Is there any point to 30x optical zooms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 68495

Guest
I was just looking through compact cameras and their facilities and came across a couple that had 30x zooms; is there any point to these or are they just gimmicks?

When I bought a decent pair of binoculars several years ago I bought 7 x 50's, mostly for astronomical work. For bird watching I bought my wife some 8 x 20's as she wouldn't have the light problems. 8 x 20's are easy to hold for a stable image but I can imagine 10's or 15's get increasingly difficult to hold stable so a 30 x zoom seems to be a ridiculous magnification. How can a user possibly hope to get anything resembling a clear picture when every movement is amplified 30 times?
 
Another PR trick. Bigger numbers to keep "fooling" the consumer. The megapixel myth is ending, so they need something else, to attract customers.
 
Its all relative though to be honest, 30x optical zoom puts it at what 1200mm? Whilst you couldn't hand hold it you can put it on a tripod, as you would expect to do with an SLR.
 
cw318is said:
Its all relative though to be honest, 30x optical zoom puts it at what 1200mm? Whilst you couldn't hand hold it you can put it on a tripod, as you would expect to do with an SLR.
Click to expand...

More likely 700-800mm equivalent. Still a lot.
 
Most people can hand hold x 7 or x 8 binoculars quite easily, and x 10 isn't much of a challenge, but anything more than that starts becoming difficult unless they have stabilisation. Binoculars like the 8 x 20 and 10 x 25 are convenient to carry, but have their own problems. They're not great in poor light because of the small exit pupil, and their compact, lightweight, construction can make them quite hard to hold steady compared with full size binoculars.

My wife has a Panasonic TZ9 which is about 25 - 300mm equivalent, which is a lot less than x 30 but still substantial for a compact released a few years ago. The wide end is more useful, but she's used the full telephoto capability a few times with reasonable results. I agree that that pushing the envelope to x 30, which will probably increase with the next generation, is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. You could put it on a tripod, but how many people carry one to use with a compact? It sort of defeats the purpose of a small, lightweight, take anywhere camera.
 
I have a small canon compact that I keep in my bag, it's got something like a stabilised 15x zoom. I don't carry a tripod round with me but in the absence of that i balance it on walls, dustbins, fences, etc if I need to. I don't use it often, but it's a useful thing to have and the zoom range is the primary reason that I bought the camera.
 
My first half decent camera was a Panasonic FZ150 nearly two years ago.
I took a shot of the moon steadying the camera against a window frame.
I have only recently taken a sharper photo of the moon with a Sony A77 and 70-400G on a large Gitzo tripod.

Obviously the tiny sensor is terrible at high ISO but in good light they are a good alternative to the expense and weight of for example a full frame 600mm eq
 
The biggest (and possibly only!) benefit of superzooms is the convenience. Being able to go from 24mm all the way up to 720mm (in 35mm EFLs) without changing lenses is very handy. For example, sitting in a hide (not something I do much but they're handy places to stop for a cuppa and/or shelter from the rain!) with a good view - nothing interesting in the way of wildlife, so go wide for a shot or 2 then when (if...) something interesting shows its face, you're long in a moment.

No, image quality isn't going to be fabulous when compared to those from a "proper" camera or lens but I suspect I'm not alone in wishing my SLR kit was lighter and my back didn't ache so much. However, a reasonable superzoom bridge will allow reasonable sized prints even from the longest lens setting and at more normal lengths images can be taken to A3+. I know my Fuji HS-30 can turn in some reasonable images and it (in its case with a spare battery, cards, pol, corded release and some other odds'n'sods) weighs less than my D800 with the 24-120 mounted.
 
IMO, to say it's a gimmick or that it's marketing is a slightly ignorant and probably a bit snobbish as well.

Not everybody is looking for the absolute best IQ. Some people just really like big ranges, even if the IQ is a major compromise or maybe they just haven't experienced any better.

Would I buy one? Probably not.

Does that mean it doesn't have it's place in the market? Absolutely not.
 
Before moving to a Sony D-SLT my previous camera was a Fuji HS30 with 24-720mm equivalent zoom and capable of focusing to around 1cm for 'macro' shots. These are fantastic tools, and not in the least a gimmick unless all you take is instagram-styled selfies. Yes, image quality isn't fantastic, though the weakest part of that camera was the sensor rather than the lens, and it was an incredibly useful tool. Not all superzooms are created equal, but definitely don't knock them until you try them (preferably a Canon).
 
ShinySideUp said:
I was just looking through compact cameras and their facilities and came across a couple that had 30x zooms; is there any point to these or are they just gimmicks?

When I bought a decent pair of binoculars several years ago I bought 7 x 50's, mostly for astronomical work. For bird watching I bought my wife some 8 x 20's as she wouldn't have the light problems. 8 x 20's are easy to hold for a stable image but I can imagine 10's or 15's get increasingly difficult to hold stable so a 30 x zoom seems to be a ridiculous magnification. How can a user possibly hope to get anything resembling a clear picture when every movement is amplified 30 times?
Click to expand...

Optical zoom in cameras is not the same thing as magnification in binoculars.

And binoculars tend not come with optical stabilisation, although I know some do,whereas many of the long-zoom compacts do (Sony in particular has a very good Steadyshot system).
 
35x zoom has it's uses :)

Jupiter at 35x (840 equivalent) on a tripod


With digital zoom 140x
 
Phil Young said:
IMO, to say it's a gimmick or that it's marketing is a slightly ignorant and probably a bit snobbish as well.

Not everybody is looking for the absolute best IQ. Some people just really like big ranges, even if the IQ is a major compromise or maybe they just haven't experienced any better.

Would I buy one? Probably not.

Does that mean it doesn't have it's place in the market? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I was talking to one of the Canon reps at an exhibition recently. He had some amazing super zoom thing - don't know which model, but I think it was a 50x zoom up to 1200mm equivalent, or something like that.

Of course I wondered who buys such a thing, and have gave an interesting example. He said they sell shed loads of them to the military. Small and light, which is useful if you're already carrying 60kg of gear on your back. Amazing capabilities for people who aren't primarily photographers. And they can be totally destroyed with one stamp of the boot if you need to jettison as much weight as possible and evacuate the position in a hurry!

Does it have its place in the market? Absolutely.
 
Hi, I´ve got a Canon Powershot SX40 HS which I used before I bought my dslr camera. And I bought it because of that zoom and thought it was great. I mainly used it to take photos in zoo´s where the animals where far away and even handheld it was taking great photos. At the beginning of using my dslr I really missed that long zoom ;-)
 
StewartR said:
Well said.

I was talking to one of the Canon reps at an exhibition recently. He had some amazing super zoom thing - don't know which model, but I think it was a 50x zoom up to 1200mm equivalent, or something like that.

Of course I wondered who buys such a thing, and have gave an interesting example. He said they sell shed loads of them to the military. Small and light, which is useful if you're already carrying 60kg of gear on your back. Amazing capabilities for people who aren't primarily photographers. And they can be totally destroyed with one stamp of the boot if you need to jettison as much weight as possible and evacuate the position in a hurry!

Does it have its place in the market? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

That's the SX50.

My brother bought the SX40 (does 24-800mm equivalent) and TBH if it had a decent viewfinder instead of the really lousy EVF they fitted then I'd probably not have bought a DSLR. While it's certainly not as good as APS-C and Canon l series lenses in terms of image quality, it's good enough for hobby photography and holiday images, and unlike most compacts, the image quality holds up to ISO400. If all you wanted was to publish to the web no larger than 900:600 then you'd be hard pushed to distinguish this from a 'better' camera.
 
ancient_mariner said:
That's the SX50.

My brother bought the SX40 (does 24-800mm equivalent) and TBH if it had a decent viewfinder instead of the really lousy EVF they fitted then I'd probably not have bought a DSLR. While it's certainly not as good as APS-C and Canon l series lenses in terms of image quality, it's good enough for hobby photography and holiday images, and unlike most compacts, the image quality holds up to ISO400. If all you wanted was to publish to the web no larger than 900:600 then you'd be hard pushed to distinguish this from a 'better' camera.
Click to expand...

And there's the crux of it. For most people who buy cameras, expectations of image quality are far removed from those who regard photography as a hobby / profession. Which is why Iphone photography is so popular, as are apps like instagram with 'creative' filters that actively degrade image quality!
 
viewfromthenorth said:
And there's the crux of it. For most people who buy cameras, expectations of image quality are far removed from those who regard photography as a hobby / profession. Which is why Iphone photography is so popular, as are apps like instagram with 'creative' filters that actively degrade image quality!
Click to expand...

Perhaps because people that use Instagram have greater concern about the image than people who proclaim their hobby/interest as "photography"? - who have a tendency to focus on technical irrelevancies at the expense of the image?

(dons tin hat)
 
Well... I would be interested to see how some of these big zoom perform. Years ago my first camera was a Lumix FZ18 if i remember the name well and I was quiet impresse with using the zoom with good light and a tripod (but since I moved to DSLR and I'm not sur if I would still be impressed by a big zoom).

I really would like to find a comparison test of the:
-fujifilm x20 () to the fujifilm which is cheaper and weatherproofed with could be an ideal travel camera.
-fujifilm finepix S1. Which has a 50x zoom and is weatherproof.
See which one would be the best travelling camera.

I've also came accross the new Samsung WB2200F and I wonder how it perform. There is no way I could reach 600mm or 1200mm on my canon 40D. All these long lens are so big and cost so much. It would be nice to see some shot taken with this camera which will be coming out soon.
 
Last edited:
Out of all the photo's I took last year one of my wife's (and my own) favourites was taken with a Sony hx20v. It's got a 20x zoom lens but the one we both like was taken almost at the widest setting. I usually either take it or my rx100 when we got out with the kids,fits in my pocket and less hassle to use. :)
 
If you're not bothered about any reduction in quality, the shot is more important than the quality, then why not have as much reach as possible?

trying to shoot at 30x hand held, however, will be very tricky, even using IS.

The type of cameras that have such optics are mostly small and light though, so something like a gorrilapod is ideal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top