Super zoom vs slr

[Sean Warnick]

Hi, I have a question, how does the quality of a lens on a super zoom digital camera differ from a telezoom DSLR lens, also does's it make a difference in the size of the picture at the same focal length like being able to capture a wider shot, ect. Thank you.

[BigFuzzy]

Short answer is that I don't think anyone would credibly argue that the lens quality of a superzoom can match a SLR lens... well, a decent slr lens that is. A big difference that isn't always associated with actual image quality is how much light they let in which will help determine how fast/slow the shutter speed can be. But, as I said, there are no absolutes, but I'd be willing to bet a new slr vs a new superzoom, a slr will win image quality test a vast majority of the time.

Also, the zoom factor you talk about will be depending on whether or not your SLR is full frame or a smaller sensor. What i mean by that is it's likely (though I'm not sure about this, so correct me if I'm wrong folks) that the super zoom and a smaller sensor SLR will have the same view at the same focal length. But both will be different from a SLR that is fullframe.

I hope that helps.

[RichardTaylor]

Don't just think lens. Think whole system.

If shooting at low ISO, and realtively static subjects, you may not notice a lot of difference.

If shooting at high ISO it doesn't really matter how good the superzoom lens is, if the sensor can't capture a decent image.

They other thing to consider is can the superzoom capture a decent image in the first place when you consider focussing speed and accuracy, shutter lag and relatively sluggish performance.

----------------------

Depending on the focal length range the field of view will be similar, in a lot of cases (or have more reach for some superzooms cameras and crop bodies)
Consider:

On a full frame camera the Canon 28-300 will roughly have a similar FOV as a 18-200 on a 1.6 crop body and a ~ 6.2-67mm on a Fuji 9500(9000) an early superzoom camera.

[SwissJon]

You know, there's a reason why people spend lots more money and buy SLR's rather than superzooms..

I think the answer to your question is very simple really..There's a big difference between the two, but you might not see that if you're not prepared to take the time to find out how to show that difference in the photos you take. If you're willing to invest time and effort as well as money into this hobby, then you're likely to be able to get some very nice photographs from an SLR. If you just want to take snapshots, then get a superzoom..

I recently read somewhere.. The definition of a snapshot is a picture of something, a photograph is a picture ABOUT something.. So, if you just want to take snapshots of things, get the superzoom, otherwise you're going to be wasting money investing in something that doesn't do what you want it to do. If you want to take photographs that describe things, photographs that people turn to you and say "Hey, that's a really nice picture, can I have a copy?" and are prepared to spend the time and effort learning how to do that, then you'll be wasting your money on a superzoom and you should get an SLR.

Horses for courses.

[RichardTaylor]

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter providing your gear snd you can capture the image you want to.

If the shooting conditions are relatively easy the camera requirements are not so demanding. Amost any camera may meet your needs.
And that is not just to take "snapshots" but to take "photographs".

However in difficult shooting conditions, or subjects, some cameras, especially those that take interchangable lenses, can be configured (at a cost in $$$ and physical size) to be the almost perfect camera to capture a decent image. With other cameras it may be impossible to capture a decent image.

The main thing is:
(1) to develop an "eye" for a "moment", composition and light.
(2) Take the time and effort to make sure you are in the right place at the right time.
(3) Learn how to get the most out of your equpment so when that moment happens you are capable of capturing it.

From personal experience it took about 3 months , and after a day shooting motor sport, to grow out of a good superzoom (my first decent digital camera) and replace it with a DSLR and eventually a whole pile of (expensive) lenses. I still use a good P&S from time to time.

[dlambert]

Don't just think lens. Think whole system.

Absolutely. There's a reason these cameras can cover a zoom range that you'd need a bazooka for on a DSLR. The sensor size on these cameras allows manufacturers to shrink everything down proportionately.

Dollar-for-dollar, many super-zooms are remarkable values. Since the glass is that much smaller, even "good" glass is much more affordable than on a DSLR. I've got a Panasonic FZ28 that's got a LEICA lens, but the sensor on this camera is definitely the limiting factor in terms of performance.

Under good conditions, a super-zoom is going to produce good results, but as shooting scenarios get more challenging, a super-zoom will run out of gas a lot more quickly than a DSLR. To be fair, there's nothing magical about a DSLR per se that makes it better, though, which is why it's really pretty important for you to understand how you want to use the camera in order to tell if it's right for you.

Do you have any thoughts about what sort of shots you want to accomplish with this camera?

[Krazylover]

They other thing to consider is can the superzoom capture a decent image in the first place when you consider focussing speed and accuracy, shutter lag and relatively sluggish performance.

[inkista]

Hi, I have a question, how does the quality of a lens on a super zoom digital camera differ from a telezoom DSLR lens,

The big design difference is the size of the lens and the actual magnification that's happening.

While a superzoom lens may tout itself as being a 500mm equivalent, that's typically on a sensor that's 1/5th as big as the one in a dSLR. So, the lens is probably only really a 100mm lens, and the majority of the "magnification" is coming from the "crop factor" (i.e., the smaller sensor only showing you a smaller field of view, so you're only "zooming in" by seeing a smaller piece of the scene).

Secondly, the superzoom in a fixed-lens camera typically has to cover a huge zoom range from wide to supertelephoto. Nearly any lens design that accomplishes that is going to have compromises somewhere along the range to achieve that huge range. Most of the superzooms have zoom factors in the 12x to 24x range. A dSLR telephoto zoom will, at most, have a 10x zoom factor (the Sigma 50-500), and most of the "pro" line lenses will only have a 3x (70-200) or 4x (100-400, 70-300) factor. This makes it much easier in design to optimize image quality for more of the range.

Generally speaking, they're two different beasts, doing two very different things, and judging strictly on image quality, a dSLR supertele will whomp the hell out of a superzoom's lens for a bunch of reasons, some of which may have nothing to do with the optical design, and a lot to do with the difference between an SLR and a compact.

... also does's it make a difference in the size of the picture at the same focal length like being able to capture a wider shot, ect. Thank you.

What's your definition of "same focal length"?

Assuming you mean with the superzoom lens set to the equivalent focal length that's being used on the dSLR, rather than the actual focal length, then no, the field of view will be identical. That's what the "equivalent" is for, so we can compare the two that way. What will differ, however, is the depth of field in the two shots, since the longer the focal length you use, the thinner the depth of field becomes. So, the superzoom will have less out of focus blurring than the dSLR.

If you mean physically the same focal length, then yes, the field of view will be very different. The dSLR's view will be much wider than the superzoom's, due to the larger sensor size. But the superzoom's piece of the image should match that same piece in the dSLR image in terms of magnification and (assuming both shots are taken from the same location), depth of field. However, they may not be exact matches, due to lens distortion and the different pixel densities/resolutions of the two sensors.

[mikoyan]

Back when I was taking photography in high school, I was using my mom's Pentax 35mm (I forget which type K1000?) and I remember liking things like depth of field and what not. I kept using that a little bit after college and still liking it. Then I got my first digital camera, a Kodak DC240 (or maybe the model below that). That was fine for a while until I wanted to do more distance photography (plus the 2 megapixels was getting dated). So I picked up a Panasonic FZ7. All that did was make me remember the fun I had with the Pentax, so I picked up my Canon 50D. My biggest complaint about the Panasonic was that I couldn't tell when I crossed over into the digital zoom realm and my pictures didn't look so great then.

At any rate, when people ask me what kind of camera they should get...I answer that it depends. I tell them that if they are content with just taking pictures, they should do the Super Zoom. If they want to do a little more, they should go with an SLR.

[Biomech]

Can't be bothered to write a load... don't forget most bridge cameras have a smaller than APS-C sized sensor so yes, you'd get a move epic crop factor.