For Yeats: Fuji HS20 vs. Nikon D700 and 800mm zoom

[entropic remnants]

This is a totally (and typically) wacky "The Camera Store" video with a shootout between a sub-$500 Fuji and $10,000 worth of Nikon gear. Fun to see how well the Fuji performed. I know you have the HS50, Chris, but this still applies, lol.

[video=youtube;rfnv9pRUJrU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfnv9pRUJrU[/video]

 

[Yeats]

Jeez, that Nikon lens is huge. I hated carrying my much smaller Sigma 170-500, I felt so conspicuous with it.

It's a fun and ridiculous video, thanks a bunch for finding it!

 

[Jock Elliott]

John,

That was awesome.

It pretty much convinced me that I was blessed with "deep wisdom" when I bought my bridge camera.

The video really does raise some interesting questions that revolve around one's personal philosophy of photography. If you were going to live in a blind for weeks to capture the image of rare creature or shooting sports professionally, I could see using the big camera/big lens. Otherwise, not.

Recently I read an interview with a famous street photographer (whose name eludes me) who said, "The more equipment you carry, the fewer photographs you will take."

Thanks again for post the link to that video.

Cheers, Jock

 

[kyteflyer]

Agree with Jock. I am doing less and less with my longer lenses, because its just a PITA to cart them about. (and changing lenses on the fly is really starting to tick me off)

 

[Lili]

Agree with Jock. I am doing less and less with my longer lenses, because its just a PITA to cart them about. (and changing lenses on the fly is really starting to tick me off)

I have several long lenses, the only even get used from my window. The HS30ExR is about as much as I like to carry.

 

[entropic remnants]

John,

That was awesome.

It pretty much convinced me that I was blessed with "deep wisdom" when I bought my bridge camera.

The video really does raise some interesting questions that revolve around one's personal philosophy of photography. If you were going to live in a blind for weeks to capture the image of rare creature or shooting sports professionally, I could see using the big camera/big lens. Otherwise, not.

Recently I read an interview with a famous street photographer (whose name eludes me) who said, "The more equipment you carry, the fewer photographs you will take."

Thanks again for post the link to that video.

Cheers, Jock

I am finding that saying -- no matter who said it -- to be true, lol. The need to carry less weight has led to carrying fewer lenses. Since I have two mft bodies and they are so light I will often carry both so I don't have to change lenses, lol. On the outing to Grounds for Sculpture I had the Oly E-M5 with the 75mm f/1.8 and the Panny G5 with the 7-14mm f/4. Now that's quite a spread but that sort of thing works for me often. With the 7-14mm I can go up to 28mm equivalent, and the 75mm is a bokeh machine. Sometimes I'll take the 25mm f/1.4 instead.

Today I did an outing at Longwood Gardens with just the G5 over my shoulder with the 25mm f/1.4 on it and shot everything that way. It's fun to travel light and be invisible. I'm just another tourist -- [with Jedi mind control gesture] "These are not the photographers you are looking for"...

 

[Jock Elliott]

I'm just another tourist -- [with Jedi mind control gesture] "These are not the photographers you are looking for"...

Big lenses? Seeks these things a Jedi does not!

BTW, John, did you take note of this a while back on dpreview: Art or intrusion? Photographer Johnny Tergo's 'drive-by' portraits: Digital Photography Review

Cheers, Jock

 

[BillN]

a sensible comparison

D7100 with a AFS 300mm f4 lens plus Nikon TC x1.4

gives you 1.6, (DX crop), x 1.4, (TC), x 1.3 (D7100 in camera 12 mbte crop mode)
= 875mm at f5.6

it works well and no problems as a "carry around

Cost = £1,000 plus £1,500 plus £250 = £3k

 

[entropic remnants]

a sensible comparison

D7100 with a AFS 300mm f4 lens plus Nikon TC x1.4

gives you 1.6, (DX crop), x 1.4, (TC), x 1.3 (D7100 in camera 12 mbte crop mode)
= 875mm at f5.6

it works well and no problems as a "carry around

Cost = £1,000 plus £1,500 plus £250 = £3k

Close except DX crop on Nikon is 1.5. Canon is 1.6.

It's still huge by comparison, lol -- though nowhere near that massive thing they hauled around!

And yours is still almost $5000 USD -- but that's only TEN times what the Fuji cost, lol. I don't know if I'd dare to call that "sensible"!

 

[BillN]

Close except DX crop on Nikon is 1.5. Canon is 1.6.

It's still huge by comparison, lol -- though nowhere near that massive thing they hauled around!

And yours is still almost $5000 USD -- but that's only TEN times what the Fuji cost, lol. I don't know if I'd dare to call that "sensible"!

I tried the Fuji HS30 EXR ...... just could not get on with it ..... (wanted it for quick "bird ID's)

gave it to my son after a week ........ nasty, (IMHO) piece of kit

 

[entropic remnants]

I tried the Fuji HS30 EXR ...... just could not get on with it ..... (wanted it for quick "bird ID's)

gave it to my son after a week ........ nasty, (IMHO) piece of kit

I've never had any of them myself, but some folks around here actually rock them pretty well. The closest thing I have to a bridge camera is my little LX7 for light carry and I like that.

I had a love/hate relationship with my Nikon 18-200mm VR when I was shooting Nikon. I loved the convenience, but it was like crack cocaine for DX, lol. I eventually broke it and it was like being freed from captivity -- I've avoided superzooms every since!

Still, some make them work and my hats off to them. Like you, I find the limitations frustrating.

 

[BillN]

I've never had any of them myself, but some folks around here actually rock them pretty well. The closest thing I have to a bridge camera is my little LX7 for light carry and I like that.

I had a love/hate relationship with my Nikon 18-200mm VR when I was shooting Nikon. I loved the convenience, but it was like crack cocaine for DX, lol. I eventually broke it and it was like being freed from captivity -- I've avoided superzooms every since!

Still, some make them work and my hats off to them. Like you, I find the limitations frustrating.

The thread is a comparison and (maybe) use at 800mm
My comments relate to use at full bore, i.e. 800mm - I found the Fuji (totally) unsatisfactory, even on a tripod at that length.

It maybe OK at shorter lengths, 50mm 100mm, but if that is the case I prefer M43 and my canon S95

 

[Yeats]

I agree, Bill, the Fuji superzoom is "nasty" and "unsatisfactory". An M43 camera with the Panasonic 100-300mm would undoubtedly produce images - even cropped to simulate 1000mm FOV - that are superior.

That said, superzoom cameras do have their charms...

View attachment 69108
goose goslings DSCF0811 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

View attachment 69109
turtle DSCF1152 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

 

[BillN]

I agree, Bill, the Fuji superzoom is "nasty" and "unsatisfactory". An M43 camera with the Panasonic 100-300mm would undoubtedly produce images - even cropped to simulate 1000mm FOV - that are superior.

That said, superzoom cameras do have their charms...

View attachment 69117
goose goslings DSCF0811 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

View attachment 69118
turtle DSCF1152 by Yeatsy, on Flickr

I never got images like that with the HS30 even on a tripod
I think that I deleted all the "bird" images that I had,as they were so bad, but I will try to find them

very good for the equivalent of 800mm

 

[Yeats]

It's not too hard to make them look good at low resolution, Bill. It's when you need something more, the IQ compromises of the camera rears it's ugly head. But for web-sharing, and maybe printing 8x10, a superzoom works, although the quality limitations can be jarring when you are accustomed to "better".

Edit: also, Fuji QC seems to be not-so-good. I had to go thru 3 Fuji's in order to get a good one, so perhaps your HS30 was a poor sample.

 

[BillN]

Tried to find some taken with the HS30.
I don't have any
Only one I have is taken by my son ...... all jpegs .... the light was good

the first is at 126mm - which I think is 800mm equivalent

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Second is 72mm = about 450mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Third is 111mm = about 700mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Yeats]

These look good to me, Bill.

 

[BillN]

I don't like them - although hand held from the back of a Land Rover

few taken with my D300 and 300mm f4 ......... some crops ........ but taken from a distance

(but it was no only the IQ but also the AF that I could not get on with on the Fuji - plus it went back for a "Lens control error - they gave me a new camera)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Yeats]

Obviously, there's more fur/skin detail with the D300. Fuji's jpeg engine in their superzooms is rather infamous for losing jpeg detail, I always shoot RAW. The HS50 (reportedly) has a new, superior AF system. I never used the HS30, so I can't make a comparison.

I've noticed on my HS50 that the microcontrast is low, it requires some PP in order to tease out detail.

I've also observed that superzooms generally are better at bringing fairly close subjects closer, rather than distant subjects nearer, if that make any sense...?

 

[entropic remnants]

The thread is a comparison and (maybe) use at 800mm
My comments relate to use at full bore, i.e. 800mm - I found the Fuji (totally) unsatisfactory, even on a tripod at that length.

It maybe OK at shorter lengths, 50mm 100mm, but if that is the case I prefer M43 and my canon S95

Actually, I started the thread because I thought the video was funny, not because I ever thought it was a "valid" comparison. Since Chris does rock the superzooms surprisingly well, I thought it might be enjoyable. It's possible you took this quite a bit more seriously than it was meant to be?

Nobody, I don't think anyway, would be foolish enough to think that a $500 small sensor superzoom can rival a large, quality, expensive piece of glass for all but certain circumstances: that of portability. However, the point was made that you can get useful and beautiful images out of even a lesser camera.