Telephoto Question

[bjwilli88]

Hello, you'll have to forgive my ignorance. I am just beginning to study photography and I know almost nothing about the subject.

I am interested in purchasing a dslr and a telephoto lens. My main reason for doing this is for shooting wildlife, such as deer, elk, moose etc. This will be purely for just a hobby, and I am not looking to shoot professional grade pictures or anything like that. I just want some decent equipment to upgrade from my current Canon Powershot G3 point and shoot camera. My question is this...how would a 70-300mm lens (specifically the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) compare, as far as zoom goes, to say the Canon Powershot S5 IS point and shoot with 12x optical zoom? Will the dslr with the 70-300mm lens be able to zoom in significantly more?

Again, sorry for the ignorance, I just know nothing about this.

Thanks!

 

[Mav]

Here's the 35mm equivalent focal lengths for these cameras and the 70-300mm Canon lens on a 1.6x crop Canon DSLR:

G3: 35-140 mm
S5: 36-432 mm
70-300: 112-480mm

So the DSLR with that zoom will get you out further than an S5. More importantly though, the DSLR is a much larger format than a point and shoot, even an advanced one, so you'll get much better image quality and sharpness. And if the light fades or your subject is moving and you need to crank up the ISO, you can do it on a DSLR with virtually no drop in quality like you'd get cranking a P&S up to even iso200.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

Mav is totally right. Although the actual zoom difference between the cameras isn't that much, the image quality of an SLR is far better than any P&S-style camera. This also means that you will be able to crop your images to get an even closer photo without losing much quality.

 

[RubyMagic]

SIGMA 50-500mm, FTW!


Haha.

 

[Alfred D.]

Here's the 35mm equivalent focal lengths for these cameras and the 70-300mm Canon lens on a 1.6x crop Canon DSLR:

G3: 35-140 mm
S5: 36-432 mm
70-300: 112-480mm

So the DSLR with that zoom will get you out further than an S5. More importantly though, the DSLR is a much larger format than a point and shoot, even an advanced one, so you'll get much better image quality and sharpness. And if the light fades or your subject is moving and you need to crank up the ISO, you can do it on a DSLR with virtually no drop in quality like you'd get cranking a P&S up to even iso200.

Agreed.
The downside, though, is 1) the cost: a dSLR plus lens, etc., is a number of times more expensive than a G3 or S5, and 2) the weight and size that you will have to schlepp around: a dSLR plus lens(es) is also considerably heavier and larger than a G3 or S5.

 

[RyanLilly]

Agreed.
The downside, though, is 1) the cost: a dSLR plus lens, etc., is a number of times more expensive than a G3 or S5, and 2) the weight and size that you will have to schlepp around: a dSLR plus lens(es) is also considerably heavier and larger than a G3 or S5.

You just need to ask yourself if the trade -off is worth it for casual use.

 

[Alfred D.]

[...]for shooting wildlife, such as deer, elk, moose etc. This will be purely for just a hobby, and I am not looking to shoot professional grade pictures or anything like that. [...]

For wildlife you may want to consider a superzoom all-in-one camera. There's a whole range of superzoom camera models now. Panasonic's Lumix cameras are my favorites. Some go up to 18x optical zoom, which is 504mm in 35mm equivalent. Luckily they have built-in anti-shake.
The equivalent camera/lens combo in a dSLR will run you 7 – seven! – times as much...
And you need a mule following you around to carry it when you go hiking.

 

[passerby]

I am interested in purchasing a dslr and a telephoto lens. My main reason for doing this is for shooting wildlife, such as deer, elk, moose etc.

If you trust me, for the birds you would not want less than 300mm. I don't know how big deers mooses and elks are in real life as I have never met them except in the box (TV!), so I assume they must be smaller than my box.

But 300mm is the safe bet for wild life.

 

[KD5NRH]

The equivalent camera/lens combo in a dSLR will run you 7 – seven! – times as much...

...Unless, of course, you look around eBay and Craigslist for something that may not be up-to-the-minute with automatic crappiness reduction and an anti-ugly filter. There are a lot of good pics out there from DSLRs that can be found used for less than a high-end point & shoot.

 

[Socrates]

Hello, you'll have to forgive my ignorance. I am just beginning to study photography and I know almost nothing about the subject.

I am interested in purchasing a dslr and a telephoto lens. My main reason for doing this is for shooting wildlife, such as deer, elk, moose etc. This will be purely for just a hobby, and I am not looking to shoot professional grade pictures or anything like that. I just want some decent equipment to upgrade from my current Canon Powershot G3 point and shoot camera. My question is this...how would a 70-300mm lens (specifically the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) compare, as far as zoom goes, to say the Canon Powershot S5 IS point and shoot with 12x optical zoom? Will the dslr with the 70-300mm lens be able to zoom in significantly more?

Again, sorry for the ignorance, I just know nothing about this.

Thanks!

One item that has not been mentioned is camera shake. For the lenses that have been recommended (and I agree), you'll need a high shutter speed to minimize the effects of camera shake. If you do NOT get a VR/IS lens, figure of a shutter speed of around 1/250 second or "faster" (shorter duration). This results in a need for a lot of light just at the time when your maximum lens opening isn't all that much (typical for telephoto lenses). You'll get good shots IF you have good lighting.

VR (Vibration Reduction, Nikon) and IS (Image Stabilization, Nikon) does work real well. It does nothing for subject movement but, as far as camera shake, my above example of 1/250 second drops to around 1/30 second which helps the lighting situation a lot. Unfortunately, VR/IS is not cheap.

 

[Alfred D.]

One item that has not been mentioned is camera shake.

If you read carefully, Soc, you will see that it has.

And with a lot cheaper solution than 'your' VR lenses: superzoom all-in-one cameras with anti-shake.

 

[Mav]

For wildlife you may want to consider a superzoom all-in-one camera. There's a whole range of superzoom camera models now. Panasonic's Lumix cameras are my favorites. Some go up to 18x optical zoom, which is 504mm in 35mm equivalent. Luckily they have built-in anti-shake.
The equivalent camera/lens combo in a dSLR will run you 7 – seven! – times as much...
And you need a mule following you around to carry it when you go hiking.

This is incredibly misleading because nobody with SLRs really uses zoom lenses in the 500mm equivalent range. That's the beauty of SLR systems in that you can swap in whatever lens you need for a given application.

The Nikon 300mm f/4 is about $400-500 used and 462mm equivalent which is about the same as that Panasonic's lens. Put it on any DSLR body (even a D40) and you're good to go. And there will be no comparison whatsoever in terms of image quality. The 300mm primes are sharp as a tack even at the maximum f/4 aperture, and the much larger sensor of a DSLR adds on top of that. The P&S would need its stabilization system working for all its worth just to get sharp shots in good light. Forget about it in anything but that because you can't crank up the ISO on the P&S sensors without getting really ugly looking results. For wildlife shooting you tend to be at the long end of any zoom lens anyways, which is why people just get prime lenses since they're cheaper, faster, and offer much better quality. The other beauty of SLR systems is that there's so much used equipment available that buying new is really just a luxury. In fact there's such a large supply of some lenses used that there's almost no point in buying new.

 

[JIP]

Well one thing just as a matter of semantics the lens you mention is a zoom lens 70-300. A telephoto lens is generally a fixed focal length lens of something above mabye like 85 or so. But the basic difference is a telephoto is a single focal-length. Again it doesn't matter too much but just to clear things up so we all know what every one is talking about.

 

[Socrates]

Well one thing just as a matter of semantics the lens you mention is a zoom lens 70-300. A telephoto lens is generally a fixed focal length lens of something above mabye like 85 or so. But the basic difference is a telephoto is a single focal-length. Again it doesn't matter too much but just to clear things up so we all know what every one is talking about.

A "long" lens is a lens with a focal length longer than that of a "normal" lens. A "normal" lens is approximately 50mm with 24X36 frame and approximately 32mm with DX frame. A long lens can be fixed focal length or variable (zoom).

A "telephoto" lens is a long lens with a physical length less than the focal length. Today, essentially all long lenses are telephoto lenses. As a special case of "long," a telephoto lens also can be fixed focal length or variable (zoom).

 

[Alfred D.]

Originally Posted by Alfred D.
For wildlife you may want to consider a superzoom all-in-one camera. There's a whole range of superzoom camera models now. Panasonic's Lumix cameras are my favorites. Some go up to 18x optical zoom, which is 504mm in 35mm equivalent. Luckily they have built-in anti-shake.
The equivalent camera/lens combo in a dSLR will run you 7 – seven! – times as much...
And you need a mule following you around to carry it when you go hiking.

This is incredibly misleading because nobody with SLRs really uses zoom lenses in the 500mm equivalent range.

The operative word here is 'range', Mav, not 'zoom'.

If "nobody with SLRs really uses [...] lenses in the 500mm equivalent range", then why do Nikon and Canon offer these?

That's the beauty of SLR systems in that you can swap in whatever lens you need for a given application.

If your billfold and shoulder muscles can handle it.

The Nikon 300mm f/4 is about $400-500 used and 462mm equivalent which is about the same as that Panasonic's lens. Put it on any DSLR body (even a D40) and you're good to go. And there will be no comparison whatsoever in terms of image quality. The 300mm primes are sharp as a tack even at the maximum f/4 aperture, and the much larger sensor of a DSLR adds on top of that. The P&S would need its stabilization system working for all its worth just to get sharp shots in good light. Forget about it in anything but that because you can't crank up the ISO on the P&S sensors without getting really ugly looking results.

Most situations where you would use 500mm – outdoor, long range, tripod – don't need cranking up the ISO...

For wildlife shooting you tend to be at the long end of any zoom lens anyways, which is why people just get prime lenses since they're cheaper, faster, and offer much better quality. The other beauty of SLR systems is that there's so much used equipment available that buying new is really just a luxury. In fact there's such a large supply of some lenses used that there's almost no point in buying new.

Wannabe noob dSLR owners want new gear. Not second hand stuff.