Maximum achievable "zoom" with m4/3--within reasonable price.

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Bag of Rocks Regular Member • Posts: 455
Re: Crop your way to zoominess.

Guy Parsons wrote:

Bag of Rocks wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

The question is, why the need for super tele?

To make the faraway things that look small bigger.

Aha! That's where it can all turn to tears.

Far distance shots are usually spoiled by air movements, apparent resolution falls off really badly in warm conditions. Tele works best in clear calm conditions for distant stuff or is fine for closer stuff where you are picking off detail.

Plus of course handling problems, often smaller apertures at super tele mean that shutter speeds get slower and/or ISO rises. All that adds to struggles with stabilisation or needing a very solid tripod.

Over the years I find that for general use that 300mm equivalent is the easiest and safest maximum focal length to hand hold for everyday stuff.

As the prime lens dudes say, zoom with feet. But you and I both know that's rather silly.

Anyway that up to "3000mm" bridge camera is purely a marketing ploy as every marketing genius knows that bigger numbers are better.

Regards.... Guy

I agree with all that. I have trouble holding 200mm, let alone beyond that. That does make me wonder what kind of stabilization some of these super-super zoom cameras have when I see a set of P900 shots like these somebody shared: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61379257

I love how close he got to those birds (357mm = 2000 mm FOV).

But at 1:1, the quality kinda breaks down.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow