old-pr-pix said:
Don Haines said:
On the utility of cheap cameras
Three images of the same subject, cropped to the same field of view, and resized to 1000 pixels wide....
One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm
One from a 6D2 and a 150-600 at 600mm
One from a SX50 at 1200mm (equivalent)
Don't try and tell me that there is no place for low end cameras, and in particular, superzooms. The only way I am going to beat that obsolete SX50 in this example is with a 5Ds and a 600F4..... and that's a whole lot more money than most of the world is willing to pay. Oh wait, I could get a 5 year newer superzoom that would beat it for distant objects.......
Thanks, Don - finally some evidence. As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.
Don, I don't have a problem with your premise that superzooms have a place in photography, but I do have a problem with the examples.
1. The 70D with 55-250 is underexposed, and the 6D2 with 150-600 is either OOF, shakey, or both. I mean, I have a 6D2 and 150-600, and I have thousands of tack sharp photos at 600mm.
2. I would mount the 150-600 onto 7D, put it on tripod, acquire perfect focus, and take a remote trigger shot at ISO100, 800, and 2000. Then do the same with 6D2. Then with SX50 (with built in lens). This would give a much more complete picture of the cameras.
3. Each photo over base ISO should then be processed with LR for noise reduction, because at the end of the day nobody cares about the unprocessed raw.
4. You shouldn't compare APSC 250mm with FF 600mm with small sensor 1200mm equiv. - because ILC only has the promise of better results when you use the right optics (or you move closer, etc).
5. None of the photos are great. For a good test, there should be at least 1 baseline image that is great. Otherwise you're offering the least bad choice.
6. This overlooks the main objections with small sensor superzooms in real life use: Inferior performance at fast shutter speeds, and soft corners fully open, and at certain FR's. But this is also a problem with EFS consumer lenses. As you know, both are important in wildlife and sports because you need faster shutter speeds, and many crops will happen with the subject not just in the center.
7. This also overlooks a weakness in many superzooms, no filter threads. Maybe not an issue for many, but no ND and polarizers is a major disadvantage (for some, deal killers) for many types of landscapes. There is just no way to do a long exposure without an ND.
What this really highlights is that if you want to have a camera that you can whip out and photograph any subject at any distance, a superzoom is highly attractive. But if you want to take the best picture that you can (for example, an assignment), you'll produce better photographs using a big, heavy lens and a bigger sensor. And if you need the best photos possible at various types of subjects and distances in the same shoot, the only real choice is to carry multiple bodies.
All that said, I think it is indisputable that small superzooms are amazingly handy, and a vauable tool for a whole range of scenarios. A photo is better than no photo, and a superzoom photo is often better than a photowith the wrong lens on an ILC.