Is 200mm Enough?

[harleymhs]

Hey Guys, I am looking for a new camera, currently I own a Canon G15 which is amazing! Great photos all the time! Love the features and battery life is awesome! But the zoom only goes up to 140mm.. I just bought an Sony RX10 Amazing camera in every way! Great Oled VF, Zeiss Lens, But only goes too 200mm. I cant see spending 1400.00 for an OLED VF and only 60mm more! Where the G15 takes almost the same quality photos! I just picked up a Canon SX50 HS, ( not comparing that to the RX10 in any way ) but it takes the same battery as my G15, solid bridge camera and I get a 50x Zoom! Cost is $336.00 not $1400.00 for the RX10 plus smaller than the Rx10.. Very undecided... Any replies would be great! I do not want a DSLR I dont want to swap lens and carry heavy equip. Thanks !!

 

[Apple fanboy]

Digital zooms are always going to give questionable results. You say you don't want to go DSLR, but what about mirror less? Smaller than a DSLR and will give you better quality photos with a decent zoom.

Also what are you wanting to photograph? That will make a big difference on if 200mm is enough.

 

[acearchie]

You haven’t mentioned what sort of photos you like taking.

Is 200mm enough for portraits, definitely! Is it enough for sports and wildlife, probably not.

Swings and roundabouts really.

 

[harleymhs]

Digital zooms are always going to give questionable results. You say you don't want to go DSLR, but what about mirror less? Smaller than a DSLR and will give you better quality photos with a decent zoom.

Also what are you wanting to photograph? That will make a big difference on if 200mm is enough.

Didnt really wanted to carry multiple lens around... Looked at the Sony A7 Full frame, but didnt have a good zoom! So Mirrorless isnt good either for me..

----------

You haven’t mentioned what sort of photos you like taking.

Is 200mm enough for portraits, definitely! Is it enough for sports and wildlife, probably not.

Swings and roundabouts really.

Sorry, I am Looking for an ALL around camera for all kinds of photos, mostly outdoors..So I would nned more than 200 zoom!

 

[tgara]

Digital zooms are always going to give questionable results.

I was going to say the same thing. However, the Canon SX50 has a 50X optical zoom. Who knew?

Seems like that should be a good choice if you want a longer zoom. I just hope you can hold the camera steady when it's zoomed out all the way!

 

[harleymhs]

I was going to say the same thing. However, the Canon SX50 has a 50X optical zoom. Who knew?

Seems like that should be a good choice if you want a longer zoom. I just hope you can hold the camera steady when it's zoomed out all the way!

Funny , I just picked one up this am!! Same battery as g15 same charger same menus same features! This looks like a solid little bridge camera with out spending 1400$ ! It's missing wi-fi though but not a deal breaker! It even shoots raw! I'll keep u posted! Looks like this has been out for a while hope Canon comes out with a new version with wi fi and more MP ' that has to be soon! This seems like their best bridge camera to date! Plus my speedlite from the g15 goes right on as well! I was looking at the new Nikon P600 canon seemed better quality.

 

[agenda893]

Very undecided... Any replies would be great! I do not want a DSLR I dont want to swap lens and carry heavy equip. Thanks !!

Speaking from many years of experience I can say that you will always deal with tradeoffs. Most of the cameras you've mentioned have imaging sensors that are very small and don't come close to the quality you'd get with an APS-C or full frame. While the RX10 1" sensor is decent it doesn't come close to what you could get with a NEX mirrorless (I have a NEX-3 and love it for portability, but I also have a Canon t2i and 6D and a bunch of lenses, and will rent medium format gear for some shoots). It's important to use the right tools for the job. Even though you could build a house with a swiss army knife the results wouldn't be as good as using real specialized tools.

 

[harleymhs]

Speaking from many years of experience I can say that you will always deal with tradeoffs. Most of the cameras you've mentioned have imaging sensors that are very small and don't come close to the quality you'd get with an APS-C or full frame. While the RX10 1" sensor is decent it doesn't come close to what you could get with a NEX mirrorless (I have a NEX-3 and love it for portability, but I also have a Canon t2i and 6D and a bunch of lenses, and will rent medium format gear for some shoots). It's important to use the right tools for the job. Even though you could build a house with a swiss army knife the results wouldn't be as good as using real specialized tools.

I hear u 100% can't have your cake and eat it! The RX10 was great! But couldn't swallow the $1400 price tag and only get 200mm! If it was 250 or 300 then that would be the camera!

 

[blueroom]

The A10 is an outstanding bridge camera, you're going to miss that 2.8 constant aperture lens. And I like Sony's camera line.

So. Buy a NEX 6 or 5R they're going cheap to make room for the A6000 and a SEL55210 or the FE70-200 (the NEX-6 has a 1.5x focal multiplier so that's effectively 315mm).

On a cheaper note any micro 4/3 camera and telephoto would be worth looking at.

You'll also need a tripod, hand holding 200mm+ slow lenses (the cheap ones) is going to give you plenty of blurry shots.

 

[chabig]

Didnt really wanted to carry multiple lens around... Looked at the Sony A7 Full frame, but didnt have a good zoom! So Mirrorless isnt good either for me.

I don't get your connection between multiple lens and mirrorless. There is nothing about a mirrorless camera that requires you to carry multiple lenses.

 

[Meister]

A lot of good posts here. Only you know if you really need to zoom that much. I myself just shot primes.
200mm is pretty much minimum for certain pro grade portraits but thats not what u r going for anyway.

So whats your plan on actually stabilizing at 200mm? Like mentioned in here its gonna be a hell of a blurrfest.

 

[harleymhs]

A lot of good posts here. Only you know if you really need to zoom that much. I myself just shot primes.
200mm is pretty much minimum for certain pro grade portraits but thats not what u r going for anyway.

So whats your plan on actually stabilizing at 200mm? Like mentioned in here its gonna be a hell of a blurrfest.

I shot a few shots with the sx50 today full zoom and shots are very clear! I was very surprised!

 

[twitch31]

Buy an Olympus EPM2 + Olympus 14-150mm lens and leave it on the camera. That's a 28-300 equiv lens.

 

[buckawheat]

I know you said you don't want too, but just go DSLR - lenses are easy to change and you get flexibility to shoot amazing pictures for any circumstance. You just slap the lens you want on at home and go.

 

[NukeIT]

I would say 200mm is fine for everyday general use.

Sure it isn't a safari lens or the Koshien Stadium lens but those aren't cheap nor everday situations.

 

[yjchua95]

I don't get your connection between multiple lens and mirrorless. There is nothing about a mirrorless camera that requires you to carry multiple lenses.

There isn't anything that says that one needs to carry multiple lenses when shooting with a DSLR, so I don't get why the OP says he doesn't want to carry heavy lenses. I mean, quite a number of consumer lenses are pretty lightweight, and DSLRs have gone down in both size and weight too (just look at the EOS 100D/SL1 for instance).

Myself, my standard walkaround gear is a EOS 5D Mk3 with a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but I don't find it heavy though.

 

[buckawheat]

There isn't anything that says that one needs to carry multiple lenses when shooting with a DSLR, so I don't get why the OP says he doesn't want to carry heavy lenses. I mean, quite a number of consumer lenses are pretty lightweight, and DSLRs have gone down in both size and weight too (just look at the EOS 100D/SL1 for instance).

Myself, my standard walkaround gear is a EOS 5D Mk3 with a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but I don't find it heavy though.

This is my thought too. When I went DSLR I picked up a few lenses, but now all I ever use is my 18-200 (Nikon) and 70-300 (Nikon) depending on where I am going. I use one small camera bag and just take the camera with mounted lens, the flash and thats it and the new DSLR bodies are lighter than my D90.

 

[glenthompson]

I shoot a lot of motorsports and my Sony Nex-7 with SEL55210 does a great job. Gives me a 35mm equivalent of 315mm with my APS-C sensor.

In some cases you just have to figure out how to get closer.

 

[ChrisA]

...I am Looking for an ALL around camera for all kinds of photos, mostly outdoors..So I would nned more than 200 zoom!

200mm seems way to long for that kind of photography where to have complete access to the subject and are able to get as close as you like.

People use those really ing lens for shots where there is some physical barrier or other reason that can't simply walk up closer

Subject to camera distance is what control persecutive. Perspective is the size ratio of foreground to background objects. Mostly we like to get close so the subject stands out. A zoom can't do that no matter how long it is.

A 200mm lens is kind of a specialty lens for subjects that you can't approach closely. That said many beginning photographers never think to adjust their camera position so they sell a lot of 200mm f/5.6 zooms to people buying their first SLR but as you gain experience you start thinking 100mm is about enough but you want faster than f/5.6

Is 200mm enough? If you are as close as you can get and you still can't frame the subject the way you'd like with a 200mm lens, then get a bigger one. But only if you are already as close as you can get.

 

[admwright]

200mm seems way to long for that kind of photography where to have complete access to the subject and are able to get as close as you like.

...

A 200mm lens is kind of a specialty lens for subjects that you can't approach closely. That said many beginning photographers never think to adjust their camera position so they sell a lot of 200mm f/5.6 zooms to people buying their first SLR but as you gain experience you start thinking 100mm is about enough but you want faster than f/5.6

Is 200mm enough? If you are as close as you can get and you still can't frame the subject the way you'd like with a 200mm lens, then get a bigger one. But only if you are already as close as you can get.

If you are thinking about the complete picture you first position yourself with respect to your subject and suroundings to give the perspective you want. Then you use a lens that gives you the framing you want. You may want the subject to be big in the frame but also to include plenty of the surroundings so you get close and use a wide angle lens. However if you want the subject to be big in the frame and have little of the surroundings then you will be further away and so need to use a long lens - you may be able to get closer but that is going to change the perspective.

 

[ChrisA]

If you are thinking about the complete picture you first position yourself with respect to your subject and suroundings to give the perspective you want. Then you use a lens that gives you the framing you want. You may want the subject to be big in the frame but also to include plenty of the surroundings so you get close and use a wide angle lens. However if you want the subject to be big in the frame and have little of the surroundings then you will be further away and so need to use a long lens - you may be able to get closer but that is going to change the perspective.

Yes. Exactly. But first before any of that you might even ask yourself "What do I want to say about my subject?" My guess is that the person who stays put and zooms lens in and out is not really thinking about saying something the subject but is just hoping to capture what THEY are seeing. It never works because when you are there with your own eyes the brain interrupts the image but I camera can't. Photographing is not like looking. It takes some time to realize this

At least that is my theory as to why almost every beginner buys a big 200mm zoom and then after a while stops using it.

 

[macjonny1]

Yes 200mm is plenty

 

[nburwell]

Very rarely do I ever need to go up to 200mm with my DSLR. With my lenses, I'm covered from 14mm to 120mm. I tend to shoot more on the WA side of things, so I never really go beyond 100mm anyway. But again, it all depends on what you shoot. If you're shooting birds and/or wildlife, you probably would want a 200mm lens with maybe a 1.4x or 2x extender as well. So unless you're really far away from your subject, or you enjoy taking sports/birding/wildlife photos, you may not need a 200mm lens.