«

Hi I am looking at digital cameras and was wondering if the Sony
Cyber-shot H2 was worth getting. I am an aircraft enthusiast, wanting
pictures of them and would like to know if cameras of this type are
suitable. Also if the optical zoom is 12x, I have been told this is
equivelant to a 400 odd mm lens woul dthe quality still be as good, or
near to, as using a telephoto lens of said magnitude. Please help
becase I really dont know much about cameras.

Thanks

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Hi I am looking at digital cameras and was wondering if the Sony
> Cyber-shot H2 was worth getting. I am an aircraft enthusiast, wanting
> pictures of them and would like to know if cameras of this type are
> suitable. Also if the optical zoom is 12x, I have been told this is
> equivelant to a 400 odd mm lens woul dthe quality still be as good, or
> near to, as using a telephoto lens of said magnitude. Please help
> becase I really dont know much about cameras.
>
> Thanks
>

If the aircraft are flying past at a rate of knots then you need a camera
with little or no discernable shutter lag. Seems to me you would really need
a DSLR.

Gerrit

wrote:
> Hi I am looking at digital cameras and was wondering if the Sony
> Cyber-shot H2 was worth getting. I am an aircraft enthusiast, wanting
> pictures of them and would like to know if cameras of this type are
> suitable. Also if the optical zoom is 12x, I have been told this is
> equivelant to a 400 odd mm lens woul dthe quality still be as good, or
> near to, as using a telephoto lens of said magnitude. Please help
> becase I really dont know much about cameras.
>
> Thanks

Yes, the quality is as good - at least on the Panasonic range of cameras
with their Leica lenses. Here are some moon shots from a couple of
Panasonic cameras:

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/moon.htm

all taken without a tripod.

If you are prepared to pay more, and carry around a bigger and heavier
camera, then a DSLR would given even better quality with a faster
response. The Sony is bigger and heavier than some equivalent cameras,
such as the Panasonic FZ7, if that matters to you (e.g. for carrying
around all day)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ7/

David

wrote:
> Hi I am looking at digital cameras and was wondering if the Sony
> Cyber-shot H2 was worth getting. I am an aircraft enthusiast, wanting
> pictures of them and would like to know if cameras of this type are
> suitable. Also if the optical zoom is 12x, I have been told this is
> equivelant to a 400 odd mm lens woul dthe quality still be as good, or
> near to, as using a telephoto lens of said magnitude. Please help
> becase I really dont know much about cameras.

I bought the Nikon D70 when it came out, and
I've been mostly happy with it. I wouldn't mind trading it
for the Digilux 2.

But instead I will probably buy one of the new Canon Powershots
because they are VERY versatile and good quality.
Look into this line.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:40:04 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart <> wrote:
>
><> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> Hi I am looking at digital cameras and was wondering if the Sony
>> Cyber-shot H2 was worth getting. I am an aircraft enthusiast, wanting
>> pictures of them and would like to know if cameras of this type are
>> suitable. Also if the optical zoom is 12x, I have been told this is
>> equivelant to a 400 odd mm lens woul dthe quality still be as good, or
>> near to, as using a telephoto lens of said magnitude. Please help
>> becase I really dont know much about cameras.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> If the aircraft are flying past at a rate of knots then you need a camera
> with little or no discernable shutter lag. Seems to me you would really need
> a DSLR.

Yes and no. The superzooms aren't bad for that sort of thing if you
pre-focus them. I took this picture with an FZ5:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/Eagle.jpg
(Focal length was 396mm, a bit less than the camera max of 432mm)

-dms

The H2 is very good, it is 432mm, I have the H5, at 5 mp it can shoot an
equivilant of 14x optical zoom or 504mm. Read reviews at dpreview,
dcresource. Focusing can be hard at full zoom close up, but it is a good
camera. Sony makes a 1.7x telephoto extender that will bring an H2 to
734mm. Raynox makes a 2x converter. But if these are moving planes
your quality with sony is 200-320 iso max, it might be tough to get your
shots. but you have image stabilisation for stationary shots. If
stationary the H2-H5- Canon S3is are tops. If moving planes, you might
realy need a dslr with clean high iso. Panasonic is noisy above 100iso,
Fuji has no image stabilisation, Kodak is pretty good. Are these
moving-flying planes.

"Daniel Silevitch" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:40:04 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart <> wrote:
> >
> ><> wrote in message
> > news: oups.com...
> >> Hi I am looking at digital cameras and was wondering if the Sony
> >> Cyber-shot H2 was worth getting. I am an aircraft enthusiast, wanting
> >> pictures of them and would like to know if cameras of this type are
> >> suitable. Also if the optical zoom is 12x, I have been told this is
> >> equivelant to a 400 odd mm lens woul dthe quality still be as good, or
> >> near to, as using a telephoto lens of said magnitude. Please help
> >> becase I really dont know much about cameras.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >
> > If the aircraft are flying past at a rate of knots then you need a
camera
> > with little or no discernable shutter lag. Seems to me you would really
need
> > a DSLR.
>
> Yes and no. The superzooms aren't bad for that sort of thing if you
> pre-focus them. I took this picture with an FZ5:
> http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/Eagle.jpg
> (Focal length was 396mm, a bit less than the camera max of 432mm)
>
> -dms

Doesn't that do exactly what my mail was about?
By prefocussing you reduce the time lag between pushing the go button and
when the camera records the picture on the sensor.
DSLRs are known to have the shorter time lag built in especially with manual
focus (which btw is only available on a few superzooms)

Gerrit

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 12:17:30 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart <> wrote:
>
> "Daniel Silevitch" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:40:04 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart <> wrote:
>> >
>> ><> wrote in message
>> > news: oups.com...
>> >> Hi I am looking at digital cameras and was wondering if the Sony
>> >> Cyber-shot H2 was worth getting. I am an aircraft enthusiast, wanting
>> >> pictures of them and would like to know if cameras of this type are
>> >> suitable. Also if the optical zoom is 12x, I have been told this is
>> >> equivelant to a 400 odd mm lens woul dthe quality still be as good, or
>> >> near to, as using a telephoto lens of said magnitude. Please help
>> >> becase I really dont know much about cameras.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If the aircraft are flying past at a rate of knots then you need a camera
>> > with little or no discernable shutter lag. Seems to me you would really
>> > need a DSLR.
>>
>> Yes and no. The superzooms aren't bad for that sort of thing if you
>> pre-focus them. I took this picture with an FZ5:
>> http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/Eagle.jpg
>> (Focal length was 396mm, a bit less than the camera max of 432mm)
>>
>> -dms
>
> Doesn't that do exactly what my mail was about?
> By prefocussing you reduce the time lag between pushing the go button and
> when the camera records the picture on the sensor.
> DSLRs are known to have the shorter time lag built in especially with manual
> focus (which btw is only available on a few superzooms)

Yes. My point was that even though the superzooms have non-trivial
shutter lag (like just about all non-DSLRs), you can get around that to
some extent by pre-focussing. Since most of the lag is focus lag, not
shutter lag per-se, in situations where pre-focus is feasible, it can
really cut down on the delay.

Pre-focus certainly isn't a cure-all, as there are many situations where
it won't work, but it's a useful technique to keep in the toolbox.

-dms