Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
I had a “God likes me” moment the other day.
My wife and I like to walk on Peebles Island in search of birds and other wildlife. She carries the FZ150 and I shoot with the FZ200. Because of the geography – water, cliffs, and the like – it is often not possible to “zoom with our feet,” so we are constantly shooting at the optical and digital zoom limits of our two cameras. Very often, our subjects are 100-200 yards away.
We are pleased with the performance of the two FZ cameras – they are light, convenient, offer 24-600 (equivalent) focal range (and up to 1,200mm with digital zoom) and deliver astonishing images for such a small package. Still, when we pop the resultant images up on the computer screen, we are always yearning for just a bit more reach, a little more detail and resolution.
It’s hard to get that reach and resolution in a package that I would want to carry all the time. A micro 4/3 with a 100-300 would offer the equivalent of 600mm and more with digital zoom, but would the resultant images be a significant improvement over what we have? An APS-C DSLR with an XX-300mm lens would offer 450mm equivalent, and digital zoom on top of that might offer more. . .
I was speculating on this with my wife as we walked on Peebles Island when – very fortuitously -- we ran into a couple taking pictures. He had a Nikon 3100 with a Nikon 55-300 lens. . . the exact setup I had been speculating about. We walked together for a while, and we both shot pictures of a Great Blue Heron about 75 yards away. When we compared images on our camera screens – his zoomed in to give comparable size – he said “Yours is sharper!” I looked, and sure enough it was.
This got me to thinking (always dangerous!). My FZ200 offers 24-600mm equivalent, but the lens is actually 4.5-108mm. The conventional wisdom on telephotos is that you should shoot at a shutter speed that is at least the reciprocal of the focal length. So, if you are shooting a 100mm, you should shoot at least 1/100 second; if you’re shooting a 200mm, you should shoot 1/200 sec., and so forth. So theoretically, I could get away with shooting at 1/100 second or thereabouts.
But the gentleman shooting the Nikon had a lens that was 55-300mm actual (not equivalent). Theoretically, at top zoom, he should be shooting at 1/300 second.
So here’s the question: does the shorter actual focal length of the superzoom give me an advantage in shooting steadier handheld shots at equivalent focal length over a DSLR? If I am thinking about this correctly, it does.
But maybe there are other considerations that need to be factored in.
What do you think?
Cheers, Jock
My wife and I like to walk on Peebles Island in search of birds and other wildlife. She carries the FZ150 and I shoot with the FZ200. Because of the geography – water, cliffs, and the like – it is often not possible to “zoom with our feet,” so we are constantly shooting at the optical and digital zoom limits of our two cameras. Very often, our subjects are 100-200 yards away.
We are pleased with the performance of the two FZ cameras – they are light, convenient, offer 24-600 (equivalent) focal range (and up to 1,200mm with digital zoom) and deliver astonishing images for such a small package. Still, when we pop the resultant images up on the computer screen, we are always yearning for just a bit more reach, a little more detail and resolution.
It’s hard to get that reach and resolution in a package that I would want to carry all the time. A micro 4/3 with a 100-300 would offer the equivalent of 600mm and more with digital zoom, but would the resultant images be a significant improvement over what we have? An APS-C DSLR with an XX-300mm lens would offer 450mm equivalent, and digital zoom on top of that might offer more. . .
I was speculating on this with my wife as we walked on Peebles Island when – very fortuitously -- we ran into a couple taking pictures. He had a Nikon 3100 with a Nikon 55-300 lens. . . the exact setup I had been speculating about. We walked together for a while, and we both shot pictures of a Great Blue Heron about 75 yards away. When we compared images on our camera screens – his zoomed in to give comparable size – he said “Yours is sharper!” I looked, and sure enough it was.
This got me to thinking (always dangerous!). My FZ200 offers 24-600mm equivalent, but the lens is actually 4.5-108mm. The conventional wisdom on telephotos is that you should shoot at a shutter speed that is at least the reciprocal of the focal length. So, if you are shooting a 100mm, you should shoot at least 1/100 second; if you’re shooting a 200mm, you should shoot 1/200 sec., and so forth. So theoretically, I could get away with shooting at 1/100 second or thereabouts.
But the gentleman shooting the Nikon had a lens that was 55-300mm actual (not equivalent). Theoretically, at top zoom, he should be shooting at 1/300 second.
So here’s the question: does the shorter actual focal length of the superzoom give me an advantage in shooting steadier handheld shots at equivalent focal length over a DSLR? If I am thinking about this correctly, it does.
But maybe there are other considerations that need to be factored in.
What do you think?
Cheers, Jock