Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tried the 2x additional digital zoom for 100x total zoom and it's not better than a 50x optical shot, digital zoom just crops the image for you. I have a 2x teleconvertor lens that I will add on, I'm just waiting for my step down convertor. Maybe I could then get a 100x optical zoom, which would be totally awesome for a camera!
The Sony 50x zoom is a big improvement for me from going from my 6 year old Fuji s9100 with is only 9MP and 10.7X zoom.
as they say photography is about the quality,skill and composition of your photos not the focal reach of your lens.
a decent DSLR and 200mm lens can be cropped to show things in a distance that is so much better than any of these small cameras with these cropped zoom modes or ridiculous optical ranges.
I was looking at DSLR cameras today at Best Buy and I'd rather have my Sony DSC HX300 than a cheap $500 to $700 DSLR kit. I guess a good dslr would be better, but I'll wait until I have over $3000 saved for a good dslr. By then maybe a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D mk3 might be way cheaper.
I'm still relearning my photography but I can change my photographic settings on my HX300, I have to shoot in Program Auto mode rather then i++ mode. I need to experiment with several shots and camera modes to see the effect on my pics. I guess then I would need a good 10" tablet to see my photos from my micro SDXC card so I can check my photos quickly. I don't own a tablet yet either.
For someone wanting a relatively low cost, portable solution, a super zoom can work well. It will have its limitations but so does every camera. And ability to shoot in manual modes, ability to focus manually, raw output etc are big on my list.
For an inexpensive yet high IQ solution though, I would recommend Sony A3000. I posted a link in another thread where bundled with 18-55 and 55-210 lenses, the camera (same size as HX300) costs only $498. The only issue I would have would be a lack of articulating LCD which is a must have feature for me. The camera is basically a new version of NEX-3 albeit in DSLR form. Both lenses are stabilized.
And being Sony E-mount camera also means you can put practically any lens that will cover APsc size or larger can be used on it. You get a pretty good 20 mp sensor with very good high iso performance. While I prefer the range finder form of Alpha NEX bodies (they will be labeled simply Alpha, going forward) as I can fit more lenses in my sling, it should be a camera for cheap but excellent option.
I was looking at DSLR cameras today at Best Buy and I'd rather have my Sony DSC HX300 than a cheap $500 to $700 DSLR kit. I guess a good dslr would be better, but I'll wait until I have over $3000 saved for a good dslr. By then maybe a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D mk3 might be way cheaper.
I'm still relearning my photography but I can change my photographic settings on my HX300, I have to shoot in Program Auto mode rather then i++ mode. I need to experiment with several shots and camera modes to see the effect on my pics. I guess then I would need a good 10" tablet to see my photos from my micro SDXC card so I can check my photos quickly. I don't own a tablet yet either.
the high iso performance on the dsc hx300 is really only high quality up to 400 iso. softness sets in after that. by 1600 iso the reviews have been the camera is really only good for small size prints only as it gets soft and noisy.
i think a dslr that shoots raw would be a better choice if you wanted to do any low light stuff handheld. if i was serious about my photography i would not consider any camera that did not have a raw mode.
the above are no better or worse than my point and shoot. I am not sure just what it is you want us to see.
If you're not impressed by that 50x zoom lets have someone here post a photo of a dslr camera wide angle shot and same shot using a full zoom, and tell us what the zoom level was. Because I'm happy with my 50x zoom.
i doubt you will find many photographers who would even bother to take meaningless shots to do what you ask. i don't think in my 15,000 photos i have at this point you will find any shot that is not something i felt had meaning or a reason for being..
photographers don't usually save test shots or comparison shots. they do it and they delete it. in fact i am not even sure what the point is you are asking someone to do.
You can not compare a wide angle shot with a shot taken with a telephoto even if you walked right up to the subject to try to duplicate the size.
The background compression and perspective distortions would make them two different shots regardless and not comparable.
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-26-2013 at 05:48 PM..
I tried the 2x additional digital zoom for 100x total zoom and it's not better than a 50x optical shot, digital zoom just crops the image for you. I have a 2x teleconvertor lens that I will add on, I'm just waiting for my step down convertor. Maybe I could then get a 100x optical zoom, which would be totally awesome for a camera!
The Sony 50x zoom is a big improvement for me from going from my 6 year old Fuji s9100 with is only 9MP and 10.7X zoom.
What you really have is a 4.3-215mm lens coupled with a small sensor in a bridge camera. By using a small sensor you cut the apparent view to what a full frame camera would see with a 1200mm lens.
The dslr has a much larger sensor with a bigger lens as opposed to a smaller sensor and smaller lens giving that narrower view..
In a way it uses smoke and mirrors to give a view that is similiar to the view of a 1200 mm view on a full frame camera. That is not the same thing as a 1200mm focal length.
The smaller sensor in the bridge camera hurts high iso and low light performance. Grain and noise set in very quickly compared to a dslr with its larger sensor assuming megapixels are close between them.
You need to learn the difference between focal length vs apparent focal length.
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-26-2013 at 06:28 PM..
Well, I admit the images from my Sony camera have some noise sometimes and are pixellated when blown up. But if I want a big image comparable to a full frame dslr camera I'll just snap several photos and stitch them together for a bigger panoramic image in Photoshop CS6. It's not the best camera but at least it's way more portable than a dslr with 2 lenses, a wide angle and zoom. I wasn't impressed by the images of the entry level dslr camera, the Canon Rebel t3i - Canon Rebel T3i (EOS 600D) review samples: dpreview review samples: Galleries: Digital Photography Review
Maybe one day I can afford a full frame dslr with lens but that's maybe in 3 years. By then maybe better full frame dslrs will come into the market and be more affordable.
it all depends where you want to go with your photography. there is a saying i use more and more lately as i find the mistakes i made along the way and that is this:
the poor man always pays twice.
we all have a tendancy to buy the compromise when we get into something because we think it is more than we will need.
as we get better and learn more we realize the budget version of what we bought is lacking and we end up buying the better item anyway.
to be honest the bridge camera is not for someone who thinks they want to really get into photography.
it is for family fun .
if i had to chose i would buy a used dslr and a used quality lens instead of a bridge camera.
a good dslr with its larger sensor and raw mode would provide much better performance and ability than a bridge camera that mates a small lens with a small sensor so the apparent view is what a dslr would see with a much much larger focal length lens.
the difference is the dslr has a big sensor to go with that field of view as well as all the characteristics of that focal length, the bridge camera does not...
you could crop that nice clean dslr photo if the shot is good and make it look like that 1200 mm view in size but with far better quality..
these animals were so far away when i shot them with a 200mm they filled a piece of the frame.
they were cropped afterwards to fill the frame. most of these were shot through glass too.
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-26-2013 at 07:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
