Superzoom/Bridge Cameras

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

I'm finding it particularly difficult to tell if I'm in focus when I'm using the 300mm OM lens and adapter.

That long on a small sensor is challenging with an optical finder; with only 800x600 resolution it would be really tough.

[barry]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

The display on the back of the camera typically has better resolution than the "peephole" electronic viewfinder (EVF), so it may work better for fine focus..

Not any more. The new EVF's are becoming very good and the refresh rate is becoming faster and faster. The new Olympus EM-1 has a 2.4 million dot viewfinder the size of a full frame Canon 1DX pro DSLR camera and Sony has just introduced two new EVF SLR's with full frame 24 and 36 mega pixel sensors. I doubt you will see optical viewfinders in DSLR's 5 years from now, unless a very high end full frame one. Pentaprisms are very heavy and expensive and the pentamirrors they put in the low end DSLR's now are not very good.

How many people are using tower computers today compared with i-pads and laptops?


Barry

[ruscal]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

I've been trying to shoot a hummingbird on approach to the feeder. I don't want the feeder in the shot. So, with the 300mm and manual focus, I have no alternative but to pre-focus on a spot and hope the bird flies into the zone. So far, I have a lot of near misses.
Those hummers move fast.

Glenn,
I am experiencing the same difficulty with humming birds refusing to hover long enough to frame up, focus, and capture. I figure if I snap enough shots I'll eventually get one.
Russ

[ruscal]

Originally Posted by Vermilye

The filter will be nice under low light to make "silky" photos of moving water. Set the camera on aperture priority, choose a small stop (large # such as f: 16 or 22) and, using the filter and a tripod, you can take 2-3 second exposures. Good for moving water. A Neutral Density filter will also work.

Nice capture Jon! Makes me want to be there.
Russ

[Cypherian]

Hey,

I has me a niece camera to it has a PHD buttun werks reelly whell :} ROFL PHD I was tolled meens Press Here DUMMY LOL :} :} I am sorry I had to chime in I like pictures but the camera and I are not good friends. Oh and yes the spelling errors are intentional :}

Cypher

[Jrn56]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

Canon and Nikon play leap frog. One is better and then the other. One shouldn't forget the others in the business.
Photogs in the news biz used to put gaffer tape over the logo on their cameras so they wouldn't have to get into conversations about which camera is better.

My loyalty to one manufacturer has more to do with my current investment in lenses than which camera is better. They all are pretty good theses days and they have all made some lemons.

[thoer]

It is fun to look back on the amount of time I used to spend in my dad's and then my own darkroom, burning in, dodging, trying different exposure and soaking times, trying for temperature precision in the chemicals, trying different filters on the enlarger, to do things that I can now do in seconds with even little nearly free software and apps, let alone what can be done with one like Photoshop or Aperture.

And how I would always pause before a shot, wondering if it was worth the film I'd use up on it. Now I have 64gb SD cards that can hold thousand of shots, and be used over and over again.

Speaking of camera brands, my first real SLR was a Yashica - can't remember the model number. Talking about mirrors and SLR cameras made me remember trying to get good with my dad's Yashica Mat-124 twin lens reflex. My SLR Yashica vanished when my first wife and I came down from a backpacking trip in Banff, she set it down on the roof of the car as she was shedding her pack....., and off we drove. It was gone by the time we went back to look.

[Dave Walter]

Originally Posted by thoer

..My SLR Yashica vanished when my first wife and I came down from a backpacking trip in Banff, she set it down on the roof of the car as she was shedding her pack....., and off we drove. It was gone by the time we went back to look.

Yea, you have to be careful about leaving almost anything unattended in the National Parks as there are a few problem bears around that will run off with your stuff in a second.

[thoer]

Originally Posted by ice-breaker

Yea, you have to be careful about leaving almost anything unattended in the National Parks as there are a few problem bears around that will run off with your stuff in a second.

Well I hope that they got good pictures anyway! LOL

[Seamstress]

gbaglo, you may enjoy reading this article from Digital Photography School: Bird Photography Near Feeders - Digital Photography School

It has lots of nice ideas for bird feeder photos.

[Dave Walter]

Originally Posted by thoer

Well I hope that they got good pictures anyway! LOL

Was this your camera?

[thoer]

Originally Posted by ice-breaker

Was this your camera?

LOL - that camera is worth more than the CAR I was driving back then! Lets see - that was 1975, so it was either a 10-12 year old VW Beetle or Volvo 122s.

He looks to be doing a very good job framing his subject.....

[DeadEyeDan]

I shoot a Canon DSLR and have a number of lenses.

Lately I have become enamored with the Sony NEX 7. Imagine my surprise when I rand into a guy shooting one through a Canon lens with an adapter. He said all the features on the lens worked.

Looks pretty funny, a tiny little camera attached to a giant lens, but I understand the results are impressive.

[gbaglo]

If the auto-focus function works with the adapter, I wonder how long the battery in the camera lasts.

[DeadEyeDan]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

If the auto-focus function works with the adapter, I wonder how long the battery in the camera lasts.

It is a good question. I didnt ask him that, but should have. But that camera has interchangeable autfocus lenses and a mirrorless shutter, so perhaps battery life isnt an issue.

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by DeadEyeDan

I shoot a Canon DSLR and have a number of lenses.

Lately I have become enamored with the Sony NEX 7.

Me too. Lots of Canon gear.

Me too. It is a great little camera.

I have a friend with a NEX-6, and she produces fantastic shots with it. She is great with post processing too, having shot Canon at one time. She does shoot with Sony lenses, and one of them I know uses Carl Zeiss glass in it.

I used to shoot a lot until about 3-4 years ago. I do still do some shooting, just nowhere near as much as I once did. I have often thought about selling all my gear, and getting something like this Sony with a few lenses. I know I could use my Canon ones, but if I was to do it, I would go for the compacter line all the way.

[DeadEyeDan]

Originally Posted by Jim Bennett

Me too. Lots of Canon gear.

Me too. It is a great little camera.

I have a friend with a NEX-6, and she produces fantastic shots with it. She is great with post processing too, having shot Canon at one time.

I used to shoot a lot until about 3-4 years ago. I do still do some shooting, just nowhere near as much as I once did. I have often thought about selling all my gear, and getting something like this Sony with a few lenses. I know I could use my Canon ones, but if I was to do it, I would go for the compacter line all the way.

My daughter has the NEX6 and the two lenses that came in the package deal on Amazon. Excellent pictures. I think I would prefer the NEX 7.

I still shoot my 7D but I am more selective to be sure.

I don't want to ditch the good stuff as I am not convinced the results would be as good with a little camera. The speed of the full bore DSLR is still superior I think. But if I was convinced, I might make that choice.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by barry

Not any more. The new EVF's are becoming very good and the refresh rate is becoming faster and faster. The new Olympus EM-1 has a 2.4 million dot viewfinder the size of a full frame Canon 1DX pro DSLR camera ...

Good to hear... the ones I've seen were not good enough for me.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by DeadEyeDan

Lately I have become enamored with the Sony NEX 7. Imagine my surprise when I rand into a guy shooting one through a Canon lens with an adapter. He said all the features on the lens worked.

The compact mirrorless cameras are generally designed for a very short distance from lens mount to sensor - they don't need to fit in a mirror. That works out well for adapting lenses intended for SLRs, as the required extra spacing to make the lens work properly provides room for the adapter. Of course the adapter is not just a mechanical mount; it's an electronic system to interface the lens and camera. Autofocus is only going to happen with lenses that have an internal focusing motor, not (for example) the traditional Nikons which are focused by a motor in the body.

Even lenses intended for traditional rangefinder cameras can work in some cases. There are even new mirrorless/compact bodies built specifically to directly mount the classic Leica M-mount lenses.

The all-in-one superzooms address this problem by being built with that one lens for all purposes - no interchangeability.

[gbaglo]

My 300mm is manual focus and must be used in aperture mode, but it's a f4.5 and remains f4.5 even though it becomes a 600mm on the OM D E-M5.
Problem with high ratio zooms is you lose a large aperture. These days you can compensate with much higher ISOs and built in image stabilization ( in the camera body with the OM D E-M5 ).
As for Nikon, I don't recall the focus motor being in the body on any of mine ( D3, D4, D4s ). The lenses had the motor ( had 70-200 f2.8; 300mm f2.8 along with shorter lenses ).
But then, I was a photographer, not a camera consumer - the company chose them and paid for cameras and repairs ).