ZLR lens compared to SLR

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.
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR 

mianileng RemoveThis @yahoo.com 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.
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR 

mianileng.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:

> mianileng.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com 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
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR 

mianileng.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com 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.
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR 

cjcampbell wrote:

> mianileng.RemoveThis@yahoo.com 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.
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR 

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 <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: ZLR lens compared to SLR