A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.

Started Jul 27, 2012 | Discussions
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
Jul 27, 2012

(but not so small if you get carried away with a big lens)

As requested in another thread :

I did in fact visit this notion at least briefly, after reading some of your earlier comments on the V1. I might reprice the V1/55-300mm rig again now. Do you perhaps know anyone using such kit for birding? I'd be very interested to see some samples or even galleries from that camera.

. . .

Maybe I'll get to the local zoo before the end of the month. Unfortunately, most of the birds and small mammals are behind glass, but at least a few can be shot outside (flamingos and peacocks).

I haven't gotten to the zoo yet but I managed to get some max. zoom test photos at moderately close and very far distances (about 50 ft. and many hundreds of feet). The V1 used lenses at 300mm (equivalent with the FT-1 to 810mm) vs the HS20's claimed 720 mm (probably 660mm). Photos were shot at all apertures with both cameras in the long distance tests and the results weren't too surprising. The HS20 was at its best wide open (f/5.6) and with each smaller aperture the IQ dropped a bit. The 55-300mm Nikkor also had a max. aperture of f/5.6 at 300mm. Wide open, it had a slight advantage over the HS20 but not by much. But unlike the HS20, the IQ continued to improve with each reduction of the aperture, and the Nikkor images reached their best at f/10 and f/11. First up are two context photos. The first is the scene shot with the HS20 at 24mm. The maximum focal length crops are from the antenna array atop the distant red brick building near the center of the frame. Next is the same scene, zoomed in to about 45mm to make the antennas more visible. They're now positioned in the exact center of the frame, and the sign used for the much closer photo crops can be seen at the very bottom of the frame, slightly to the left of center.

The next two photo crops were shot with the HS20, the first L size, the next M size, both at f/5.6.

Next we have the 55-300mm VR at f/10, followed by the 70-300mm VR at f/11. Both show much more detail than the HS20 photos. Click them once or twice if you don't see the difference.

Now we have a ringer. The 300mm f/4 (no VR) Nikkor was used, shot using f/5.6. It's much smaller and lighter than Nikon's extremely expensive f/2.8 "pro" version, but it's really too heavy to carry around all day, especially since it really needs a tripod most of the time. In bright sunlight, VR isn't needed, but still . . .

The next two photos are of the much closer No Parking sign. The V1 photo may seem similar to the HS20 photo, but enlarged with a click and the much greater detail should be very easy to see. Enlarging isn't needed to see the fly. Most of the photos were shot yesterday, but the 300mm f/4 Nikkor photos and the signs were shot today during breaks between light rain and thunderstorms. You can see some of the water beads on the bottom of the signs. Some of the 300mm f/4 photos may have been shot through a very light rain.

jcmarfilph
Senior MemberPosts: 7,592Gear list
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 27, 2012

Photos of the HS20 are soft and slightly OOF. Did you use a tripod( and IS OFF) or you just relied on your shaky hands?

-=[ Joms ]=-

 jcmarfilph's gear list:jcmarfilph's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
What a shock . . .
In reply to jcmarfilph, Jul 27, 2012

. . . The leopard can't change its spots.

jcmarfilph wrote:

Photos of the HS20 are soft and slightly OOF.

Slightly soft (the menu setting) to maximize detail. OOF? No, not at all. I took multiple photos at each aperture and selecting only the best, and as I mentioned, at f/5.6 there was hardly any difference between the HS20's photos (which were shot both L and M size) and the V1. As I mentioned, the HS20's resolution dropped off progressively with each reduction in the aperture used. That wouldn't have happened if the photos were randomly out of focus.

Did you use a tripod( and IS OFF)

Yes, a good CF tripod , and I used the self timer for both cameras to eliminate camera shake from pressing the shutter button.

. . . or you just relied on your shaky hands?

As I've demonstrated several times using the HS10, my hand held photos provide much more blur free photos than most people here, regularly getting sharp photos at 720mm using shutter speeds well below 1/100th sec. and a small percentage of acceptable photos at 1/30th sec. It's clear from practically everything you've written in your reply that you're unable to give up playing the dishonest, insulting troll. Your favorite camera, the HS30 would do no better than what I got with the HS20, and despite your complaint, the HS20 actually did quite well thanks to the tripod. It allowed the use of ISO 100 even with shutter speeds that were as slow as 1/70th sec. at the smallest apertures. Had I used higher ISO levels, the deck would have been stacked against the HS20, so I was trying to get the best out of it, not trying to find a way to give the V1 any advantages. You should try honesty and integrity some time.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Shunda77
Senior MemberPosts: 1,658Gear list
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 27, 2012

This is quite an interesting comparison.

I've got the D5100 + 16-85 & the 2 kit lenses (18-55 + 55-200) and I also have the HS20.

I've been considering the Nikon 1 series as a tele option with the 55-200 to avoid lens changing in a 'walk around' context.

Do you think this is a valid idea?

The other lens I am thinking of getting is the Nikon 70-300 or the Tamron equivalent.

I do miss the range of the HS 20, though the 16-85 has helped alleviate that situation to some extent.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Melb AU
Contributing MemberPosts: 935
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 27, 2012

I don't quite understand what we are comparing here. I would not need to look at any images to know that Nikon CX sensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg plus limited zoom optics will provide better image quality than 1/2" Fujifilm sensor with 30X zoom lens. Is Nikon 1 an alternative? Sure, as much as Finepix 10X or (even better) X100.
--
Everyone can do it - some do it well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rachotilko
Contributing MemberPosts: 538
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 27, 2012

A little bit of sharpening in PP would help the HS20 shots substantially.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Rachotilko, Jul 27, 2012

Rachotilko wrote:

A little bit of sharpening in PP would help the HS20 shots substantially.

Yes, and that would produce better results than if I had increased the in-camera sharpening instead. That's a valid way of presenting comparisons, but I chose to do no PP at all, other than simple crops.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Michael Melb AU, Jul 27, 2012

Michael Melb AU wrote:

I don't quite understand what we are comparing here. I would not need to look at any images to know that Nikon CX sensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg plus limited zoom optics will provide better image quality than 1/2" Fujifilm sensor with 30X zoom lens.

You're missing the point of the comparison, which was to see how the cameras compare at their maximum available focal lengths. At smaller focal lengths, the HS20 will usually do as well as the V1 as long as there's sufficient light. For other types of photography, some will favor the HS20, others the V1, but I didn't compare those.

Is Nikon 1 an alternative? Sure, as much as Finepix 10X or (even better) X100.

Ah, then you did understand at least a little bit of what I showed, which is that with the FT-1, the Nikon 1 can be an alternative. Without it, the Nikon 1 is limited to less than 1/2 the reach of the HS20 (close to 300mm), and can't compete at all with the HS20 when the longest focal lengths are needed. But even if the equivalent of 300mm is all that's ever needed, again, each camera has its own strengths and weaknesses, so you can't say that either is better than the other. But for birding, where very long focal lengths are needed, the V1 has much more potential. I've tried decent TCs on the HS10/HS20, and they don't help much at all. It might be otherwise if Fuji produced a compatible, well designed TC specifically for the HS-series cameras like Fuji once did for the S5000/S5100/S5200, but Fuji chose to not offer that option.

But I wouldn't consider any 10x Fuji to be a viable alternative, because they don't come close to the wide focal length range of the HS20 or the V1 with the FT-1 and an additional lens. If you meant "X10" instead of "10X", its fl range is much less than 10x, and of course the X100 has the most limited range of all, two fixed, wide angle focal lengths, if you add Fuji's wide angle conversion lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jcmarfilph
Senior MemberPosts: 7,592Gear list
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 27, 2012

Billx08 wrote:

Michael Melb AU wrote:

I don't quite understand what we are comparing here. I would not need to look at any images to know that Nikon CX sensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg plus limited zoom optics will provide better image quality than 1/2" Fujifilm sensor with 30X zoom lens.

You're missing the point of the comparison, which was to see how the cameras compare at their maximum available focal lengths. At smaller focal lengths, the HS20 will usually do as well as the V1 as long as there's sufficient light. For other types of photography, some will favor the HS20, others the V1, but I didn't compare those.

Is Nikon 1 an alternative? Sure, as much as Finepix 10X or (even better) X100.

Ah, then you did understand at least a little bit of what I showed, which is that with the FT-1, the Nikon 1 can be an alternative. Without it, the Nikon 1 is limited to less than 1/2 the reach of the HS20 (close to 300mm), and can't compete at all with the HS20 when the longest focal lengths are needed. But even if the equivalent of 300mm is all that's ever needed, again, each camera has its own strengths and weaknesses, so you can't say that either is better than the other.

But for birding, where very long focal lengths are needed, the V1 has much more potential. I've tried decent TCs on the HS10/HS20, and they don't help much at all. It might be otherwise if Fuji produced a compatible, well designed TC specifically for the HS-series cameras like Fuji once did for the S5000/S5100/S5200, but Fuji chose to not offer that option.

I have never seen you produced a desirable shots from HS10 or HS20 so I think those are flawed comparisons.

If you can produce images like these using your HS10 then I will believe you...

But I wouldn't consider any 10x Fuji to be a viable alternative, because they don't come close to the wide focal length range of the HS20 or the V1 with the FT-1 and an additional lens. If you meant "X10" instead of "10X", its fl range is much less than 10x, and of course the X100 has the most limited range of all, two fixed, wide angle focal lengths, if you add Fuji's wide angle conversion lens.

-- hide signature --

-=[ Joms ]=-

 jcmarfilph's gear list:jcmarfilph's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Shunda77, Jul 27, 2012

Shunda77 wrote:

This is quite an interesting comparison.

I've got the D5100 + 16-85 & the 2 kit lenses (18-55 + 55-200) and I also have the HS20.

I've been considering the Nikon 1 series as a tele option with the 55-200 to avoid lens changing in a 'walk around' context.

Do you think this is a valid idea?

Not really, unless you're talking about a two camera solution to avoid changing lenses. Used with the V1 or J1, the 55-200mm lens offers a 35mm equivalent focal length range of about 148-540mm and that would be much too limiting for me. But as a two camera option to avoid lens changing, the 16-85mm on the D5100 covers about 24-129mm, which complements the 148-540mm very nicely.

The other lens I am thinking of getting is the Nikon 70-300 or the Tamron equivalent.

The 70-300mm VR Nikkor is a very nice lens, but I found (using it on the V1) that at 300mm (810mm equivalent) there's not much difference between its image quality and what you get from the smaller, less expensive 55-300mm VR lens.

I do miss the range of the HS 20, though the 16-85 has helped alleviate that situation to some extent.

It also has much greater image quality, since the HS10/HS20 tends to turn fine, low contrast detail into mush, which is what you'd get from leaves, grass and fur when shooting at wide angle focal lengths. The HS20 starts with lower resolution than the D5100, and loses much of it more easily due to diffraction blurring if you don't use the HS20 with large apertures. At the long end of its zoom range the HS20's widest aperture is f/5.6, and resolution is lost at all smaller apertures. That shouldn't usually be a big problem though, since at > 500mm, you'd want to use f/5.6 anyway to keep from needing to use a slower shutter speed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Melb AU
Contributing MemberPosts: 935
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 27, 2012

Billx08 wrote:

Michael Melb AU wrote:

I don't quite understand what we are comparing here. I would not need to look at any images to know that Nikon CX sensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg plus limited zoom optics will provide better image quality than 1/2" Fujifilm sensor with 30X zoom lens.

You're missing the point of the comparison, which was to see how the cameras compare at their maximum available focal lengths.

I got it first time , but coming to automotive analogy, I would not compare Jaguar to Camry handling at (Camry's) maximum speed. HS30 and V1 are too different TECHNICALLY to even stand at the same shelf in the shop. One is a popular bridge camera, and the other a cheaper (and worse) version of micro- 4/3 subclass mirrorless cameras. You are giving too much favor to HS30 comparing it to these, and too much advantage to V1 comparing it to superzoom bridge. Put V1 up against Olympus Pen. Because we cannot take this http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm-HS30-EXR-vs-Nikon-V1 seriously too, can we?

P.S. I especially like this part from aforementioned page: "Cheaper $499.99 vs $789.94 The best price we've seen is $290 cheaper (around 40% less) "

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PAUL TILL
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,212
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to jcmarfilph, Jul 27, 2012

You forgot to mention that using the J1/V1 is like using the camera on a phone, everything is menu driven so unless you like diving into the menu all the time or shooting in Auto mode its pretty useless.

Paul.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bad Pic kev
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,759Gear list
Like?
the problem with the J1/V1
In reply to Billx08, Jul 27, 2012

mount the sigma 50-500mm and try to use it hand held
--
I have a picture,
pinned to my wall.
An image of you and of me and we're laughing and loving it all.

 Bad Pic kev's gear list:Bad Pic kev's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PAUL TILL
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,212
Like?
Re: the problem with the J1/V1
In reply to Bad Pic kev, Jul 27, 2012

Bad Pic kev wrote:

mount the sigma 50-500mm and try to use it hand held

That's not easy or fun on a DSLR.

Paul.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lifeflow
Junior MemberPosts: 45
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to jcmarfilph, Jul 28, 2012

What camera is this taken with??

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,468Gear list
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 29, 2012

Good tests.

Looks like the 55-300 is the one to get.

It's not so small, then, is it?

-- hide signature --

Cheers

Trevor G

Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 29, 2012

Trevor G wrote:

Good tests.

Looks like the 55-300 is the one to get.

It's not so small, then, is it?

Correct, but with its lens extended, the HS20 isn't so small either, and at focal lengths up to 300mm (where the N1's native lenses would be used) it's much smaller than the HS20 and Fuji's other current bridge cameras, comparable to the P510 and some of Panasonic's smaller bridge cameras. The 55-300 isn't as large as some might assume. It's much smaller than Nikon's familiar 70-300mm VR lens and from what I've seen so far, produces similar image quality. And for days when the longest focal lengths probably won't be needed (ask X10 owners about this so called focal length "handicap"), the V1 with both kit lenses covering 27 to almost 300mm is a much smaller kit than the HS20, making it (as stated in the thread title) a decent "small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras", and that remains true even on days when the 55-300mm lens is added to the kit.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stephen Barrett
Contributing MemberPosts: 514Gear list
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Billx08, Jul 29, 2012

Billx08, thank you for a very interesting thread! I think you are right: Nikon 1 is a good alternative to bridge cameras for birding. I was looking at Compact SLRs and came to the conclusion that the sensors did not have enough resolution to make good use of the resolution attained by their fine lenses. Here is an article that I wrote about it:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4110039430/detail-of-sx3040-vs-compact-slr

The micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras have the same problem but to a lesser degree. I also looked at the Nikon 1 system but only found a maximum focal length of 200 mm. Is your 55-300 mm lens part of the Nikon 1 system or are you using an adaptor?

I think that you have found a good balance in the Nikon 1 with 300 mm f5.6 lens. The sensor is the smallest you can get for an interchangeable-lens camera, meaning that it has the highest pixel density and therefore the highest sensor resolution. On the other hand, the pixel size is approximately double that of a superzoom, which is a good step towards remedying the IQ complaint that is always levelled at superzooms.

Angular Resolution

I ran some of your examples through my Angular-Resolution spreadsheet. The formulas are in my article cited above. The resolution corresponds approximately to 9% MTF which is the approximate limit for distinguishing line-pairs. The formulas consider lens resolution, sensor resolution and the total camera resolution. The accuracy is questionable but I obtained good agreement with total-resolution measurements that I made on my SX30. In any case the numbers give some idea of whether it is the lens or sensor that limits resolution for various cameras.

Angular Resolution at full optical zoom (in microradians)

-- hide signature --

Lens Alone ------------- Sensor Alone ------------ Total

Fuji HS20 f5.6--------------27.8------------------------22.0------------------35.5

Nikon P510 f5.6 -----------20.5------------------------14.9------------------25.5
Panasonic FZ200 f2.8-----16.2------------------------28.6------------------32.8
Nikon V1 300mm f5.6----11.7------------------------22.7------------------25.5
Nikon V1 300mm f10 ----20.8------------------------22.7------------------30.8
(Smaller angle means better resolution.)

The lens resolution for 55-300 Nikkor lens at full zoom and wide open is theoretically the best of all because of the wide aperture. (The spreadsheet doesn't know anything about sweet spots.)

For sensor resolution, the Fuji and V1 are about the same. Although the Fuji has about double the pixels per mm, the Nikkor 300 mm lens has about double the focal length so that the image projected onto the sensor is larger. The P510 sensor does well because of its high pixel density combined with a focal length that is larger than the HS20's.

The total resolution of the camera shows the V1-300mm combination beating the Fuji. Wide open, the V1 has about the same resolution as the P510 but the IQ should be better because of the larger sensor.

Image Quality (IQ)

---------------------------- Approx. Sensor Width ----------------- Approx pixel size (for 4,000 pixels wide)

Full-Frame SLR------------------36 mm--------------------------------------------9 microns

Compact SLR--------------------22-24 mm (1.6-1.5 multiplier)----------------6 microns

Micro 4/3 SLR--------------------17-18 mm ( 2 multipler)----------------------4.5 microns

Nikon 1 System------------------12 mm-------------------------------------------3 microns

Superzooms----------------------6 mm---------------------------------------------1.5 microns

According to Roger N. Clark, the optimum pixel size for IQ is around 5 microns:
http://www.clarkvision.com/...articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#sensorconstant

So, I think you have found a good alternative to superzooms for birding. The resolution is about the same as the best superzooms and the pixel size is double for better IQ. Chromatic aberration should also be better because the zoom range is not so extreme.

 Stephen Barrett's gear list:Stephen Barrett's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX30 IS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Stephen Barrett, Jul 29, 2012

Stephen Barrett wrote:

Billx08, thank you for a very interesting thread! I think you are right: Nikon 1 is a good alternative to bridge cameras for birding. I was looking at Compact SLRs and came to the conclusion that the sensors did not have enough resolution to make good use of the resolution attained by their fine lenses. Here is an article that I wrote about it:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4110039430/detail-of-sx3040-vs-compact-slr

The micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras have the same problem but to a lesser degree. I also looked at the Nikon 1 system but only found a maximum focal length of 200 mm. Is your 55-300 mm lens part of the Nikon 1 system or are you using an adaptor?

Thanks for the comment. I'm running late (need to get a new computer) so already opened it in a tab and I'll look more closely at your article later today or tomorrow. With its two lenses (10-30mm and 300-110mm) and magnification factor of 2.7x, the Nikon 1 has a focal length range of 27-297mm. There's also a native 10-100mm lens (27-270mm) but it's a significantly larger lens and is primarily designed for video use (silent, smooth zooming) but it's still comparable in size to Fuji's larger bridge cameras. The 300mm f/4 lens that's normally used on Nikon's DSLRs (DX and FX) mounts on the V1/J1 using Nikon's FT-1 lens adapter. It's compatible with Nikon's VR and will allow AF-S lenses to autofocus. Older screw-driven lenses can be manually focused and will meter if they're D lenses that have internal cpus. The reason that the lenses perform so well with the FT-1 is that they don't have the two drawbacks of Nikon's teleconverters. Because they have no optics, there's no image degradation due to additional pieces of glass between the sensor and the lens, and the magnification is solely due to the smaller sensor size. This puts greater demands on the lens quality, and this is evident in the better performance of the 300mm f/4. The other advantage is that the aperture doesn't change. With a 2x TC on a DSLR, the 300mm f/4 becomes a 600mm f/8 lens. With the FT-1, it becomes an 810mm lens that still has the same f/4 maximum aperture. With the 2x TC, it would become a 1620mm f/8 lens on the V1, but that's pushing things, because as nice as the 300mm f/4 lens is, it's not on Nikon's recommended list for being able to completely satisfy the high res. requirements of the 36mp D800, so for a clear improvement at 1620mm, the very expensive 300mm f/2.8 (which is on the list) would be the lens of choice.

I think that you have found a good balance in the Nikon 1 with 300 mm f5.6 lens. The sensor is the smallest you can get for an interchangeable-lens camera, meaning that it has the highest pixel density and therefore the highest sensor resolution. On the other hand, the pixel size is approximately double that of a superzoom, which is a good step towards remedying the IQ complaint that is always levelled at superzooms.

Another advantage of the N1 system is its amazingly effective VR. Shortly after I got it last year, I tested it against the G11 and P7000 and found that it was more effective by several stops. Shooting at 200mm (only 160mm for the G11) it produced a reasonable percentage of good, mostly blur free results down to about 1/3 sec. shutter speed, where the other two cameras had much blurrier images at 1/30 sec. In the weeks and months after I posted my findings here, many "pros" have also commented about the N1's amazingly good stabilization, which according to my measurements sometimes were good for a little over 5 stops worth of improvement. I suspect that the VR using the 55-300mm lens won't be quite as good, more like the usual 3 to 4 stops of improvement.

According to Roger N. Clark, the optimum pixel size for IQ is around 5 microns:
http://www.clarkvision.com/...articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#sensorconstant

So, I think you have found a good alternative to superzooms for birding. The resolution is about the same as the best superzooms and the pixel size is double for better IQ. Chromatic aberration should also be better because the zoom range is not so extreme.

I haven't read any of Roger's posts for a number of years, but he's more than a theoretician. He's a very good birder that uses Canon's largest "pro" lenses on his big Wimberly gimbal mount. Even though he loved his Canon gear, when he compared cameras from many different manufacturers, he didn't let that affect his findings. I doubt that he'd be able to tolerate some of the incredible forum zealots that seem to thrive in DPR's forums.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Melb AU
Contributing MemberPosts: 935
Like?
Re: A small alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
In reply to Stephen Barrett, Jul 30, 2012

Hi Stephen,

I find your maths interesting. There is one thing I need your help to understand - when combined resolution is compared (in post as well as in article), is it done at the same 35mm equivalent focus distance for every camera? I share your point that DSLR sensors are not good enough to capture all of detail lens provide and, opposite to that - optics is a limiting factor to small sensor formats. That is, if we abstract from other parameters, such as matrix noise and in-camera processing. Somewhere midway all the things meet at "sweet spot". I reckon we owe the brand - new Olympus OM-D to this? Did you try your maths on it?

P.S. As for now - I'm done with Fuji comparison thing.
--
Everyone can do it - some do it well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads