It does not zoom by using the optics.
Totally untrue made up statistics. Any sensible person knows that 100% and millions of links are totally untrue.
You obviously don't understand how EOZ works. As you said in another post, you won't spend anymore time on this, which is fine.
Shame feather detail is smeared with NR.
I was hardly 2 metres from this bird. I was inside my vehicle, still with engine on, in the middle of the road, stopping traffic. But I was at the park, speed limit, 15mph.not sure what that photo was meant to show.
The bird is tame and about 2 metres from the camera, most cameras can do that. Don't forget that I do have that FZ300 and, as I already mentioned 3 times... I like it for what it is in that price range and that is why I have suggested it to many BUT the OP is looking for something better .
I can't even begin to say how much I DISAGREE with literally everything above ...
Now I remember what I was going to do. A comparison. Since the OP did mention this camera, just the upgraded version. I have the original. Same shot, straight out of camera Jpeg. Showing my position also relative to the bird. Before I fully zoomed in.
Please do not mischaracterize my statements. At no time did I say or suggest that anything smaller than full frame was unacceptable.
To me it seems Michael was factually correct throughout his reply, so it doesn't come to a surprise that you disagree literally with everything he said.
Absolutely untrue. All of those could have been easilty taken with numerous systems. Most with mobile phone cameras.
And it shows. SOOC JPGs tend to be very heavily processed. All the below images have at the very least significant processing artifacts.
Soft even at A4 size, hideously overprocessed soft and noisy mess when viewed larger.
Lots of information just burned away and lots hidden in the blacks as well, it seems, all right at A4 size, somewhat soft and partly out of focus.
Might be all right as postcard size, but a hideous blurry mess at A4 and beyond.
Too bad your supercamera needed a flashlight. All those burned reflections hurt my eyes. Other than that it performs well at A4 size, even somewhat beyond. A larger size shows significant lack of detail compared what many other systems would allow to capture.
At A4 size this is fine, though with parts unfortunately burned. A larger size would reveal hideous noise reduction artifacts, blurry soft mess.
At A4 size perfectly fine result. At larger sizes it becomes clear how overprocessed the image is - large sharpening artifacts and still the result is somewhat soft and lacking in detail.
This is one of the better ones - also from artistic point of view - easily good enough for A4, even somewhat larger. Howevere significantly larger output shows again softness with sharpenign artifacts as well as noise reduction artifacts.
Again the inherit softness of the image the lens has drawn causes issues - lots of processing makes the JPG appear good at moderate sizes, like A4, but larger size output shows lack of detail and the result looks very artificial as it's overprocessed.
Even at A4 this is a hideous mess. Horrible. Lack of detail, overprocessing apparent and white areas seem largely burned from all detail.
Even in the smaller than postcard size embedded in the post this is absolutely hideously bad. I've never seen anyone proudly show this kind blurry mess as an example of a performance level of camera one loves. Technically one of the very worst images I've seen for a very long time.
A4 size is fine, beyond it starts breaking apart as vastly overprocessed soft, blurry and noisy mess. Hideous colors too.
Even at A4 level not the greatest, when bigger it gets much worse. Losy colors, very poor details, loads and loads of processing artifacts.
One of the least bad shots - at A4 it's perfectly fine, though rather bland. Larger outputs start showing more and more artifacts.
All right, though bland at A4 size apart from obvious softness in the right hand size rock - that's a superzoom lens for you. Larger sizes show very poor quality, especially that rock, lots and lots of artifacts, sharpening and NR. Rather poor level of details.
Again, A4 size is practically fine, however a blue sky causes a problem as the sharpening halos are seen easily against it, making it less valuable. Looking at bigger size starts revealing horrible artifacts in the sky and massive oversharpening. Still one of the better shots.
If we were to perform a double blind test with shots of the above quality and FF shots from Joe Average, I doubt there would anyone but you in this forum who wouldn't see large image quality differences.
This is terrible, you must have made a mistake posting this
What Michael posted is accurate and so I don't see what you are rambling on about.
Is this just a case of completely missing focus? Generally those bridge cameras have pretty good AF performance?This is terrible, you must have made a mistake posting this
(not saying you made your case with the others)
Maybe, maybe not.Is this just a case of completely missing focus?This is terrible, you must have made a mistake posting this
(not saying you made your case with the others)
--
THANK YOU !!!This is terrible, you must have made a mistake posting this
(not saying you made your case with the others)
OK. thanks for clarifying.THANK YOU !!!This is terrible, you must have made a mistake posting this
(not saying you made your case with the others)
That photo is indeed unacceptably fuzzy ... I admit I have never printed nor looked at it closely before, (only as thumbnails).
It was shot from the top of a cliff from over a thousand feet, but can't use that as an excuse for it. It was shot back in 2014, and only about 2-weeks after I first got the camera, it may even have been accidentally on "manual" focus because I was more concerned about "timing".
I apologize for the image, and will never post it again ...
(BTW: half of the other shots are from about 1.5-miles away ... )
--
It looks to me like I was in manual focus, because I was indeed experimenting with the camera a lot since it was so new.OK. thanks for clarifying.THANK YOU !!!This is terrible, you must have made a mistake posting this
(not saying you made your case with the others)
That photo is indeed unacceptably fuzzy ... I admit I have never printed nor looked at it closely before, (only as thumbnails).
It was shot from the top of a cliff from over a thousand feet, but can't use that as an excuse for it. It was shot back in 2014, and only about 2-weeks after I first got the camera, it may even have been accidentally on "manual" focus because I was more concerned about "timing".
I apologize for the image, and will never post it again ...
(BTW: half of the other shots are from about 1.5-miles away ... )
So the take away message for me from your images is that if I ever have to take a photo from 1.5+ miles away from the subject to definitely not use your preferred camera and instead use something much more capable because the image quality from your camera is no where near what i need and want.
I do not doubt that "you" can.
Some are and some aren't.
Very few actually declare what their budget is.
That's fine and the whole purpose of a Beginners Forum.
I have also seen you many times criticise other people's suggestions.
That is not true. I, for one, have answered the question and I will answer again to refresh your memory.
For me personally, image quality is my main priority. If another camera has options/features I do not need and so will never use then they are redundant and irrelevent.
For me personally any camera, regardless of its features, options and price tag that cannot produce the image quality I want is not a consideration for me.
No problem, but describing those photos as good examples is just an opinion and you seem to struggle when people have a different opinion to yours of the quality of those images.
That is just a rinse and repeat of your opinion and my reply is still the same.
Irrelevent. Why not post more recent images.
No problem That is your choice to make.
which could be used to learn how to process raw images and so significantly improve your image quality compared to the sooc jpegs you post.That is just another rinse and repeat.
I don't doubt that is the best you can do with your preferred camera under those conditions. But you seem to have difficulty coping with someone not wanting to use your preferred camera under those conditions and so wanting and/or choosing to use something much more capable to take those long range photos.
Whether you actually sell any prints or not is irrelevant because I cannot verify if it is true and it doesn't change the image quality which is well short of what I need/want.
In general anyone advocating a bridge camera, superzoom or even mobile phone camera to a user is met with a neutral response, or even positive one.
Or you refuse to register the answers?
It's a matter of personal preference. I prefer to take relatively few pictures of as good quality - both artistic and techical - as I can. Someone else might want to take a million snapshots and that's just fine. It is however not your job to decide for others what they should do. Some prefer quality and get a kick out of that, others prefer quantity and get a kick out of that and others may have even weirder perversions they get kick out of.
I commented your sample photos and you naturally ignored the comments. In general the photos were of rather poor quality - (from artistic point of view a couple were perfectly fine though, but not the topic here). Even the better ones had limited maximum vieweing size by my standards. However, your standards and my standards are likely very different, just like the standards of everyone else. You might want to accept that your standards are not a universal truth.
That is a very narrow fundamentalist view. Not at all dissimilar to views of all kinds of cults.
None of that means that other people should not be allowed to shoot raw and process (not post process) their shots, or do what ever they want.
None of this explains the poor technical quality of the shots you've presented as evidence of the all conquering power of your superzoom.
Most mobile phones are capable of similar quality to your shots. Many achieve much better quality as they don't have such extreme overprocessed look.
Good for you. Absolutely irrelevant for anyone else in this forum though.
