Even if that 42x can turn out 20x of awesomeness, it’ll still be worth the buy.
Looks like a lens out of a GlobalHawk. lol
This will be great if the photos are good. I’d love to have one for our spring trip.
Before I left for Canada last Christmas, bought this Olympus that Best Buy was selling where they threw in the tripod, 4 Gb sd card and camera bag for 99. It’s becoming custom nowadays to have the 720P to 1080P Hd recording feature but the 42x zoom beats out the 5x zoom. Ridiculous zoom ratio that 42..
Isn't the sensor size crucial for great pics, especially with a high amount of pixels?
Mit out a tripod, you ain’t going nowhere, boy!
Thanks for posting. Looking to upgrade from my Lumix. This might be the one I’m looking for.
With that kind of zoom, it better have a superduper optical image stabilizer...
Hard to imagine that was only 16 years ago.
16MP and 42X zoom could be the finest camera for the price in history. Wow.
I would appreciate an unbiased opinion from someone who knows more than I do about older 35mm film type SLRs. I have a couple, and they both cost four or five hundred way back. Are they boat anchors now because of digital technology, or are the lenses still worth anything?
Two things can make these features work. Image Stabilization and the ability to use very high ISO equivalents due to improvements in the sensors.
My D7000 does amazing things handheld.
I used to never shoot without a tripod if I was doing anything serious, now I rarely use one.
I wonder how fast the lens is. Not too, I’d guess....
Here, for example, is a photo of some coots taken with a Canon EOS 7d and a 100-400mm lens set at 400mm. The Canon EOS 7d multiplies the focal length by 1.6, so the effective focal length of this photo is 640mm. I've read that you can divide the focal length by 50mm to tell how magnified the image is compared to a picture taken with a 50mm lens. By doing that I get a magnification of 12.8 compared to a 50mm lens of a full frame camera that doesn't multiply the focal length. A 1000mm lens like that Nikon camera you posted about would give a magnification of 20 compared to a 50mm lens.
Here's the photo:
I noticed that the coot in the middle was more or less in focus, so I cropped the image such that it was about 1/9th of the area of the original 640mm picture. Here is the resulting image blown up to the same size as the picture above:
If my calculatons are correct (always questionable), the magnification on this cropped image is 9 times 12.8, or 115 times that that a 50mm lens would give. Keep in mind I'm dealing with area of the image here, not its height or width, which would both be multiplied by a lower adjustment figure than I used in the area calculations above.
Doesn’t look like it’d fit in my pocket. Is it still considered Compact?
I just happen to be in the market for a new camera. Have been loking at the Canon G12, but this looks interesting.
I want one, now! Is it too late to ask Santa?
1000mm at f256.
Great for shooting photos of the sun.
You know I love Nikon, but they're driving me crazy now with a new, 'better', camera coming out every 3 months. That aside, I'll never leave the SLR realm. Those are cameras, to me everything else is a 'picture taking box' for newbies.