[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
It is a phone camera sized sensor with a shit quality lens in a bulky body.
Take it as a free tip, if you don't mind handling the bulk, buy a proper DSLR instead. If not, go with a compact or just use your phone.
I wanted to buy this kind of camera, but somebody here on 4chan told me to never buy one of these. I just got a Nikon D3200 like 2 days ago. It may be more expensive but god damn it's worth it.
What lenses did you buy with that? Did you end up with 83x zoom capability? If so how much did you pay for it?
A cheap mirrorlens, an old film era prime lens, a Cassegrain telescope etc...
Also there are some affordable AF lens with the needed zoom range, like the Sigma 50-500, 150-500, Tamron 150-600 etc...
With a good quality lens you can also make use of your megapickles and crop in post.
I bought it for 450$, got it with the 18-55 lens kit. I have just started with dslr cameras but they are not really hard. Im buying a tripod soon so i can do some night photography.
So I guess because of the cheap sensor it has it may not be the best thing to purchase. The only allure really is the fact that it is only one thing to buy (no kits or extra parts) and you can get away with it fairly cheaply. As per usual there are plenty of down-sides to the deal that looks too good to be true for the layperson.
Don't forget the cheap shitty lens which is stuck on it permanently.
The key for great photos is the lens and the photographer. It also helps if the sensor doesn't turn the image into a mushy soup.
I guess when it comes down to it, what's your purpose for the camera? If you're really wanting to learn photography then definitely get a nice dslr. but if your only purpose is for sub professional but acceptable (maybe) long zoom shots then this could work for you.
Yeah, and it's once again I'm stuck between either buying a shitty cheap shit or an expensive product that has the potential to be OK. Slightly frustrating. All I want is the ability to zoom in on stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPxC_VYHDmc
That's exactly what I'm pondering about. But it always ends up being akin to an 'all or nothing' situation where you are either scammed by some shady manufacturer from china by ending up buying some half broken frustrating shit or you spend all your money on a decent equipment that then you will have to protect by all means and there is hardly any chance that you will take it for a walk in fear of someone robbing you for it. Meh
Get a used Pentax K-5. Weather resistant, the body is made out of metal, rugged and is a decent camera. The HD 55-300 is said to be a good and cheap lens for your desired reach, also weather sealed.
I shot in torrential rain with a Pentax, it took it like it was nothing.
K-30/K-50 are a cheaper alternative, same as above without the metal body but still well built and rugged.
Well thanks everyone, I think I will go with this camera now as I feel the money I pay for this will not prevent me from buying proper gear later in life. Hopefully when I will have too much money and not finding anything else important to spend on it.
>buying the first camera
>pays a lot for it
>not second hand professional dslr
A friend of mine bought a D80 for SIXTY Euros last week. Feels like a tank and has a good sensor. For 400€ I bought a canon 60D, I'm happy with it but now i fell robbed.
The first dslr I bought was a 20D, payed 200€ body+kit lens
Do you even know what 83X "zoom" means?
FYI, a lens that went from 1mm to 83mm is still 83X zoom despite being very low magnification.
Protip: If you buy a camera with the word "zoom" written on it, you're a sucker for marketing, and deserve exactly what you get.
It's what you can get with 83x or whatever zoom on the cheap.
It does not give you decent image quality anywhere in that range though, so unless you need 83x zoom, better look at something that gives you a really good image with no zoom (prime lens).
OP there is no reason to buy a bridge. Think of the main reasons you want that zoom:
... genuinely can't think of any other reason you could possibly need more than 200mm. For those first two the autofocus will be too slow to capture anything useful, for the last one the low light performance from the tiny sensor is going to render it unusable for that. Added to that the image quality at anything over 50 zoom is always dog anyway since there's so much air in the way everything gets a blue tint. It'll also be completely useless in anything other than bright sunlight since:
A) the lens is too slow to let any light through when you're zoomed out
B) the sensor is too small to allow for decent high iso
C) at anything over 15x zoom you're going to need very short shutter speeds to prevent blur or mad noise.
Trust me OP these cameras look like great all in one kits but in reality they're near useless for almost anything. My Dad always swore by bridges for wildlife photography until I bought him a Micro 4/3 kit and he realised he could actually take pictures of birds in flight in the evenings and mornings, whereas before he could only ever get them stationary in the middle of the day.
It's not about the focal, it's about the light you gather, and you said it was slow when zoomed out.
If you want an all in one cheap camera that you'll use a few times for useless crapshot you'll see once on your computer and post them on facebook, then go for a bridge. It's the camera you find on your phone plus a zoom.
If you're satisfied with your smartphone pictures, then a bridge is OK, no need to spend more money for stuff you don't need.
For the longer focal, it's for creepshots, and the fact you don't want to move your ass, typical with someone who's not into photography.
It's a 24-2000mm equivalent in 35mm terms. People who buy these things don't know what that is, but what they do know is that higher numbers means it's better.
And yes, zoom is measured in that fashion...people measure D-SLR zoom lenses like that all the time.
>And yes, zoom is measured in that fashion...people measure D-SLR zoom lenses like that all the time.
People who don't know shit about photography and optics.
I'm a few months newbie and I would never refer to a lens with "x times zoom". At best I can tell the plebs it is a "standard to portrait to telephoto" lens, or it is a "wide to standard" lens. Then before they ask I tell them it is all about the view angle. When they still ask about the zoom ratio I ask them "compared to what?" and they start to think and shut up about it.
Next one is usually "hey anon, can you take a picture of me?"
Once I got into an e-cock contest with a particularly annoying iphone lover. He insisted he can do better with his phone and took a selfie. I whipped out my Helios, put it on, the oohs and ahhs started when I quietly told my friends it is older than me, took a slightly out of focus snap of macfaggot and showed the bokeh. Rest of the evening spent watching ifag trying to do the same bokeh and getting angry. Also nobody spotted the photo was a bit out of focus.
Lesson here is that people are stupid and you don't giving a single fuck about them is crucial to having fun shooting. Also don't buy Bridge/Superzooms.
zoom lenses are measured with x-whatever. Its just a ratio of the longest focal length divided by its shortest. It doesn't actually tell you how far it 'zooms' in but it works to sell cameras to low class consumers ... thats why we photographers use shit like 200mm or 500mm but its probably better to use newer nomenclature like the angle of FOV because not every camera uses the same size sensor.
You are quite right.
Nobody says "X times zoom" when talking DSLR lenses unless it's one of the few superzooms (which are all shit and aimed at plebs).
Normies always ask how much zoom my 120-300 has.
I never say "2.5 X" - that would only confuse them.
Instead I say "enough".
You either stop every minute to tell the same lecture or you ignore the dipshits and continue to shoot photos.
If it is unavoidable, find something to impress them and occupy their little minds. Bokeh is one of those things. The sooner you get out of the mess the sooner you can shoot your photos.
oh ahahahah my tele-endowed brothers! how I know of the hurdles we must overcome beridden by the hordes of plebs and 'tog-simpletons with their lack of grasp of specialistic technical lingo of an obscure field of knowledge! Those lowly fools them!
I always thought exaggerated stereotypes of autistically self-absorbed and obnoxious people were completely made up, blown out of proportions for comedic effect. Then I read a few /p/ threads. Gee golly jeepers, fellas', go die horribly in a fire.
>To be fair mate why are you using that around people?
Because I was shooting photos and people wander around and start asking questions. It happened on a field near the town.
Not everything is about muh stweetphotogwaphy
Yeah but I'm presuming you're using it for wildlife here, which makes it weird that you're wondering around where there are a load of obvious plebs instead of in the middle of nowhere at 6 am in a gilly suit.
You assume a lot from a mere focal length.
400mm is not only for wildlife, fam. Also there are many other things to shoot just outside a town depending on location.
You just assumed something based on your narrow minded simple self and decided it must be true and with this new found self-assurance began to shit on somebody who just simply complained about random people interfering in his free time activity.
How about you finish school first? I'd like to see how you react when you get a proper job and someone takes away your valuable time just because they are bored.
You got ripped off breh. The d3300 has been on sale all over the internet the last few days for $320 with the 18-55mm lens.
OP, i have a panasonic fz70/72. It is a superzoom similar to the one you posted. As others have stated, the superzooms have tiny sensors. As a result, they arent good for much besides taking photos of birds outside. Indoors? Forget it. I just purchased my first DSLR (d3300) to replace it. While i will have nowhere near the zoom capabilities, the image qualities i'm getting far surpass that of a bridge camera. If you are spending $400+ on that, dont. Buy yourself an entry level DSLR and get some nice lenses for it instead.
Your photo is not shit. It can be quite difficult to take nice photos in the forest, so decent job there.
As for the bridge camera
Go for it. Don't listen to these people. They're all trolls and cynical twats.
This is 4chan, what do you expect?
The bridge camera is a good place to start. Then you can move on to a dslr later. Or get the bridge camera and an older cheaper dslr at the same time.
As for the focal length..you wont be able to zoom that far on a dslr without spending serious money.
>As for the bridge camera
>Go for it. Don't listen to these people. They're all trolls and cynical twats.
Actually, this is one of the absolutely true and best bits of advice you'll ever see here. Bridge cameras are shit. You get a cell phone sized sensor in a fuckhuge body. You're better off getting a cheap compact like the Powershot/Coolpix series.
Then buy a crop or full frame, get one of those stupid, shitty super zoom lenses that go from like ultrawide angle to super telephoto and make up the rest of it with cropping down AND YOU'LL STILL END UP WITH A MASSIVELY BETTER CAMERA
Then his only off the shelf option indeed is one of like two bridge cameras that have that much zoom.
And he'll have to live with every shot looking pretty shit as compared to even entry level DSLR / MILC, with very few shots that he can take that he couldn't have taken with such a DSLR/MILC.