Need a good zoom camera, help please?

[EliteRetard]

Lets say I want to pick up a camera pretty quickly (in a week or two) for nature/outdoor use. Pretty much only camera Ive ever used is the VGA camera on my 7yr old cellphone. I do know what I want, 10x or greater zoom, good quality images even in shady/dark conditions, and a decently fast camera, both picture to picture but also zoom speed so I can capture any critters that may pop up at different ranges. Oh and good battery life and/or replaceable batteries (lithium AA's?) are important (no fun running out of batteries 2 hours out in the middle of a forest).

I see they have "HD video" on cameras now, is that worthwhile? Can that video be broken into images as a way to capture a moving object? Ive also heard of sports/burst modes that capture multiple images for moving targets. Don't know if that works for long zooms...how about some kind of image stablization for long zoom? Do I need to be standing still/need a tripod for long zoom? Ill be in moving boats and cars as well as walking.

Ive had the oportunity recently to use some other family cameras, 3-5mp and up to 5x zoom. They do not work well for capturing nature/creatures, even in the back yard. But I don't exactly know how to use them either (just auto)...I do wan't something with better zoom anyway, 5x was pretty lame. Having some control over images might be good in certain situations, but I don't want to have to waste time changing settings for every shot either...in case I run into something that I want to get a picture of quickly (so a good auto mode?).

Planning on visiting the everglades, so pictures may be in open grasslands or in spotty shades or the darkness of a thick mangrove forest (or moving through all three). Critters may be in the water on land or in the sky. And after this the camera will probably be used for general purpose type stuff.

Since Im not expert yet I thought I would ask here. Anybody got a recent reccomend list of long zoom cameras and/or good review sites? I don't care to much how "compact" the camera is, but Id like something easy to cary/use while on the run...perhaps with a case fit in a big jacket pocket (Im a big guy) or maybe one of those belt bag things. I dont think an SLR is for me just yet. Doing a quick browse I have seen cameras like the FujiFilm S4000 with a 30x zoom for like $250. 30x sounds cool, but whats the catch?

How about reccomendations at $150 or less, and reccomendations up to $250. How would they compare, are there much better options higher up? For now I think up to $250 sounds reasonable...more than that and it seems like I should just get an SLR (don't know if I could learn to use it fast enough though).

Ill be doing my own browsing as well, but if I can get some good advice Id be very much apreciative, thanks!

 

[fralexandr]

HD video is a nice thing to have, but whether or not it's worthwhile is up to you. some things are better taken as a video than a picture.
only some cameras allow for image capture during movie mode, though it's possible to use software to take a still frame from a video

image stabilization is handy on longer telephoto lenses and there's a current thread on VR which is nikon's lens image stabilization
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2235333

here's a helpful guide on taking pictures in low light with slower lenses, or other long exposure shots
http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/shoting-long-exposure-hand-held.html

========== ===========
your requirements are kind of all over the place heh
you're going to have to make compromises somewhere regardless of price
and given the lowish budget, you're not going to get anything with good low light/fast lens and superzoom

in the world of photography, pick 2: long telephoto, fast lens, portable
i.e. ridiculous long/telephoto zoom lens , with large aperature
sigma's "jolly green giant"
if you look at the user photos you can see how gigantic that thing is the photoshopped one still makes me laugh

----------
point and shoots with small sensors are going to be really noisy in low light
in addition to zoom range, you should look for a point and shoot with a large sensor (though it's hard to find a collection of sensor information), and relatively fast lens (the fuji has 1:3.1 @ wide,1:5.9 @ telephoto), which is ok for a superzoom)

i think most of kodak's cameras are garbage, so that really limits you on the cheap superzoom/bridge camera front
a quick dpreview search with requirements: AA battery, 10x+ zoom, image stabilized
canon and nikon tend to make better point and shoots than fuji and olympus though

i'm personally a fan of the panasonic zs series

though many on this forum recommend the canon sx230
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2230866
i'm guessing that this is a somewhat similarish thread to what you're asking

in comparison, the ~$400 superzooms:
the canon sx30is (which a lot of people in this forum have) is slightly faster on the long end (1:2.7 wide, 1:5.8 long) and still struggles with low light
panasonic's fz superzoom i think is more noticeably faster, but loses zoom range
and fuji has some faster and lower zoom options in this range as well

----------
you should consider a dslr given your varied requirements though.
they all have an auto setting, so you won't find it too hard to start out using it, though you'll probably want to learn about the other settings eventually.

note: i am a pentax user, and have limited knowledge of nikon/canon
some pros of pentax's cameras
many use AA batteries (k100d, k200d, k-x, k-2000/k-m), or can accept them with a converter (k-r) (especially nice if you have rechargeable eneloops or nimh hybrid type batteries and such)
and some of them are weather sealed, so with WR lenses can be used in the rain and stuff without worry (k200d and most of their flagships)
the only really nice telephoto zoom lens might be the <3 sigma "bigma" 50-500mm (with OS if camera body doesn't stabilize) (especially if you don't want to switch lenses while out photographing due to time or dust or whatever)
and that runs for ~$800 or ~$1600 depending on if you need Optical stabilization

cons: not as mainstream as canon/nikon so in comparison there are somewhat fewer and sometimes marginally more expensive modern third party lenses (sigma/tamron/tokina)

all of the major camera brands have decent zoom kit lenses in the 55-300 or 55-250 range though and there are several cheap alternatives based on tamron or sigma's 70-300 macro
and there are some cheaper 500mm prime lenses like "long" lenses and "mirror" lenses

-----
shameful advertising: i'm selling a pentax da-l 50-200 and pentax f 100-300 in for sale/trade if you decide to go the pentax route and want to try some lenses out

 

[EliteRetard]

So what if I was willing to spend up to about $400 (I think thats the max I can handle right now), is that SLR territory or no? I see the SX30IS you listed, but is there another option that trades some zoom for better features/quality or whatnot (I think 20x would be fine)? That looks like its about as big as Id want to go...palm sized and probably right on the border of needing two hands. Hows the battery life though with its proprietary battery, or can I find good low cost spares? What about the SX40HS, I see it for under $400 as well. Ive been trying to buy a cheap car here as well...so I havn't spent much time on camera research yet.

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Yes, Canon SX line or Panasonic ZS line. Those are the best available at the moment IMO, for a compact camera with a large zoom ratio. Pick your price and feature set, and go with it. Canon SX230 is usually a good recommendation at a moderate price.

A DSLR is possible at your price level, but only if you shop used. You can pick up a used Rebel XT or something for $150 or so, and a used 75-300mm lens for $100 or so. (Although I'd recommend spending more for the 55-250mm IS lens.) A 300mm lens will get you about 450mm equivalent, which would be about the same as the long end on a 12x-15x zoom P&S. In general, a low-end new DSLR will run around $500, maybe on sale for $400 if you're lucky. This will include a "kit lens" usually 18-55mm which corresponds to about a 3x zoom. You will need to buy a telephoto lens (usually with the long end at 200mm, 250mm, or 300mm) to get into the overall zoom range that you are looking for. Of course you will have to swap lenses to get the full zoom range.

(A note on zoom ranges vs. focal length in mm. A given lens will give a different angle of view depending on the size of the camera sensor. If you have a 100mm lens with Sensor A, but instead put in its place Sensor B which is 1/2 the overall size of Sensor A, the same lens with Sensor B will appear to be twice as "zoomed in" as it was with Sensor A. It is the same thing as taking a photo with Sensor A, and then cropping the resulting photo to half of its original size. So you hear people speak of a "crop factor" in the DSLR world, but it applies equally to the P&S world. 35mm film SLR's were the standard for a long time. For that reason, people refer to "35mm equivalent" focal lengths. In this measurement, 50mm is considered "normal"/"medium", while 28mm or so is considered "wide", anything below 20mm is considered "ultra-wide", 60-100mm is "short telephoto", etc. But again, those are all relating to a piece of 35mm film, which is 24mmx36mm in size. Of course, most digital camera sensors are much smaller than this; in a typical P&S, maybe 5mm or 6mm on a side. So the lenses are correspondingly scaled down. So to get a "100mm equivalent" angle of view, on a P&S the actual lens might actually only need to be 20mm. The zoom power that is given, is merely the ratio between the widest possible zoom and the longest possible zoom. So, for example, I have a DSLR zoom lens that is 24mm-105mm. This is slightly more than a 4x ratio. An equivalent lens in a P&S camera might be a 4.3mm-21.4mm. Either way, it's a roughly 4x zoom. But one of the takeaways here is that the longest focal length isn't really given by the "4x zoom" spec. You have to know the wide angle focal length so that you can multiply by 4 to get the telephoto focal length. Camera makers have been making their lenses wider over the years, which has been a good thing overall; but it means that a 10x zoom today might go from 24mm-240mm, while a 10x zoom from 2005 might have been from 35mm-350mm. This is a noticeable change on both ends; the wide end got a LOT more useful in gaining the extra 11mm from 24mm to 35mm, but the long end got chopped off by over 100mm equivalent, which is definitely noticeable. So, that's my long-winded way of saying, look at the zoom specifications, but don't always assume that a 15x zoom will get you closer to your subject than a 12x zoom. It could be the other way around.)

Battery life is generally nothing to worry about. You can usually see at least 200 shots from the proprietary batteries, which is easily enough to last a full day for most people. All of the major camera brands have cheap generic batteries available.

 

[Paladin3]

Sorry, but there is no camera that does everything you want. You have to decide which of those features you want the most.

If you are willing to carry a larger camera you could go with a used DSLR and a cheap zoom telephoto (Canon 55-250mm or Nikon 55-200mm) and stay within your $400 budget. That would let you do at least some of what you want, but still won't give you super AF speed or low light shooting ability unless you spend a lot more on lenses.

One of the newer super-zoom compacts may be a better fit if you are willing to sacrifice the ability to shoot quickly or in low light.

 

[fralexandr]

the panasonic fz47kv maybe since you want to keep it cheaper
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-...3226897&amp;sr=1-2
the fz150 is superior to the fz47 in many ways though

if you do decide to go dslr on pentax's side i'd recommend the k200d for ~$250 and the pentax DAL 55-300 for $200 (you can check http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/, you'll need to make a few posts before you can pm anyone though, i'd recommend starting in the welcomes and intros thread)
this gets you a weather resistant body (if you decide to buy any weather resistant lenses)
the ability to use AA batteries
in camera shake reduction
body based autofocus
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk200d

otherwise you might be able to find a nikon d40 or canon xs/xsi/xt or something on craigslist

 

[Throckmorton]

People on this forum are going to make this way too complicated. Ignore every recommendation that's not a superzoom. A DSLR is not what you want.

 

[blastingcap]

snip

Everybody has HD video these days (1080p is only about 2 megapixels). And no you can't use that as faux high speed capture. HD video is at much lower resolution and is compressed and has artifacts.

No non-DSLR camera, except the expensive Nikon 1 cameras ($800+) will reliably allow you to capture small, fast-moving things like birds, however. And even the cheaper DSLRs will struggle with small moving birds. If you are serious about birding, you will want something like a Nikon d7000 with fast telephoto lens. That is a budget-buster at $2k+.

Another thing to remember is that image stabilization, regardless of whether it is in the lens or the camera body or a tripod, is useless for moving objects. The only way to reliably capture fast-moving objects is with a very fast shutter speed, like 1/500th second or faster. That means some combination of high ISO, large lens aperture (f/2.8 or less), or flash with high speed sync, and even then, flash has limited range). Increasing ISO means a worse-quality image. Either lots of noise or loss of detail/blurriness if your camera uses noise suppression algorithms. (See here for how much ISO affects the small-sensored superzooms: http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-6501_7-10007073.html and http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-6501_7-10006867.html ) Those little camera "superzooms" typically do okay at low ISO but get worse quickly as you crank up ISO. So they are good on sunny days and not so good on cloudy days and abysmal at dusk. Cameras with bigger sensors fare better, all else equal, though sensor technology does improve over time so a new small sensor can beat a bigger but much older one.

Lastly, to capture fast moving objects you almost HAVE to have PDAF, which is found only in DSLRs and a very, very few non-DSLRs like the Nikon 1 series (which cost as much or more than DSLRs but are smaller in size/weight).

I have three recommendations depending on how hard your budget is:

1) Get a superzoom. A Micro Four Thirds camera is already pretty portable and will fit into a tiny bag, but if you need something that will fit into a jacket pocket or if you don't mind the lesser image quality (perhaps you don't often print and just want something to post at low resolutions for web/facebook display) and slower shooting speeds and shutter lags, go ahead and get a superzoom. At low enough resolutions and print sizes, nobody will notice the somewhat lower image quality. Autofocus speed, shutter lag, and continuous framerate should be adequate for things other than birds in flight. Superzooms will struggle to attain fast enough shutter speed in lower light (1/500th sec. for moving objects, else something more like 1/200th sec. w/ image stabilization) unless you crank up the ISO, but if you do that the image will rapidly lose detail as you increase ISO. So they are are not so good in cloudy shadowy conditions, or worse, dusk or night. Cost varies a lot; e.g., a X-S1 costs $800. But a slightly older or used camera will be in your sub-$250 budget, e.g., the Panasonic DMC-ZS10 or Canon SX230 HS.

Sample SX230 HS photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brook_lands/6886519504/sizes/o/in/pool-1683332@N23/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxmarsiglietti/7005271447/sizes/o/in/pool-1683332@N23/

2) Get a Micro Four Thirds camera. This still won't allow for reliable birds in flight photos, but it's pretty good anyway. If money is a big concern, get a $200 refurb E-PL1 http://www.cameta.com/Olympus-PEN-E...-42mm-Lens-Black-Black-Factory-Demo-52477.cfm and if you need more zoom than that, they also sell refurb 40-150mm M.zuiko zoom lenses for $160 http://www.cameta.com/Olympus-M-Zui...igital-Zoom-Lens-Black-Factory-Demo-60356.cfm Total cost is $360 but should outperform little superzoom compacts and give you 35mm film equivalent reach of 28 to 300mm (Alternatively, get a used Oly E-PL2 which is faster and better in every way compared to the E-PL1 but costs $80 more at Cameta for a refurb. Or get a Panasonic 45-200mm OIS for even more reach which will still work and can still give optical stabilization with an Oly MFT camera; that will probably set you back more money though.) When it's time to upgrade, you keep the lens and swap out the body, unlike compacts where you have to sell the entire thing.

Sample M.Zuiko 40-150 photos (click on Original to get the original size):

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/r...gital-40-150mm-f4-5-6-preview-samples-gallery

3) Get a DSLR. Save up for a used but decent DSLR like a Nikon D40X (aka D60). It will fail less often at capturing fast-moving objects (though a low end DSLR will still struggle with birding), give you a viewfinder (useful in cases where there is lots of glare on the LCD, like in the outdoors), and there are a ton of cheap but good lenses out there for DSLRs, such as the Nikon 55-200mm VR that often goes on sale for ~$150 and which you can get used for about the same or a little less. The 55-300mm VR and 70-300mm VR are also options. Total cost will probably be significantly over $360, even if you buy everything used.

Sample D40X photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/photo645a/6157292742/sizes/l/in/pool-437782@N22/

.
.
.

Summary:

The MFT and DSLRs will give you options beyond the superzoom, for portrait shots and superwides, etc. because you can swap lenses with those systems, unlike superzoom compacts which are wedded to their lenses. Just food for thought if you plan on ever shooting other things besides wildlife in the swamps, etc. They also have larger sensors so more potential for good bokeh/out of focus blur depending on lens used. Personally I think the E-PL1 + 14-42 and 40-150 is your best compromise since you said in your second post in this thread that you don't mind adding a slight amount of bulk, and it is much more flexible in the long run than a superzoom, while offering superior image quality and depth of field control/bokeh control. They also shoot in RAW, which not all compacts can do. RAW is important for post-processing to fix/improve photos after they have been taken already.

People on this forum are going to make this way too complicated. Ignore every recommendation that's not a superzoom. A DSLR is not what you want.

Read OP's requirements. A DSLR or MFT camera on Auto can do as well or better, while adding not much more bulk. Also a DSLR or MFT camera will likely autofocus faster and may do better in burst mode, which OP was interested in. And if OP wants PDAF for things like birding, DSLRs are the only realistic choice with his budget.

You are entitled to your own opinion but that's just YOUR opinion... with nothing to back it up, no less. Gotta love 1-line posts.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

If money is a big concern, get a $200 refurb E-PL1 http://www.cameta.com/Olympus-PEN-E...-42mm-Lens-Black-Black-Factory-Demo-52477.cfm

Dang, I had no idea they were that cheap already. That's even tempting to me, and I've already got plenty of cameras. This + the Panny 20/1.7 would make for a nice compact setup.

 

[you2]

There are a lot of recommendations and it will be a tough pick. I would second most of them - esp the E-PL1 or canon 230hs (note that the canon is not the best camera out there but it is pretty good at the given price point).
-
The reason you probably want a super zoom is due to wildlife (esp birds). The thing you have to remember (learn how to use your camera) is that there are some things that most cameras just can't handle well - two common complaints are "this camera sucks the images are fuzzy" and "why is my subject too dark". Often fuzzy images can occur because the shutter speed is way too low. If you are using a super zoom that approach 250mm or 300mm (35mm perspective) you need to use a fast shutter speed (1/500).

Most of these cameras cannot handle high contrast very well (shadows/bright light). Unfortunately (or fortunately) your eye does a very good job here - much better than most camera (unfortunate in that you don't realize just how much brighter (or darker) the regions are relative to each other).
-
Anyways if the camera needs to fit in a pocket the canon sx230 is not a bad choice (esp for the price) and if slightly larger is ok the ep-l1 will provide better image quality. The dx40 is much larger and obtaining quality lenses will be signficantly more $$$ and bulk.

 

[fralexandr]

yep the e-pl1 is nice, i'm not sure which telephoto lens to suggest for wildlife though, maybe you can find a cheap olympus 70-300mm

edit: nvm i guess the panasonic 45-200mm would be reasonable though maybe still a bit on the short side for birds (FF eq. ~90-400 i think)
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-45-2.../dp/B001ISKNKA

edit 2: oh someone already recommended that hah doh :S

 

[blastingcap]

yep the e-pl1 is nice, i'm not sure which telephoto lens to suggest for wildlife though, maybe you can find a cheap olympus 70-300mm

edit: nvm i guess the panasonic 45-200mm would be reasonable though maybe still a bit on the short side for birds (FF eq. ~90-400 i think)
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-45-2.../dp/B001ISKNKA

edit 2: oh someone already recommended that hah doh :S

200mm = 400mm in 35mm film equivalent. That's longer than some superzooms, and OP can always crop the photos. I had the 100-300mm Panasonic OIS but the OIS in that kinda sucked and it was soft wide open though decent once stopped down to f/6.3 or f/7.1 at the long end. But the long end was 600mm in film equivalent so I guess I was asking too much out of such a relatively small lens at that focal length.

 

[EliteRetard]

Thanks for all the suggestions!

What makes the PL2 better, looks similar spec wise to the PL1. Would it really be worth $80 more? Would these lenses actually be compatible with other cameras now or in the future (is there a standard)?

And what about other lenses, just a random one with 250mm length: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130672661421+
I think this lens has image stabilizing in it, how does that work? Does the camera have IS, if so is it good to have both camera and lens with IS?

In comparison, about what is the 40-150mm lens for the PL1 compared to a compact superzoom with the smaller sensor? I tested an 18x P&S camera in store and it was pretty good at zooming down an isle and capturing a small object on a shelf.

How big is the 40-150mm lens, could I be running through the woods with this thing bouncing on my side without damaging anything? Or would I need to cary a big custom case to safely hold it?

Im not really worried about birds in flight (if its that hard to do), as long as I can zoom in and catch them sitting on a far branch high up in a tree or something like that. Or catching a good shot of a gator on a far bank or a small lizard on a rock without getting to close and scaring it away. I don't think Ill be doing to much night shooting, but there will certainly be overcast shadowy darker areas.

I am concerned with catching other critters in motion, I want a pretty quick shot to shot or maybe a good burst mode or something so I can get a few shots before they walk out of range/hide.

What about the storage card, at 10-20mp especially if I did end up shooting RAW and considering Ill probably take lots of pictures since Im a n00b about what size/type of card should I be getting? I want to take these other kind of costs into consideration as well.

Oh whats the F number on these lenses? Like this one is 1.4 and has a turning thing on it, vs like F 4-5 on the other lense:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-Norma...60482030?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c644013ee

And manual focus vs auto focus? Can these lenses actually auto focus? If I got one of these cameras with the added lenses how would you actually use it? Is there an auto mode I would use on the camera? Then what, manually or automatically zoom the lens to where I need? How do you focus, is that just based on the zoom or something? What are these filters I keep seeing?

Ive gotta go read some more reviews and such. Thanks again for all the help, and thanks for reading this far!

 

[EliteRetard]

Oh and how fast could you manually focus a lens if thats possible? The superzoom P&S cameras Ive tested so far all seem to be pretty slow to zoom/focus...like 10 seconds to zoom all the way in and then focus and capture (thats why I was asking about faster cameras). If I can just manually zoom with a quick twist thatd be much faster right? Could you hurt anything moving to hard/fast? How do these extra lenses actually attatch?

I do want to try to get this stuff asap, are there any stores that I could find this camera in to play with or online only? Any other 4/3 cameras worth considering in my price range? I don't think a refurb would be bad, as long as they do a quality job (or is it like buying a cheap used laptop?)

Uhh...
Ill probably have more questions in minute

 

[EliteRetard]

Oh and I'm not entirely sure what Ill be doing with these photos yet, but I don't have facebook or anything like that. I at least want good photos at 2048x1536 if I wanted to display them on my computer (Trinitron CRT). If I happen to capture a good picture or if I begin to learn how to take a good picture, I might want to make some good prints...so having decent image quality is important to me.

If all I was going to do was share VGA shots I probably would have borrowed one of my families cameras. But I want to get good shots here since this is probably a once in a lifetime trip. I don't want to look at the pictures later and regret brinning a poor camera or feel like I missed a lot of good shots. But I also don't want to spend so much on the camera I can't actually afford to do anything on the trip.

Besides the camera and/or lens, and a memory card...what else would I need to get? I do want to safely transport and carry these things with me while Im running around. What about taking photos while on an airboat? Would these things be splash resistant?

 

[blastingcap]

E-PL2 is better than E-PL1 in several ways.

LCD is 3" 460k dots vs. 2.7" 230k dots on the E-PL1

You get a thumbwheel

E-PL2 actually weighs slightly less

Autofocus, shutter lag, and startup time are all better; you also get a small boost in dynamic range and high ISO performance, plus max. exposure speed goes to 1/4000th sec. instead of 1/2000th sec. which could be important with large-aperture lenses in bright sunlight

See here for more: http://snapsort.com/compare/Olympus-E-PL2-vs-Olympus_PEN_E-PL1

Imho I'd pay the extra $80 though you may have to call to ask if they have any in stock, since they recently sold out and may be waiting for another shipment or else be really and truly sold out.

<HR>

The 40-150 is tiny when collapsed for storage/transportation. In use, it doubles in length but is still quite small. It's only 190 grams in weight. Photo of the E-P2 (which is significantly larger than the E-PL1/2) with the 40-150 and a hand should give you some idea: http://blogbeebe.blogspot.com/2011/12/breaking-rules.html (The "R" and non "R" version of the lens are almost the same, only the exterior styling changed a bit so you can get the old one to save money.) Review: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_ed_40_150mm_f_4_56_review/ Specs: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1522&page=specs

<HR>

Do not attempt to mix and match mounts. You can use Canon glass on compatible bodies, but you can't put a EF-S lens on a Micro FT body, or even a FT lens on a Micro FT body, without using an adapter. Adapters are either cheap and don't give you autofocus, or very expensive and give you iffy autofocus. Not worth it.

<HR>

If you are happy with the image quality you got from a superzoom, you might be better off with one, but note that pretty much ANY photo is going to look good if you see it on a 3" LCD screen. That is because it's been downsampled to hell. It's only when you print larger prints or zoom in on a screen do the image quality differences become apparent. Or when you crank up ISO. See the links I posted of how badly ISO affects superzoom image quality for instance.

<HR>

A 40-150 is equal to 80-300 on 35mm film. It's a pretty good telephoto reach and comparable to a budget superzoom compact camera. Some of the pricier superzooms can go out to 400+mm equivalent. But those have their own drawbacks, as I already laid out in excruciating detail, above. Besides, focal length isn't everything. Ssharpness, CA, distortion, vignetting, etc. also matter. I'd rather have a sharp, high quality, undistorted, chromatic aberration-free photo at 300mm-equivalent than a blurry, distorted, CA-laden photo at 400mm-equivalent. I could always crop the 300mm-equivalent photo a bit to get the same framing, at the expense of losing some pixels that I probably didn't need anyway. Take a look at the sample photos and galleries you can find on the web for various cameras. The 40-150 gallery I posted has a nice shot at 150mm (300mm equivalent) of a bald eagle that was shot on an E-PL1. If you click on "Original" you can see how good the image quality is.

Here are some superzoom galleries:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q311travelzoomgrouptest/18 (scroll down; it has some Original size photos, too, and at various focal lengths)

I already linked to the 40-150 gallery which was shot with an E-PL1:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/r...gital-40-150mm-f4-5-6-preview-samples-gallery

The D40X (aka D60); these were shot with different lenses, though, not any particular telephoto or wideangle lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-d40x-review-samples

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/30

<HR>

Selecting focal length has nothing to do with autofocus. You can use "auto" mode on virtually any modern camera and it will autofocus for you, in addition to auto-metering, auto-white balance, etc. You can treat a DSLR or MFT camera like a point-and-shoot compact camera if you use it in Auto mode. Many people do exactly that.

ALL cameras, including superzooms, force you to tell the camera what focal length you want, first. With compacts such as superzooms, you typically have a little "W...T" lever that you push to zoom in and out. With interchangeable-lens cameras, you usually manually twist the lens to select the focal length; zooming in and out manually is MUCH faster. You can literally change focal lengths with the flick of a wrist.

Autofocusing speed on an interchangeable lens system depends on both the lens and the body. A E-PL1/2 + 40-150 should be able to autofocus at LEAST as fast and probably significantly faster than a superzoom, especially a cheaper superzoom. Certainly it won't be any slower in total amount of time taken to autofocus and release the shutter. And of course a DSLR will autofocus faster than any of the above, though the MFT cameras are getting really, really close to DSLR autofocus speeds in the latest models, at least for non-moving targets.

<HR>

If you're worried about damaging the lens's front element, get a cheap but good clear or UV filter and screw it into the front threads. A 58mm Hoya HMC UV(c) filter can be had for under $20 and is probably the cheapest of the "good" UV filters. Avoid UV filters with poor or nonexistent anti-flare coatings. They may look they work in a store, but out in the sun you will quickly see why they are cheap: poor flare/glare/ghosting resistance.

If you do not want to use a UV filter, or if you want to cut down on flare/ghosting even more, you can instead buy a generic lens hood for it on ebay, search for "m.zuiko 40-150 lens hood" or something. I got an ebay generic one for less than $10 total, and it works fine even though it took like 3 weeks to arrive from China. You can reverse the lens hood for storage (wrapping it around the lens barrel). I just leave it attached to act as a natural shield for the lens's front element.

<HR>

If you don't want to have to switch lenses to go back and forth between "normal" zoom range and "telephoto" zoom range, consider getting a superzoom lens for your MFT or DSLR camera. Some people get a DSLR and only one superzoom lens that they never swap out. The drawback is size/weight/cost. E.g., this lens is 280 grams and costs $600 new (less used): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._14_150mm.html But on the plus side, it is less than the COMBINED size and weight of the Oly 14-42 + 40-150 combo.

<HR>

I don't know about literally running around with a 40-150 on a camera around your neck, swinging wildly side to side. It's not like you want to do that with any other camera, anyway. You could get a small camera bag for ~$15, like one of those Lowepros they make for camcorders, and sling it across your shoulder. MFT cameras and lenses are only ~60% of the weight of crop-body DSLRs of comparable effective focal length. Superzooms vary greatly in size and weight, so I can't comment on those too much.

<HR>

If you have any other q's feel free to ask, but really, please do a google search first as these are extremely basic questions about things like lens sizes and stuff that you can find yourself. I also gave you a ton of links to outside sources including image comparisons; please visit those first. Other onlookers please chime in. I don't think there is a clear "right" answer.

Thanks for all the suggestions!

What makes the PL2 better, looks similar spec wise to the PL1. Would it really be worth $80 more? Would these lenses actually be compatible with other cameras now or in the future (is there a standard)?

And what about other lenses, just a random one with 250mm length: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130672661421+
I think this lens has image stabilizing in it, how does that work? Does the camera have IS, if so is it good to have both camera and lens with IS?

In comparison, about what is the 40-150mm lens for the PL1 compared to a compact superzoom with the smaller sensor? I tested an 18x P&S camera in store and it was pretty good at zooming down an isle and capturing a small object on a shelf.

How big is the 40-150mm lens, could I be running through the woods with this thing bouncing on my side without damaging anything? Or would I need to cary a big custom case to safely hold it?

Im not really worried about birds in flight (if its that hard to do), as long as I can zoom in and catch them sitting on a far branch high up in a tree or something like that. Or catching a good shot of a gator on a far bank or a small lizard on a rock without getting to close and scaring it away. I don't think Ill be doing to much night shooting, but there will certainly be overcast shadowy darker areas.

I am concerned with catching other critters in motion, I want a pretty quick shot to shot or maybe a good burst mode or something so I can get a few shots before they walk out of range/hide.

What about the storage card, at 10-20mp especially if I did end up shooting RAW and considering Ill probably take lots of pictures since Im a n00b about what size/type of card should I be getting? I want to take these other kind of costs into consideration as well.

Oh whats the F number on these lenses? Like this one is 1.4 and has a turning thing on it, vs like F 4-5 on the other lense:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-Norma...60482030?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c644013ee

And manual focus vs auto focus? Can these lenses actually auto focus? If I got one of these cameras with the added lenses how would you actually use it? Is there an auto mode I would use on the camera? Then what, manually or automatically zoom the lens to where I need? How do you focus, is that just based on the zoom or something? What are these filters I keep seeing?

Ive gotta go read some more reviews and such. Thanks again for all the help, and thanks for reading this far!

 

[fralexandr]

currently the best sdhc to get would probably be a 32gb class 10 or 32gb sandisk ultra/extreme
http://slickdeals.net/f/4121437-San...rd-30MB-s-64GB-59-95-32GB-32-99-16GB-19-99-FS
it doesn't seem like the ep1 has sdxc support, so no 64gb cards

16gb would be fine as well, but 32gb is nice if you'll be taking hd videos

also fyi refurb canon xs w/ 18-55 kit $300
http://slickdeals.net/f/4154526-Ref...Shipped-Canon-Direct?token=AAEBBQAAAAAEPD9kng

 

[you2]

The thing to keep in mind how much you want to pay; you originally suggested a price point that would not allow some of hte purchases being suggested.
-
manual focus can be done on the olympus but you would want to use a tripod to hold the camera while you 'zoom' in on the display. The 'f' stop is a ratio of light allowed - you want smaller numbers (i.e, f2 allows 4 times the light as f4). However, once you start talking about f2 or f2.8 zooms you are thinking about $1000+ (in most cases; a few exception exist) as well as serious weight. Part of the problem is mixing of apple and oranges i.e, you can get a canon xs with 18-55 (the 18-55 is an ok lens not great with a very short zoom range). Yes the cnaon xs can produce nicer images than the epl1(2) but you would need better glass. Btw one nice thing about olympus is most of their camera produce very good jpeg (if you do not want to spend a lot of time post processing the raw files).

 

[JohnnyRebel]

How about reccomendations at $150 or less, and reccomendations up to $250.

Nikon P500, refurbished $259.

http://www.adorama.com/INKCPP500BKR.html

JR

 

[Throckmorton]

Read OP's requirements. A DSLR or MFT camera on Auto can do as well or better, while adding not much more bulk. Also a DSLR or MFT camera will likely autofocus faster and may do better in burst mode, which OP was interested in. And if OP wants PDAF for things like birding, DSLRs are the only realistic choice with his budget.

You are entitled to your own opinion but that's just YOUR opinion... with nothing to back it up, no less. Gotta love 1-line posts.

He doesn't know what he's doing and wants a lot of zoom for cheap. A super zoom is obviously what he needs. Not to be fumbling with multiple massive fucking lenses while on a trip.

 

[Tom]

Here is an interesting compact long zoom for your $150 price point.

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-F505-...3379109&amp;sr=8-1

If your primary use for the pics you take is to view them on a tv or computer, or make moslty smaller prints and occasional 8x10s, this camera has some great features. The special exr modes can give it better dynamic range than most compacts, and it has pretty good performance at high iso settings that let it work fairly well in low light at long zoom, and it has image stabilization.

And its small enough to carry in a shirt pocket. Other cameras in this class are the Canon sx230, Sony dsc-hx9, Panasonic ZS10, and Nikon s9100. Those are all last year's models which means they're more affordable. The Canon sx230 is generally considered the best of them.

I do have a Fuji F505 exr myself and its quite a cool camera too though.
Can do some things the others can't.

 

[Munky]

Modern cameras have improved a lot compared the old 3-5MP zooms you tried. They focus faster, respond to controls quicker, have better image quality, and improved features and capabilities. I would recommend either something from the Canon SX line or the Panasonic FZ line of cameras.

Generally, for anyone who tried a DSLR, a superzoom will seem like a huge step back in capabilities, and rightfully so, but the size and price constraints of the OP pretty much rule out a DSLR. You will not find a "jacket pocketable" DSLR with 10x zoom capability, and most certainly not for under $300. Maybe if the price wasn't an issue, I'd recommend a m4/3 or a Nikon 1 system, but even then, calling it "pocketable" is a stretch at best.

 

[blastingcap]

He doesn't know what he's doing and wants a lot of zoom for cheap. A super zoom is obviously what he needs. Not to be fumbling with multiple massive fucking lenses while on a trip.

What you do to your body with your lenses is your own business, but MFT and Nikon 1 lenses aren't as "massive" as DSLR lenses, and he upgraded his budget to $400. And there is some ambiguity as far as his size/weight limit.

He seems to think you can't use Auto with ILC's which is absurd so I wouldn't put so much stock in his initial 2 posts if that was one of his limiting factors.

That said, if he does have a hard cost or size/weight constraint, it seems like a SX230 HS or equivalent camera is his best bet. Imho, he should just go to the store and try them all out and pick one.

 

[Throckmorton]

IMO a viewfinder is a good thing to have

 

[EliteRetard]

Initial research seemed to suggest I could get a zoom camera for $150-250 but I didn't know if they would give me good performance in the conditions Ill be in. Since I didn't know anything at first I wasn't sure what a reasonable budget would be. It sounds like even $250 might not do what I wanted, so I raised the budget to see what might be available higher up. The E-PL1/2 sound like theyd be better than a regular P&S.

I also don't currently have good access to internet (I have to get to my sisters place and borrow her laptop and wireless), and another part of the problem is I actually just had to get another car. I was spending time researching and shopping for that. Ive got the car now but it needed some fixing...thatll be done in a few days (waiting for parts) and then I can try harder to find camera stores locally to test things. I was only able to test a few random ones at a Target when I was out with family. I don't know if there are any actual electronic/camera stores out here.

Ive been thinking about getting my own laptop, but I don't know how Id get internet with it (unless I can tether to it with my phone for free). Ive also been waiting for some decent laptop parts, all this anchient 40nm stuff is lame.

I do apreciate all the help so far.