It is equivalent to 24-450MM in 35MM terms:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...superzoom-lens
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04...&ref=title_0_5
Its quite impressive,especially how wide it goes and how compact it is! It is even splashproof.
Printable View
It is equivalent to 24-450MM in 35MM terms:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...superzoom-lens
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04...&ref=title_0_5
Its quite impressive,especially how wide it goes and how compact it is! It is even splashproof.
Impressive range, certainly.
My concern would be that, short of extremely high quality and therefore expensive lens ekements, extended range and image quality tend to be inversely related. Or, more accurately, they're always related, but expensive (and very heavy for long telephoto) lens elements compromise quality a lot less than cheaper variants.
I'd certainly allow that modern manufacturing processes, and computer design, make this less of an issue than in previous years/decades, but it just seems to me to be inherent in optics and the laws of physics.
So my concern would be, assuming there's a quality price to pay for that range, how big a price is it?
The benefits to convenience are self-evident, but what about the extent of the compromise?
Of course, it's a subjective decision, and depends on the expectations and needs of the user. What I'll get away with for my holiday snaps will be different to what's expected by a National Geographic photographer on a commissioned shoot .... just a tad. ;) :D
It's one of the advantages of smaller sensors mind Saracen, that with these kind of superzooms, the issues tend to be most pronounced at the edges.
Softness and the like can often be reduced by having better (larger) DoF tendencies by the smaller sensors too.
Hopefully we will see more innovation in high end APS-C and Micro 4/3rds lenses, kinda like Sigma with their offerings for APS-C.
the quality of the glass in the lenses has a huge impact on the final result..
Not really, theoretically one could argue a pinhole camera has the best quality, despite the absence of glass!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobster
Yes, these lenses will be a compromise, but in the same way that 10 years ago people were happy with the state of the art, that people who are on bodies that are 5+ years out of date still make take great photos, the fact is I think technology has progressed so far, we can afford to take 'hits' in quality, by exchanging the quality for say portability.
I'm an engineer, I should care about clairty above all else, yet I still love this lens a friend gave to me, and old manual Russian thing, if your subject is more than 20m away, it's noise and grain, get close and it's got such an interesting bokeh.
I take the point about sensor sizes. It's a factor helping to get decent quality at wider ranges.
The pinhole camera point, while true in some senses, is a bit of a fallacy. If you want a zoom, as this Tamron is, ir's .... erm ... tricky to do without glass (or some usually sub-standard substitute).
I agree with Bobster. The largest singke factor is probably quality, and manufacturing accuracy, of glass. There is, after all, generally a blooming good reason why expensive lenses cost a lot more, and oerform a lot better.
It is certainly true than image quality "standard" lenses are capable of has been steadily improving, and some aren't half bad, but none the less, high-end lenses are sought by demanding users and not just to pose with white paint, red rings, etc.
That range does, however, look like a blooming good general-purpose walk-around lens, and if the image quality is good enough (which it may be for many users, but I'd bet won't be for all users) then for that first group, it'd be a tempting item.
I would argue, something like the Lumia 1020, shows that the glass is less important, subsampling is going to be better.
really? then why does it have a lens made by Carl Zeiss?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Oh very true, it's also important that it's a saphire crystal level of strength, rather than plastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobster
It's more that you can get such great range of shots, due to the sensor, I dare say you take a phone sized camera sensor from 5 years ago, slap on that 1020s lens and it won't be much of an improvement. Slap on a poorer peice of glass on such as sensor, and ultimately it probably won't mess up much, a sensor so dense needs a lot of low pass filtering anyway.
I'm not saying that glass doesn't matter at all, clearly it does, its an important part of the process, more that given the evolution of the sensor, the last 5 years in particular, we can suddenly start to take up a lot of the *slack* that bad glass creates.
A mate of mine was showing me some of his research which uses monoscopic mapping techniques, the point is you can create an amazingly detailed composite, with a fairly good 3d understanding. With that level of data, and a model of any optical distortion, you could correct for it. This kind of technology isn't far away at all, we've all got panorama stitching apps on our phones, that corrects for a lack of wide angled lens.
Now my original point was that as manufacturers start putting more emphasis on designing lenses for these smaller modern sensors, a lot of problems matter less, the more over sampling you've got, the more imperfections you can correct. I for one am still amazed (and impressed!) at the idea of having selectable anti-aliasing filter by use of the sensor shake reduction system. Sensors are really improving, so fast. Glass is somewhat standing still, sensors can help fix their problems ;)
this thing will distort like crazy - any 'super-zoom' will distort, especially when it is trying to go to 16mm. I'd be more interested in the wide end than the long end - the difference between 200/250mm and 300mm isn't that great and with high MP sensors cropping is far more of a practical proposition.
Like I mentioned, any zoom of any kind will have optical discrepancies, whether is it Canon 'L', zeiss or leica branded. The glass to a certain extent matters but a zoom will always have significant optical flaws, and the bigger the zoom range in general the bigger the flaws - particularly at such an wide angle focal length