zoom vs sensor size - alaska

[havoc315]

I think you need to broaden your horizons a bit. I couldn't get either of those shots with my D7100 and 80-200 2.8. Not even close. By time you cropped a dslr photo to get that framing it would probably look worse.

 

Although I've only had the P900 for a week I'm pretty impressed with its capabilities.

 

You also need to consider your audience here. Nobody asking questions on this forum is shooting for Vogue Magazine. These super zoom cameras are going to provide them with top notch memories. Should they decide to print them I'm sure they will be great.

 

Oh, one more thing. When criticizing the Otter shot you forgot that I was shooting on a cloudy day with a lot of moisture in the air. Its not going to make it into National Geographic, but then, I don't care.

 

Please don't take it personally, I'm just commenting based on the premise of this thread -- the balance between sensor size and zoom lens. Do you pay a penalty for the smaller sensor. And you very clearly do pay a penalty.

As you said, one needs to consider the audience -- And not all members of the audience are the same. Which is why I said, it all depends on your expectations. For some people, they would be thrilled with those shots. For others, they would be horribly disappointed.

 

As to not being able to get those shots with a dSLR? Huh? Sure, maybe not with a 80-200, but that's why you change lenses on a dSLR.

 

So some of my own examples of wide angle and telephoto..

First this shot... This is much much wider than is possible with any bridge camera. Taken at 14mm... No bridge camera goes that wide:

alaska-749_DxO.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Now, this next wide angle was taken within the range of a bridge camera, but because of the larger sensor it was able to get shadow detail while also preserving the bright sky. On a bridge camera, the sky would likely just be white, or all the details would be lost in black.

Disney Wonder at Tracy Arm Alaska by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Now as to extreme telephoto cropping, on a cloudy rainy day, with the ship rocking...

I suspect the weather during these 2 shots was far worse than your otter pic: (I was on a whale watch, returning to the dock super early, because the weather and rain forced it to abort):

alaska-1342.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

alaska-1350.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

So absolutely, a bridge camera brings with it a certain convenience, and shots that are good enough for many people. But a larger sensor camera, when used correctly with appropriate lenses, can naturally deliver far superior results. It depends on the balance between convenience, price and quality that the photographer is choosing.

[Locksmth]

Took a look at your work on flickr. Very nice.

 

The problem here is you are trying to compare a $4000.00 camera and lens combo with a $600.00 camera/lens combo. That just isn't going to work for 99% of the population. Your 300mm F4 lens is worth $2000.00 alone.

 

I've shot plenty with hardware like that. In the right hands its the right tool. In the wrong hands it would severely upset someone that they couldn't get decent vacation photos!

 

We are approaching this from completely different directions. You are only interested in the quality of the image, and for that I applaud you. You have invested heavily in your hardware and you know how to make it work.

 

I'm on Holland America in May going to Alaska. I'll be packing my D7100 and all my glass too. The P900 will definitely be along for the trip too. You can't buy a 2000mm lens from Nikon. You would never get that Otter shot with your equipment. You are at best 420mm equivalent. The Canon I had was at 1365mm equivalent. You would then have to crop out 2/3 of your image to get the same. I suspect you would have a lot of loss in image quality at that.

 

Anyway, keep shooting!

[havoc315]

Took a look at your work on flickr. Very nice.

 

The problem here is you are trying to compare a $4000.00 camera and lens combo with a $600.00 camera/lens combo. That just isn't going to work for 99% of the population. Your 300mm F4 lens is worth $2000.00 alone.

 

I've shot plenty with hardware like that. In the right hands its the right tool. In the wrong hands it would severely upset someone that they couldn't get decent vacation photos!

 

We are approaching this from completely different directions. You are only interested in the quality of the image, and for that I applaud you. You have invested heavily in your hardware and you know how to make it work.

 

I'm on Holland America in May going to Alaska. I'll be packing my D7100 and all my glass too. The P900 will definitely be along for the trip too. You can't buy a 2000mm lens from Nikon. You would never get that Otter shot with your equipment. You are at best 420mm equivalent. The Canon I had was at 1365mm equivalent. You would then have to crop out 2/3 of your image to get the same. I suspect you would have a lot of loss in image quality at that.

 

Anyway, keep shooting!

 

Actually, my eagle shots were extreme cropped... To about 700mm-800mm I would estimate.

No, I can't get 1300+ mm.

But for me, I don't ever see a need for such an extreme focal length. I don't really have interest in shooting that distant tiny dot a mile away, and magnifying it so you can kinda see that it's an otter. That appeals to some people, and I fully respect it. (But a footnote, in some cases, I have come close-- 300mm + 2x converter plus crop mode, so a 900mm image is about my max).

 

You are very right -- we are looking at it in different directions. And yes, I have expensive gear, so we are showing 2 extremes.

 

And that's my point -- there is no one direction for all people. A smaller sensor camera absolutely means some significant sacrifices (loss of ultra wide, softer images, loss of dynamic range blowing highlights, far inferior low light capability) as well as some gains (convenience, price, extreme telephoto reach).

 

There is no right or wrong answer. Each consumer/photographer must strike the right balance for themselves.