Question: who needs a ``Superzoom``?

Zach Ritter:<i><br>Alright, on the whole prime equals 1 or 0, is either wrong? Mathematically 1 is the correct answer. However, since it is incaple of zooming, there poses a question of legitimcy, and if it should not, based on the fact that it has the inability to zoom, be placed as a zero.</I><p>Logic, not math-says that.<I>It breaks past the spot of math, and hits that of philosophy.</I><p>My point exactly, ``zoom`` being the operative word.<p><I>Now then, my use of two hypothetical cameras built with different lenses is a use of controled variables.</I><p>What two hypothetical cameras? None have been introduced in this thread.<p><I> I had to control the amount of variables in the equation to make the point.</I><p>What point? What cameras?<p><I> Basically, think if you beloved FZ came with (and I am not knocking the camera, I thought about one myself) two choices of lens mounted in the fashion I described.</I><p>Where did you describe such?<p><i>It would change things.</I><p><?> <p><I>And my argument about mm length as the convention was not wrong.</I><p>?<p><I>35mm equivalency is not industry standard. It is a concept created to allow people to easily grasp the result of the lens.</I><p>By fiat then, the current methos is the ``industry standard`` or the accepted (that better?) way of converting the focal length of P&S digital lenses to 35mm.<p><I> Digital is a new medium, and we need a way for those of us who grew up on 35mm to get an idea.</I><p>Which make it imperative to develop an ``industry standard`` (like the one in use) to talk about digital P&S vis-à-vis 35mm focal lengths, since the disparity between the two will always exist. I for one will never become ``confused`` since I accept the current method of conversion. Besides, the manufacturers do the math for us, then tell us how to do it.<p><i>However, how often do you hear a 135mm large format lens described in 35mm equivalency?</I><p>Your inference being it has never, is never done. Every lens format has been compared to every other lens format, including film to digital sensors, full frame to APS.<br> For years, lens conversion tables have been produced to show the distinct differences in the formats.<p><I>The above "macro" shots are a good representation of what to do with a superzoom.</I><p>You are horribly mistaken. There is only 1 (one) macro shot in all the images I posted in this thread and that 1 is the handheld shot of my watch. What other ``macro shots`` were you referring to?<p><I>I may not agree with the quality (you should never really exceed the focal length of the optical zoom)</I><p>TOYA. Where (which image) did I ``<I>exceed the optical zoom</I>`` of the camera? The Sparrow shots are 12X (432mm) shots. Is that your erroneous reference to ``macro`` shots? Had you used your Exif reader you would have seen the Sparrow shots are 72mm shots taken from about 20 feet at <I>maximum zoom</I>.<p><I> Say i was selling the above watch on ebay. Do I want to go out and buy another camera for that purpose, or just put up a shot that has a decent look, and I didn't pay an extra cent for?</I><p>You (<i>like I might have, had I <b>any</b> intent in selling my watch</i>) would place the camera on a table top tripod <I>inside</I>, instead of hand-holding it <I>outside</I> like I did.<br> You might also consider setting up lights to better show off the watches features instead of using plain reflected sunlight: like I did.<p>You never said if you prefer or need a superzoom camera or not, the OP question? Hell, no one did.

This whole argument is pointless. whether or not you need/prefer a superzoom camera is an entirely subjective question. Ed, you seem to be talking about it as if there is an objective answer. I would say most serious (and casual) photographers have well over the reach of 12X available to them. Whether it is one camera/one lens as in the FZ like your talking about or in an SLR with multiple lenses. Which solutions is best for you depends on what you do with the shots. I highly doubt you'll find any of the pictures in a magazine taken with a compact, consumer grade digicam...the quality just isn't anywhere near close to what a high-end SLR with multiple lenses is capable of. But if you only plan on posting to the internet either would be fine becuase you have to shrink the the size and quality of the image down so much that any quality differences becomes unnoticeable.

 

As for the 0 or 1 debate for primes, 1 is the correct answer. If you think of it intuitively, what is a 2x zoom? it would be a lens that covers the focal ranges of 20-40, or 100-200. what is a 3x zoom? it covers 20-60 or 100-300. what then is a 1x zoom? it covers 20-20 or 100-100. this type of zoom lens has a special designation...its called a prime. primes lenses are therefore just a term used to describe a 1x zoom lens.

 

Ed, you are, in the original post, talking about the zoom ratio as if it were magnification. you are saying that lenses with a higher zoom ratio are able to take pictures of objects that are farther away. this is entirely true, but misleading. the examples you give all deal with the higher end of the focal range where a high zoom ratio corresponds to a very wide range of focal lengths and thus allow you to "magnify" images over a wide range of distances so that they fill the picture. however, what about the case of a 1mm-12mm lens? this is where it is misleading. this lens has a 12x zoom ratio, however it cannot produce the pictures that you are talking about or any of the examples given. the magnification is nowhere near that of a 100-1200mm lens which also has a 12x zoom ratio. in the former case, taking a few steps forward or backward will negate any changes in focal length whereas in the latter case you might have to walk across a football field. this is why zoom ratio is primarily a marketing term and there are other methods used to compare a lens's magnification.

Brian Keyashian: <i><br>This whole argument is pointless.</i><p>You bet! There is no argument, at least not about whether or not someone wants or likes superzoom cameras. I asked that question by asking ``<I>what say you</I>``? Not one person ever answered.<p><I>whether or not you need/prefer a superzoom camera is an entirely subjective question.</I><p>My OP question.<p><I> Ed, you seem to be talking about it as if there is an objective answer.</I><p>Not to my OP question which was, and being redundant: ``what say you``?<p><I>I would say most serious (and casual) photographers have well over the reach of 12X available to them.</I><p>You are making a declarative statement to which I say: my FZ20 has 432mm to 1728mm (4X digital zoom) built-in. With my 1.7 T-CON mounted, it goes to 735 to 2940mm (4X digital zoom). My film SLR lenses, with TCs, can go up to 2400mm. But neither your point or my answers addresses the OP question.<p><I>Whether it is one camera/one lens as in the FZ like your talking about or in an SLR with multiple lenses. Which solutions is best for you depends on what you do with the shots.</I><p>Surprisingly, you are the first person to actually address the OP in any meaningful way.<I><p>I highly doubt you'll find any of the pictures in a magazine taken with a compact, consumer grade digicam...</I><p>But then superzooms do not fit your description and further, your immediate point segues from the OP.<p>(SNIP)<br>As for the 0 or 1 debate for primes, 1 is the correct answer.</I><p>I am p|ssed I even entertained that stupid question. And now here you go, entertaining that stupid question.<p><I>If you think of it intuitively, what is a 2x zoom? it would be a lens that covers the focal ranges of 20-40, or 100-200. what is a 3x zoom? it covers 20-60 or 100-300. what then is a 1x zoom?</I><p>Rhetorical argument to get to: <p><I>it covers 20-20 or 100-100.</I><p>Would you please, please look at those numbers? Have you really thought this out? How could any lens have ``zoom range`` if it does not, cannot zoom? Consider if you will, there cannot be a 1X zoom if it does not-cannot zoom? Forget the math since figures lie and liars figure.<p><I>A this type of zoom lens has a special designation...its called a prime.</I><p>Here is where you can make one hundred dollars for your favorite charity. I will post $100 to the Paypal charity account of your choice in your name.<p>You have to at the same time, post the URLs of three lens manufacturers who have ever or presently manufacture 1X zooms.<br>You can go back as far as you like among lens makers. Remember they must be labeled/marked ``1X zoom``.<br>Surely if you and the others are correct, you will be able to prove your point. <p><I>primes lenses are therefore just a term used to describe a 1x zoom lens.</I><p>Once again: there is no such animal. All you have to do is point me to the URLs that discuss 1x zooms.<p><I>Ed, you are, in the original post, talking about the zoom ratio as if it were magnification.</I>Horse sh|t! Nowhere in my OP do I allude to or use any wording that alludes to magnification. All I eve said was the FZ20 has a 12-1 zoom.<be>The only thing I said in the OP that might (might) be construed as saying what you <I><b><u>infer I said</u></b></I> is this statement:<br><I>``The composite photo of Liberty made with the FZ20 <b>shows the perspective</b> of three focal lengths from the exact same spot in Battery Park, NYC: 36mm, 432mm (12X) & 1728mm(48x)</I>.<p>If a person is anal enough, and needs badly enough to ``prove`` your point, you might, (might) with a basketful of convoluted reasoning, make that part of my (extracted (out of context) OP statement fit somehow into what you just said I said.<p><I>you are saying that lenses with a higher zoom ratio are able to take pictures of objects that are farther away.</I><p>``Duh``! That felt good: ``Duh``!<p><I> this is entirely true, but misleading.</I><p>What you just said (and inferred I said) would be misleading only <I>had I said it</I>. I did not.<p><I>the examples you give all deal with the higher end of the focal range where a high zoom ratio corresponds to a very wide range of focal lengths and thus allow you to "magnify"</I><p>You are being hoisted with your own petard, especially since ``magnify`` does not occur in the OP.<p><I> by you images over a wide range of distances so that they fill the picture. however, what about the case of a 1mm-12mm lens?</I><p>There is no such lens, thus it would be stupid and superfluous to the requirements of the discussion to even talk about it.<p>(SNIP)<I> ?that of a 100-1200mm lens</I><p>! ? Again, your using a non-existent lens to prove a superfluous point is?pointless.<p><I>which also has a 12x zoom ratio. in the former case, taking a few steps forward or backward will negate any changes in focal length whereas in the latter case you might have to walk across a football field. this is why zoom ratio is primarily a marketing term and there are other methods used to compare a lens's magnification.</I> <p> You`ve just run out of rhetorical petard. <br> 6mm to 72mm is the <I>focal length</I> of the lens on the FZ20. The ``zoom ratio`` (of the length of the lens) is thus given as 12-1. Got it?<p>That in no way involves magnifying anything by anything, just dividing 6mm (short end) into 72mm (the long end). That give the lens a 12 to 1 (12 x 6) zoom factor (range/ratio): so much for zoom ratio.<br> And you will note, to gain the ``zoom ratio``, nothing is magnified or multiplied in that simple calculation.

 

 

<div></div>