Making a superzoom for a compact is easy, but for a DSLR, it's hard?

Started Oct 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
pixseal Veteran Member • Posts: 3,264
Re: Getting to the bottom...

Leandros S wrote::

I still don't find that intuitive. Other than the issue of flange distance, you should be able to scale a bridge camera design up to being an exchangeable lens, and vice versa. Added to that, miniaturising things is technically harder than making them bigger - at least in terms of R&D. At the small scale, imperfections are much more noticeable, so the glass actually needs to be higher quality.

Double the size does not mean double the cost.  2x length = 8x volume of glass.  And it still does not scale at 8x; there is less tolerance of curvature and more than 8x reject rate.

And yet, I don't hear the superzoom compact reviews droning on about sharpness. In fact, the last time I remember that complaint as referring to the glass rather than the autofocus accuracy was in an HX300V review - that being a 20MP camera!

I've not seen a "1200mm equivelent" image with an IQ that I'd be happy with.  Compact superzooms are usually compared to other compacts.

-- hide signature --
 pixseal's gear list:pixseal's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel SL2 Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +18 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow