Beginner A Bridge too Far......maybe

Betty Bloo

Betty Bloo

Messages
2
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

first time on photography forum, and this seemed to fit the bill.

i have a query relating to new kit in comparison with old.
i use a bridge camera, FZ200, and use it for the obvious holiday snaps, wild life, aircraft and motor racing, Oi am at a stage where I want a newer camera, and thinking maybe DSLR is the way to go. The main issue I have is trying to work out how big a lens I will need to compete with the zoom on the fz200. I am not a pro, and nor will I intend to be. It is purely hobby only, and I don’t really want to be carrying around 2ft lenses to get the same reach that I have. I have been to a local camera shop, and left without the answer at all. I know it may well not be as straight forward as I hope, but want An idea of a physical size, and cost of a comparable reaching lens.

i hope this makes sense and that someone can give me some guidance.

i would like to dabble with DSLR but it could be that I stay with a bridge came and make do.

thanks in advance
 
Like you I’m not a pro, and probably not even a good hobbyist! I wouldn’t be in a hurry to dump the Panny though. I have the FZ330 and often use it instead of my Canon 77D. And range of lenses. The “one“ unit versatility and long zoom certainly work well when used carefully. Have you considered a newer model in the FZ range?

The age old question I guess is why do you want a newer camera? What is your current camera not giving you? Go from there.
 
If you go for a "full frame" DSLR then you'll need a 600mm lens to match your FZ200. If you go for a typical "crop" bodied DSLR then a 400mm will suffice.
 
Give an Olympus M4/3 camera a go.

Whilst the sensor is smaller the lenses are too.

And if you use a 300mm lens on an Olympus you get the equivalent of 600mm in full frame.

For motorsports an EM1 MK2 would fit the bill whilst not busting the bank.

Oh, and welcome to TP! :)
 
Betty Bloo said:
Hi

first time on photography forum, and this seemed to fit the bill.

i have a query relating to new kit in comparison with old.
i use a bridge camera, FZ200, and use it for the obvious holiday snaps, wild life, aircraft and motor racing, Oi am at a stage where I want a newer camera, and thinking maybe DSLR is the way to go. The main issue I have is trying to work out how big a lens I will need to compete with the zoom on the fz200. I am not a pro, and nor will I intend to be. It is purely hobby only, and I don’t really want to be carrying around 2ft lenses to get the same reach that I have. I have been to a local camera shop, and left without the answer at all. I know it may well not be as straight forward as I hope, but want An idea of a physical size, and cost of a comparable reaching lens.

i hope this makes sense and that someone can give me some guidance.

i would like to dabble with DSLR but it could be that I stay with a bridge came and make do.

thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Have look here and think if you need a DSLR or maybe just upgrade your bridge cam:
www.talkphotography.co.uk

The small sensor/ultrazoom/bridge etc thread

It seems quite a few of us here have ultrazoom bridges and compacts in addition to our higher end kit... and there is no particular owners thread to discuss them. SLR exotic teles [and the V1/70-300CX and so on] top out around 800mm native, but I’m talking 1200-1800mm or even 2000-3000mm with...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
I've found that the biggest problem with most bridge cameras is the lag between pressing the button and the camera actually taking the shot. Not a problem for (most) holiday snaps but not ideal for motorsport, aircraft and some wildlife.
 
Nod said:
I've found that the biggest problem with most bridge cameras is the lag between pressing the button and the camera actually taking the shot. Not a problem for (most) holiday snaps but not ideal for motorsport, aircraft and some wildlife.
Click to expand...
That was my experience too but is it still true?
 
Lez325 said:
Sony Mirrorless I use a Sony a7Riii and a Sony 200-600mm

gets these types of image with quality and speed

Robin from around 30 yards

DSC06494 Early morning song by Les Moxon, on Flickr

and this from over 500 yards

DSC06077 Egret at Steart Marsh by Les Moxon, on Flickr

Everyone here will have a different opinion, it also depends on how much your budget is

Les :)
Click to expand...

Are you sure that competes? The wide end is 200 vs 25 and it seems a wee bit longer, maybe not the 2 foot the OP specified but still ... :).
1602683375688.png
 
sphexx said:
That was my experience too but is it still true?
Click to expand...


Not sure; can only speak of my own experiences with a few over the years.
 
Nod said:
Not sure; can only speak of my own experiences with a few over the years.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I can see why they should be still slow. My only experience was with a Fuji (can’t remember which model) a long time ago. It can’t be a problem with the Panasonic FZ1000 series & similar Sony (they‘re not superzooms though, like the OP’s) or I think I would have read about it.
 
Some options

1. potentially 600mm with camera in crop mode
2. 450mm APS sensor can crop to match 600mm, fixed focal length, no silent shutter - lighter than 1, 3 & 4
3. 600mm - smaller sensor, fixed focal length, heavier than 1 & 2
4. potentially 900mm with camera in crop mode, weighs more than 1, 2 & 3

1602699603959.png
 
dcash29 said:
Some options

1. potentially 600mm with camera in crop mode
2. 450mm APS sensor can crop to match 600mm, fixed focal length, no silent shutter - lighter than 1, 3 & 4
3. 600mm - smaller sensor, fixed focal length, heavier than 1 & 2
4. potentially 900mm with camera in crop mode, weighs more than 1, 2 & 3

View attachment 295443
Click to expand...
Good selection but the problem is the OP hasn’t come back in this so all we know is:

1. “ holiday snaps, wild life, aircraft and motor racing,” I can‘t see that any suggestion so far is good for “holiday snaps”.
2. “I will need to compete with the zoom on the fz200.” Which at 25-600 constant F2.8 I suspect can’t be done.
3. “I don’t really want to be carrying around 2ft lenses”. None of the suggestions ate 2 ft I think but I suspect the OP may see them as that figuratively :(.
 
sphexx said:
2. “I will need to compete with the zoom on the fz200.” Which at 25-600 constant F2.8 I suspect can’t be done.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the PFZ200 can't do 600mm at f/2.8 without having a 215mm diameter front element!
 
Canon Bob said:
I suspect that the PFZ200 can't do 600mm at f/2.8 without having a 215mm diameter front element!
Click to expand...
I looked it up on dpreview before writing that, they say
  • 24x 25-600mm equivalent lens with F2.8 across the zoom range
It has a 1/2.3“ sensor, like a cam phone.
 
sphexx said:
I looked it up on dpreview before writing that, they say
  • 24x 25-600mm equivalent lens with F2.8 across the zoom range
It has a 1/2.3“ sensor, like a cam phone.
Click to expand...
I know what the spec says but it's not possible. The f-stop is the focal length divided by the apparent aperture......the apparent aperture can't be larger than the front element!
 
sphexx said:
Good selection but the problem is the OP hasn’t come back in this so all we know is:

1. “ holiday snaps, wild life, aircraft and motor racing,” I can‘t see that any suggestion so far is good for “holiday snaps”.
2. “I will need to compete with the zoom on the fz200.” Which at 25-600 constant F2.8 I suspect can’t be done.
3. “I don’t really want to be carrying around 2ft lenses”. None of the suggestions ate 2 ft I think but I suspect the OP may see them as that figuratively :(.
Click to expand...
The list is quite extensive. However it depends if the OP wants a zoom lens or is happy with primes.
 
Canon Bob said:
I know what the spec says but it's not possible. The f-stop is the focal length divided by the apparent aperture......the apparent aperture can't be larger than the front element!
Click to expand...
The lens is 100mm at the long end, so I make it 100/2.8=lens diameter= 35mm. The filter size is given as 52mm, so that seems OK to me. Are you playing with “equivalents? :)
 
dcash29 said:
The list is quite extensive. However it depends if the OP wants a zoom lens or is happy with primes.
Click to expand...
I know, that’s why I implied it’s all a bit pointless unless the OP comes back and interacts :(.
 
I also have an FZ200 but a FF DSLR as well. The FZ200 covers 25-600mm. However, it is important to realise that the sensor area is 30 times larger in my FF DSLR. In fact I was out with both cameras and took a shot of a nesting bird about 300M away. It filled a large part of the frame on the FZ200 but was quite small in the DSLR viewfinder as my longest lens was 200mm. However, when got home and processed the images the DSLR image was better in resolution, contrast and colour even though I had to significantly crop it. I think you should consider the advice about possibly buying a modern mirrorless camera. Eventually I will get round to identifying the ML system for me but not yet decided.

Dave
 
sphexx said:
The lens is 100mm at the long end, so I make it 100/2.8=lens diameter= 35mm. The filter size is given as 52mm, so that seems OK to me. Are you playing with “equivalents? :)
Click to expand...
I think that they do ply their spec with equivalents and artisitic licence. My suspicion would be that the iso is cranked up to give the exposure time that one would expect for an f/2.8 lens.

Canon do some similar trickery with their 85/1.2. Whilst it gives the optical effects (DoF) of an f/1.2 lens, the exposure value isn't achieved so the shutter speed is reduced to compensate.
 
Lez325 said:
This may be so- I saw the word Wildlife & lost the plot lol :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Click to expand...
:) It happens in every one of these ’request for advice” posts and usually people end up recommending what they have for what they do and arguing about discussing it with each other, while the OP goes AWOL :). Personally I suspect these posts are made by the Mods (running a sort of tpANON :) ) to generate posts. :)
Edit: typo.
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
2. “I will need to compete with the zoom on the fz200.” Which at 25-600 constant F2.8 I suspect can’t be done.
Click to expand...
It’s f4.5 at the long end (176) which equates to an equivalent around 600mm f13.

but there’s not much chance of a 24-600 equivalent in any format. Though could easily be done with 2 lenses with m4/3
 
Phil V said:
It’s f4.5 at the long end (176) which equates to an equivalent around 600mm f13.

but there’s not much chance of a 24-600 equivalent in any format. Though could easily be done with 2 lenses with m4/3
Click to expand...
I’m almost sure you are wrong :(. dpreveiw says “24x 25-600mm equivalent lens with F2.8 across the zoom range”

I think 4.5 is the focal length, on the lens it reads 2.8/4.5-108 not 2.8-4.5 /4.5-108
 
sphexx said:
I’m almost sure you are wrong :(. dpreveiw says “24x 25-600mm equivalent lens with F2.8 across the zoom range”

I think 4.5 is the focal length, on the lens it reads 2.8/4.5-108 not 2.8-4.5 /4.5-108
Click to expand...
Read it again, 2.8-4.5 (how apertures are described) /8.8-176 (focal length).
But back to my actual point; even if it was 2.8, that’s still be a f9 ish equivalent.
 
Phil V said:
Read it again, 2.8-4.5 (how apertures are described) /8.8-176 (focal length).
But back to my actual point; even if it was 2.8, that’s still be a f9 ish equivalent.
Click to expand...
Where can you see 2.8-4.5 ? I cannot see it anywhere. What I quoted is around the lens in the dpreview photo at https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200
and in their conclusion they repeat “24X Leica lens maintains F2.8 maximum aperture from 25 - 600 mm”
IIRC the current FZ330 is F2.8 25-1200 ! OK, looked it up, see here https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consum...digital-cameras/bridge-cameras/dmc-fz330.html

If you are going to start playing with equivalents then all bets are off :).
 
It is true that this Leica lens is quite remarkable with such a Zoom range and f2.8 throughout. It is 4.5mm to 108mm but was marketed as 25-600mm equivalent for 35mm. This a a strong plus for this camera but just a pity the sensor is so small and noisy. I still use my FZ200 occasionally when my back is just too painful to carry a DSLR.

Dave
 
sphexx said:
Where can you see 2.8-4.5 ? I cannot see it anywhere. What I quoted is around the lens in the dpreview photo at https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200
and in their conclusion they repeat “24X Leica lens maintains F2.8 maximum aperture from 25 - 600 mm”
IIRC the current FZ330 is F2.8 25-1200 ! OK, looked it up, see here https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consum...digital-cameras/bridge-cameras/dmc-fz330.html

If you are going to start playing with equivalents then all bets are off :).
Click to expand...
Well I definitely wasn’t looking at the fz330. :)
But I may not have been looking at the 200 either. :(
My point still stands that even f 2.8 needs the same crop multiplier, so it’s wrong to suggest it compares with a 600mm 2.8.
 
sphexx said:
If you are going to start playing with equivalents then all bets are off :).
Click to expand...
You can’t have your cake and eat it :jaffa:

If you’re calling the lens 600mm (when it’s actually less than 200) then you also have to accept the same multiplier for the max aperture. :)

I never introduced equivalence here, I’m just saying that if we’re using them we can’t pick and choose which bits we multiply ;)
 
The diameter of the front element is fixed at a maximum of about 39mm (just measured it). So the f stop can be easily calculated focal length/diameter i.e. 108/39 = 2.8. However, the depth of field for any specific situation will be greater for the cropped camera.

Dave
 
Phil V said:
You can’t have your cake and eat it :jaffa:

If you’re calling the lens 600mm (when it’s actually less than 200) then you also have to accept the same multiplier for the max aperture. :)

I never introduced equivalence here, I’m just saying that if we’re using them we can’t pick and choose which bits we multiply ;)
Click to expand...
I understand all that, Phil, I‘m just trying to answer the OP without just recommending what I would do in their shoes. For instance, wildlife was mentioned by the OP so wildlife photographers here tend to recommend the relatively large equipment they use (telephoto or macro) but besides persons interested in wildlife photography there are people who are interested in wildlife and want to take ‘record’ photos quickly, hence I linked to the excellent “superzoom’ thread. I guess the same may apply to planes & motors quoted by the OP but unless he/she comes back it‘s all a bit pointless :(.
 
Hi.
Been away on business and not had the minute to check back on this at all so sorry if it seemed that this a was an effort to get a discussion going. It’s not it’s genuine.
I’m not even a beginner when it come to photography. I love taking pics of motorsport and aircraft. The holiday snaps are generally walking around town with the odd zooms to far away places.
knowledge of photography is limited but it is some thing I am hoping to get into, this do not want to break the bank. What I find with my camera is the pics can be a little grainy at zooms, I guess I can get better through settings, but the other issue is the shutter speed, whichunless I am corrected will be an issue with this camera.
I’m not wanting to spend huge amounts of money at the moment, but in order to assess I have been trying to find the physical sizes of the lens I would need to get a similar zoom. I don’t really understand the whole multiplier things. From what I gather a smaller zoom on a crop sensor would give me a relative zoom?
I know there will be people with opinions which are appreciated. It maybe that a better bridge will suit.

thw 2ft things was really just tk get the point across I don’t wanna be lugging a mahoosive lens around all day.
Thanks for the help
 
Betty Bloo said:
What I find with my camera is the pics can be a little grainy at zooms,
Click to expand...


Might be worth checking that you haven't got Digital Zoom switched on somewhere in the menus. This basically crops into the full image to give apparent extra reach but makes pictures look grainier.
 
Betty Bloo said:
Hi.
Been away on business and not had the minute to check back on this at all so sorry if it seemed that this a was an effort to get a discussion going. It’s not it’s genuine.
I’m not even a beginner when it come to photography. I love taking pics of motorsport and aircraft. The holiday snaps are generally walking around town with the odd zooms to far away places.
knowledge of photography is limited but it is some thing I am hoping to get into, this do not want to break the bank. What I find with my camera is the pics can be a little grainy at zooms, I guess I can get better through settings, but the other issue is the shutter speed, whichunless I am corrected will be an issue with this camera.
I’m not wanting to spend huge amounts of money at the moment, but in order to assess I have been trying to find the physical sizes of the lens I would need to get a similar zoom. I don’t really understand the whole multiplier things. From what I gather a smaller zoom on a crop sensor would give me a relative zoom?
I know there will be people with opinions which are appreciated. It maybe that a better bridge will suit.

thw 2ft things was really just tk get the point across I don’t wanna be lugging a mahoosive lens around all day.
Thanks for the help
Click to expand...
You may find this site helpful to compare the size of camera & lenses:

Compare camera dimensions side by side

camerasize.com camerasize.com
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Why not stick with a bridge camera and upgrade to a Sony RX10 mk3 or mk4? Same focal length as your Panasonic but a bigger sensor.

Expensive new, but the mk3’s can be had for less than £700 used.
Click to expand...
Or the Panasonic FZ1000 which is ‘only’ 400mm but much cheaper generally.

Edit to add, about £500, and the OP is already using a Panasonic.
 
Last edited:
This is the problem everyone runs into who wants long range for birds / aircraft etc etc....

As you step up the sensor size and ISO performance the kit gets bigger, heavier and more expensive.

Maybe i would look into an older nikon body with the 200-500 or the Sony RX10 MK 4
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
Give an Olympus M4/3 camera a go.

Whilst the sensor is smaller the lenses are too.

And if you use a 300mm lens on an Olympus you get the equivalent of 600mm in full frame.

For motorsports an EM1 MK2 would fit the bill whilst not busting the bank.

Oh, and welcome to TP! :)
Click to expand...

M4/3 is a friendly carry about body..my lumix G5 with standard zoom keeps me concentrating on most things in the near and not so distant
your subject matter choices make you think more
cheers
Toady
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top