advertisement
 
 Print    Email     Bookmark     Share

Psst, get closer with a 12x digital camera

By Lori Grunin, CNET.com, CNET Asia

A large range of focal lengths to zoom through can dramatically increase your framing options, as well as simply make it possible to get recognizable people shots when you're trapped in the crowd, high in the bleacher seats, or at the back of the auditorium. See how these stabilized 12x zoomers stack up.

The physics | Going steady | See top 5 12x megazooms

Like high resolution, the term megazoom is a moving target: 6x, 7x, 8x, 10x, and now 12x. Unlike the current crop of so-called high-resolution cameras, however, large zoom ranges confer clear, tangible benefits. Though many pro photographers eschew the long focal-length lens and zoom with their feet, we don't all have the luxury or comfort level for in-your-face photography.

Related links
Reviews of 12x zoom cameras
Essential zoom for sports photography
Zooming with a rifle camera
Read the digital photo newsletter

A large range of focal lengths dramatically increases our framing options, as well as simply makes it possible to get recognizable people shots when we're trapped in the crowd, high in the bleacher seats, or at the back of the auditorium. For example, a frame-filling shot of Junior on stage from 15m away requires a much longer focal length than you'd need if you end up in the front row, only 1.5m back.

Canon's EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM
There are some drawbacks, however, to these ultraconvenient lenses. For one, no single lens can deliver equal sharpness across a broad range of focal lengths; it's more likely to have a sweet spot of distances somewhere in the middle.

That's why digital SLRs, with their interchangeable lenses, are so appealing and why you have to pay close attention to the maximum aperture available on any megazoom lens. The Leica lens on Panasonic's models support an aperture of F2.8 throughout the zoom range; that's not very impressive at 36mm, but when you're shooting at 432mm, it gives you more available-light latitude than Canon's F3.5 or Sony's F3.7--about two-thirds of a stop.

Second, physics dictates that as you increase the focal length, something's gotta give to decrease the amount of light that scatters relative to the amount that focuses: The aperture has to shrink, the shutter speed has to increase, camera motion must decrease, or sharpness gets sacrificed. In practice, you can't shrink the aperture too much without falling over the other side of the curve, where the negative effects of diffraction start to overwhelm the positive effects of the smaller aperture--or you simply run out of light.

That's where you see all sorts of artifacts, such as distortion and fringing. Increasing the light sensitivity by upping the ISO setting has the same effect as changing the aperture or shutter speed, but increases visual noise. A tripod decreases the motion but that's not always a practical solution. And nobody wants a blurry photo. So traditionally, photographers have compensated by increasing shutter speed: Optimally, you should never shoot at a shutter speed slower than the reciprocal of the focal length (in other words, 1/F). But that's not always feasible either, especially when you hit extreme telephoto territory, such as 400mm.


 

 

    Talkback
There are currently no comments for this story.
To post comments, you need to become a member. It's FREE.
advertisement