pictures taken by even the canon one. so a constant f/2.8 with 25-600mm sounds pretty nice to me in such a relatively cheap package. there's also another part you can buy for $174 to boost range to 1020mm. How much would this focal range cost with a DSLR?

i won't profess to be an expert as i don't own a superzoom myself, but out of what i've seen and having looked at the few models here, that panasonic looks really nice.

 

[Rottie]

I am in love with my new Canon Powershot SX50 HS. I think you should try SX50. FZ200 with 24X is a joke for a price! I find some reasonable price under 300 for SX50 at Amazon.

 

[CuriousMike]

I am in love with my new Canon Powershot SX50 HS. I think you should try SX50. FZ200 with 24X is a joke for a price! I find some reasonable price under 300 for SX50 at Amazon.

I don't doubt that the SX50 is a very good camera, but please understand the Panasonic has a constant f2.8 lens throughout it's entire focal length.

In contrast, the SX50 goes from F3.4 (at it's best) - F6.5 (at telephoto.)

You're paying for quality over quantity with the Panasonic.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Kudos to you for not being a caffeine junkie! camera shake is sometimes a problem for me, but I'll admit that I drink too much coffee

superzooms definitely have their place. i've seen pretty nice pictures taken by even the canon one. so a constant f/2.8 with 25-600mm sounds pretty nice to me in such a relatively cheap package. there's also another part you can buy for $174 to boost range to 1020mm. How much would this focal range cost with a DSLR?

i won't profess to be an expert as i don't own a superzoom myself, but out of what i've seen and having looked at the few models here, that panasonic looks really nice.

Ha! I like coffee (and I have two Krupps espresso machines to prove it), but I don't drink a lot of it - small, concentrated doses are wonderful.

Although I freely confess I'm a Canon fan, I am not blind. And that Panasonic FZ200 is truly a beautiful camera. I haven't seen the pictures it produces, but I like how it's put together. As for the teleconverter, it looks like you can get it for even cheaper: http://www.amazon.ca/Adapter-Panasonic-DMC-FZ200-Alternative-DMW-LA7/dp/B00AI5IX1A

I also find it interesting that the FZ200 has kept a relatively high price value over the years. That's often times a sign of quality.

This wouldn't be the first time I'd be admitting that other camera maker than Canon catches my eye. A few years ago I helped my SO get a new compact camera. And after doing a bit of research, and hands-on comparisons, I had to openly admit that the Canon SX230 was a poor choice, compared with the Panasonic ZS7 at the same price.

There's also a question of taste. I find that Panasonic and Canon images are quite different. The Canons have "punchier" colors, and the Panasonics' digital nose reduction is a bit too aggressive. For those here old enough to remember film, think about the differences between Scotch/3M vs. Kodak vs. Fujifilm vs. Konica.

That's why I say people should try several cameras, and see what they like best.

 

[imported_Irse]

Ha! I like coffee (and I have two Krupps espresso machines to prove it), but I don't drink a lot of it - small, concentrated doses are wonderful.

Although I freely confess I'm a Canon fan, I am not blind. And that Panasonic FZ200 is truly a beautiful camera. I haven't seen the pictures it produces, but I like how it's put together. As for the teleconverter, it looks like you can get it for even cheaper: http://www.amazon.ca/Adapter-Panason.../dp/B00AI5IX1A

I also find it interesting that the FZ200 has kept a relatively high price value over the years. That's often times a sign of quality.

This wouldn't be the first time I'd be admitting that other camera maker than Canon catches my eye. A few years ago I helped my SO get a new compact camera. And after doing a bit of research, and hands-on comparisons, I had to openly admit that the Canon SX230 was a poor choice, compared with the Panasonic ZS7 at the same price.

There's also a question of taste. I find that Panasonic and Canon images are quite different. The Canons have "punchier" colors, and the Panasonics' digital nose reduction is a bit too aggressive. For those here old enough to remember film, think about the differences between Scotch/3M vs. Kodak vs. Fujifilm vs. Konica.

That's why I say people should try several cameras, and see what they like best.

That link is for an adapter for the teleconverter (If I'm reading it correctly)

 

[AnitaPeterson]

eeek, you're right!

 

[Throckmorton]

24x is a massive amount of zoom. 50x is only 2x on top of that, which is less significant than you think, and may be cancelled out by the low tech Canon sensor and possibly less sharp optics

 

[TheNiceGuy]

That's a great idea to take an SD card into a cam shop. I'll see if I can do that locally.

24x is a massive amount of zoom. 50x is only 2x on top of that, which is less significant than you think, and may be cancelled out by the low tech Canon sensor and possibly less sharp optics

That's an interesting point. Its hard for me to tell without testing in the shop, and even that will be limited due to shop conditions. I searched online and couldn't find identical condition zoom comparisons between different brands.

I've been doing a lot of reading and reality checking, and realized I will likely never use anything more revealing than my 22" 1,680×1,050 PC monitor. Facebook-ish, or postcard brick-n-mortar (paper-n-ink?) prints. That kind of thing.
I also use my iphone a lot, so getting something that does what the iphone can't, and does it really well. So I see super zoom being priority, next low light/night ability (tripod OK), full tilt LCD, and ???, (pretty much in that order) as being the point of the camera.

Do you think the fz200's 24x would really blow up to roughly equal quality of the sx50's 50x optical zoom?

Wild question: In the past I used my GoPro (1 and 2) on the 1080p/30fps setting for taking video, and discovered the stills usually had no blur, and looked very good at my monitors max size listed above. I've gotten a lot of incredible shots this way, as its basically like having a camera constantly burst shooting 60 pictures a second for up to a couple of hours at a time. The only caveat was low light really sucks (although I've heard newer GoPros have better low light capture). Given that I don't need DSLR quality, should I be looking for video capture ability in a superzoom as well for the purpose of still 'photos'?

Thanks

 

[CuriousMike]

Panasonic is known for having really good video - followed by Sony and Canon.
I don't know that I'd rely on stills pulled from video.

The new Panasonic FZ 1000, which does 4k video, supposedly does an awesome job at pulling stills from its 4k video - but that's a lot of camera.

 

[TheNiceGuy]

Ya, those go for about $800 here. Still, if it negates photos, may be worth waiting till it comes down in price a bit. "Spray 'n Pray" photography, lol.

 

[blastingcap]

For quality FZ1000 beats up many superzooms up to 400mm (full frame equivalent). You can crop if necessary if you need a bit more reach.

 

[TheNiceGuy]

Thanks
So iiuc, the image quality is not that bad on either camera at 24x zoom, but suffers slightly on the sx50 at full 50x zoom?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

On the SX50, at FULL 50x zoom, there's some softness. But at 45x, everything's OK. Strange, but true. And 45x is still almost twice as large as 24x

 

[Wonderful Pork]

I don't doubt that the SX50 is a very good camera, but please understand the Panasonic has a constant f2.8 lens throughout it's entire focal length.

Just a small point - the Panasonic has a 1/2.3" sensor, giving it a crop factor of 5.2.

So its a 4.8-115mm f/2.8 which is equivalent to a 35mm camera with a 25-600mm lens set to f/14.5 (or 15, rounded).

I feel it is slightly disingenuous to convert the focal length to 35mm without converting the aperture (or ISO) to 35mm as well. While this does not affect exposure, it does affect depth of field. Manufacturers do this all the time and it drives me NUTS! (not trying to single you out Curious Mike ).

So if somebody looked at the EXIF of an image from a 35mm/full frame camera and mimicked the settings on their crop camera, they would not get the same image (DOF, etc). I find this especially true in the case of ISO - my Nikon DX at ISO 800 is equivalent to FX ISO1800...no wonder it doesn't look the same! And ISO 200 on the Panasonic mentioned is equivalent to like ISO 5400 full frame, noise city!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get off my soap box now.

 

[CuriousMike]

While this does not affect exposure, it does affect depth of field. Manufacturers do this all the time and it drives me NUTS! (not trying to single you out Curious Mike ).

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.