Superzoom vs DSLR with consumer lenses at long focal lengths

After a discusion in another thread on here, about the cost comparison between an S100fs vs a DSLR (comparable lenses and their price),I started looking at photos on flickr,checking EXIF data and such for some different superzoom cams. Most of the nice ones from Superzoom P&S cams were all shot at ISO 200 or below, but the lenses were wide open. I then looked at some shots with consumer glass on DSLR's and noticed most of the sharp ones are shot at F8-F11. OK, I'm familiar with that scenario, if I want a nice sharp shot with my 70-300, I gotta bump it to F11. But, I can get away with ISO 800 where the P&S cams can't. Then I got to wondering... does all this even out anyway? As far as sharpness and such goes, do DSLR's only have an advantage with expensive glass when using long focal lengths?

I'm thinking in some respects,yes I used this EV calculator here http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=exposure and was kind of amazed at something. I picked a panasonic FZ 50 cam to compare with since it has a really nice lens. It's fast for a long zoom (F2.8 to 3.5 at 420mm equivalent). And sharp wide open from what I can tell by a bunch of samples I looked at.

Panasonic (F4, no choice for 3.5 on the calculator)
F4 with 125th shutter and ISO100 is 11EV

70-300 lens on my DSLR
F11 with 125th shutter and iso800 is 11EV

So it's not that I 'can' use ISO 800 but that I 'have to' use ISO800 to match a P&S superzoom

Of course, I can put on better glass and I do benefit more at short focals even with my kit lens, since I can shoot F3.5 ISO 800 compared to the superzooms F2.8 ISO 200 max. But at the long end, things are almost a toss up with cheaper glass on a DSLR. The Panasonic FZ50 at full zoom and wide open, gathers the same light as my DSLR at ISO800 and F11. Again, I can open up to F5.6 of course, but if I'm shooting wildlife, I have to use at least F8 but usually use F11 as the lens is much much sharper at F11.

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

As I recently sold my "prosumer" P&S Fuji S9600 and switched to Nikon D40 I noticed exactly the same. Not only point-and-shoot camera was pretty sharp with aperture wide open (but it still gained maximum sharpness when stopped down to 5.6) but also I saw no upgrade in terms of light sensitivity as focal lengths increase.
--
Alexander

That's almost exactly what I did. Went from a Fuji S6000 to a D40. What zoom lens are you using?

Also noticed, that indoors, at wide angle, (the fuji at ISO400 and F2.8) is very similar to the results I get wide open F3.5 and ISO800 on my D40. Plus the Fuji lens was just so darned sharp at all focal lengths. I had zero CA issues with my 6000.

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

70-300 lenses tend to be pretty weak at 300 wider than f/8. I really can't think of any lenses that will give you good results @300mm that cost less than a grand.

I looked a some superzoom samples and some of them are just horrible at the long end. The FZ50 looked pretty good.

--



I cannot guaranty the accuracy of my statements.

I noticed some weren't so hot either. The FZ line seems superb, my S6000 fuji was great also. I guess a lot of people bought the FZ50 mostly because of the lens. I want an equivlent for my D40 ;-)
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

Right now I am using kit lens and thinking how to upgrade the system to the focal range I used to have with S9600 but without losing much light sensitivity. Also I can't afford to buy premium glass. Right now I am going to replace kit lens for more solid Nikon AF-S 18-70 mm 3.5-4.5 which is more universal and a bit brighter. As for telephoto lens... I am not really sure if I have much choice. Nikon AF-S 70-300 mm 4.5-5.6 VR or what? Anything else is either less sharp or does not autofocus on D40 or costs a lot and/or is bulky and heavy.

Just like you I notice that in similar conditions I tend to use twice the ISO on D40 than I used on S9600. My S9600 wasn't the sharpest one but still it performed very good even at long range - especially when taking its cost into consideration. I almost never really bothered to stop down the aperture unless I wanted greater depth of field.
--
Alexander

Dumb question here. Why can't you use something less than f11 when shooting with a zoom SLR lens? I realize that above f11 you will have diffraction issues. Is this the case when the lens is wide open as well? I was under the impression diffraction was worse as you increased the F number.

Dj

I have both an FZ50 and a Nikon D80 and I do see a point to your logic. However, I have not found that always the case in the real world and would take the speed of the D80 over the FZ50 anyday. In fact, I use the FZ50 so seldom, I should probably sell it.

Here is a sample taken with the 80-400mm f4/5.6 VR lens at 400mm, Iso200, f5.6, 1/800. I probably could have used f8 and slowed the speed to 1/400 if I had time but the darn butterfly wouldn't stay still long enough. It's still pretty sharp even at f5.6. Of course it's a $1400 lens so my whole point may be moot.

I'm not sure I could have gotten this shot with the FZ50 and had it be this sharp.

The 70-300 zooms tend to be at their optical worst at the extreme long end wide open, stopping down to f/8-f/11 clears this up reasonable. A Nikon 70-300vr is excellent between 70-210mm but beyond that is just so so, and it is one of the better 70-300mm. Cheaper and older models are much worse.

Actually most zoom lenses are at their least sharp at the long end wide open.

Here's the nikon 70-300vr

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report?start=1

--



I cannot guaranty the accuracy of my statements.

That's the problem with an inexpensive long zoom. You really need to stop down 2-3 stops to get maximum sharpness, but two stops down from 5.6 is 11, which is putting you into the diffraction limitation area with a crop sensor. DL costs you sharpness, so you're between a rock and a hard place. @300mm, you really need a max aperture of 4-4.5, so your sweet spot is around F8, which is under the DL range.

Of course, the higher grade lenses cost more, too...

--
Damn right, FZ30 & FZ 50 have the best lenses in bridge cameras by far.

And the funny thing is that if you print the same pic shot with your slr and the fz30/50 the difference I say will be marginal in A4. And if you can turn, in post processing, into advantage the noise that those Pannys produce u will produce an astonishing result

I know rough choices if you want 300mm. If 200 is good, there are more choices, like the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. That's one I might go for one day. Less zoom but FAST and it's sharp at F5.6.

Alexander An said:

Right now I am using kit lens and thinking how to upgrade the system
to the focal range I used to have with S9600 but without losing much
light sensitivity. Also I can't afford to buy premium glass. Right
now I am going to replace kit lens for more solid Nikon AF-S 18-70 mm
3.5-4.5 which is more universal and a bit brighter. As for telephoto
lens... I am not really sure if I have much choice. Nikon AF-S 70-300
mm 4.5-5.6 VR or what? Anything else is either less sharp or does not
autofocus on D40 or costs a lot and/or is bulky and heavy.

Just like you I notice that in similar conditions I tend to use twice
the ISO on D40 than I used on S9600. My S9600 wasn't the sharpest one
but still it performed very good even at long range - especially when
taking its cost into consideration. I almost never really bothered to
stop down the aperture unless I wanted greater depth of field.
--
Alexander

Click to expand...

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

Or you just get a 300mm f/4 which is really sharp wide open...
--



I cannot guaranty the accuracy of my statements.

Man that is a nice shot.

Ouch yes 1400 bucks, but that actually confirms my thoughts, we gotta be into the kit for 2K or better to beat a 500 dollar superzoom on the long end. Annoying! ;-)

tvandawa said:

I have both an FZ50 and a Nikon D80 and I do see a point to your
logic. However, I have not found that always the case in the real
world and would take the speed of the D80 over the FZ50 anyday. In
fact, I use the FZ50 so seldom, I should probably sell it.

Here is a sample taken with the 80-400mm f4/5.6 VR lens at 400mm,
Iso200, f5.6, 1/800. I probably could have used f8 and slowed the
speed to 1/400 if I had time but the darn butterfly wouldn't stay
still long enough. It's still pretty sharp even at f5.6. Of course
it's a $1400 lens so my whole point may be moot.

I'm not sure I could have gotten this shot with the FZ50 and had it
be this sharp.

Click to expand...

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

It sure would be nice if they'd make a successor to the FZ50 with a nice big 3 inch LCD, and leave the damn megapixels at 10 or even lessen them to 8.

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

wow I had read closer to F20 was where we'd start noticing diffraction problems. I wonder if it matters also on the resolution of the cam. My D40 is only 6mpx, I read it can't really 'see' more than (I'm going totally from memory here so don't quote me) something like 1800? 1900? LPI?

TrapperJohn said:

That's the problem with an inexpensive long zoom. You really need to
stop down 2-3 stops to get maximum sharpness, but two stops down from
5.6 is 11, which is putting you into the diffraction limitation area
with a crop sensor. DL costs you sharpness, so you're between a rock
and a hard place. @300mm, you really need a max aperture of 4-4.5, so
your sweet spot is around F8, which is under the DL range.

Of course, the higher grade lenses cost more, too...

Click to expand...

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Theres a tool halfway down the page for seeing the result of diffaction. Use the D70 example.
--



I cannot guaranty the accuracy of my statements.

Thanks that was interesting. I noticed also, in the calculator below, depending on print sizes also, whether or not diffraction had effects for a 10 inch print, it had to be F14 or larger with my camera. I wonder too, it qualified that as 'an otherwise perfect lens'. I'm sure then, consumer glass is so far from perfect that maybe that is why that article I read was assuming it would take F20 or more to 'notice' the effects. Might be that the lens can't resolve well enough to even reveal the diffraction problems at F11 etc. I know visually, F11 is a lot sharper with my 70-300, so the sharpness outweighs the diffraction on that lens. I bet a super nice pro lens on a 22 mpx cam would show the problems at F11 since it's so sharp anyway.

Thanks for the lnk!

BA baracus said:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Theres a tool halfway down the page for seeing the result of
diffaction. Use the D70 example.
--



I cannot guaranty the accuracy of my statements.

Click to expand...

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

I posted this before on here, but it fits this subject too, here is a sample to show my point. Notice I have to have my 70-300 at 200mm and F11 to match the fuji at 200 F4.9 for details.

This is just a dollar bill taped to a cabinet, I shot using a tripod and the self time on both so the camera was rock solid stable. I shot from about 7 feet away.

(anyone wanna try this with their FZ 50 at full zoom and wide open? love to see the results)



--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

--
Stu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/

.