12X verses 10X
 

In photographic terms (SLR lenses), what is the difference between the MX3000's 12X optical zoom and the MX5000's 10X optical zoom?

Ok, I'll bite. 2X? :-))

MX350 (similar to MX300) 38mm to 456mm.
MX500 42mm to 420mm.

Cost is not in long tele but in wide angle. The wider a camera, the more costly to produce. The DVC100 is a cool 35mm!

OK.. I'll bet on (net change):
2/12 => 1/6X =)

So 12X is like a 456mm lens? Wow.

Wow not enough! I have even added my Fuji tele 1.5x to the 12x zoom on my MX350 bringing it to 680mm, and the moon pretty much fills have the screen in area! Amazing details!

well that all makes sense to me now actually. i always understood that the manufacturers quoted a 35 mm equivalent but never really considered this as a good estimation. it is one way to standardise the lens size so you can compare the magnification of different lenses on different cameras. it is spot on you know. my brother has a d100 and when he got it i remember comparing his 300mm lens zoom to my mx500 and they were exactly the same. some of you may be saying now hang on the 500 has 420 mm equivalent however the d100 had a problem with it that the decided not to change and probably to some peoples advantage. they had troubles with focal lengths so a 300 mm lens actually turns out to be a 400mm equivalent.
heh can anyone tell me why they can make video lenses with better fstop and larger zoom ranges then 35mm lenses even when they are a fraction of the size. The reason i ask is because i have the same zoom as my brothers 300mm lens but a much better wide angle. and my lens is f1.6 and i think his is up around f5.6
Justin

The video lens are NOT better thant he 35mm counterparts!

Firstly, consumers must be given a decent range of zoom, taken as 10x typically. For lens of 10x zoom on 35mm, the physical properties will be extremely taxing. Glass will need to be thick and thin at the same time (wow!). My Tamron 28 to 200mm for 35mm is the shortest zoom lens in the world, and it stretches from 75mm to 200mm in length for the 7x zoom.

Secondly, the understanding of f-stop. It is the number used for the ratio of the distance between the imaging plane (film, CCD) and the aperture. i.e F1.0 means an aperture of exactly the distance from the iris of the aperture to the imaging plane. on 35mm, to achieve F1.0, the aperture must open to a diameter of 43mm, any we probably can't focus anything with that kind of aperture size. The consumer class video cams have CCDs so small and mounted so close to the lens that F1.2 is not too rare! My MX350 is F1.6 max.

For video, we can live with noise and slight blur and out of focus as our eyes are more tolerable to motion images. On stills, the quality must be impecable, as we have all the time in the world to scrutinise each frame. For a test, choose a short (5 seconds) of your favourite video which you consider techinically well taken (in focus, well exposed). Take on random frame from that video and see how crappy the still image is, especially when compared to a still picture taken by a camera!

As for the D100, it is not a problem. It is an issue of using a 'film' too small, actually about 1.5 times smaller. The effect is that the areas on the outside is ignored by the D100 CCD, hence wasted, and the shot looks as if it has been taken by a camera with a 1.5 times zoom. However, that is not the case, and the term zoom-factor is now corrected to 'field of view' crop, much like taking the center of the full photo. It feels like a 200mm lens can perform like a 300mm lens, but it is just merely throwing away the perimeter. Lots has been said about this in photgraphy forums. The perspective and DOF is still the same as 35mm film, but the 'zoom' looks stronger. This is good news for bird watchers but really bad news for architecture and events photography, as LARGE-size wide angle lens must be used. Image shooting 28mm equivalent needing 18mm lens.

For me, the best deal is always to have a video cam that gives the widest native optical zoom. Adding wide angle lenses always add weight, imbalance, flaring and cost.

Beautifully put Yow Cheong Hoe. I see here your love for the DVX100A in that at a wide-angle equivalent of 35mm, it appears not to need a (degrading) wide-angle converter as a basic part of its kit.

The trouble is this 10x Leica zoom lens is only wide-angle when compared to the other feeble wide-angles out there. The TRV950 for instance has a wide-angle equivalent of 49mm (!). What I'm really saying is that Panasonic have designed a lens that's not really wide and not really tele. If you look at the VX2100 it cries out for a 0.5x wide-angle converter. Now - with this one lens in your kit bag you go from powerful wide to powerful tele. It's as if the DVX100 needs *two* converter lenses to match that.

tom.

thanks for that guys i imagined it to be like that however i hadn't ever really heard it before then. What does this mean for the future though when we start getting more and more progressive scan HD cameras where lens quality is surely going to be a big thing. will we start seeing bigger cameras bigger lenses or will we be sacrificing quality for size.

Justin

35mm is probably good enough for most home user. using my WA of 0.79x on the MX350, I get roughly that.

If the 950 is really 49mm at the widest, then it is a really poor choice without a wide angle lens fitted.

I find the Panasonic ranges pretty good. Really, it is terrible for me to have so much tele but so little wide. I don't need to zoom into wedding rings or the little birdie on the tree everyday, but liuving in highly crowded Singapore in a small apartment, a wide angle of 28mm is certainly welcomed!

The first accessory I bought for my MX500 was a wide-angle lens.

Having previously used an old Sony 1-chipper that had a much wider field of view, I was really disappointed that the MX500 was so narrow. Shooting indoors in small rooms with the MX was sometimes impossible (due to the reduced field of view) where it had been a breeze with the Sony.

Now that I have an original Pana WA lens, I'm left frowning because there's no provision for fitting filters :-(

Ah, but life is full of compromises :-)

Thanks for those measurements in mm. For me that's like converting K's into miles since I still think in terms of miles (and mm for lenses). :-))