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

Started Oct 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
Mike CH Veteran Member • Posts: 8,513
Re: Getting to the bottom...

Leandros S wrote:

Mark B. wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

People say that interchangeable superzoom ("travel") lenses can't manage good sharpness, yet superzoom compacts do just fine in terms of sharpness. Why is that?

smaller sensors being easer to design lenses for

But why?

Small sensors ==> small glass. Large sensors ==> large glass. It's much more expensive to make a superzoom lens for a large sensor because the image circle must project a larger image onto the sensor. It requires a lot more glass.

So when you say, "more glass", are you referring to overall volume/mass, or the number of lens elements? I'm not sure that superzoom compacts get away with fewer lens elements, and I don't think the glass volume is the problem either, since, as John1940 points out, you can get telezoom DSLR lenses starting at $100.

Volume for starters.

And the cost of glass for lenses probably rises more than linearly by volume rather than by diameter, meaning there could be a quadratic relationship in cost from superzoom to DSLR.

The reject rate will be larger, too. Tolerances will be another obstacle.

And those DSLR lenses starting at $100 don't quite (ahem) compare to their more expensive brethren.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow