My supposition is that at the same price (in the 150-250$ price range) a lens with 10x or more zoom has worst image quality than a 4-5x. Is it correct?
Is usually quality of superzoom acceptable or not?
Answer
This is yet another question which borderlines on too generic. Given cameras which are otherwise identical and built with the same expertise, a longer zoom range has to be of lower quality because it simply has to do more but you will never find such cameras to compare. The cost is a combination of too many factors and the materials used in the camera are only a fraction of it.
Only you can judge if the quality is acceptable or not and it will depend on the situation. I own two ultra-zooms which I use for product photography which is never seen above 600 pixel wide. In this case, I prefer this than a DSLR because I get so much DOF thanks to the small sensor. I have even sold larger (20"x15") prints from a 7 year-old ultra-zoom, so clearly it can be considered acceptable.
Remember that getting the shot is often considered more acceptable than not getting it! Even when I carry a DSLR, I often have an ultra-zoom with me. With a 26X optical zoom lens, it can shoot just about anything quicker than I can change lenses on the DSLR for which only have short high-quality zooms and prime lenses.
No comments:
Post a Comment