So what does 10x Optical = in DSLR mm

[Scott.T]

Looking to upgrade from my Kodak to either a Nikon or Canon DSLR, but just realised after talking to someone else that the DSLR do not have built in zoom, so will need another lense to match the 10x optical zoom of the Kodak.

I've taken some pretty good shots with the Kodak and it's 10x optical but wouldn't mind maybe going to 12x or 16x, so what does this equate to in DSLR Lenses, something like a 30-300mm Zoom I would guess.

Cheaper option would be to stick with the 1/2 way house camera and go for a Panasonic FZ38.

Welcome to the minefield Scott.

I usually would start this kind of conversation with a "depending how often you would use it" statement, but I know you use your camera a lot.

I would whole heartedly recommend someone like you going for a DSLR. As you know how to take and what makes a good picture.

With reference to the discussion with "Sandman" in this section, the 2 DSLR's he mentions are really good bodies and not overly expensive. The place to spend the money is on the lenses. You can get a bundle that will come with something along the lines of a 28mm - 70mm kit lens, then it's up to you which direction you take it.

For instance, you can pick up an F4.5 70mm - 300mm lens (Sigma) for under £200.00.

Or on the other hand, you can buy a nice fast Brand Lens (Nikon or Canon) F2.8 VR 70mm - 200mm for about £1500.00. If you put that with a teleconverter 1.4x or 2x @ about £100.00 you then have a lens that will cover up to about 400mm.

The 2 to look at I would say are the Canon 500D which with an 18mm - 55mm IS Lens is £589.00 (body only @ £519.00) or Nikon D90 with equivalent kit lens (body only @ £619.00).

Hope this helps?

[Steve_PPP]

Originally Posted by worzel

Welcome to the minefield Scott.

It sure is. Most of the photos i take are at motorsport related events and i've only found a few times where i wished i had more than 300mm zoom. No idea what that is in terms of 10x digital zoom though! More commonly, I find that i take a pic of the object in the 150-250mm range and continue to take photos as it gets closer - but then i hit the 70mm limit and it ends up too close (i'm talking rally pics etc here!). Having a 28-300mm lens would solve this, but its a bit more money.

I've only got the entry level DSLR from Canon (about £400 with the 18-55mm kit lens) and since then i've only bought one more lens - the Sigma 70-300mm.

http://www.parkcameras.com/3487/Sigm...anon-fit-.html

I managed to get it from Park Cameras for £99 and for that kind of money, its an absolute bargain.

[Scott.T]

If for example I goto Jessops and they do a body only or a body and a 18-55mm lense, would I be better to just get the body and negotiate a 300mm lense in order to get close or beyond the 10x optical I am used to.

The majority of my track photo's are normally at 10x optical (I rarely use the digitial zoom). But I could do with just a little more then 10x.

Do you know what it is 10x of. i.e 10x 20mm therefore equivelent to 200mm ????

Originally Posted by Steve_PPP

It sure is. Most of the photos i take are at motorsport related events and i've only found a few times where i wished i had more than 300mm zoom. No idea what that is in terms of 10x digital zoom though! More commonly, I find that i take a pic of the object in the 150-250mm range and continue to take photos as it gets closer - but then i hit the 70mm limit and it ends up too close (i'm talking rally pics etc here!). Having a 28-300mm lens would solve this, but its a bit more money.

I've only got the entry level DSLR from Canon (about £400 with the 18-55mm kit lens) and since then i've only bought one more lens - the Sigma 70-300mm.

http://www.parkcameras.com/3487/Sigm...anon-fit-.html

I managed to get it from Park Cameras for £99 and for that kind of money, its an absolute bargain.

Thats the same zoom lens I started with, it does a bloody good job too, as Steve's Rally pics show

My only negative thing with the lens is that it tended to "hunt" a bit. When it does focus (on auto focus that is) it does it spot on.

I couldn't recommend Park Camera's enough either, I have been using them pretty much exclusively since I started and have bought at least 90% of my stuff through them, it's only ancillories that I shop around for as a rule, Memory / filters / batteries etc.

[Steve_PPP]

Originally Posted by worzel

I couldn't recommend Park Camera's enough either, I have been using them pretty much exclusively since I started and have bought at least 90% of my stuff through them, it's only ancillories that I shop around for as a rule, Memory / filters / batteries etc.

Have to agree, and we live about a mile from their new shop in Burgess Hill. Feel free to pop in for a cuppa if your over here

[Steve_PPP]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

If for example I goto Jessops and they do a body only or a body and a 18-55mm lense, would I be better to just get the body and negotiate a 300mm lense in order to get close or beyond the 10x optical I am used to.

For the difference in price, its worth getting the kit lens as well - you won't save a lot of cash by going for the body only. For example, i didn't even get the 70-300mm Sigma lens out the bag at Goodwood, because everything was far too close up for it. The kit 18-55mm lens was spot on for everything there whilst walking round

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

If for example I goto Jessops and they do a body only or a body and a 18-55mm lense, would I be better to just get the body and negotiate a 300mm lense in order to get close or beyond the 10x optical I am used to.

The majority of my track photo's are normally at 10x optical (I rarely use the digitial zoom). But I could do with just a little more then 10x.

Do you know what it is 10x of. i.e 10x 20mm therefore equivelent to 200mm ????

It is worth a try to see what they can do for you. A Kit lens will be obviously better suited to your camera than a third party lens. So negotiating a lens that suits you and your needs / wants has to be worth a try.

The focal lens should be on your current cameras lens somewhere and then as you say, times that by 10.

Originally Posted by Steve_PPP

Feel free to pop in for a cuppa if your over here

Will do mate

[DukeBoy]

Originally Posted by Steve_PPP

For the difference in price, its worth getting the kit lens as well - you won't save a lot of cash by going for the body only. For example, i didn't even get the 70-300mm Sigma lens out the bag at Goodwood, because everything was far too close up for it. The kit 18-55mm lens was spot on for everything there whilst walking round

Totally agree

I brought the Nikon D3000 kit that was suppose to come with the 18-55mm,

http://www.parkcameras.com/12663/Nik...8-55mm-VR.html

but as Steve has said most of my pictures are of motorsport so i swapped the 18-55mm for a 55-200mm lense and payed the difference. Then found out i really needed the 18-55mm for closer objects so ended up having to buy that aswell.
The 55-200mm is not quite enough zoom for what i want, so will be looking to purchase a 300mm in the near future.

I used to use the Fujifilm finepix S1800

http://www.parkcameras.com/14685/Fuj...pix-S1800.html

that was 18x optical zoom and seems to be about the same zoom as the 55-200mm lense i use on the Nikon.

[Scott.T]

Because of the need for several lenses and I also assume no movie modes on these, I think I may go with the Panasonic Lumix FZ38 which I have had my eye on for a while.

Gets very good reviews.

Last time I was in Jessops the guy immediatley said what a great camera it was, the only problem was they strugge to keep them in stock.

It also done very well against a similar spec Sony on the gadget show, the Sony being an additional £100.

Most places still seem out of stock and I am limited to where I can get it from to Jessops, Argos or Comet as recieved some reward/recognition vouchers from work

Tempted to online order from Jessops for store pick-up for £239

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equ...38-review.html

[Sandman]

Both the Cameras im looking at have HD movie mode, the nikon is 720i, but the canon is 1080i

the Nikon D90 comes with the 18-105mm...

the Canon Eos 550 comes with the 18-55mm



the Nikon is a 12mp , and the canon is 18mp

the Canon is about £100 cheaper than the nikon.

i still cant make upmy bloody mind, so off to park cameras tomorrow to give em a test run.

[Scott.T]

But it looks like you need to spend £450+ to get movie mode on a true DSLR

[Scott.T]

Trouble I have is my current Kodak DX6490 is such a good camera, it's going to be hard to beat, it also has a focal length of 38-380mm!!!!!

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/came...15/page_1.html

On Amazon 'currently' 46 out of 65 reviewers give it 5 out of 5 :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-revi...owViewpoints=1



When I bought it, it was end of line and IIRC only £195 from www.Ebuyer.com.

The reviews it had were excellent and for the price it was a bit of a no-brainer.
The replacement Kodak of the time was £295 and alot of the manual adjustment had been removed. Infact they dropped the DX range altogether replacing it with the 'Z' range. Even later ones IIRC even dropped the Schneider lense.

It is only 4 Mega Pixel, but most people are suprised when I tell them that.

What lets it down is the movie quality as it's only 320x240 pixels, my old Nokia N95 phone was better for video (my Ring lap was shot on the nokia).

[Skullfudge]

Is editing regarded as part of the game or does the photography world look at it as cheating?

I know very little on photography but would I be correct in assuming that a cheaper camera (say £500) would prove wiser than buying one for 2K when you could edit images taken from the £ 300 camera to look like it had been taken with a camera costing £ 2000?

Originally Posted by Skullfudge

Is editing regarded as part of the game or does the photography world look at it as cheating?

I know very little on photography but would I be correct in assuming that a cheaper camera (say £500) would prove wiser than buying one for 2K when you could edit images taken from the £ 300 camera to look like it had been taken with a camera costing £ 2000?

It's a proper hot potato this one.

Editing is seen as part of digital photography. But I would say as long as you don't introduce things that are not there and don't remove too much "debris" from the shots, then thats ok. Lots of the things done in the digital darkroom have been done for years in film labs anyhow, it's just the fact that more people are able to edit than before. I'm all for having tweaks and cloning some bits and bobs out. But some people do take things too far which I don't agree with, by this I mean introducing things that were never there, some people think it's ok to drop a better whole sky into a picture, to replace dull ones, thats wrong, use the time honoured ways, like grad filters, polarisers and good camera craft. At the end of the day, editing is no replacement for good composition, camera craft and above all patience.

With regards the editing to look like a better spec camera. Cheaper camera's are every bit as good within reason, if you want to display pictures up to A4 and maybe pushing it to A3, or just put them on the web, then thats fine. More expensive set ups have better sensors and pixel range, meaning you can blow them up further and have much less pixelation. My camera ( a D300) for instance is what is termed a "Prosumer" or "Semi Pro" standard, so while it's of better build quality and has better features / sensor than some thing like a D90, it is way under what can be achieved on a D3, which is the Nikon Pro set up.

So to answer the second question, yes you can, but only on a small size or online. But going back to the earlier stuff I said, it doesn't matter what shiny bit of kit you have, if you are not able to use it correctly.

The be all and end all with photography is it should be fun, if it doesn't give you pleasure then its not worth spending anything on at all. It is a passion for me, that I wish I had the time to really do, but I don't. Some day maybe