A DSLR superzoom camera

[Panama Hat & Camera]

I am a nature photographer and my main themes are small animals (birds and squirrels) and landscapes. So, I need telephoto and wide-angle lenses. Superzoom cameras give me what I need and, because their small size, are very good for aerial trips, but their tiny sensors have some limitations.
To overcome these limitations, I tried to merge two camera worlds: superzoom and DSLR (I bought a superzoom lens for my Nikon D5300 DSLR camera).

I looked at the options on the market (Nikon, Sigma and Tamron) and chose Nikon. Nikon offers two lens options:
# 1- a Nikkor 18-300mm f / 3.5-5.6;
# 2- a Nikkor 18-300mm f / 3.5-6.3.
I chose option # 2 because this lens performs better (*), is smaller, lighter and has a lower cost.
(*) Three reviews indicated to me that the Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 was the best choice between the two lenses: DXOMARK, Photographyblog and Ken Rockwell.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon...kon-D500__1061
https://www.photographyblog.com/revi...iew/conclusion
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm-vr.htm

This way, I have a relatively compact photographic equipment that fits in a small pouch (and, with a cord, I hung the lens cap on the body of the camera, as in a superzoom camera).

I am aware that superzoom lenses have lower performance than ordinary zoom lenses and that these are inferior to premium zoom lenses and that prime lenses tend to be the best.

I made some tests with the set "camera set D5300 + lens 18-300 f/3.5-6.3", which I can post here, if there is any interest.
Cheers,
Antonio.

#1- The pouches of the two cameras


#2- The cameras inside their respective pouches


#3- Lens caps tied to camera body

[pnodrog]

An added advantage of a large zoom range is that with very few lens changes the camera is nearly always ready and the sensor hardly ever needs cleaning...

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Thanks for comment, Paul!
Yes, my superzoom lens is always attached to my camera and is a good travel companion. Soon I will post an analysis on lens reviews and my own review on this lens.
I noticed that you have a Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (a very good lens).
Cheers,
Antonio.

[shreds]

Antonio

Many years ago, my father taught me about buying hi fi equipment and there are definite parallels. Obviously, start off with the budget you can realistically afford, then choose the best equipment possible, until, in the case of hifi, you personally cannot hear the difference, regardless of what others might say or write. In the case of cameras, onviously portability also is crucial too.

I think you have already made comment regards some of these factors in your post. The only comment being having two manufacturers competing systems. Sometimes compatibility can help even though the differences are small. I would say enjoy what you do, only upgrade if absolutely necessary, because you move onto a different level.

You have made some logical choices so far; I hope you find it achieves your aims.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Ian,
Thank you for your comments and wishes.
I have three other lenses for my DSLR Nikon. The Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 was my last purchase. Before buying this lens, I would rather take my superzoom camera on my aerial trips, because I had a camera with a lens that was able to replace four or five lenses. However, the sensor of a superzoom camera is very small and the performance of the camera, specially in low light situations, is not as good as that of a DSLR.
I am still testing the Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 and I hope it meets my expectations.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[shreds]

Antonio

Looking carefully at your “superzoom” camera, a Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Digital Camera with 50x Ultra Wide Angle 24-1200mm Lens (12.1 MP, 50x Zoom) 2.8 inch Vari-angle LCD, is one that does not have interchangeable lenses, but the spec appears impressive at first sight. We generally call this a “bridge” camera.

However such cameras whilst small and compact are likely to have to compromise somewhere to get such impressive specifications and in my experience do not ultimately compare to the set up of an interchangeable lens system, where you can often utilise extremely good “glass” (lenses) at a slight loss of size etc. Of course for transit, with interchangeable lenses, you can split the two, something I often do.

An iPhone has a good set of specs but ultimately the size of the sensor is a limitation, especially when enlarging shots. They are wonderfully handy bur easily dropped and damaged. Handy to have in the pocket but ultimately not for serious photography on every occasion.

The downside to bridge cameras is they are not robust and if damaged or anything goes wrong, then it is not usually worth repairing.

A damaged DSLR however can often result in the lens or body being ok and therefore redeemeable.

Accidents happen, its a fact of life, so taking the precaution of investing in a DSLR system with interchangeable lenses has its benefits.

[Tronhard]

Hi Antonio et al.

The challenge of performance vs. portability has hounded me for as long as I have taken images - which have predominantly been of scenery and wildlife. That may go some way towards explaining the mountain of gear I have accumulated over the years.

Without doubt one pays in weight and bulk for performance, but depending on the conditions a smaller sensor superzoom unit can be a valid choice. I have had the Canon SX40, 50 and 60 superzoom units and still have the latter one. GIVEN GOOD LIGHT it performs extremely well as this example shows (apologies for those who have seen this before but the point is valid).


This image was taken to make the point to people starting their photographic journey that decent images don't require a huge investment in gear, depending on the conditions taken, and the intended output. Which takes me to my next point...

The intended output should be a huge factor in the decision-making process as to what gear is suitable. If one wants to produce large, high-details prints then you are going to need a big sensor and good (likely heavy) glass, but if your intent is to produce images to show on a media device, (as more and more people are choosing to do) such as a TV screen, tablet, computer monitor or phone, then the technical demands should be much reduced and so should your necessary investment in terms of size, weight and currency.

I use both Canon and Nikon gear too, and like another thread here I have really liked using my Nikon Df with the 28-300 lens, which gives me a good reach and the inevitable compromises of such a lens can easily be resolved in PP. When I really want to get a long reach I use the a Canon APS-C body: 7DII or 80D with the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens, but it IS a howitzer and represents a financial major investment and some time in the gym.

I may have missed it but did you share what you expect to produce from the images you take?

[RandyRFJP]

Hello Antonio,

Congratulations on your new Nikon Lens. I've had the exact same lens, which I use on a D7200 body, since May, 2015. I like the lens, particularly that you can also get very good close-up photos with it. Although I haven't been active on the forum for quite some time, I'm trying to rectify that. All photos I've posted on CiC have been taken with an identical lens to your new one. The only negative about the lens, in my view, is that even though I rarely take the lens off the camera body, never take it off "in the field," and use the "clean image sensor" function built into the camera after every photo trip, I have to have the image sensor cleaned twice a year, which I think, is too frequently. I honestly don't know if that's a low, normal, or high number of sensor cleanings, but it seems to me that I shouldn't have to have the sensor cleaned so frequently. The camera store where I have the sensor cleaned thought that the push-pull action on the lens to change its focal length was actually sucking, probably pollen, into the camera body, where it falls unto the sensor, whenever its focal length is changed. They thought the seal between the the rear of the lens and the body of the camera was fine. They think the pollen, or whatever it is, is incredibly sticky, so it requires a "wet" sensor cleaning to get it off. I do the vast amount of my photography in pleasant weather conditions, in prairies, fields, etc., so exposure to pollen is certainly occurring. I hope you don't have that happen with your lens. Lastly, despite my dissatisfaction with the sensor cleaning issue, it's a great lens!

[rpcrowe]

Regarding Ian's comment on the Canon SX-50. This camera having an humongous zoom, coupled with a small sensor that doesn't provide the ultimate low light capability and combined with the small aperture at long focal lengths makes a tripod a definite must for shooting birds and animals using long focal lengths.

Under ideal conditions, the little SX-50 can produce decent and at times rather good imagery. My son-in-law covered a two week safari trip to Africa with only the SX-50 and he has no photographic experience.





However, these shots were not indicative of the quality of the several thousand images he came home with. What also helped was the fact that every place he and his dad visited, they had personal guides and their own safari vehicles.

While, the SX-50 is fine for someone who is thrilled just to see an image, it is certainly not a tool that I would recommend to any serious photographer.

I have an SX-50 and have used it occasionally to shoot images of people adopting our dogs at rescue events. BUT, since I acquired a Sony A6500, I have not touched it. However, I still shoot 50% of the time with my 7D2 and 6D2 canon DSLR camera; probably because I have a larger collection of lenses for these cameras.

I am wondering if a camera like the A7Rii or A7Riii might be a way to go. Still small in size but with a massive pixel count which would facilitate close cropping.

[Tronhard]

Hi Richard:

Just to clarify that almost all my images are taken hand-held (including the samples shown). I DO absolutely agree with the technical limitations you describe, but the challenge is this. What makes a bridge camera so attractive is its small size PLUS the super long focal lengths that will bring a subject closer. While I agree with you about the Sony A7 series of cameras being small and very good units, the body has to be attached to a lens and that is the issue. Any lens that could come near to matching the equivalent pulling power of a superzoom such as the Canon SX50 or 60 (or the Nikon ones for that matter) will be large and heavy, and that is the issue that many people have - they don't want the weight or the bulk of the camera (including lens), and may well not want the investment either.

As I mentioned the SX60 or SX70 (current models) have an equivalent focal length (I prefer Field of View) from 21 - 1392. To get anywhere near that on a large sensor camera (even an APS-C unit) you need a big lens, at which point having a very small body makes the thing unbalanced. Either way you look at it, it's not an easy fix.

As for suitability, I come back to my comments about what the images will be used for. There is obviously a place and a market for superzoom cameras, or they would not be in production, but depending on what you want to produce they may or may not be suitable.

[Tronhard]

Without knowing your son-in-law in any way (disclaimer!), I would ask that given he has apparently "no" experience in photography, would giving him a large camera and lens have made much difference? Such a camera will be heavy and bulky and require good technique to hold it steady. I have been shooting for (good heavens!) 38 years and don't expect to get a huge number of (especially of commercial quality)keepers with wildlife unless it is under very favourable conditions. That said, the two shots you show look good to me, but whether they would be acceptable depends on the context under which you are going to view or make use of them.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Trev,
I liked very much your comments. Really, in good light conditions, a bridge camera (like the Canon SX50) can take good pictures of still subjects (my best small birds photos were taken with the SX50). "My superzoom DSLR" is an attempt to get a compact equipment to allow me to take pictures of birds in flight or in less than ideal lighting conditions.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Randy,
It is great to know that you are satisfied with the Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 lens. I saw some of your photos and I really enjoyed it. The images are sharp and bokeh values the subject.
I do not have much experience with my newest lens because I was preferring to use my Canon SX50, but I'm programming using my "superzoom DSLR camera" on my next trip. I'm currently doing some testing with the lens.
I hope I have no problem with pollen, but I appreciate your warning.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Trev,
I liked your comments so much that I looked up the topic where you compared the SX60 HS and the 7D Mk II and I found Two Approaches to long bird shots.
In this thread, the performance of the SX60 HS surprised me.
Although in my case the focal length difference is even greater (1200mm for the SX50 HS versus 450mm for the D5300 + 18-300mm lens), on my next air trip, I will carry my "superzoom DSLR" with me instead of my P & S superzoom, because I believe that the subjects will not be so far.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[rpcrowe]

Without knowing your son-in-law in any way (disclaimer!), I would ask that given he has apparently "no" experience in photography, would giving him a large camera and lens have made much difference? Such a camera will be heavy and bulky and require good technique to hold it steady. I have been shooting for (good heavens!) 38 years and don't expect to get a huge number of (especially of commercial quality)keepers with wildlife unless it is under very favourable conditions. That said, the two shots you show look good to me, but whether they would be acceptable depends on the context under which you are going to view or make use of them.

I recommended the SX-50 to him because I knew that he had little or no interest in photography or photo gear... He was intending to use his cell phone for safari images and I thought he would have better luck with the SX-50 (and he did). I also suggested that he buy a monopod to help stabilize those long focal length shots. He did buy one but, it was lost in his bag somewhere between Los Angeles and Nairobi. Kenya. He was able to buy some clothes to get by with but did not locate a replacement monopod.

He was generally very happy with his images especially because expectations were not very high and because his only needs for the images are for memories and social media...

[Tronhard]

Hi Richard

Your comments blend in very well with my feeling that there is a camera for every person and a person for every camera... i.e. as keen photographers we want to get the ultimate quality possible, but people take images for many different reasons and for them the cost/benefit relationship considerations are definitely tilted in a different direction. I am SO glad you managed to talk him out of shooting game in Africa with a cell phone. I hope he learned to use the viewfinder instead of the rear LCD panel - so many cell phone users are so programmed to shoot holding the camera at arms length - which might be OK for a general purpose image like photos of people or a general landscape, but with a long telephoto, especially a super tele, it is virtually impossible to hold the camera steady enough to avoid camera shake impacting the images.

I had that experience when I was beside some ladies who were trying to shoot images of wildlife in a reserve, using a PowerShot SX50. They held it like a cell phone and were bemoaning that the camera didn't take decent shots. I was shooting beside them with a DSLR and long lens, and finally had to intervene. I asked if I could try a shot with their camera, and held it properly - the result was clear and sharp. Then I explained the technique (they said they had never tried the viewfinder) and they immediately got substantially better results.