News / Rumor New king of the superzooms .....

Jan 31, 2011
Newcastle, Australia
Sue
I believe the zoom, but am already unhappy with current zooms that are half as zoomy. Until there are quantum leaps in sensor tech, I don't want a new superzoom
but remember when superzoom was 10x? I'm still hell bent on getting the FZ1000 which is 16x but with a 1" sensor. It depends on what you want.

83x is WAYYY beyond me, regardless of sensor tech. I just can't remain still enough for that. I tried out the Canon SX60HS in store, and could not hold still enough to even focus on an object, at 60x. I don't only have issues with my hands trembling... my sense of balance is also slightly impaired so for this, there would also need to be a tripod, and once a tripod becomes a "must use" instead of a "could use", I'm out. I don't fall down, but the extent to which my balance is "off" becomes evident, the longer the zoom. I think anything up to 24-30x and I can manage... I'll be enviously staring at those that can keep this monster still enough to get usable shots.
 

Biro

Hall of Famer
Aug 7, 2011
Jersey Shore
Steve
Yes, it would certainly be fun to try one out but I can't see this new Nikon providing satisfying results at anything beyond 1000mm. We're still waiting for that Black Swan event in sensor technology. But if Nikon would like to send me one of these cameras, I'd be happy to play with it. :thumbsup:
 

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Jan 3, 2012
Troy, NY
Yes, it would certainly be fun to try one out but I can't see this new Nikon providing satisfying results at anything beyond 1000mm. We're still waiting for that Black Swan event in sensor technology. But if Nikon would like to send me one of these cameras, I'd be happy to play with it. :thumbsup:
Biro,

Why do you think it would not provide good results beyond 1000mm (e)?

Cheers, Jock
 

Biro

Hall of Famer
Aug 7, 2011
Jersey Shore
Steve
Biro,

Why do you think it would not provide good results beyond 1000mm (e)?

Cheers, Jock
Jock, I've seen the results most of these superzooms give that those kinds of focal lengths. I've owned a few myself. I've even been interested in buying a superzoom camera again. But, at the end of the day, I find they're okay for snapshots at the long end but just don't provide the kind of detail I'd want for things like nature photography (you know, feathers and all). It's not a matter of camera shake (at least not for me). It's just that the small sensor doesn't seem to give me the kind of detail I'd want. On the other hand, perhaps I'll still pick up another superzoom again for casual happy snaps. I've seen your work and you're among the best with these cameras. It's your work that allows me to even think about buying a superzoom again - as long as I keep my expectations firmly in check.
 

RT Panther

All-Pro
Dec 25, 2012
With the LX100 out now...It would be interesting to see if the Panasonic puts a µ4/3 sensor in a FZ superzoom replacement....
 

Biro

Hall of Famer
Aug 7, 2011
Jersey Shore
Steve
With the LX100 out now...It would be interesting to see if the Panasonic puts a µ4/3 sensor in a FZ superzoom replacement....
It would be interesting. And the thing is, when I'm looking for a superzoom-like set up, I usually go for my Olympus E-M5 with the Panasonic 100-300mm lens on it. That puts me at a 600mm equivalent before I even start to crop. That's 200mm longer than a Panasonic FZ1000 and with a larger four-thirds sensor.

I also plan to begin experimenting with my Pentax Q-S1 with my DA 55-300 on it. 1280mm equivalent with no cropping. But a 1/1.7" sensor. So we'll see.
 
Last edited:

john m flores

All-Pro
Aug 13, 2012
It would be interesting. And the thing is, when I'm looking for a superzoom-like set up, I usually go for my Olympus E-M5 with the Panasonic 100-300mm lens on it. That puts me at a 600mm equivalent before I even start to crop. That's 200mm longer than a Panasonic FZ1000 and with a larger four-thirds sensor.

I also plan to begin experimenting with my Pentax Q-S1 with my DA 55-300 on it. 1280mm equivalent with no cropping. But a 1/1.7" sensor. So we'll see.
It's closer to 1400mm IIRC. And the results are decent to good. Not super mega sharp but part of it may be due to the fact that I'm using a monopod not a tripod. The following are with the DA55-300 and a Q7/Q-S1, so it's a marginally larger sensor than the Nikon with what is likely as good if not better optics.


Mallard Ducks
by john m flores, on Flickr


Great Blue Heron
by john m flores, on Flickr

The Nikon also doesn't shoot RAW so buyers will have to live with JPGs. I'd imagine that the Nikon's images will be a touch behind the Pentax Q7/Q-S1.
 

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Jan 3, 2012
Troy, NY
Jock, I've seen the results most of these superzooms give that those kinds of focal lengths. I've owned a few myself. I've even been interested in buying a superzoom camera again. But, at the end of the day, I find they're okay for snapshots at the long end but just don't provide the kind of detail I'd want for things like nature photography (you know, feathers and all). It's not a matter of camera shake (at least not for me). It's just that the small sensor doesn't seem to give me the kind of detail I'd want. On the other hand, perhaps I'll still pick up another superzoom again for casual happy snaps. I've seen your work and you're among the best with these cameras. It's your work that allows me to even think about buying a superzoom again - as long as I keep my expectations firmly in check.
Biro,

Thanks for the reply and the kind comments about my work. I take your point completely. There are things you give up if you use a superzoom for nature photography (detail, dynamic range, ability to make large prints, etc.) Some of the work I've seen on this site taken with larger sensor cameras and telephoto lenses is breathtaking.

On the flip side, I am an opportunistic photographer. My philosophy is "take a camera almost everywhere and see what happens." A superzoom is really convenient for that. And I know myself. I still have a bunch of film gear that I stopped carrying because it was too heavy.

Further, I don't have NatGeo pounding on my door in the middle of the night, demanding I go on assignment for them. My wife, however, likes my snaps pretty good!

Cheers, Jock
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2010
bart
As long as the lens is good enough, there's no reason a small sensor should produce any less detail than a similar MP count larger sensor. There might be a strong AA filter which doesn't help, but other than that, it's all down to the lens (and lack of raw). With small sensors, diffraction does kick in earlier, and I think this camera is there already at full tele, even "wide open", but that's also a lens issue.
 

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Jan 3, 2012
Troy, NY
From another post:

In trying figure out whether the FZ1000 would offer more reach than the FZ200 for wildlife photography, I stumbled across this threadhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53848081which provides a mathematical way of factoring in equivalent focal length and megapixels to compare the "reach" that cameras could have.

The calculation is explained herehttp://www.digicamhistory.com/Figure of Merit.htmlbut basically it is equivalent focal lengthsquaredmultiplied by the number of megapixels.

So, for the Fz200, you get 600mm x 600mm x 12 megapixels = 4.320 million

I worked through the math for a variety of configurations, and (if I have the figures right) here are the results (the bigger the number, the better the reach):

FZ200 -- 4.320
FZ1000 -- 3.216
D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860
Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760
Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760
Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300CX -- 14.580

Nikon P900 -- 64.000 million

I did notice in the promotional video that a tripod was used to photograph the surfer.

Cheers, Jock
 

Biro

Hall of Famer
Aug 7, 2011
Jersey Shore
Steve
As long as the lens is good enough, there's no reason a small sensor should produce any less detail than a similar MP count larger sensor. There might be a strong AA filter which doesn't help, but other than that, it's all down to the lens (and lack of raw). With small sensors, diffraction does kick in earlier, and I think this camera is there already at full tele, even "wide open", but that's also a lens issue.
Yes, actually I should have included the lens in my response. It's a case of both smaller sensor and lens compromises. But it is true that some are better than others. Nikon's P600 looked like the winner last year in this comprehensive and interesting group test:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/best-superzoom-2014/best-superzoom-2014-A.HTM
 
Last edited:

john m flores

All-Pro
Aug 13, 2012
From another post:

In trying figure out whether the FZ1000 would offer more reach than the FZ200 for wildlife photography, I stumbled across this threadhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53848081which provides a mathematical way of factoring in equivalent focal length and megapixels to compare the "reach" that cameras could have.

The calculation is explained herehttp://www.digicamhistory.com/Figure of Merit.htmlbut basically it is equivalent focal lengthsquaredmultiplied by the number of megapixels.

So, for the Fz200, you get 600mm x 600mm x 12 megapixels = 4.320 million

I worked through the math for a variety of configurations, and (if I have the figures right) here are the results (the bigger the number, the better the reach):

FZ200 -- 4.320
FZ1000 -- 3.216
D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860
Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760
Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760
Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300CX -- 14.580

Nikon P900 -- 64.000 million

I did notice in the promotional video that a tripod was used to photograph the surfer.

Cheers, Jock
Woah, that's a lot of million! I'm finding that getting sharp shots at extra long focal lengths requires impeccable technique and good shooting conditions no matter what the camera.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom