ZLR lens compared to SLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mianileng@yahoo.com, Sep 2, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I take it for granted that a 10-12x lens in a ZLR camera
    can't possibly be as good as a good prime or 3x SLR lens.
    But how big is the difference ? I have neither the equipment
    nor the skill to make a direct comparison myself, but I'm
    really curious. For instance, how would the 12x Leica lens
    of a Panasonic FZ*0 camera stack up against, say, the kit
    lens of a Canon or Nikon SLR ?

    There may be no way to make a direct comparison since the
    lenses cannot be interchanged on the same camera, but even
    an academic discussion will be enlightening. Forget about
    the sensor and other factors, just the lens, and please try
    to be objective ... :).
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pixel_a_ted Guest

    One thing photographers like control over is the depth of focus in an
    image. So, for instance, one might choose to isolate the subject of a
    photograph by having the background somewhat blurred. Now without
    speaking to the specific quality of any ZLR lens (which is probably
    quite acceptable), they are generally short focal length because the
    ZLR sensor is smaller than the SLR sensor. As a result, it could be
    difficult to get a restricted depth of focus. So the SLR allows more
    photographic control.

    Also, when you start considering macro (closeup) work, nothing beats a
    dedicated SLR macro lens, which is quite good from all the major
    manufacturers.
     
    pixel_a_ted, Sep 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pixel_a_ted Guest

    One thing photographers like control over is the depth of focus in an
    image. So, for instance, one might choose to isolate the subject of a
    photograph by having the background somewhat blurred. Now without
    speaking to the specific quality of any ZLR lens (which is probably
    quite acceptable), they are generally short focal length because the
    ZLR sensor is smaller than the SLR sensor. As a result, it could be
    difficult to get a restricted depth of focus. So the SLR allows more
    photographic control.

    Also, when you start considering macro (closeup) work, nothing beats a
    dedicated SLR macro lens, which is quite good from all the major
    manufacturers.
     
    pixel_a_ted, Sep 2, 2006
    #3
  4. bmoag Guest

    The lenses are better than the aesthetic capabilities of the photographers
    that will use them.
    Most of these lenses have predictable amounts of linear distortion, barrel
    or pincushion, that is easy to correct if it is a visible problem-this
    applies to all wide angle dSLR lenses.
    Chromatic aberration can be an issue-as it is with many dSLR wide angle
    lenses, correctable to a degree.
    F stop range can be an issue: size constraints dictate the zooms will have
    smallish maximum f-stops at the long end of the zoom.
    The lenses and image stabilization systems are the best part of the long
    zoom ZLRs.
    The limiting factors are the EVF viewing systems, slower response/handling,
    lack of raw option in many, limited flash options and, in some, the quality
    of the sensor particularly at high ISO(although this is less an issue than
    it is made out to be).
    For the way many who consider themselves reasonably advanced amateurs shoot
    they might be better off with one of these lighter cameras than a heavy dSLR
    of which they use only a fraction of the capability.
     
    bmoag, Sep 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    wrote:

    > I take it for granted that a 10-12x lens in a ZLR camera
    > can't possibly be as good as a good prime or 3x SLR lens.
    > But how big is the difference ? I have neither the equipment
    > nor the skill to make a direct comparison myself, but I'm
    > really curious. For instance, how would the 12x Leica lens
    > of a Panasonic FZ*0 camera stack up against, say, the kit
    > lens of a Canon or Nikon SLR ?
    >
    > There may be no way to make a direct comparison since the
    > lenses cannot be interchanged on the same camera, but even
    > an academic discussion will be enlightening. Forget about
    > the sensor and other factors, just the lens, and please try
    > to be objective ... :).


    Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I'm most
    interested in the issue of image quality, primarily
    sharpness and CA, and secondarily other things like
    barrel/pincushion distortion and vignetting. Aperture
    range can be evaluated from the specs. DOF is not
    important in this regard.
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #5
  6. wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I take it for granted that a 10-12x lens in a ZLR camera
    >>can't possibly be as good as a good prime or 3x SLR lens.
    >>But how big is the difference ? I have neither the equipment
    >>nor the skill to make a direct comparison myself, but I'm
    >>really curious. For instance, how would the 12x Leica lens
    >>of a Panasonic FZ*0 camera stack up against, say, the kit
    >>lens of a Canon or Nikon SLR ?
    >>
    >>There may be no way to make a direct comparison since the
    >>lenses cannot be interchanged on the same camera, but even
    >>an academic discussion will be enlightening. Forget about
    >>the sensor and other factors, just the lens, and please try
    >>to be objective ... :).

    >
    >
    > Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I'm most
    > interested in the issue of image quality, primarily
    > sharpness and CA, and secondarily other things like
    > barrel/pincushion distortion and vignetting. Aperture
    > range can be evaluated from the specs. DOF is not
    > important in this regard.
    >

    See:
    A Photographic Image Quality Test Using the Moon
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1

    I am impressed at how good the 10-12x lenses on
    some small sensor cameras do. The above is a relatively
    stationary subject at lowest ISO.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 2, 2006
    #6
  7. m Ransley Guest

    I am suprised what I get with my H5 and the tele extender, I am happy
    and have not experianced fringing that has been noted on tests, I
    believe it is on the close setting. You are buying an optimised package,
    small light, no dust on sensor, lcd preview, I imagine a dslr with a
    very long lens could be 10x what 12x zoom cameras cost. But it depends
    on what you need it for.
     
    m Ransley, Sep 2, 2006
    #7
  8. cjcampbell Guest

    wrote:
    > I take it for granted that a 10-12x lens in a ZLR camera
    > can't possibly be as good as a good prime or 3x SLR lens.
    > But how big is the difference ? I have neither the equipment
    > nor the skill to make a direct comparison myself, but I'm
    > really curious. For instance, how would the 12x Leica lens
    > of a Panasonic FZ*0 camera stack up against, say, the kit
    > lens of a Canon or Nikon SLR ?
    >


    According to the reviews I have seen, it stacks up quite well.
    Unfortunately, the cameras it has been attached to have not been up to
    the quality of the lens, what with complaints about digital noise,
    highlight clipping, and so forth. The FZ50 is supposed to have better
    noise control than its predecessors, but that is not saying a lot.
    Those who use this camera seem to love it, but then they liked the
    FZ30, too, despite its problems.

    The closest equivalent lens on an SLR would be something like the
    18-200mm AF-S VR Nikkor. This is a very tough lens to beat and I doubt
    that the Leica could be said to be better in any way except that it is
    faster.

    The Panasonic FZ*0 cameras do not all use the same lens, by the way.
    The FZ20 was f/2.8 throughout the zoom range, while the newer cameras
    have a maximum aperture of f/3.7 at the far end of their zoom.
     
    cjcampbell, Sep 3, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    cjcampbell wrote:

    > wrote:
    > > I take it for granted that a 10-12x lens in a ZLR camera
    > > can't possibly be as good as a good prime or 3x SLR lens.
    > > But how big is the difference ? I have neither the equipment
    > > nor the skill to make a direct comparison myself, but I'm
    > > really curious. For instance, how would the 12x Leica lens
    > > of a Panasonic FZ*0 camera stack up against, say, the kit
    > > lens of a Canon or Nikon SLR ?
    > >

    >
    > According to the reviews I have seen, it stacks up quite well.
    > Unfortunately, the cameras it has been attached to have not been up to
    > the quality of the lens, what with complaints about digital noise,
    > highlight clipping, and so forth. The FZ50 is supposed to have better
    > noise control than its predecessors, but that is not saying a lot.
    > Those who use this camera seem to love it, but then they liked the
    > FZ30, too, despite its problems.
    >

    Sorry about the late reply - my ISP was down for some time.
    Actually, I asked the question partly because I'm selling
    my FZ20, and am trying to decide which camera to get as
    its successor, within the constraints of my budget and
    personal preferences.

    I like long zooms and use the FZ20 at its max tele setting
    all the time. I'd like to work with a DSLR's superior
    capabilities, but even a D50 plus an 18-200mm Tamron costs
    more than I'm willing to spend now. The FZ50 won't be
    available in my country for at least a few more months,
    and will probably cost about as much as the D50-Tamron
    combo at first.

    The FZ30 (still available here) would seem to be the
    logical choice. but I couldn't help wondering if the
    quality of *any* ZLR lens would be a significant limiting
    factor. This may seem odd to some, given the limitations
    of small-sensor cameras. Please just consider it a quirk
    of mine.

    > The closest equivalent lens on an SLR would be something like the
    > 18-200mm AF-S VR Nikkor. This is a very tough lens to beat and I doubt
    > that the Leica could be said to be better in any way except that it is
    > faster.
    >

    I'm surprised. Perhaps I should say pleasantly surprised.
    I didn't expect a wide-zoom lens, even a Leica, that can
    be economically integrated with a prosumer P&S to be
    placed in the same class as a good separate lens.

    > The Panasonic FZ*0 cameras do not all use the same lens, by the way.
    > The FZ20 was f/2.8 throughout the zoom range, while the newer cameras
    > have a maximum aperture of f/3.7 at the far end of their zoom.


    True. And it's one of the niggling doubts I have about the
    FZ30, despite the upgrades in other features.
     
    , Sep 4, 2006
    #9
  10. John Turco Guest

    pixel_a_ted wrote:
    >
    > One thing photographers like control over is the depth of focus in an
    > image. So, for instance, one might choose to isolate the subject of a
    > photograph by having the background somewhat blurred. Now without
    > speaking to the specific quality of any ZLR lens (which is probably
    > quite acceptable), they are generally short focal length because the
    > ZLR sensor is smaller than the SLR sensor. As a result, it could be
    > difficult to get a restricted depth of focus. So the SLR allows more
    > photographic control.
    >
    > Also, when you start considering macro (closeup) work, nothing beats a
    > dedicated SLR macro lens, which is quite good from all the major
    > manufacturers.



    Hello,

    I own two Kodak "ZLR" digicams - P850 (12x optical zoom) & DX6490
    (10x) - and I've been able achieve rather shallow depth of field,
    at times. Using extreme telephoto, on closer shots, is all it takes.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Sep 5, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dipu

    canon G3/G5 depth-of-field compared to Film SLR

    Dipu, Nov 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,264
    Michael K. Davis
    Dec 23, 2003
  2. Alan Browne

    [ZLR] Nikon Coolpix 8800 with VR built in

    Alan Browne, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    472
    David J Taylor
    Sep 19, 2004
  3. Bryan Olson

    Rant about the term "ZLR"

    Bryan Olson, Dec 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    103
    Views:
    1,785
    Matt Ion
    Dec 29, 2005
  4. Talal Itani

    Why ZLR?

    Talal Itani, Jul 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    909
    Paul Allen
    Jul 8, 2006
  5. measekite

    r.p.d.zlr

    measekite, Feb 4, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    158
    Views:
    3,607
    John Turco
    Feb 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page