(unknown member)
•
Veteran Member
•
Posts: 6,192
Re: These are the best I have seen but
I am still not getting this. The FZ200 still costs £350 in the UK and the SP100 is £299 on release. Also you say you use a teleconverter to match which would cost an additional £100 at least. How much would someone need to spend to get a new Nikon teleconverter or one of similar quality. Also going from wide angle to full zoom would entail a bit of screwing and unscrewing and in my experience birds are too impatient to wait for such things.
We do not seem to be talking like for like here. I am sure the FZ200 is a great camera but I am entirely unconvinced it is a replacement for a superzoom at full bore without expensive accessories and especially not cost.
I have a Fuji HS50 myself and I would consider this as an effective birding telescope at 24x magnification, even more so the SP100 and the FZ200 a nice bright pair of binoculars at 12x. This is taking 50mm as zero magnification.
phazelag wrote:
Greynerd wrote:
We are going back a few years when the FZ200 would be classed as a superzoom. The rather conservative focal length on the camera which you can get into your pocket now is bound to give good results given the size of the camera. The modern superzoom given the large zoom factor is possibly not going to match the FZ200 at similar focal lengths but then it carries on when the FZ200 is struggling for reach. Are you saying you can crop a FZ200 to match a SP100 at full zoom otherwise it is not really relevant is it?
phazelag wrote:
You did great with this camera. I love the idea of this with the reticle site. But when I am comparing this camera to my FZ200 images I am not blown away. Your images actually improved my thoughts about what is possible with this camera, but it is my impression the Sensor is too packed and the lens is a bit soft compared to the FZ200 which for me is the gold standard in super zooms.
http://www.scottzinda.com/Point-and-Shoot-Cameras/FZ200/
I see what your saying and get your point, but to me it is very relevent. I have no desire to be taking photos at 1000-1200mm if they are going soft and blurry. So I stick to 600 where the images are sharp and if I really need the extra reach and want to carry more weight and size I will ad my Nikon Teleconverter. But I will contend I will get more keepers of birds and critters at 600 with the FZ200 versus the SP100 at 1200. Especially in lower light. Animals move and you need shutter speeds to keep up. But I would sacrifice lens speed for sharpness but the SP100 is not sharp in my opinion.
Nothing wrong with wanting to shoot with the SP100 its good for the price and if your not hung up on super sharp images it is a great option. But I have been spoiled by the FZ200. So its all compromises and what you like.