We're beginning to think there really is no number too high for the
megazoom focal length. Back in the day, just boasting a
10x zoomer was enough to fall into said category; today, you best top 20x if you even want into the discussion. Olympus' 26x SP-590UZ is definitely amongst the craziest out there, sporting a 12 megapixel sensor, 2.7-inch LCD and a launch price of just under $450. Reviewers over at
PhotographyBLOG were duly impressed across the board, with a certain critic noting that "the ability to go from capturing wide-angle landscapes to distant details in a four second zoom of the lens cannot be underestimated, especially as there's little distortion to worry about at either end and excellent sharpness across its entire range." Not surprisingly, the cam notched a "Highly Recommended" badge along with 4.5 out of 5 overall stars -- that said, are you really willing to buy in knowing a 58.983x successor is just around the bend?
posted Apr 6th 2009 10:49PM
what the frick? 26x optical?
DO WANT!
Yah, but when will we get decent sensors to go along with these mega-zooms? A bajillion megapixels crammed onto a 1/2.6" CMOS or whatever is just a waste of time and silicon.
Do want? For what? When are people going to wise up to this zoom horseshit? On non-SLR cameras it's the WIDE ANGLE that means the most. Lower-cost, non-interchangeable-lens cameras are typically used in casual setting where space is often at a premium. Not for birdwatching or astrophotography. WTF?
At least the 26mm wide on this thing is decent.
Effectively you can't put large sensors on a mega zoom without losing the mega (or scaling up the lens several times in physical dimensions)
At 26x it is a daylight camera even with a large sensor though, so it matters less.
More zoom = smaller sensor = wrong direction.
Making a superzoom of that range for any reasonable sensor size makes it bigger, heavier, and more expensive than practical.
Given the choice of less zoom or decent quality pictures, I'd take the a "limited" zoom range and a better sensor.
Doh...[smacks forehead]...what he said. I guess I should read all the comments before posting.
26x optical zoom plus 12MP, can we say stalker cam? Seriously what else are going to do with that?
ye while its quite impressive its a little over the top i honestly just move closer in my shots.... on my BRAND NEW SONY A300!!!!!
Well, I could have used it last year on my safari in Zambia. Of course, I was still stalking leopards.....
PERFECT for me; for shooting wildlife at long distance. BUT, the noise....... even at 100 ISO..... bad. Must wait for a better camera.
Better for intel on the Zombies in the distance. Never can tell what they are going to do next..
damn why cant Nikon make just a lens for DSLR at this price. that would be sweet.
Imagine how big it would be.
ur dum
Because the sensor in a Nikon dSLR is over 13 times larger than the one in this camera. Which means you need a whole lot more optical grade glass. Which isn't cheap.
Anybody think about the fact that the amount of camera shake visible at that zoom length will make the photos essentially unusable unless shot on a tripod?
I have a 560UZ with 20x zoom, and there really isn't much shake. The stabilization works really well. Fully zoomed plus digital is another story. I've gotten lucky with it, but it's always after much random shooting.
I used the SP-550UZ and the SP-570UZ extensively, and switched to the Canon SX-10IS when it finally came out (mostly because the Canon has a saner UI, better autofocus, and is less fragile - Olympus has awesome service turnaround, the problem is that you end up *needing* it.) The stabilization is *great* for long range shots (I do a lot of nature photography, birds in trees or in flight.) Find my flickr gallery for examples. It's almost a reasonable binocular replacement - almost, because I'd see a lot more with binocs in-person, where as I often find myself discovering extra details when looking at my pictures on a real screen later (facial expressions, feather patterns, *entire animals* that I didn't notice because they weren't the prime subject...)
Agree with @Michael that full *digital* zoom is artifact soup on any of them - the main reason to use digital zoom at all on these is to make sure autofocus has tracked correctly (though I also use it for framing and composition, since I basically never edit.)
(Having used both - 26x is certainly tempting, but at this point I'll happily wait for *Canon* to advance in that direction.)
I dont know what to take of this review. They say its main rivals are the Panasonic DMC-TZ7 and the Canon SX200IS, both of which have a 12X zoom. If anything, the Canon SX10IS would be a competitor with a 20X zoom.
Besides, the the XD card Olympus uses along with a sensor shift stabilization (As opposed to optical) is a deal breaker for me.
also the panasonic fz28.. 18x zoom, 10 mp
Just don't like that you can't see it through the viewfinder?
@Amun
That only applies to dSLRs; Since the viewfinder on this camera is electronic, it doesn't matter if the shift happens in the lens or on sensor.
Some argue that optical stabilization *can* be more accurate. This makes some sense for a dSLR, since the stabilization can be optimized for that particular lens. But since this is a fixed lens camera in theory the stabilization would have been calibrated for it.
You know, I don't really understand people's problems with sensor shift image stabilization. It works, so does lens based. No one has ever proven one is better than the other, they're just different approaches.
Actually people have proven it.
In dpreview dot com's superzoom shootout, the three camera's with the best image stabilization were, surprise, the three with optical stabilization, Canon SX10 and Panasonic FZ28 and Sony H50.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q109superzoomgroup/page12.asp
Nice review!