New camera - I like this effect.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Tico

Only 24 - 750mm?
... and it's the size of a pack of cigarettes?
No wai.
I think a zoom that went to 750mm would be longer than my arm.
You must mean 24-75.

Digital camera sensors are smaller than a 35mm frame so the lenses are often shown as "35mm equivalent" focal lengths. Cameras with the smaller sensors can have very wide zoom ranges. The Lumix being discussed has a 20-1200mm equivalent range.

Mine has a somewhat larger sensor so my 55-200mm zoom is the equivalent of a 75-350mm lens on a 35mm camera and is about the size of the 135mm lenses I used to use.

There are "full frame" digital cameras where the sensor area is the same as a 35mm and the focal lengths of the lenses act the same as on the 35mm film camera.

[harpspitfire]

nice images, photo is a great hobby, what program do you use to process?
tico- my DSLR when hooked up to my telescope has a f/l of 4000-5000, the only limits are more or less resolution
nyghthawk- the A1 had some pretty decent lens, probably MIJ, i think you can get an adaptor to use them on an EOS body

[marty bradbury]

Thanks for the replies guys. Time for a new camera.............

[HHP]

Originally Posted by marty bradbury

Thanks for the replies guys. Time for a new camera.............

Good luck, they're worse than computer. While you're up front paying for it, the latest/greatest new upgrades are arriving in the back. Lifespan of new models is about the same as a hummingbird with hypertension.

[guitar george]

Congratulations on the new camera and beautiful pictures, Bruce.

I know little about photography other than point, click, zoom in and zoom out. What can your camera do that a good smart phone camera can't do? I presume that not too many cameras are being sold these days.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by guitar george

Congratulations on the new camera and beautiful pictures, Bruce.

I know little about photography other than point, click, zoom in and zoom out. What can your camera do that a good smart phone camera can't do? I presume that not too many cameras are being sold these days.

You presume wrong. Single purpose cameras are superior in every respect to camera phones. Next time you go to a big sporting event, see how many of the pro photographers are using smartphones. All the camera makers are doing very well and they are releasing new products continually.

If you were happy with an Instamatic back in its day, a smartphone camera is the modern equivalent.

[Edgar Poe]

Originally Posted by HHP

You presume wrong. Single purpose cameras are superior in every respect to camera phones. Next time you go to a big sporting event, see how many of the pro photographers are using smartphones. All the camera makers are doing very well and they are releasing new products continually.

If you were happy with an Instamatic back in its day, a smartphone camera is the modern equivalent.

I would say more like the Polaroid. Instant pictures.

Ed

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by HHP

You presume wrong. Single purpose cameras are superior in every respect to camera phones. Next time you go to a big sporting event, see how many of the pro photographers are using smartphones. All the camera makers are doing very well and they are releasing new products continually.

If you were happy with an Instamatic back in its day, a smartphone camera is the modern equivalent.

I mostly agree, but smart phones are closing the gap much more than instamatics did back in the day. Still, lenses make all the difference.

[Nyghthawk]

Originally Posted by harpspitfire

nyghthawk- the A1 had some pretty decent lens, probably MIJ, i think you can get an adaptor to use them on an EOS body

I sold my old Canon stuff back in the mid-90's to get a computer and printer to go back and finish my degree (graduated in 2001 @ 45 but better late than never). I had the standard 50mm, a 28-105mm zoom, a 70-210mm zoom, and a 300mm telephoto. The 50mm was Canon but the rest were Tamron or Sigma.

I would love one of these DSLR's. I may get back into photography in retirement.

[Tico]

Originally Posted by HHP

Digital camera sensors are smaller than a 35mm frame so the lenses are often shown as "35mm equivalent" focal lengths. Cameras with the smaller sensors can have very wide zoom ranges. The Lumix being discussed has a 20-1200mm equivalent range.

Mine has a somewhat larger sensor so my 55-200mm zoom is the equivalent of a 75-350mm lens on a 35mm camera and is about the size of the 135mm lenses I used to use.

There are "full frame" digital cameras where the sensor area is the same as a 35mm and the focal lengths of the lenses act the same as on the 35mm film camera.

Thanks. I learned something new.
I have to admit I doubted you and had to look it up ... but you're right.
Also I suspected the claim of such a wide zoom range must be using "faux-zoom" using only the middle of the sensor and not optical zoom which always fills the sensor, but dpreview says it's optical.
Astonishing what they can do today!

I know about sensor sizes.
Actually my DSLR is the larger full-frame sensor, the Nikon D810 and around $10K in pro Nikkor lenses including the holy trinity.
(BTW, I'm not being disrespectful to religion. Nikon's 3 top fixed-f2.8 zooms are known as the holy trinity lenses ... which speaks to how they are revered by many.)

I admit I don't keep up on today's popular cameras.
I've never even tried the camera on my cellphone.
Thanks again for updating this old dinosaur.

[magirus]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

I sold my old Canon stuff back in the mid-90's to get a computer and printer to go back and finish my degree (graduated in 2001 @ 45 but better late than never). I had the standard 50mm, a 28-105mm zoom, a 70-210mm zoom, and a 300mm telephoto. The 50mm was Canon but the rest were Tamron or Sigma.

I would love one of these DSLR's. I may get back into photography in retirement.

A little like guitars, old cameras don't stop taking great pictures because new models come out. I use an original Canon 5D full frame body and a Canon 1D MkIII 1.3 crop body. Both were/are pro grade bodies and very robustly built, with magnesium alloy chassis. The 5D is great for landscape and architecture, and I use the 1D with longer lenses for urban and sports photography, it has excellent focus tracking capabilities. None of the latest whizzbangs mind you like wifi and geotagging, but then photography is all about understanding light, the only other thing is being in the right place at the right time to get the light. I can see the attraction of instant results and seeing effects through EVFs, but I prefer to work things out and get what I want in PP, just like the old masters did in their dark rooms. I shoot in RAW format, effectively a digital negative, and work from there. Of course the price is carrying some weight about, but everything has a cost. Re cost, I paid about £350 for my 5D, a mint example with low shutter actuations, I think they were about £2500 or more on release, so it can be a cheap hobby. You can pick up 1D MkIIIs for around £500. They still take a decent snap . . .

[harpspitfire]

another easy way to compare DSLR to 35mm is the crop factor, since i use a canon T1i, the lens would have a crop factor of 1.6X compared to 35mm, i always bought mine used, years ago i paid about $150-200 used for this one, i had no to upgrade since then

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by marty bradbury

Very cool photos and congrats on the new camera. I have had a Sony A100 SLR for about 10 years now and love it.

The Sony A100 was a fine camera. I had an A300, which was my first foray into the digital SLR world, after several years as a Minolta 35mm guy. I was able to use all my Minolta A-mount lenses, so it was an easy (and relatively inexpensive) transition.

Since then I've moved to a series of compact mirrorless APS-C cameras, after getting tired of lugging the big Sony and a bunch of heavy lenses about. I've gone from a Sony NEX5N, to an a6000, and my current a6500 over the last 7 years. I had a perfectly justifiable reason for the last two upgrades, and I'm completely happy with the a6500. No hurry to upgrade - a 'better' camera, at this point, won't make me a better photographer.

Now, if Sony ever produces an a6700, or an a7000 in the same physical format, all bets are off

[Don Lampson]

Originally Posted by Tico

Thanks. I learned something new.
I have to admit I doubted you and had to look it up ... but you're right.
Also I suspected the claim of such a wide zoom range must be using that "faux-zoom" using only the middle of the sensor and not optical zoom which always fills the sensor, but dpreview says it's optical.
Astonishing what they can do today!

I know about sensor sizes.
Actually my DSLR is the larger full-frame sensor, the Nikon D810 and a around $10K in pro Nikkor lenses including the holy trinity.
(BTW, I'm not being disrespectful to religion. Nikon's 3 top fixed-f2.8 zooms are known as the holy trinity lenses ... which speaks to how they are revered by many.)

I admit I don't keep up on today's popular cameras.
I've never even tried the camera on my cellphone.
Thanks again for updating this old dinosaur.

The progress made in modern cameras is almost unbelievable! Some of the P&S ones offer 60X Optical Power (20 - 1200 35mm eqv), with 18-20 MP for clarity & enlargement capability in the "bridge" models! Needless to say, one of those models will not take the quality photo that a full size DSLR camera with 10 grand in lenses will take, but they are far, far, easier to use, and can be had for well under $1000, most for about half that price!

Sub-compact models offer 30X OP, flip screens, and with the Sony HX80 a separate EVF. The pop up EVF eliminates the problem of shooting in sunlight, and as I said, are only a bit bigger than a cigarette pack, which means you can carry it in a shirt pocket, always at ready for a great shot, for under $400!

Even phone cameras are now up to 12 MP, with 10X telephoto capabilities! Top phone cameras now offer the quality found in P&S models that would cost $200, just a few years ago. It's a great time to be a shutterbug! I've heard that 90% of all existing photos were taken during the past year!

Don

[harpspitfire]

my interest in photo is macro and astronomy, i really have no choice but DSLR, however for me, i dont need massive pixels like 18-24meg, it really serves no purpose unless id blow up a gigantic poster, mine is 15 meg, with the pixel sensor of 4.7um, all the newer T?i series have more meg while dropping to about 4.1um size, i need the larger size for low light sensitivity and higher dynamic range, for astro i do image when its as dark as possible with a light pollution filter- (making it darker yet)