GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Hartside on 13 June 2012, 20:08
-
I'm used to compacts, my last purchase was a Lumix TZ1 quite a few years ago. I'm looking to change and fancy the Lumix G3. In zoom terms, what would the 14-42mm std lens be equivalent to?
-
28-82mm
basically standard zoom lens
-
are you applying full-frame correction to that length, Ridg? The Canon 18-55mm zoom would be significantly wider and that left me wanting a much wider lens too!
-
yeah, micro four thirds is a 2x crop factor so 35mm equivalent would be 28-82mm
would be the same as using a 17.5-52.5 on an APS-C Canon
or
would be the same as using a 18.6-56 on an APS-C Nikon
-
I think as he's coming from a compact, he's asking what zoom factor it is ie 4x zoom or 8x zoom not the full frame equivalent.
The zoom factor is simply how much it takes to go from the wide end of a lens to the telephoto end of the same lens. So, for example, a 50-200mm lens has a magnification factor of 4 (50x4=200) and a 7-14mm lens has a factor of 2 (7x2=14).
Or put the equation the other way around: divide the long end but the short end and it gives you the zoom factor
14-42mm lens is 3x: 42/14 = 3.
50-200mm lens is 4x: 200/50 = 4
A compact camera that advertises a 10x zoom probably has a lens equivalent to a 38-380mm SLR zoom lens.
Or if you look at this DSLR lens from Sigma http://www.dpreview.com/News/2012/06/15/Sigma-launches-18-200mm-F3-5-6-3-Macro-HSM-superzoom-lens (http://www.dpreview.com/News/2012/06/15/Sigma-launches-18-200mm-F3-5-6-3-Macro-HSM-superzoom-lens)
It has a zoom factor of 13.8
So in answer to the original question, a 14-42mm lens is equivalent to a 3x zoom on a compact camera.
ie: 250/18 = 13.8
A lens with this high a zoom factor is known in the SLR world as a "super zoom" because it has a long range from wide (18mm) to telephoto (250mm).
-
Thanks DubFan, that's the info I was after. The G3 may be too expensive in that case as my compact has a 10x zoom and to kit out the G3 with a tele would take the price to over £700. I'm also looking at a Lumix FZ150 as well which might be a better intermediate step for me
-
You could always get the G3 now and then add the longer lens in a couple of months time.
Being limited by only having one shorter lens is not nessessarily a bad thing (so long as it's a decent lens), it teaches you more about how to compose the photo, where to shoot, positioning, angle and so on.
It depends on what sort of photos you're after as to whether it's worth investing in an SLR type camera. I see so many people/tourists walking around with a DSLR and all they actually want to use it for is "ooh look, London bus, snap, ooh look black cab, snap". They're not thinking about the composition, just about taking a photo of something they saw. These people would be better off with a bridge camera, IMO.
If you actually are interested in composing a shot, thinking about the angles, the background, depth of field (do you want the background blurred, etc), shutter speed (do you want people/vehicles/movement blurred), the colours, the focus. Then it's worth thinking about getting a camera which will give you the ability to control the settings manually, something like the Lumix G3, Nikon 1 series, Sony NEX or Fuji X10 or a full DSLR.
(It's fair to say that you can still be interested in composing shots, angles, background, etc and do it with a compact or bridge camera, it's just that you're limited by the camera and lens quality)
-
Great info and there's certainly plenty of food for thought. I'm going to have a run through to Jessops next weekend to get a feel for both the G3 and FZ150. I'll do a bit more reading/thinking between now and then