# Solved: 40X ZOOM in new 11 MP digital camera!



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

Hey, they just released a new digital camera with 40x optical zoom! (drum-roll please!)

 Just kidding! But now that I've got your attention... sorry, that was mean. But seriously, I've been wondering for a while now, why is it that 18x optical zoom is considered such a huge deal in a digital camera (by the way, I've only seen that much zoom in a mainstream camera once -- http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1289), when you won't have trouble finding a digital _camcorder_ with 25x, 30x, 35x, or even 40x optical zoom?
How does it make any less sense or pose any more of a problem to put that kind of zoom in a still camera than to put it in a camcorder?

If you're as perplexed as I am, please, I need to know I'm not alone.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Camcorders only have an optical zoom of usually 20x or less, the rest is digital zooming, which pixelates the video.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

Here's a camcorder with _40x optical_: www.amazon.com/Sony-DCR-DVD108-Handycam-Camcorder-Optical/dp/B000M3ILF6
..._one with 35x_: www.amazon.com/Canon-ZR830-MiniDV-Camcorder-Optical/dp/B000M4OANM
..._one with 30x_: www.amazon.com/Panasonic-PV-GS35-MiniDV-Camcorder-Optical/dp/B0007QN874
..._one with 25x_: www.amazon.com/Canon-ZR500-MiniDV-Camcorder-Optical/dp/B000DZH4CO



ferrija1 said:


> Camcorders only have an optical zoom of usually 20x or less, the rest is digital zooming, which pixelates the video.


Even if that's true, digital still cameras usually have just 3x or 4x optical zoom, if you're lucky you might find a good deal on one with 12x. Guaranteed, you'll have to order a lense or camera special if you want even 20x op. zoom, and you'll have to go SLR. (Unless you buy the Olympus I gave a link to in the above post, then buy the lens adapter and tele conversion lens for an additional 1.7x zoom on top of the standard 18x, bringing the total up to 30.6x. Unfortunately, the extras will set you back another $175 on top of the $500 price tag of the camera. Besides which, then you've got a pretty large son of a camcorder on your hands.  And guess what? No optical image stabilization; all digital.)

So, my question stands: _why so much of a gap between the zoom in camcorders, and that in still cameras?_ Who's going to be _filming a video_ from a tripod? 'cause that's the only way at 40x zoom that you're going to be able to see anything but shaking and blur, I don't care how good the I.S. claims to be. Hmm... I wonder if these camcorders are compatible with tripod use?


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

Not a great answer or complete but...

It has something to do with the way the file is recorded or constructed...

take a point and shoot digi camera and take a still photo while giggling the camera a little.... blurry right...

now take the same camera and put it in movie mode and take a short movie while panning or walking along a country road... the focus stays quite good


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

Sure, the focus stays pretty good. But have you ever tried taking a video at 40x zoom? Neither have I , but I have trouble enough taking a steady video at 6x. I don't think my hands are _that_ shaky... and I realize that the hand position used on camcorders helps keep the shot steadier compared to the position my hand is in when using a still cam in video mode, but I still can't imagine taking a steady video at 40x, that would be... tricky.

And don't get me wrong, I love that they put such big zoom in pretty reasonably priced camcorders, I just think there would be just as much use for it in an affordable still cam. And it's not like it would have to make it a great hulk. I mean, they have some pretty compact 10x cams. And 3x can be _very_ compact. Do the math. 10 x 3 = big zoom point-and-shooter. So, why haven't manufacturers clued in yet?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> Sure, the focus stays pretty good. But have you ever tried taking a video at 40x zoom? Neither have I , but I have trouble enough taking a steady video at 6x. I don't think my hands are _that_ shaky... and I realize that the hand position used on camcorders helps keep the shot steadier compared to the position my hand is in when using a still cam in video mode, but I still can't imagine taking a steady video at 40x, that would be... tricky.


Digital image stabilization and tripods......


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> And don't get me wrong, I love that they put such big zoom in pretty reasonably priced camcorders, I just think there would be just as much use for it in an affordable still cam. And it's not like it would have to make it a great hulk. I mean, they have some pretty compact 10x cams. And 3x can be _very_ compact. Do the math. 10 x 3 = big zoom point-and-shooter. So, why haven't manufacturers clued in yet?


1. Camcorders are bigger than cameras, space for a larger lenses.

2. Most of the zoom is digital, as I said.

3. They have huge zoom lenses, such as the Canon EF *1200mm* eek: ) lens (there are around a dozen in the world; it can be doubled with Canon's 2x extender) which is around $90,000.

4. Often, when the zoom is very far, the closest focusing distance is increased.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> 1. Camcorders are bigger than cameras, space for a larger lenses.
> 
> 2. Most of the zoom is digital, as I said.
> 
> ...


Correction: _Most_ camcorders are bigger than _most_ cameras. Perhaps you should take a good look at the 40x _OPTICAL_ ZOOM camcorder I provided a link to... for two reasons... actually three reasons: first, to see how small it is, and that it's no larger than some of the 'semi-professional' still cams; second, to see that this 40x zoom is _all_ *optical* (*yes,* it has a lot of digital zoom capability, which _would_ pixelate the video greatly were you to use it, and *yes* most of the zoom is digital because there is simply so much digital zoom); and lastly, to see that it isn't terribly expensive.

I'll ignore the #3 point in your post (call it even if you want) since I don't see how it is relevant.

I like the way you said "often" instead of "always" in your fourth point. In fact, "often" is indeed the case, and "often" is the key word in your statement. Of course, the real reason I like this choice of wording is not because it is so honest, but because it saves me the extra time of having to prove you wrong; we are already in agreement on this point. You see, "often" essentially means, "not always."


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

By the way, that enormous zoom you mentioned is hilariously big!


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> I'll ignore the #3 point in your post (call it even if you want) since I don't see how it is relevant.


It's relevant because it's a lens with a huge zoom, but it costs a lot.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

ferrija1 said:


> 1. Camcorders are bigger than cameras, space for a larger lenses.
> 
> 2. Most of the zoom is digital, as I said.
> 
> ...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> I like the way you said "often" instead of "always" in your fourth point. In fact, "often" is indeed the case, and "often" is the key word in your statement. Of course, the real reason I like this choice of wording is not because it is so honest, but because it saves me the extra time of having to prove you wrong; we are already in agreement on this point. You see, "often" essentially means, "not always."


I changed my post and got rid of often.  You don't have to be so stubborn, for some reason camera manufacturers don't put 500000x zooms on their lens and that's not my problem.

Sorry for trying to help.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)




----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

You told me I'm wrong without so much as a second glance at my follow-up posts. Or so I assume anyway, judging by your brief, redundant responses. I wasn't being stubborn, argumentative, or just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I was merely attempting to persuade you that I do indeed have a point-- something you seemed to immediately dismiss as my simply being ignorant to the realities of the universe.

You know, there were gaping holes in your logic that I chose only to point out to you rather than thrust spears through them, because I thought you would get my point anyway [no pun intended]. But apparently you're too... _stubborn._ So here goes nothing...

Allow me to again draw attention to the _gigantic zoom_ link. Here you give me one (count 'em, one) example of an outrageously oversized camera accessory, tell me it costs thousands to buy and insist this is proof that more zoom than what is currently available as standard on any compact camera simply isn't possible in a decent price range!  You didn't acknowledge the fact that as much as 30x, 32x, 34x, 35x, 36x, or 40x optical magnification is actually available in _very_ compact _camcorders_ (I don't need to provide more links here, do I?), and therefore one would expect could also occur in compact cameras. (You know that cool trick they do with the zoom where it kinda telescopes out from the chassis, saving space when not in use?) No, instead, you tell me it's not your fault manufacturers don't offer 5 zillion x zoom, or whatever, and basically tell me to buzz off.

Alright, then.  :up:


----------



## kiwiguy (Aug 17, 2003)

I think there are a couple of likely reasons for the lower zoom digicam limitation.

Digital video cameras have relatively low pixel CCD's relative to digital still cameras, as movies require much less resolution to still be acceptable to the eye, and lower res CCD's can handle the high frame rate that large CCD still image cameras would struggle with. 

Therefore the 1,000 (common) video zoom is almost all digital, but many of the reviews mention it gets very grainy in the video on higher zoom (as it must), it would therefore be totally unacceptable as a still image.

Secondly the smaller pixel count on video CCD allows smaller image "frames" and therefore a much better degree of auto stabilisation that a large megapixel array could do not do without a hell of a lot of CPU power to juggle each frame in real time.

Trying to auto stabilise a 0.1 MP image frame by frame is a lot different to trying to do it with an 11 MP image size in terms of CPU.

Even with 11 MP still camera, a 1,000 zoom would give a very low digital zoom pixel count image that nobody would really want, so perhaps they simply don't make something that would give a rubbish result?


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> I think there are a couple of likely reasons for the lower zoom digicam limitation.
> 
> Digital video cameras have relatively low pixel CCD's relative to digital still cameras, as movies require much less resolution to still be acceptable to the eye, and lower res CCD's can handle the high frame rate that large CCD still image cameras would struggle with.
> 
> ...


Sure, I don't disagree specifically with anything you said, but I think you're missing the point. *I don't want 1000x digital zoom, I just want 30-40x optical zoom.* I can't see any reason that this isn't feasible in a well-priced, compact digital still camera.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> You know, there were gaping holes in your logic that I* chose only to point out to you rather than thrust spears through them*, because I thought you would get my point anyway [no pun intended].


Well, you sure went off about "often" in that one post...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> No, instead, you tell me it's not your fault manufacturers don't offer 5 zillion x zoom, or whatever, and basically tell me to buzz off.


Wow, I though you would be smart enough to understand that.... 

It's sarcasm.


----------



## kiwiguy (Aug 17, 2003)

wish i had a mac said:


> Sure, I don't disagree specifically with anything you said, but I think you're missing the point. *I don't want 1000x digital zoom, I just want 30-40x optical zoom.* I can't see any reason that this isn't feasible in a well-priced, *compact *digital still camera.


An optical zoom of 30 - 40 x and the word "compact" do not go together.
An optical zoom of 30+ requires a long focal length and a higher diameter lens.

I use a 1.8 Teleconverter Lens to get greater zoom. Compact it isn't.

Laws of physics apply with optical.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> Wow, I though you would be smart enough to understand that....
> 
> It's sarcasm.


Funny thing about sarcasm... it doesn't come across very well in written language.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> An optical zoom of 30 - 40 x and the word "compact" do not go together.
> An optical zoom of 30+ requires a long focal length and a higher diameter lens.
> 
> I use a 1.8 Teleconverter Lens to get greater zoom. Compact it isn't.
> ...


I guess it all depends on your definition of "compact," doesn't it?
Anyway, about the teleconverter lens, is this by any chance an Olympus lens/camera you use? Just out of curiosity.


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

please tell us what* you* consider compact...

At some point someone will come along with an explaintion for you, that you and I can understand....



> I can't see any reason that this isn't feasible in a well-priced, compact digital still camera.


In the meantime believe this...

If it was "reasonable" and "feasible" it would be available already...
you, not being able to see or understand this, is irrelevant

I will be looking for the answer with you...

buck


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> Funny thing about sarcasm... it doesn't come across very well in written language.


Maybe I should add some more 0s. The funny thing is that you think a 500000x zoom is practical.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> Maybe I should add some more 0s. The funny thing is that you think a 500000x zoom is practical.


 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha heh heh heh heh huh huheh heh ha hah hah!  
Indeed! Very amusing!


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

buck52 said:


> please tell us what* you* consider compact...
> 
> At some point someone will come along with an explaintion for you, that you and I can understand....
> 
> ...


I don't see how me wondering about it is irrelevant. I was under the impression that the purpose of posting a thread was to have questions answered, not ridiculed or brushed aside. So it is indeed relevant. At least to me, and hopefully to anyone who has posted a reply. Now, given everyone's inability (or is it unwillingness?) to provide a decent answer, I can only assume that most of you also have questions/doubts about whether we're really getting the best versatility and fuctionality for our money.

And one other thing: it is naive to think that just because they don't provide it, that must be because we wouldn't really want it anyway. Is it not possible they're just trying to make us buy expensive DSLRs and all the additional lenses that one supposedly needs for various types of pictures-- "oh, you want close-range? Buy this lens." "Oh, you want zoom? Take this one." etc., etc. Pretty soon you're spending a couple thousand dollars for all the gimmicks.
But no, why would they want that? It must just not be feasible to do otherwise.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

Meaningful feedback welcome.


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

Howdy again



> I was under the impression that the purpose of posting a thread was to have questions answered, not ridiculed or brushed aside.


no one has intentionally ridiculed or brushed aside...
comments, not necessarily answers are a part of every thread...



> I can only assume that most of you also have questions/doubts about whether we're really getting the best versatility and fuctionality for our money.


that is a big assumtion as well as very general seeing that can be said of many many things in life



> And one other thing: it is naive to think that just because they don't provide it, that must be because we wouldn't really want it anyway.


you have that completely backwords... and are being niave if you think that...
quite the opposite at least from my stand point. I think it would be a big seller there for if they had the technology they would build it and sell it for a profit of course...simple economics

I hope you find the answer or the camera you are looking for


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

While you are looking an answer/explanation...

this is becoming more and more popular... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=digiscoping&btnG=Google+Search

unfortunately it's neither "well priced" or "compact"


----------



## kiwiguy (Aug 17, 2003)

wish i had a mac said:


> I guess it all depends on your definition of "compact," doesn't it? Anyway, about the teleconverter lens, is this by any chance an Olympus lens/camera you use? Just out of curiosity.


My Teleconverter is a Raynox, fitted to a Fuji S series camera.
To ensure the larger lenses will also not impede light (and require programmed camera offsets) the Teleconverter is necessarily large. It is 4" long and 3.5" wide at the outermost flared end, a VERY large piece of glass.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

wish i had a mac,

You asked for opinions and those replying are giving their opinions, whether you agree with them or not. While you can certainly express your own opinion that may differ, there is no need to get personal or agressive towards other members while doing it. 

Thank you for understanding.


----------



## CTPhil (Jan 5, 2006)

kiwiguy said:


> I think there are a couple of likely reasons for the lower zoom digicam limitation.
> 
> Digital video cameras have relatively low pixel CCD's relative to digital still cameras, as movies require much less resolution to still be acceptable to the eye, and lower res CCD's can handle the high frame rate that large CCD still image cameras would struggle with.
> 
> ...


^^^Why isn't this the answer?

I've been following this thread because my curiosity was also peaked, and I thought that Kiwiguy's answer was insightful and to the point. Why is everyone still wrangling about it?


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

Cookiegal said:


> wish i had a mac,
> 
> You asked for opinions and those replying are giving their opinions, whether you agree with them or not. While you can certainly express your own opinion that may differ, there is no need to get personal or agressive towards other members while doing it.
> 
> Thank you for understanding.


 

See, this is why we need more smilies! I didn't mean to be "personal or aggressive" toward anyone, though I can certainly understand that it was interpreted that way. I was merely being assertive. Sorry if I was a bit overzealous.:up:


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> My Teleconverter is a Raynox, fitted to a Fuji S series camera.
> To ensure the larger lenses will also not impede light (and require programmed camera offsets) the Teleconverter is necessarily large. It is 4" long and 3.5" wide at the outermost flared end, a VERY large piece of glass.


Now we're gettin' somewhere. Thank you, kiwiguy. :up: See, most of the posts up until now have unfortunately just been establishing what I already knew and clearing up misunderstandings and the like. A necessary part of the thread is of course to gauge my own level of understanding so you know where to begin when explaining it to me though, I guess.

So, when you say the lens has to be large so as not to "impede light (and require programmed camera offsets)," does this mean that it isn't entirely necessary to have the large lens, as you could compensate for the lack of received light internally? Or am I misreading this entirely?


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

CTPhil said:


> ^^^Why isn't this the answer?
> 
> I've been following this thread because my curiosity was also peaked, and I thought that Kiwiguy's answer was insightful and to the point. Why is everyone still wrangling about it?


That didn't answer my question 'cause it focussed on the digital side of zooming. What I'm wondering isn't so much about the image stabilization, because you can always use a tripod, and in combination with high ISO and sensor-shift stabilization (see the old 18x Olympus) and/or O.I.S., I think that would pretty much take care of the blurring. And of course, who cares whether it has digi zoom, that simply reduces picture res.


----------



## kiwiguy (Aug 17, 2003)

Do some research on focal lengths, look at the sports photographers with their zoom lenses several feet long and you will understand why they have to be large.

Unless they are also "fat", the focussed image will be smaller than the CCD, meaning loss of resolution and available light.

The Raynox above does not result in any camera offset to accommodate it, because its VERY wide and the resulting image size is zoomed but still fills the CCD.

However the problem then is that unless the main variable lens is also at a mid zoom level or more, the image is compromised as it becomes a "vignette" where the barrel of the teleconverter puts rounded shadows on the image, like looking through a tube (which it is). To avoid that the lens would be huge in diameter.

Here is a 1.7x teleconverter on a 10x optical zoom, giving 17 x optical zoom.
http://www.igs.net/~vfl/01727--04-05-26r.jpg
Now imagine what a 40x or 100x zoom would be (a few feet longer). Is that your idea of "compact"?

I don't see a practical solution of a small camera where the lend "extends" about 2 or 3 feet as practical, given the miniscule image size at the point of focus and no means of support for a multi-part sliding lens.

I can only state again, look at the laws of physics and optics. Look at the sports photographers gear. Large zoom does exist. Its VERY big by necessity.

Try Google, it does work.

And I haven't mentioned digital zoom.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

wish i had a mac said:


> See, this is why we need more smilies! I didn't mean to be "personal or aggressive" toward anyone, though I can certainly understand that it was interpreted that way. I was merely being assertive. Sorry if I was a bit overzealous.:up:


Thank you.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> Do some research on focal lengths, look at the sports photographers with their zoom lenses several feet long and you will understand why they have to be large.
> 
> Unless they are also "fat", the focussed image will be smaller than the CCD, meaning loss of resolution and available light.
> 
> ...


Okay, I get it now.

But...


kiwiguy said:


> Even with 11 MP still camera, a 1,000 zoom would give a very low digital zoom pixel count image that nobody would really want, so perhaps they simply don't make something that would give a rubbish result?


That sounds to me like a mention of digital zoom, kiwiguy.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> Do some research on focal lengths, look at the sports photographers with their zoom lenses several feet long and you will understand why they have to be large.
> 
> Unless they are also "fat", the focussed image will be smaller than the CCD, meaning loss of resolution and available light.
> 
> ...


But wait a second... _Why_ is it different for a camcorder? I have never seen a camcorder that was a meter long to accommodate the 40x zoom... 
I jumped the gun a bit... I don't get it after all.


----------



## Knotbored (Jun 5, 2004)

If you can figure out how to make a 40X short spotting scope (forget the camera) it will sell like hotcakes.
Since a digital camera optical magnification is just a version of that I guess we are out of luck.


----------



## wilson44512 (Mar 25, 2006)

check this one out. Create a high resolution 6x17 digital image (160 million pixels) in one second!

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

Why?


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

I'll tell you an unfortunate fact about the Olympus SP-550 UZ with its 18x optical zoom.
Actually, I'll tell you a few unfortunate facts about it.
Actually, I'll let someone else tell you quite a number of unfortunate facts about it.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp550uz/page18.asp


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

wish i had a mac said:


> I'll tell you an unfortunate fact about the Olympus SP-550 UZ with its 18x optical zoom.
> Actually, I'll tell you a few unfortunate facts about it.
> Actually, I'll let someone else tell you quite a number of unfortunate facts about it.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp550uz/page18.asp


I don't see how that is relevant.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> I don't see how that is relevant.


You're not still fuming about that, are you?


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> I don't see how that is relevant.


Don't worry, I'm not trying to prove anything to you with a single extreme example.


----------



## kiwiguy (Aug 17, 2003)

wish i had a mac said:


> But wait a second... _Why_ is it different for a camcorder? I have never seen a camcorder that was a meter long to accommodate the 40x zoom...
> I jumped the gun a bit... I don't get it after all.


Because thye camcorder has a very small CCD size (low pixel count) and has a reasonable "depth", which is several times deeper than a "compact" and sevarl times less pixels than a "compact". The depth will still focus the image on the very small CCD area. Make that CCD area 10 times larger, and the depth has to be ... etc.

But I tire of people too lazy to bother to accept the laws of physics. And the dimensions that accompany them. Patience has run out. Concentrate on your homework perhaps?


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> But I tire of people too lazy to bother to accept the laws of physics.


I don't see how that's relevant.


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

> I don't see how that's relevant.


No comment...I would no doubt be banned

you might ask your question/questions here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1018

you have already linked to that forum and it is a much better source for camera tech info...


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

buck52 said:


> No comment...I would no doubt be banned






buck52 said:


> you might ask your question/questions here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1018
> 
> you have already linked to that forum and it is a much better source for camera tech info...


You don't find kiwiguy to be a good source of information?


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

> You don't find kiwiguy to be a good source of information?


Quite the opposite.
I made that suggestion because it's seems you don't


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

buck52 said:


> Quite the opposite.
> I made that suggestion because it's seems you don't


Makes sense....

If I find kiwiguy to be such a poor source of information, why did I keep directing my questions at _him_ specifically?

And by the way, thanks kiwiguy, for your patience. And for solving this question for me. Just in case you feel unappreciated by me.

 :up:


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

So in theory, though, if you were able to pack a camera-worthy resolution (say, 5 megapixels or more) onto a sensor the _size_ of those found in the camcorders we've been talking about, you could then have the sort of zoom found in these camcorders in a smaller-than-slr camera, correct?
So, really, it'll be possible to have the 40x in a nice-sized camera if the sensors get significantly more compact than they are now. And I wouldn't be surprised if such advances were to occur in the near future.
One can only hope.

P.S. I think this post is a great conclusion to the thread, so nobody ruin it for me.


----------



## toonbear (Mar 30, 2007)

wish i had a mac why not put an extension lenses on your camera (Ha Ha) I have a Pentax Optio with 10 zoom I stick a fisheye/extension lense on to get 20 plus optical. To keep the thing still I have a 6 inch tripod fitted which I hold with one hand an tweak the controls with the other on. As it takes video and stills I am quite happy, except the video is MPEG 4, now that is another story.


----------



## kiwiguy (Aug 17, 2003)

wish i had a mac said:


> P.S. I think this post is a great conclusion to the thread, so nobody ruin it for me.


By post #25 a reasonable answer had been supplied, yet you dragged it out to #52?
This is elementary school physics.

Sorry to ruin your thread.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> By post #25 a reasonable answer had been supplied, yet you dragged it out to #52?
> This is elementary school physics.
> 
> Sorry to ruin your thread.


OK hold on a minute, kiwifruit. Doubtless you've ruined many things, but for all your ruining, this is one thing you missed. As you can see, someone else got to posting before you had a chance to personally ruin the thread. Sorry to burst your bubble. (Alright, now we've both issued phony apologies.)


----------



## ddrgsd (Apr 5, 2007)

Camcorder resolution is no where near the resolution you can Achieve with a Good SLR and quality optics.

With few exceptions, there aren't many zoom lenses out there that produce quality through-out there zoom range.


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

As long as *ddrgsd* ruined your fame again...

"OK hold on a minute, *kiwifruit. *" 
I would have bet the bank that *wish I had a mac* would say that ... did someone say silly or maybe predictable



ddrgsd said:


> With few exceptions, there aren't many zoom lenses out there that produce quality through-out there zoom range.


I have a couple that do, and can think of quite a few more... please speak of the ones you think that don't


----------



## ddrgsd (Apr 5, 2007)

buck52 said:


> As long as *ddrgsd* ruined your fame again...
> 
> "OK hold on a minute, *kiwifruit. *"
> I would have bet the bank that *wish I had a mac* would say that ... did someone say silly or maybe predictable
> ...


I should have said that very few perform well at such a wide range.
I have a couple that do well throughout their range too. The shorter the range the better. Obviously the 12-24, 17-35, 28-70 and the like are great all the way through.

I'm just saying that a lens that is 40x might be good at it's lower end, but won't be worth spit at the long end.

Generally speaking, the 50-500 is horrid, as is the 70-300. The bigger the range the lower the quality. Granted, lenses like the 80-200 and the 100-300 are exceptional,.


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

thanks for responding *ddrgsd*

I agree with you for the most part...

The Sigma 50-500 looks great at the long end but I have not seen a sample at the short end and I don't have it, so I can't comment

40x digital still lens is still just a dream...

buck


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

buck52 said:


> thanks for responding *ddrgsd*
> 
> I agree with you for the most part...
> 
> ...


...a dream that I guarantee will come to fruition. Eventually. Unless of course in the future, optical zoom is replaced by digital duo-mantilic watchiemahoozick filament conduction, in which case we won't survive that day anyway.


----------



## wish i had a mac (Feb 3, 2007)

kiwiguy said:


> By post #25 a reasonable answer had been supplied, yet you dragged it out to #52?
> This is elementary school physics.


You can try to insult me if you want... but don't insult every other person who has posted up to this point who could not supply an answer. That you would do so simply to get the upper hand on me is insulting.

P.S. You guys must have a great education system over there, because I was never taught this stuff in elementary school.


----------

