How much do I lose by going from DSLR to superzoom? (1 Viewer)

[LucaPCP]

Ok, I have a kind of answer. I was able to borrow a Canon SX70, and even though it has twice as much zoom as my Olympus with 75-300 lens (150-600 equivalent), the pictures are worse. The pixels are fuzzy, by more than a factor of two; the autofocus is much slower and less precise, and the zoom is slower too. As my Oly with 75-300 is of manageable weight, I will stick with that.

And btw, no, my pictures above are crap. I chose them explicitly to show off subpar pics, that are however very useful for bird id.

The fact is, sometimes, rare times, I aim at great photos. Most often, my joy is in identifying the birds and observing them, and I throw away (delete) the pictures once the identification is done. I used to be obsessive about photography, I developed my own film, etc etc. I still am obsessive for some photos I care. But I learned that simplicity in life has value. When I walk around to birdwatch, my goal is the birds, and everything else is best kept simple.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I'm confused

Don't worry about it.

I have no desire to talk about mobile phones, so maybe someone else has the time to put some meat on the bones of your conundrum. In the event you cannot understand that getting the most out of a camera depends on the user, then find out what boots Messi wears and buy a pair. Play in them and reflect on whether or not you've given Messi a run for his money. I'm not underestimating you without seeing you play, by the way, and maybe it'll turn out that Messi's boots do in fact turn you into a second Messi.

The OP is talking about his current camera versus the Nikon P950 and so I'll talk about that.

Bridge cameras/superzooms, whatever you want to call them, do have advantages over the more expensive equipment which I don't think is appreciated on this thread. Chiefly, they're portable which gives the user more flexibility providing the user is in a physical condition to take advantage of it.

In the event the user of the camera is going to stand miles away and take pictures, then of course the advantages of these cameras are being rendered redundant. They're not built for that purpose.

Assuming the OP wants some good advice, he (or she) should make the following clear: the range when those pictures were taken, were they taken hand-held and was he (or she) standing.

I don't take pictures from the sort of distance that I think the OP has in mind, and so I'm not the right person to advise, but there will be people on here who have this camera (or the P900) and use it in a similar manner to the OP. Assuming the OP does takes pictures from that sort of distance then I personally would not buy any bridge camera/superzoom: as said, the advantages of the camera are being negated in that event. But then again, I don't take pictures solely for ID purposes.

As it stands, the OP has given half a story and that being the case nobody can give him good advice. There needs to be an understanding of the range and how the pictures were taken and is that broadly typical of the OP's usual practice. It would be useful to know where the OP lives also, i.e. typical weather conditions.

 

[kimmik]

Someone who thinks cameras on phones are not cameras, must know about cameras.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Ok, I have a kind of answer. I was able to borrow a Canon SX70, and even though it has twice as much zoom as my Olympus with 75-300 lens (150-600 equivalent), the pictures are worse. The pixels are fuzzy, by more than a factor of two; the autofocus is much slower and less precise, and the zoom is slower too. As my Oly with 75-300 is of manageable weight, I will stick with that.

And btw, no, my pictures above are crap. I chose them explicitly to show off subpar pics, that are however very useful for bird id.

The fact is, sometimes, rare times, I aim at great photos. Most often, my joy is in identifying the birds and observing them, and I throw away (delete) the pictures once the identification is done. I used to be obsessive about photography, I developed my own film, etc etc. I still am obsessive for some photos I care. But I learned that simplicity in life has value. When I walk around to birdwatch, my goal is the birds, and everything else is best kept simple.

Yes, I think it's well understood that zoom and focus on bridge cameras/superzooms, are not of the same quality.

From reading your posts, I think you are doing the right thing by sticking with your current camera. Not because you're making an informed decision, however.

 

[Richard D]

Don't worry about it.

I have no desire to talk about mobile phones, so maybe someone else has the time to put some meat on the bones of your conundrum. In the event you cannot understand that getting the most out of a camera depends on the user, then find out what boots Messi wears and buy a pair. Play in them and reflect on whether or not you've given Messi a run for his money. I'm not underestimating you without seeing you play, by the way, and maybe it'll turn out that Messi's boots do in fact turn you into a second Messi.

The OP is talking about his current camera versus the Nikon P950 and so I'll talk about that.

Bridge cameras/superzooms, whatever you want to call them, do have advantages over the more expensive equipment which I don't think is appreciated on this thread. Chiefly, they're portable which gives the user more flexibility providing the user is in a physical condition to take advantage of it.

In the event the user of the camera is going to stand miles away and take pictures, then of course the advantages of these cameras are being rendered redundant. They're not built for that purpose.

Assuming the OP wants some good advice, he (or she) should make the following clear: the range when those pictures were taken, were they taken hand-held and was he (or she) standing.

I don't take pictures from the sort of distance that I think the OP has in mind, and so I'm not the right person to advise, but there will be people on here who have this camera (or the P900) and use it in a similar manner to the OP. Assuming the OP does takes pictures from that sort of distance then I personally would not buy any bridge camera/superzoom: as said, the advantages of the camera are being negated in that event. But then again, I don't take pictures solely for ID purposes.

As it stands, the OP has given half a story and that being the case nobody can give him good advice. There needs to be an understanding of the range and how the pictures were taken and is that broadly typical of the OP's usual practice. It would be useful to know where the OP lives also, i.e. typical weather conditions.

Thank you for your patronising response. My conundrum was basically your dismissal of cameras in mobile phones as not cameras which suggests you don't have much knowledge of photography or professional photographers - if you're interested in photography it might be worth filling the gaps in your knowledge.

Yes technique is important , but using the most appropriate tool and acknowledging what restrictions a tool places on the user is important too. To use your 'useful' analogy Messi is unlikely to play football in ballet slippers.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Yes technique is important , but using the most appropriate tool and acknowledging what restrictions a tool places on the user is important too. To use your 'useful' analogy Messi is unlikely to play football in ballet slippers.

Firstly, restrictions were acknowledged and sought, see previous posts.

Secondly, Messi doesn't play in 'ballet slippers' because he can afford a pair of football boots. In the event he did play in 'ballet slippers', however, he'd remain a better player than most.

Your limitation is that when you talk of 'restrictions', you think technology. There are quite a few other opportunities and restrictions that exist outside of the technical aspects of a camera: background, technique, light, ability to get close to a bird and so on.

Anyway, this is all pointless given the OP's erratic and impulsive posts and thought process. He or she has drawn a conclusion on the back of virtually nothing.

 

[Richard D]

Firstly, restrictions were acknowledged and sought, see previous posts.

Secondly, Messi doesn't play in 'ballet slippers' because he can afford a pair of football boots. In the event he did play in 'ballet slippers', however, he'd remain a better player than most.

Your limitation is that when you talk of 'restrictions', you think technology. There are quite a few other opportunities and restrictions that exist outside of the technical aspects of a camera: background, technique, light, ability to get close to a bird and so on.

Anyway, this is all pointless given the OP's erratic and impulsive posts and thought process. He or she has drawn a conclusion on the back of virtually nothing.

I assure you I didn't only think about technology, I merely assumed that a seemingly reasonably experienced photographer wouldn't need to be told that technique is important and focused on what he had expressed as to his primary aim being bird id photos rather bird portraits.

I freely confess to not to being an expert in taking photos for id purposes but based on my own experiences owning full frame DSLRs, M4/3 cameras and the Nikon P900 in terms of getting useful images for id purposes it is the maginification the P900 offers that offers the biggest advantage over his current set up, but the small sensor does come with the inevitable image quality limitations and limit the ability to crop and retain detail. I like the P900 - it offers acceptable performance in a a lightweight body - the body is bulky compared to many M4/3 bodies, but the lens/body together is comparatively compact for the range it offers.

 

[Tero]

All my photos are on a Canon 65x zoom. The camera fails quite fast when you are in winter lighting and a cloudy day. So the bigger lens of an SLR has the light gathering ability. Also, any manual focus on the zoom cameras is quite a job, if they have any. The solution with a bird is just to take as many pictures as you have time for.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I assure you I didn't only think about technology, I merely assumed that a seemingly reasonably experienced photographer wouldn't need to be told that technique is important and focused on what he had expressed as to his primary aim being bird id photos rather bird portraits.

I freely confess to not to being an expert in taking photos for id purposes but based on my own experiences owning full frame DSLRs, M4/3 cameras and the Nikon P900 in terms of getting useful images for id purposes it is the maginification the P900 offers that offers the biggest advantage over his current set up, but the small sensor does come with the inevitable image quality limitations and limit the ability to crop and retain detail. I like the P900 - it offers acceptable performance in a a lightweight body - the body is bulky compared to many M4/3 bodies, but the lens/body together is comparatively compact for the range it offers.

In fairness, a 'reasonably experienced photographer' could quite easily have looked up the P950s specifications and found his/her answer and so you could argue this is a sign of someone who is not an experienced photographer. I'm sure you've seen plenty of people with expensive equipment they've owned for years, give no thought to what is in the background and adjust accordingly or wait a few seconds until the background is more favourable. Owning expensive equipment for a long time doesn't make someone an 'experienced photographer'.

In the end, there's a reason why these cameras are 800 quid. There is absolutely no doubt that they are not of the same quality as the more expensive equipment. 'No argument from me there. My point was/is, is he or she able to make the most of that 800 quid's worth of camera? From the OP's posts, there is no way of telling. The focus is solely on specifications and with no sight nor sound of how he or she uses the camera.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

In fairness, a 'reasonably experienced photographer' could quite easily have looked up the P950s specifications and found his/her answer and so you could argue this is a sign of someone who is not an experienced photographer. I'm sure you've seen plenty of people with expensive equipment they've owned for years, give no thought to what is in the background and adjust accordingly or wait a few seconds until the background is more favourable. Owning expensive equipment for a long time doesn't make someone an 'experienced photographer'.

In the end, there's a reason why these cameras are 800 quid. There is absolutely no doubt that they are not of the same quality as the more expensive equipment. 'No argument from me there. My point was/is, is he or she able to make the most of that 800 quid's worth of camera? From the OP's posts, there is no way of telling. The focus is solely on specifications and with no sight nor sound of how he or she uses the camera.

'Just to add to that, Richard, we haven't even gotten into which birds the OP usually photographs, 'makes a huge difference.

Photographing owls, birds of prey and waders is going to be a struggle with the P950, although fine for ID purposes. Dipper are very hard to photograph with this camera and I'd imagine it's the same with any small sensor camera: either there's not enough light and as a result there's no contrast in the picture given dipper usually have a dark coloured water in the background (on a cloudy day) or there's good light and the white parts are a mess.

Personally, I think these cameras are built for the songbirds and chats and the like where you can find yourself some cover and sneak into position. As I said in an earlier post, the advantage of the smaller cameras is that they are portable which means you can get yourself close to birds providing you're agile and do the obvious for a bit such as watching them to see where they're feeding/landing.

 

[Steven Astley]

Ok, I have a kind of answer. I was able to borrow a Canon SX70, and even though it has twice as much zoom as my Olympus with 75-300 lens (150-600 equivalent), the pictures are worse. The pixels are fuzzy, by more than a factor of two; the autofocus is much slower and less precise, and the zoom is slower too. As my Oly with 75-300 is of manageable weight, I will stick with that.

And btw, no, my pictures above are crap. I chose them explicitly to show off subpar pics, that are however very useful for bird id.

The fact is, sometimes, rare times, I aim at great photos. Most often, my joy is in identifying the birds and observing them, and I throw away (delete) the pictures once the identification is done. I used to be obsessive about photography, I developed my own film, etc etc. I still am obsessive for some photos I care. But I learned that simplicity in life has value. When I walk around to birdwatch, my goal is the birds, and everything else is best kept simple.

The P950 will be similar in terms of picture quality and autofocus to the SX70 but will have more reach, I had the P900. Look at Sony RX10, better image quality and the mark 4 has really good autofocus, these are part of the 1 inch sensor class of superzooms. The P1000 has incredible reach but again photo quality and autofocus will be similar to SX70 I imagine. Having said I can get better images than most DSLR users with my superzooms I have used over the years

 

[njlarsen]

A different kind of input: do you have the best carrying strap available for your current setup? I see people say they can carry much more weight around with the right strap. I have not felt the need to go that way personally, but searching the forum for Black Rapid and similar straps that distribute the weight of the camera on both shoulders and allow binoculars to function as well seem to exist.

Niels

 

[delia todd]

A different kind of input: do you have the best carrying strap available for your current setup? I see people say they can carry much more weight around with the right strap. I have not felt the need to go that way personally, but searching the forum for Black Rapid and similar straps that distribute the weight of the camera on both shoulders and allow binoculars to function as well seem to exist.

Niels

Yes, I agree with that.

I got the Black Rapid harness and it makes a huge difference - I hardly notice the weight at all - I have arthritis and have had both hips replaced, so this is an important factor for me.

 

[kimmik]

Another perspective. Get a smaller superzoom.

I have about 7 or 8 cameras (lost count) from small sensor to medium format to infrared to superzoom to iphone (by far the most photos taken, sometimes through bino).

The panasonic that goes up to 1200mm equivalent is only half kg and 300$ or so. The 600mm zoom on full frame is 2kg but much greater light gathering of course, can handle low light.

Both are super useful and for different occasions. Both have taken amazing bird pictures for me. Its not like you have to spend $1k on the smaller camera...

It even does 4k video and you can screenshot a sharp frame as photo.

Anything that produces a photograph is a camera, and will have niche uses where it excels.

 

[Richard D]

Not sure how useful this is - but P900 near end of optical zoom this morning in 'okay' light - just set to the 'bird' scene, handheld:

 

[Richard D]

And a crop (about 1/8th of original) from this morning in slightly weaker light - again handheld near full optical zoom in the automatic scene mode - note detail is getting rather soft:

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Not sure how useful this is - but P900 near end of optical zoom this morning in 'okay' light - just set to the 'bird' scene, handheld:View attachment 1484078

I think that's a beauty of a picture. It's not all about the detail. 'Light good, like the background, the full bird is in the picture including feet, nice pose: looks like he/she has turned 'round to you to say: "do you mind, I'm looking for food here and I haven't eaten for a while".

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

And a crop (about 1/8th of original) from this morning in slightly weaker light - again handheld near full optical zoom in the automatic scene mode - note detail is getting rather soft:

You can't afford to be cropping much with these cameras, which is why I asked the OP about range when the pictures were taken. You don't need to be cropping, providing you get yourself into the right position.

 

[kimmik]

Here’s an iphone photo through 8x bino from a few weeks ago.

Spring in the southern hemisphere.



Equivalent focal length around 250mm.

 

[Richard D]

You can't afford to be cropping much with these cameras, which is why I asked the OP about range when the pictures were taken. You don't need to be cropping, providing you get yourself into the right position.

Agreed - I could have got closer, but disturbing feeding birds in this weather is something I avoid. I think it shows how a drastic crop keeps enough detail for ID purposes (okay not a species you need details for ;-) ) but does push the limits of what the camera is capable of recording (well that was my intention!).