Super-Zoom on Camcorders vs. Digital Cameras

I've been shopping around for a new Camcorder and can't help but notice they all seem to tout the super-zoom ( 400x to 1000x ) which I think we all know that zooms much over 100x gets pretty blurry and unusable )

Why do camcorders always have the super-zoom capability and still digitals have very small digital zooms?

For starters the 100x your talking about is digital zoom, like when you blow up a picture on your computer using software. The important zoom is optical zoom which will be much less on a camcorder like 20x or so. The more digital zoom that you use the worse the quality of the image. Other than that I dont know why alot of video cameras have higher optical zzom than still cameras do.

Sorry, I thought that was a given ( that it was digital zoom ) Regardless of that, still wondering why such a huge difference. And, by the way, 20x optical zoom would be wonderful, especially of a digital camera. Don't usually see that, of course.

TapouT said:

For starters the 100x your talking about is digital zoom, like when
you blow up a picture on your computer using software. The important
zoom is optical zoom which will be much less on a camcorder like 20x
or so. The more digital zoom that you use the worse the quality of
the image. Other than that I dont know why alot of video cameras
have higher optical zzom than still cameras do.

Click to expand...

Oh, by the way you worded it made me think you didnt know the difference, you would be susprised in how many people think digital zoom is better or dont even know there is a difference (they think DIGITAL and its wow digital must be better). Ive wondered how well the camcorder zooms were in quality, because ive seen more than one review commend makers like Kodak and Canon for not getting into the zoom race and not going past 12x like sony and olympus. These reviews mentioned degraded image quality due to the optics and craming a wide angle and high zoom in one lens. I know nothing of that personally though. I think this is why a dSLR needs more than one lens to have high zoom and wide angle both.

I think it is a joke to see 1000x digital zoom and to me its nothing more than an advertising gimmick! If it has an actual bonified use, then I would be interested in knowing what use it would be to have 1000x digital over 100x? I would take a video camera with 35x optical zoom and 5x digital zoom over one with 10x optical zoom and 1000x digital zoom anyday (all else being equal).

I would like to know though if you still get a good wide angle and great quality on a video camera with like 35x optical zoom (am considering one at BestBuy right now as a gift). The HD video cameras I looked at all had 10x optical zoom though.

I'm still at a loss why almost every video camera insists on huge digital zooms. Anyone who has tried to zoom much past 100x sees the image degrade almost beyond the point of recognizability. At least on a regular digital camera when you are always taking still pics, you could mount on a tripod for some super-telephoto with at least the possiblity of a useable photo.

Jim Rucker said:

I'm still at a loss why almost every video camera insists on huge
digital zooms.

Click to expand...

Marketing for the masses. They see a bigger number, they think it is "better". There is reason numero uno for the megapixel race. I was at a shoot early this year, and I was chatting with another photographer at the event. He was telling me how "cute" my little XT was (he had a 1D Mark II N and a 100-400L to go with it). Meanwhile, a couple of yutzes from the audience came up to us all impressed by our cameras. These guys had ELPH's of some kind, and they were going on about how high their resolution was. Since it was obvious that their camera was nothing more than a fashion accessory, we decided to have a little fun with them. After hearing three straight comments about "how many miegpixels" each of their cameras had, I told the gentlemen that my XT had 40 megapixels. They were suitably impressed. Then the other dude held up his 1 series and told them he had 200 MP. They hooted and hollered and high fived us for having such great cameras.

Moral of the story. It's idiots like these that are driving the marketplace. More = better to them. This story is representative of 99% of the population. The other 1% is here.

That still doesn't explain why more digital zoom is "better" for video, and not "better" for still cameras.

Jim Rucker said:

That still doesn't explain why more digital zoom is "better" for
video, and not "better" for still cameras.

Click to expand...

Still cameras chose to market on increasing resolution - hence the megapixel race. Also, digital zoom was thoroughly debunked early in the still camera lifecycle, and the masses accept that as gospel.

Video cameras all have the same tiny sensors (1/6"), and the same resolution (640x480). Some genius at some point decided to hype their digital zoom number, and once someone slapped a 900X label on their camera, the rest of the herd had to follow suit. Digital zoom was never really debunked in the video camera world, although there are even less pixels to begin with, so degradation should occur in a big hurry. Besides, people are specifically looking for the maximum possible zoom in the camcorder world.

They are two different beasts.

Whenever you have a question like this, follow the dollar signs. Cameras and camcorders (and just about everything else) are marketed to maximize profit. If that means slapping a 900X label on a camcorder, that's what they'll do. Profit, profit, profit. That's all that matters.

There is no other way I can explain this to you.

This reminds me of the 'department store telescope' nonsense.
I'm sure many of you have seen the $59.95 3 1/2" refractor telescopes
that quote '900X magnification'.

I wonder how many people are duped into this and are totally disappointed when
they literally can't even see the moon on their 'super power' telescope!

Only the really high quality (I.E. very expensive!) telescopes can even do much
better than 50X or 60X per inch of aperture. And that's only under really superb
seeing conditions.

"Gee, my 'W..Mart' special 3 1/2" 900X telescope at it's 'very best' won't even
be usable to anywhere near 150X? Probably not even 20X ?
I should have just bought a pair of binoculars! "

Ha!

--
Don Levstik
[email protected]

I agree to a point, but in the MP race, there was some benefit early on, of course, with the increase in MP's. And even today, many of the less informed still think more MP's are better. It is very difficult for the novice, or even the average imager to know how the increased MP's are actually hurting them, much less being able to detect this degradation for themselves.

But with the zoom race in camcorders anybody who points the camcorder at the Best Buy sign on the back wall can see immediately that these megazooms are not all they're cracked up to be. It is obvious they're pretty much a gimmick. But they really don't have much of a choice as it seems almost all have the superzoom capability.

Jim

sarlo100 said:

They are two different beasts.

Whenever you have a question like this, follow the dollar signs.
Cameras and camcorders (and just about everything else) are marketed
to maximize profit. If that means slapping a 900X label on a
camcorder, that's what they'll do. Profit, profit, profit. That's
all that matters.

There is no other way I can explain this to you.

Click to expand...

sarlo100 said:

Video cameras all have the same tiny sensors (1/6"), and the same
resolution (640x480).

Click to expand...

Totally Incorrect - There are many sensor sizes and most have three sensors. Better ones have three 1/3 inch sensors. Video sensor sizes also use a different system of measurement than still cameraswhich is related to video tube sizes in the old days. Professional video cameras use three 1/2 inch sensors.

NTSC video is 720X480, not 640X480

sarlo100 said:

Besides, people are specifically looking for the maximum
possible zoom in the camcorder world.

Click to expand...

What are you smoking? This is nonsense.

FYI on zoom - The Canon XH-A1 leads the prosumer pack with a 20X optical zoom (no digital zoom). At 20X zoom, you need a $1,500 tripod and professional panning technique to get good smooth shots.

resolution of camcorder is near 0,5 Mpx, resolution of digi cameras is over 5-7 Mpx.

jeff9329 said:

sarlo100 said:

Video cameras all have the same tiny sensors (1/6"), and the same
resolution (640x480).

Click to expand...

Totally Incorrect - There are many sensor sizes and most have three
sensors. Better ones have three 1/3 inch sensors. Video sensor sizes
also use a different system of measurement than still cameraswhich is
related to video tube sizes in the old days. Professional video
cameras use three 1/2 inch sensors.

NTSC video is 720X480, not 640X480

Click to expand...

This discussion is about mass marketed consumer equipment, not the professional sector. Minor variances in resolution are not relevant to this discussion, either. Professionals and most people looking for that grade of equipment know exactly what they are looking for. The example you put forth belongs in the pro forum. The variations between sensors in still cameras and camcorders are significant, to say the least. Exhibit A: The sensor in a 1Ds Mark III and a Canon S1. No pair of camcorders ever produced will have that kind of sensor variance.

Different animals. I said that, you obviously failed to read that. If you want to argue technical difference in camcorders, I'm sure you can find a forum to fit your needs.

jeff9329 said:

jeff9329 said:

Besides, people are specifically looking for the maximum
possible zoom in the camcorder world.

Click to expand...

What are you smoking? This is nonsense.

Click to expand...

jeff9329 said:

FYI on zoom - The Canon XH-A1 leads the prosumer pack with a 20X
optical zoom (no digital zoom). At 20X zoom, you need a $1,500
tripod and professional panning technique to get good smooth shots.

Click to expand...

I'm quite well aware of zoom and the limitations of it. This is why non stabilized superzoom cameras are next to useless, and I enjoy reading threads from novices wondering why they can't get a sharp picture with a 1/30th of a second handheld shot. Again, this thread is aimed at what is driving the masses (specifically stupid marketing numbers), not the pro sector. The pro sector doesn't make these kinds of mistakes, nor do any of the calculations discussed in this thread even enter the mind of the pro set.

As for your other comments, take them and your snark to the Pro forum, where it belongs.

You're looking for logic where there is none. A 10MP camera will sell better than a 5MP camera in this market, no matter what. People who read these boards understand this is rubbish, and actually counter productive. The masses do not understand this. If you read further down in the thread, I had some tech nerd try to show me how smart he is by showing off his vast knowledge of camcorder sensors. Of course, he missed the entire point of the thread, which is that almost the whole market is driven by a few key statistics that have nothing to do with creating a better image.

It makes no sense to anybody who understands how images are created. I would love to have a camera based on the old Fuji F31 sensor with the performance of the G9. It's certainly technically possible. But it won't sell. As much praise as you hear for that Fuji F31, it ended up being a disappointment in sales strictly due to having "only" 6MP. The fact that it was really a breakthrough meant nothing to the masses. They simply didn't care. That's how the F50 came about, all 12MP. It's inferior in virtually every respect, but I bet it sells better than the F31 does.

As for the zoom in your camcorder example? Controlling the camera past 5-6X even with image stabilization is starting to get tricky. Even my S2 gets wobbly in video mode after around 250mm equiv, and that has very good IS. However, consumers want the "best", and they have been trained to think of more=better. that is is counter productive means nothing. The market has been trained to want to have those "capabilities", even if they are closer to "liabilities".

It still all comes down to money.