[dmbaile2]

So ever sense I bought my k-r I have been curious about those cameras that look like DSLRs only they don't have removable lenses. Some of these cameras tout insane 500-600mm optical zoom equivalents.

Originally, I figured that the optics must just be total garbage at those zoom levels and didn't give it another thought. That is until I started looking into taking pictures of the moon and came across this video taken with a Nikon P100.

You Tube

You Tube

Here's another picture

Nikon Coolpix P100. Zoom full 26x + 4x Digital. Moon Picture: Nikon Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

So this raises two questions for me. Why is it that my 300mm Pentax lens with a teleconverter doesn't produce pictures nearly this nice? And why don't DSLRS have a small compact lens option that can span such a wide range of focal lengths (or zoom equivalents) whatever you want to call it?

I guess the long and the short of it is, im pretty darn impressed with that cameras little on-board lens, I never dreamed that kind of clarity would be possible. And honestly, I feel a little jipped. Like I would have produced better photos of the moon by purchasing a used Nikon p100 instead of my Pentax 300mm lens!

I know I am a total photography newb so please, educate me.

[Clavius]

Maybe it's just me, but the IQ in that video is very bad. It's nothing compared to the IQ some DSLR astrographers here reach.

[Philoslothical]

Some of these cameras tout insane 500-600mm optical zoom equivalents.

This is another way of saying that these cameras have tiny sensors. It sure sounds better the way they put it, from a marketing angle.

Why is it that my 300mm Pentax lens with a teleconverter doesn't produce pictures nearly this nice?

Something is going wrong, if you can't reproduce at least the quality of the shot you linked. Looking at that full size it is not good at all. Jagged edges, fringing, a lot of detail lost. Some TCs are really bad, so maybe you're losing IQ to that? Maybe it's in your choice of settings, IDK, it's hard to say unless you post a sample.

And why don't DSLRS have a small compact lens option that can span such a wide range of focal lengths (or zoom equivalents) whatever you want to call it?

Lens design limitations explain this. For APS-C or 35mm, we don't often get past a 10x zoom factor without losing a lot of IQ. In fact, most zoom lenses stay around the 3x range (although the focal lengths vary), due to this same limitation. We can get pretty good IQ around 3x, and tolerable (occasionally even good) IQ around 10x (think the DA 18-250). To go much beyond those marks, the optics have to be very small, and the sensor has to be small, and even then the loss of IQ is usually evident.

Also keep in mind that "35mm equivalent" is a pretty useless metric, and often misunderstood. It dictates field of view with a given lens and sensor size, but it has nothing to do with magnification. You don't get more reach, you just see a much smaller portion of the scene than you would with a larger sensor and matching optics. 35mm equivalency was originally useful as a way for 35mm film shooters to adjust to different sensor sizes during the shift to digital. Since then it has been co-opted by marketing people, and is meaningless unless you actually are used to shooting film.

[Vylen]

They're called bridge camera's - to fill in the gap between SLR's and P&S cameras.

They were a bit more relevant several years back when DSLR's were expensive, but now there are mirrorless systems and cheap entry-level DSLR's, bridge cameras are most likely losing a lot of interest.

[dmbaile2]

Maybe it's just me, but the IQ in that video is very bad. It's nothing compared to the IQ some DSLR astrographers here reach.

I'm not rally comparing it to "astrographers" who have an expensive set-ups to take pictures like this. Keep in mind this is a couple hundred dollar camera (used) and I feel those images go toe to toe with a lot of the super cheap 500mm mirror and telephoto lenses on the DSLR market, only in a much smaller package. Of course they don't compare to the more expensive lenses. but neither do the mirror lenses and other cheap options to get more reach out of a dslr on the cheap.

I just don't understand how they are achieving it and why we don't have more compact lens options with comparable quality.

[ihasa]

As stated, it's cos of the tiny sensor.

Similarly the Q plus a short K-mount zoom becomes a super telephoto.

[usmcxm35]

So this isnt about SLR lenses?
I own a Fujifilm HS-20 EXR so I will put in my two cents. Its MY backup body/lens in one.
I am one of the many waiting on Pentax to release a Full Frame. The reason for FF for my style of shooting is about DOF control and going wider than DA 12-24 without fisheye. The HS20 has 24-720mm (35mm equivalent) zoom lens. On the wide end, it is actually wider than my Tamron 17-50 at 17 which is supposed to be 25.5mm in 35mm equivalent. But on full frame with Sigma, 12-24 is 12mm at the wide end. DOF is another thing, bokeh is not easy to achieve on a bridge camera, because the same 24-720mm lens on that small of a sensor would be equivalent to shooting at f11 on a K5 when the HS20 says you are shooting at f2.8.
720mm is rather amazing if you think about what you have to do on a K5 to get 720mm. If you stick a giant A*300 on there, you would still.be short. But for my main body Pentax K5 will be faster autofocusing and better depth of field control.
Thanks for reading, hope it helps someone.