Superzoom, slayer of the SLR?

[Bifurcator]

You must be talking about Plenoptic cameras using light fields? Yeah that's looking pretty good!

https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera-150dpi.pdf

https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera.avi

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/...ate-light-field-camera-banishing-fuzzy-photos

http://www.refocusimaging.com/gallery/

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~hanrahan/


Yup, I'm fully expecting this technology to make it into dSLRs within a year or two. They're pretty late already though - this was discussed at SIGGRAPH '96 and demonstrated at SIGGRAPH 2000.

 

[Bifurcator]

I was talking about something that was using bounced wave technology of some sort to generate a z-buffer (or DOF map if you prefer) and then in turn use that to "enhance" DOF in a dSLR. This could all be done in camera on the fly using current technology most or all of which is already on-the-shelf.

I mean there already are handheld 3D Echocardiography systems that do this in real-time @ 40fps. Why not the same kinda thing using frequencies more sensitive to surfaces like some of the AF systems do for high-end video gear?

It's kinda out there but I could see it...

 

[Bifurcator]

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1271753&postcount=8

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1368624&postcount=29

 

[patrickt]

My brother-in-law has a super zoom and he would hate to get a DSLR. I have a DSLR and would hate to get a super zoom.

The original thread should have been titled, "Super zoom wins on tight budget" but my brother-in-law and I can both get a couple of extra lenses.

He likes the convenience of the super zoom.

I like the flexibility of the DSLR.

I don't see either one eliminating the market for the other.

 

[Sabin]

Well one of my main reasons fory buying a DSLR is because with my p&s I can never zoom in as far as I want to. The other reasons were because of the low-light noise issue, the fact that the viewfinder doesn't suck. So if a super zoom can fix all those issues it might have gotten my buisness. Of course they just don't have that same "look" as a big DSLR camera. There's just something about a big camera with a big lens that says "I have the right to take a picture of whatever I want!"

 

[epatsellis]

I think most are missing the target audience for a super zoom, the average person who just wants to take pictures. My wife has an S2IS and loves it, couldn't get her to use my SLRs if I tried, just too heavy and awkward for her. Heck I use the darn thing for ebay pictures and non critical work.

I did do an entire ad campaign for a local winery with it, just to prove a point to a friend that it's not what you use, but how you use it. While not up to my standards, IQ wise, the ads were being reproduced on newsprint. Here's a couple from the series (and before anyone complains about the grapes in the second image, the entire series was comped to help the winery get off the ground, I had a $0 budget):

 

[Battou]

The original thread should have been titled, "Super zoom wins on tight budget"

...

I don't see either one eliminating the market for the other.

No, The thread title is exactly what I wanted, as I do see camera manufacturers foolishly merging the two classes of cameras.

"Super zoom wins on tight budget" is merely stating fact, everyone and their brother knows that the superzoom is the only fast option for digital for those on a tight budget, but that is not what I am talking about.

Manufacturers are cross marketing and bridging gaps that should not be bridged in my oppinion. Combining the two markets into one effectivly kills both.

Make this full frame digital with a 20mm to 800mm range and you have the camera of the future. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to make that lens optically sound.

Well one of my main reasons fory buying a DSLR is because with my p&s I can never zoom in as far as I want to. The other reasons were because of the low-light noise issue, the fact that the viewfinder doesn't suck. So if a super zoom can fix all those issues it might have gotten my buisness. Of course they just don't have that same "look" as a big DSLR camera. There's just something about a big camera with a big lens that says "I have the right to take a picture of whatever I want!"

No offence intended, but obviously your P&S was not a true superzoom. I chose the Canon S5 for two reasons. The current superzooms will exceede anything you have for your dSLR distance coverage wise, the S5 is the shortest of the current Superzoom class, It exceedes my straight lens to body capability and I pay a fraction of what most people pay for glass. Yeah, I can beat it with the use of a teleconverter, but then I am sacrificing image quality....though not to the same degree but much the same way the superzooms do. Almost defeats the purpose as the most common teleconverters simply crop and magnify a portion of the lens to make it seem longer.

Also, if you look at the S5, it is designed to have the look and feel of a dSLR and I simply do not see that concept comming to an end any time soon.

 

[Battou]

I think most are missing the target audience for a super zoom, the average person who just wants to take pictures. My wife has an S2IS and loves it, couldn't get her to use my SLRs if I tried, just too heavy and awkward for her. Heck I use the darn thing for ebay pictures and non critical work.

I did do an entire ad campaign for a local winery with it, just to prove a point to a friend that it's not what you use, but how you use it. While not up to my standards, IQ wise, the ads were being reproduced on newsprint. Here's a couple from the series (and before anyone complains about the grapes in the second image, the entire series was comped to help the winery get off the ground, I had a $0 budget):

Wile I agree with you on the "it's not what you use but how you use it" to most degree, I do have to point out the flaw in your logic as it pertains to target audience.

"The PowerShot S5 IS digital camera meets the demands of active family photographers and discerning photo hobbyists looking for high-end features and maximum photo flexibility, while maintaining the light weight, trim profile and affordability of a point and shoot digital camera," said Yuichi Ishizuka, senior vice president and general manager, Consumer Imaging Group, Canon U.S.A. "With a broad range of features and a powerful ultra-zoom lens, it is no coincidence that the PowerShot S5 IS digital camera's look and feel evokes the sense of a small, lightweight SLR."

 

[epatsellis]

Battou,
While I understand their position, from where I stand, and what I see talking to the average John Q. Public, the view of this class of camera is that it's perfect for them. I on the other hand, have either a G10 or S5 on my (erm, wife's) Christmas list, with the preference to the G camera. There are times when a superzoom is handy, and while the G10 doesn't have the reach of the S5, would likely become my carry camera. For those that find the S series lacking (either raw mode, or other "features") a quick Google search will yield some interesting hacks/alternate software that can be loaded on an SD card to enable long exposures, RAW capabilities, etc. It was only a matter of time, in my view.

 

[table1349]

No, The thread title is exactly what I wanted, as I do see camera manufacturers foolishly merging the two classes of cameras.

"Super zoom wins on tight budget" is merely stating fact, everyone and their brother knows that the superzoom is the only fast option for digital for those on a tight budget, but that is not what I am talking about.

Manufacturers are cross marketing and bridging gaps that should not be bridged in my oppinion. Combining the two markets into one effectivly kills both.

Make this full frame digital with a 20mm to 800mm range and you have the camera of the future. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to make that lens optically sound.





No offence intended, but obviously your P&S was not a true superzoom. I chose the Canon S5 for two reasons. The current superzooms will exceede anything you have for your dSLR distance coverage wise, the S5 is the shortest of the current Superzoom class, It exceedes my straight lens to body capability and I pay a fraction of what most people pay for glass. Yeah, I can beat it with the use of a teleconverter, but then I am sacrificing image quality....though not to the same degree but much the same way the superzooms do. Almost defeats the purpose as the most common teleconverters simply crop and magnify a portion of the lens to make it seem longer.

Also, if you look at the S5, it is designed to have the look and feel of a dSLR and I simply do not see that concept comming to an end any time soon.

Since I shoot Canon DSLR's I will stick to it and it's accessories alone. Does you S5 cover a range from 14mm to 1200mm? The S5 is a 12X optical zoom based on a 6mm to 70mm lens, while the Canon DSLR range is 85X. Technically it could be 8mm with a Sigma Peleng to 5400mm with the longest telephoto Canon ever produced which would make it 675X. However the Peleng is a Sigma and the 5400mm is impossible to find for sale at this point. What Superzoom covers an 85X optical range?

When you zoom with any lens the very act of zooming in creates a crop on the sensor. The telecoverter reference really means nothing unless you want to compare the image degradation of a EF 1.4X telecoverter on say the 400mm f2.8 to the TC-DC58B Teleconverter Lens 1.5X for the S5.

The Olympus IS-3DLX you linked to is only a 5X zoom and from looking at the specifications it wouldn't come close to the specs of the 1D MIII I linked to in a previous post. Plus the 1D MIII will use the range of Canon lenses I refered to. Want full frame, the IS-3DLX doesn't come close to the 1Ds MIII specs either and it uses the same range of Canon lenses.

Like I stated in a previous post..."A VW Beatle and a Rolls Royce Phantom may both be motor cars, but they will never fill the same needs." Sorry no offense, but this thread is basicly comparing apples to vegetable peelers. Both usefull in the kitchen, but you really can't swap em around.

 

[Battou]

Since I shoot Canon DSLR's I will stick to it and it's accessories alone. Does you S5 cover a range from 14mm to 1200mm? The S5 is a 12X optical zoom based on a 6mm to 70mm lens, while the Canon DSLR range is 85X. Technically it could be 8mm with a Sigma Peleng to 5400mm with the longest telephoto Canon ever produced which would make it 675X. However the Peleng is a Sigma and the 5400mm is impossible to find for sale at this point. What Superzoom covers an 85X optical range?

When you zoom with any lens the very act of zooming in creates a crop on the sensor. The telecoverter reference really means nothing unless you want to compare the image degradation of a EF 1.4X telecoverter on say the 400mm f2.8 to the TC-DC58B Teleconverter Lens 1.5X for the S5.

The Olympus IS-3DLX you linked to is only a 5X zoom and from looking at the specifications it wouldn't come close to the specs of the 1D MIII I linked to in a previous post. Plus the 1D MIII will use the range of Canon lenses I refered to. Want full frame, the IS-3DLX doesn't come close to the 1Ds MIII specs either and it uses the same range of Canon lenses.

Like I stated in a previous post..."A VW Beatle and a Rolls Royce Phantom may both be motor cars, but they will never fill the same needs." Sorry no offense, but this thread is basicly comparing apples to vegetable peelers. Both usefull in the kitchen, but you really can't swap em around.

You missed the point, I'm not comparing. I'm bicthing about the manor that P&S and dSLR markets are being crossed and merged and it is my firm belief that this is going to result in dSLRS becoming nothing more than that fixed lens SLR similar to the olympus 35mm SLR I linked earlier only bigger.



I don't know about you but I sure ain't going to be driving a Rolls Royce Passat, screw that.

 

[table1349]

You missed the point, I'm not comparing. I'm bicthing about the manor that P&S and dSLR markets are being crossed and merged and it is my firm belief that this is going to result in dSLRS becoming nothing more than that fixed lens SLR similar to the olympus 35mm SLR I linked earlier only bigger.



I don't know about you but I sure ain't going to be driving a Rolls Royce Passat, screw that.

I didn't miss the point. You belief is wrong. Kind of like the belief in Military Intelligence. Ain't never happened, ain't happening now and it ain't never gonna happen.

 

[Bifurcator]

When you zoom with any lens the very act of zooming in creates a crop on the sensor.

Just to butt in for a sec... This isn't true unless your camera or lens is broken or something. 99.99% of zooms in use on a dSLR or "super zooms" (if we're now calling bridge cameras "super-zooms") do not work by cropping. They actually do magnify the scene onto the same sized area of the sensor or film plane.

I suppose there could be a few micrometers of difference in the overall size of the image they project onto the sensor between the two ends of a zoom lens but nothing you could interpret as "he very act of zooming in creates a crop".

--
BTW, what "ain't gonna happen"? You mean movies on dSLRs? Live View on dSLRs? EVFs on dSLRs? Voice Memos on dSLRs? etc.? Those were all on bridge or P&S cameras first before hey found their way to dSLRs... So, I guess in a sense we can see Battou's pov. No?

 

[table1349]

Just to butt in for a sec... This isn't true unless your camera or lens is broken or something. 99.99% of zooms in use on a dSLR or "super zooms" (if we're now calling bridge cameras "super-zooms") do not work by cropping. They actually do magnify the scene onto the same sized area of the sensor or film plane.

I suppose there could be a few micrometers of difference in the overall size of the image they project onto the sensor between the two ends of a zoom lens but nothing you could interpret as "he very act of zooming in creates a crop".

--
BTW, what "ain't gonna happen"? You mean movies on dSLRs? Live View on dSLRs? EVFs on dSLRs? Voice Memos on dSLRs? etc.? Those were all on bridge or P&S cameras first before hey found their way to dSLRs... So, I guess in a sense we can see Battou's pov. No?

A crop is of the field of view of the lens. When the lens magnifies it does so in part by cropping it's own field of view.

 

[Sabin]

No offence intended, but obviously your P&S was not a true superzoom.

I never said it was a superzoom, sorry if I implied that. If I had known about super zoom cameras when I bought my new one I might have sprung for that instead because it answers all of the gripes I had with my old camera.