How can you be satisfied with just 3x optical?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by notreallyme, Jan 7, 2004.

  1. notreallyme

    notreallyme Guest

    I think it is fine for portrait photos. But outdoors the zoom capability is
    just not there. I don't get it. Am I missing something? If I take a
    picture of a small bird on a limb, it's hard to identify the bird.
    notreallyme, Jan 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. notreallyme

    PETERWOJ Guest

    I'm not. That's why I have 10x Optical zoom camera. Yes I do have small 3X
    camera for parties, head shots and lanscapes but for serious photography my10X
    always come along.
    PETERWOJ, Jan 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. notreallyme

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Hummm. With only 2x, I have trouble identifying the limb... GRin.
    But then a person doing only snapshots of the kids inside probably won't
    really care.
    Ron Hunter, Jan 7, 2004
  4. notreallyme

    Ray Guest

    Yes I, like peter have a 3x canon a70 for on the go pics and the serious
    stuff I use my Olympus e-100rs 10x. 3x is just no where near enough zoom.
    for example I the other day I was out in my driveway I spotted right above
    my head a big squirrel running along the wire above and I thought it would
    make a good snapshot so I grabbed my a70 I had with me and when I looked at
    the pics later I could barely see the squirrel.
    Ray, Jan 7, 2004
  5. notreallyme

    MightyKitten Guest

    3x optical zoom isn't enough for me. Though I'm such a zoom freak, I'd
    probably find the hubble telescope just marginal .... ;-)
    MightyKitten, Jan 7, 2004
  6. notreallyme

    Paul Heslop Guest

    I'm not satisfied but it was all i could afford. It's certainly better than none
    Paul Heslop, Jan 7, 2004
  7. notreallyme

    Ron Hunter Guest

    And mighty hard to hold steady without a tripod!
    Ron Hunter, Jan 7, 2004
  8. notreallyme

    Don Stauffer Guest

    As someone who got into photography considerably before zoom lenses were
    even available, I guess I am the one missing something in this post.
    Sure, I'd like more zoom. Same thing with more pixels. But hey, my
    pocketbook talks too. Even on my film cameras my two zoom lenses are
    less than 4X each. So, sure, more is better, but when you don't have
    enough focal length, you either get closer or choose another shot.
    Don Stauffer, Jan 7, 2004
  9. notreallyme

    Bram Guest

    Depends on what you shoot, don't you think? My current E-10 has
    4x zoom, my previous C2020z had 3x zoom, and I barely ever used
    it. My style of shooting is mostly at wide-angle, for landscapes
    and architecture. Personally I have no interest at all in long-
    distance-long-zoom-bird photography. 4x is more than enough for
    my requirements.
    Bram, Jan 7, 2004
  10. notreallyme

    Roger Guest

    There's a hugh range of photography that can be accomplished with 3x
    optical zoom. You need to buy your equipment to coincide with your
    needs/ requirements. To have all in one, the affordable lens design
    sacrifices speed. My photography requires speed and in 40 years of
    photography, I've never used a lens over 200mm (film)/135mm 1.5x
    digital. Nearly 100% of my photography can be accomplished with a 3x
    zoom. Recently I spend three weeks in Asia and supported my
    photography with a single professional quality P&S film camera with a
    35mm f2.8 non-zoom lens (Contax T3). I had to tailor much of my
    photography to the equipment, but the results are memorable and some
    remarkable. If this were for a client, I would have chosen different
    equipment. However, I was already there on business and carrying
    computers and multiple climates of clothing and all I could manage was
    a small camera and many rolls of film.

    Pictures of a small bird on a branch is a specialized form of
    photography and should be easier with digital SLRs and the current
    range of telephoto lenses available. The film equivalent of a 400 mm
    (600mm 1.5x digital) is usually considered adequate. 300mm on film is
    about equivalent to a 6x pair of binoculars.

    Roger, Jan 7, 2004
  11. notreallyme

    Mark Roberts Guest

    Heck, I've even heard of photographers using just a single fixed-focal
    length lens!
    Mark Roberts, Jan 7, 2004
  12. notreallyme

    gt Guest

    I use software to "crop" an image where I want to zoom in.

    Works well for me.
    gt, Jan 7, 2004
  13. notreallyme

    Jim Townsend Guest

    I do the same.. But it only works to a point. If the
    subject is too small, it doesn't help much.

    Cropping at 640x480 for example, will isolate the subject,
    but won't be adequate if you intend to print it or use it
    as wallpaper on a 1024x768 screen.
    Jim Townsend, Jan 7, 2004
  14. Zooming in can be very useful but some of us prefer to zoom *out*! In my
    film camera days, a lot of my most satisfying pictures were taken with a
    24mm lens and my standard lens was 35-100mm. I might consider buying a DSLR
    if I could get a zoom with 24 or 28mm (equivalent) at its lowest setting. I
    am not really very fond of panoramic stitching and I suspect that I should
    hope to live long enough to be able to afford a 24x36mm sensor and use
    regular lenses (g).
    James Silverton, Jan 7, 2004
  15. notreallyme

    Bert Hyman Guest

    (gt) wrote in
    You're employing essentially the same technique as the digital zoom
    feature in many cameras, which results in "empty magnification";
    you're effectively just making the pixels bigger.
    Bert Hyman, Jan 7, 2004
  16. notreallyme

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Yes.. Many equate zoom with magnification.. But it works TWO ways.

    Zoom not only makes things bigger.. It can be used equally as well
    to make things smaller.

    If you're taking a picture of a subject and you can't step back far
    enough because there's a wall or fence in the way, then you can
    zoom 'out' and make the image smaller. You couldn't do this with
    a fixed lens.

    I'd be willing to bet that most people who have zoom lenses can
    recall a time that their lens wouldn't zoom "out" far enough to
    make the subject small enough to fit in the viewfinder. This
    could have been some extra wide scene like a landscape or the
    wall of a room.

    Zoom only describes the difference between the maximum and minimum
    focal length. It doesn't describe the magnification factor (x) that
    normally gets assigned to binoculars and telescopes.
    Jim Townsend, Jan 7, 2004
  17. notreallyme

    bob Guest

    Photography is *always* about finding a good image with the equipment
    that you have.

    If you really *need* to take pictures of birds, then the equipment you
    have better include a 400mm f/2.8 and a really good tripod.

    Otherwise, you take a picture of the tree.


    For years I used only a 45mm lens. I took many excellent photographs with

    When I use my 4x5 camera, I have only two lenses to choose from. I still
    manage to take pictures.

    bob, Jan 7, 2004
  18. RE/
    I've been thinking along those lines for my next purchase: a "big" camera to
    supplment my very-small P&S.

    Is your's an SLR? Image-stabilized?
    (Pete Cresswell), Jan 7, 2004
  19. notreallyme

    NEguy Guest

    As an accomplished photographer once explained to me, people who chase
    around with a big bag of camera equipment aren't photographers,
    they're equipment freaks.
    NEguy, Jan 8, 2004
  20. Hey, its a new digital world! Don't you mean a 1X optical zoom?

    street shooter, Jan 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.