Confused about zoom

[FloridaGuy]

Hi All

My first post here.

I just bought a Panasonic Lumix FZ150 which is 24x optical zoom.
Panasonic DMC-FZ150K - LUMIX FZ150K 12.1 Megapixel Digital Camera - Technical Specifications


It replaces my Cannon PowerShot SX1 IS which is 10x optical zoom
Canon Powershot-Sx1-Is Review: Specifications

I barely see any difference in the zoom between the two at the maximum optical zoom and using digital zoom the old camera actually brings me closer.

What gives? I expected it to be a very dramatic difference at almost 1.5 time more zoom.

 

[480sparky]

Take some side-by-side images, and you'll see the difference.

"Digital" zoom simply means the camera crops the image and enlarges what's left up to the 'normal' size.

 

[Ysarex]

The Panasonic is wider than the Canon on the short end. So, the Lumix has a greater zoom range overall but it's reach at the telephoto end isn't that much more. In photo "zoom" doesn't only mean zoom in, it also means zoom out.

Joe

 

[SCraig]

How they write those specifications can be quite misleading at times. "24x" simply means that between the short end of the lens and the long end there is 24x difference. For example, 10mm to 240mm focal lengths is 24x, 20mm to 480mm is 24x, 40mm to 960mm is also 24x. It doesn't always have anything at all to do with the true magnification at the long end.

 

[The_Traveler]

zoooooom

(sorry that word sounds funny if you say it fast a few times.}

 

[FloridaGuy]

This is very disappointing to hear since the primary justifcation for replacing my two year old camera was what I thought would be much greater reach on the zoom. So what is the spec that I need to pay attention to in order to get the greater reach that I would like?

 

[Ysarex]

You want to find out what are the minimum and maximum angles of view. On the long end you want as small an angle as possible.

Joe

 

[FloridaGuy]

You want to find out what are the minimum and maximum angles of view. On the long end you want as small an angle as possible.

Joe

I can't figure out how to determine that from these specs
Panasonic DMC-FZ150K - LUMIX FZ150K 12.1 Megapixel Digital Camera - Technical Specifications


is it this?

Focal Length

f= 4.5 - 108 mm (25 - 600 mm in 35 mm equiv.) (28-672mm in 35mm equiv. in video recording)

So what is the advantage of the Panasonic vs the Cannon if is isn't reach?

 

[SCraig]

Yep, that's it. Equivalent to a 25mm to 600mm lens on a 35mm camera.

 

[FloridaGuy]

Yep, that's it. Equivalent to a 25mm to 600mm lens on a 35mm camera.

So when Yasarex said: "On the long end you want as small an angle as possible."


That means I would want a 25mm to 500mm for greater reach?

 

[SCraig]

So when Yasarex said: "On the long end you want as small an angle as possible."


That means I would want a 25mm to 500mm for greater reach?

No, the other way. A 600mm lens has more reach than a 500mm lens, a 700mm more than a 600mm, etc. Larger numbers mean longer focal lengths and, effectively, more magnification at a distance.

He was talking about angle of view. Longer focal lengths mean narrower fields of view, or in other words the opposite of a "Wide Angle" lens.

 

[Ysarex]

You want to find out what are the minimum and maximum angles of view. On the long end you want as small an angle as possible.

Joe

I can't figure out how to determine that from these specs
Panasonic DMC-FZ150K - LUMIX FZ150K 12.1 Megapixel Digital Camera - Technical Specifications


is it this?

Focal Length

f= 4.5 - 108 mm (25 - 600 mm in 35 mm equiv.) (28-672mm in 35mm equiv. in video recording)

So what is the advantage of the Panasonic vs the Cannon if is isn't reach?

You're figuring it out. Since different cameras have different size sensors we can't simply compare their focal lengths directly. That's why you're seeing the 35mm equivalent focal length factors. It would be better still if they'd just publish angle of view figures and then we wouldn't have to mess with the "equivalent" stuff. Scott is right, you want as large a number on the long end as you can get so 600mm in 35mm equivalent which by the way is a 3 degree angle of view. A 500mm lens has a 4 degree angle of view. A 300mm lens has a 7 degree angle of view and so forth. You're after the smallest angle you can get.

The advantage of the Panasonic over the Canon is a wider angle of view on the other end. The Canon is only a miserable 54 degrees on the short end; I would consider such a camera unusable. The Panasonic however has a 72 degree angle of view which is much better and close to what I would consider my minimum requirement. I prefer to break 80 degrees if I can get it. It's all about what you want from a camera and how you use it. You're after a camera with an angle of view in the single digits. I on the other hand might take a photo once every year or two with an angle of view of less than 20 degrees.

You're trying to take a photo of a bird high on a branch in a big tall tree. I'm trying to take a picture of the entire tree while standing right in front of it. Neither is better than the other, but your interest has you focused on the long end of the zoom range while my interest has me focused on the short end.

Joe

 

[FloridaGuy]

You're trying to take a photo of a bird high on a branch in a big tall tree. I'm trying to take a picture of the entire tree while standing right in front of it. Neither is better than the other, but your interest has you focused on the long end of the zoom range while my interest has me focused on the short end.

Joe

Actually, I'm just so inexperienced in the technical end of this hobby that until I read your post I didn't know it was conceivable to take a picture of an entire tree while standing right in front of it. I'd actually like to be able to do that. I do like to get the bird on the high branch, too, though.

I am wondering if the $430 I spent on this upgraded camera is worth it or based on what I have learned here or if I should return it and wait a while until they come out with a good one with a longer reach. It does seem to have some improvements but I'm not sure if they are worth the money. I want the additional reach and if 3 months from now it is available I might regret this purchase.

 

[EDL]

Why not a DSLR?

 

[Ysarex]

You're trying to take a photo of a bird high on a branch in a big tall tree. I'm trying to take a picture of the entire tree while standing right in front of it. Neither is better than the other, but your interest has you focused on the long end of the zoom range while my interest has me focused on the short end.

Joe

Actually, I'm just so inexperienced in the technical end of this hobby that until I read your post I didn't know it was conceivable to take a picture of an entire tree while standing right in front of it. I'd actually like to be able to do that. I do like to get the bird on the high branch, too, though.

I am wondering if the $430 I spent on this upgraded camera is worth it or based on what I have learned here or if I should return it and wait a while until they come out with a good one with a longer reach. It does seem to have some improvements but I'm not sure if they are worth the money. I want the additional reach and if 3 months from now it is available I might regret this purchase.

EDL has a good point but it means a lot more $$$$. The move up to a DSLR may be right if you really want to pursue this. Photography is an exercise in compromise. What you want exists but it always begs the question at what cost. And I don't mean just cost in dollars. There are all kinds of compromises made -- every feature or capability that you gain comes at a price. I use a compact camera a lot in addition to my pro equipment. My compact cost almost exactly what the Panasonic cost -- $439.00. However my compact only has a 3x zoom. Seemingly worthless compared to the Panasonic's 24x zoom. Why wouldn't I choose a camera like the Panasonic instead? Where's the compromise? For that kind of money why did the designer's of my camera seemingly cripple it with a paltry 3x zoom? Who would want it? I wouldn't trade you for that Panasonic or the Canon. As you extend the overall zoom range of a lens the design of the lens grows increasingly complex. To solve the design problems requires rapidly ramped up costs or compromises in performance quality -- here's the exercise in compromise: How much total zoom range versus how much cost versus how much performance quality. And then there's usage compromises. Are you seriously thinking of taking photos with a lens that has a 3 degree angle of view without putting the camera on a heavy tripod? Lots to learn.

If you hang around here and ask questions you'll find helpful people. Take your time. For what it's worth, Panasonic makes some of the better consumer grade super zooms out there. 24x classifies the camera as a super zoom -- that's huge zoom range! And that 72 degrees on the wide end will open up a whole new world of photography that the Canon couldn't begin to approach. Frankly I think 24x is too much but I'm a conservative guy. if you're looking for advise I wouldn't suggest looking for more than that.

Joe