 zur deep |
zoom lense I have always puzzled one thing, difference between zoom of an SLR camera and point and shoot camera. if canon k2 SLR has a lenses 28-80mm and canon sure shot 80u point and shoot has zoom of 28-80mm, is there any difference betweeen these two zooms? it is better to buy a new 35-180mm lense which is 300$ or buy new canon 180u with 35-180 zoom camera for 150 $? I know SLR lenses allow through lense visulalization, but apart from that is there any difference in picture? Any difference in lab tests of these zooms? I will appreciate a comprehensive reply
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
I can't awnser all of your questions, but I know that the quality of the SLR lens will almost definitly be a lot better than the Point and Shoot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Not to mention, staying with your SLR affords much more image control through the aperture/f-stop adjustments on the lens and shutter speed on the camera body itself. Your point and shoots do not offer this control and can restrict your image making ability. I advise to stay the course. Move forward, not back. Walrath Photographic Imaging
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Well, there are a couple of things to consider here. A lens made for a rangefinder or P&S camera can be designed with a rear element only a few MM from the film/imager plane - it just has to be in front of the shutter. A lens designed for use on an SLR cannot extend back into the camera body very far - there needs to be room to allow the mirror to swing out fo the way when the shot is taken. This makes for some engineering complexities. For example, compare a typical ultra-wide angle lens, like a 14MM, for rangefinders and for SLRs. The SLR version is almost 4 times larger and heavier than the rangefinder counterpart, and often the smaller lens, with less optical correction required, produces the sharper images. Of course, with long telephotos, the issue becomes one of viewing through the lens rather than relying on a small frame in the viewfinder window to hopefully guide you as to what you will see (of coures, the digital P&S cameras avoid this by displaying a trhough-the-lens image on the electronic viewfinder). Meanwhile, there are just plain old quality issues as well - the lens on a $200 P&S is simply not built to the same level of optical quality as a more expensive SLR lens (whose price doesn't include the cost of body, shutter, etc.). There are many types of optical glass, some better than others. So, while there are certainly cheap bad SLR lenses that are outperformed by higher-end P&S lenses, in general SLR lenses afford higher quality images.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
Also there is a difference in mechanical build quality. Open up the average digital zoom or 35mm P&S and you will find cheap plastic cam mechanisms. These break, with regularity, and even when repaired, can break again. Show me a very inexpensive compact camera with a great feature set and I'll show you cheap internal parts.
|
|
|
|
||
|
zur deep |
thanks for helpful input. It has gone in right direction. In popular phtography magazine I once read that zooom lense of SLR has 14-16 components including non lenses elements. I am intrigued on the fact that both PS and SLR zooms are made up of small lenses which by their movement creat mm strength which otherwise require a big single glass. So in fact they are very similar then. SLR more complex to allow penta prism movement as discussed above. Please tell me about technical issues between the two, engineering etc. I am thankful in advance.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||