# Best super zoom camera for long distance recording?



## hejsansvejs (Jun 22, 2017)

Hi!

So a few days ago I found a video of someone recording and zooming in with great quality from half way around the world and realized I need of of those cameras.

I only knew about canon sx60 and nikon p900 until an hour ago when I found out there's a few more, like the Panasonic LUMIX FZ82 which is better priced.

I will be buying a used one in the $300 (or less) range and want the one best at recording at a long distance, say 100-500 meters.

Help me choose!

Thanks


----------



## KmH (Jun 22, 2017)

Whichever one you get be sure you also get a very stable tripod.
Add another $150 to $300 to your budget for the tripod.
A $30 - $75 el cheapo won't cut it.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 22, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> .........I will be buying a used one in the $300 (or less) range and want the one best at recording at a long distance, say 100-500 meters...........



Sadly, those are mutually exclusive parameters.

ANY camera can record up to 500 meters.  But for $300, you're going to fall far short of 'the best'.  This is like saying you want a sports car than can top out at 200 MHP, go 0-60 in 4 seconds, and have a budget of $5000.


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

480sparky said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > .........I will be buying a used one in the $300 (or less) range and want the one best at recording at a long distance, say 100-500 meters...........
> ...



Obviously it is like that with all things. But to be fair it's not really a good answer since both the sx60 and lumix FZ82 can be had for that price and both seem good enough. A better comparison might be wanting to have a car for $200k but only having 175.

So, which one should I choose around 300 bucks?


----------



## fmw (Jun 23, 2017)

The best one will be the one with the highest number in the optical zoom range.  Don't be fooled by digital zoom.  It isn't magnification.  It is cropping.  Don't forget the tripod.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > hejsansvejs said:
> ...


Actually the answer is spot on.  Any camera will take a photo of something 100-500 meters away.  I have even taken photos of a subject 238,900 miles away.  The issue comes down to Image Quality.  A lot of things goes into image quality other than zoom.


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

fmw said:


> The best one will be the one with the highest number in the optical zoom range.  Don't be fooled by digital zoom.  It isn't magnification.  It is cropping.  Don't forget the tripod.


Thanks! I know the Nikon 900 have 83x zoom and the sx60 65(?) but I saw a post on this forum that said the sx60 was better at recording. Here's the quote:


> I have owned both cameras, though not at the same time. There is no doubt in my mind that for stills, at full zoom, the Nikon blows the Canon out of the water. No contest. Video is a whole different matter. If the Canon shoots at a higher frame rate, you will get "smoother" results. If they shoot at the same frame rate, then the results should be similar.







gryphonslair99 said:


> Actually the answer is spot on. Any camera will take a photo of something 100-500 meters away. I have even taken photos of a subject 238,900 miles away. The issue comes down to Image Quality. A lot of things goes into image quality other than zoom.



Yes, a camera will take a photo of something far away with differing quality. Of course it will. Which is why I am here asking WHICH ONE is best at doing so for the price I am willing to pay. You clearly do not know but perhaps someone here do, which is why I made this thread.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

Best?
Sony RX10 III
or 
Lumix FZ2500


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


I've taken a good quality photo of an object 149.6 million km away! with my phone camera


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> Yes, a camera will take a photo of something far away with differing quality. Of course it will. Which is why I am here asking WHICH ONE is best at doing so for the price I am willing to pay. You clearly do not know but perhaps someone here do, which is why I made this thread.



Framing your query correctly from the git-go would go a long way as well.  Instead of stating you want to buy 'the best' but only have a $300 budget, it would have been far better to state, "Which $300 lens is better?"


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> So, which one should I choose around 300 bucks?


Actually the answer is spot on.  Any camera will take a photo of something 100-500 meters away.  I have even taken photos of a subject 238,900 miles away.  The issue comes down to Image Quality.  A lot of things goes into image quality other than zoom.[/QUOTE]


480sparky said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, a camera will take a photo of something far away with differing quality. Of course it will. Which is why I am here asking WHICH ONE is best at doing so for the price I am willing to pay. You clearly do not know but perhaps someone here do, which is why I made this thread.
> ...


 
If someone say "I want the best offroad car for $30k, do you say "the best offroad car cost $100k so there's no point responding to your dumb question" or "X is the best offroad car for $30k"?
Do you, and some others, seriously don't understand how stupid your posts are? I never said I wanted the best camera there is, I said I want the best camera I can get for this amount of money.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

Amazon.com : Canon PowerShot SX420 IS (Black) with 42x Optical Zoom and Built-In Wi-Fi : Camera & Photo


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

chuasam said:


> I've taken a good quality photo of an object 149.6 million km away! with my phone camera


With the Canadian to American conversion that's like 50 feet isn't it.


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Amazon.com : Canon PowerShot SX420 IS (Black) with 42x Optical Zoom and Built-In Wi-Fi : Camera & Photo


Thanks, I'll take a look at that one.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> Do you, and some others, seriously don't understand how stupid your posts are? .............



I guess I'm done here.  There's no hope for you.


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

480sparky said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > Do you, and some others, seriously don't understand how stupid your posts are? .............
> ...



I understand that the avg age is low here but since you have been here since 2011 I would expect you to be old enough to understand what I just wrote.

Here's a helpful dialogue to further your understanding of the stupidity of your post
*480sparky arrives at car dealer*
Sparky - Hi! I have 30k. I am looking for the best car you have for that price, i.e low mileage, new tires etc. The car will be driven in the city.
Dealer - The best car we have is a Lamborghini Aventador for 250k. You're also gonna need new tires so it will end up at 260k.
Sparky - but I only have 20k.
Dealer - no you said you wanted the best car!


Cheers


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I've taken a good quality photo of an object 149.6 million km away! with my phone camera
> ...


Depends on whether you're asking Ben Carson 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> Yes, a camera will take a photo of something far away with differing quality. Of course it will. Which is why I am here asking WHICH ONE is best at doing so for the price I am willing to pay. You clearly do not know but perhaps someone here do, which is why I made this thread.



The problem is most of the ppl on this forum are higher end camera users.

with the P900.  It does have some significant zoom capability.  Which looks pretty good on paper and reviews to similar level cameras.  But compare it to one of my high end cameras and, if you had the minute detail comparison experience you wouldn't like the P900.

Plus the P900 is a LARGE camera even by DSLR standards
But used it's a good value for what you get, assuming the size/weight doesn't turn you off.

Also, the P900 only stores images in JPEG mode. It does no support RAW. 
It's a good walk around camera but not for travel.

I do not know how good the video is either.
I know nothing about the other two.

D5500 DSLR vs P900 size comparison from www.cameradecisions.com


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

Yes, I understand that but I just can't comprehend the level of some posts. I have a high-end watch and I'm active on watch forums. If someone was looking for a $500 watch I would not tell them to buy a Patek Philippe.
I thank you for your post though, it was something like that I was looking for.



astroNikon said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, a camera will take a photo of something far away with differing quality. Of course it will. Which is why I am here asking WHICH ONE is best at doing so for the price I am willing to pay. You clearly do not know but perhaps someone here do, which is why I made this thread.
> ...


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> Yes, I understand that but I just can't comprehend the level of some posts. I have a high-end watch and I'm active on watch forums. If someone was looking for a $500 watch I would not tell them to buy a Patek Philippe.
> I thank you for your post though, it was something like that I was looking for.
> 
> 
> ...


I nearly bought the P900 once for the Zoom capability.  Video was okay back then.
But the size of the camera was a big turnoff.
used, should be a good value though.


----------



## fmw (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > The best one will be the one with the highest number in the optical zoom range.  Don't be fooled by digital zoom.  It isn't magnification.  It is cropping.  Don't forget the tripod.
> ...



I warned you about digital zooms.  It is not the range that matters it is maximum focal length of the zoom, even if it is a 2X zoom.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

Your question was like saying I want a watch that is accurate to 5 seconds +/- a year for $300 or less.  Which one?   To my knowledge the Citizen CTQ57-0953 Chronomaster is currently the only watch that accurate and it can't be legally had for $300.  

Now if you would be happy with a watch that is accurate to 10 seconds +/- a year there are a few that fit the bill.    Sometimes what people want in Column A can not be reasonably combined with Column B at the price they want to pay.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

chuasam said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Wait, what, you mean the Great Pyramids weren't the first Co-op for grain storage?


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Your question was like saying I want a watch that is accurate to 5 seconds +/- a year for $300 or less.  Which one?   To my knowledge the Citizen CTQ57-0953 Chronomaster is currently the only watch that accurate and it can't be legally had for $300.
> 
> Now if you would be happy with a watch that is accurate to 10 seconds +/- a year there are a few that fit the bill.    Sometimes what people want in Column A can not be reasonably combined with Column B at the price they want to pay.



No, my question was the equivalent of the most accurate diver for a certain price. I had also checked and found that used cameras can be had for that price.  I suggest you read OP again and if you still think that my question was equivalent of what you just wrote then I will happily break it down for you.

Cheers


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> Yes, I understand that but I just can't comprehend the level of some posts. I have a high-end watch and I'm active on watch forums. If someone was looking for a $500 watch I would not tell them to buy a Patek Philippe.
> I thank you for your post though, it was something like that I was looking for.


if you can afford a "high end watch" you can afford more than $300 for a camera.
PP is way overrated anyway. Best $500 watch is a Casio Oceanus ocw-s100-1ajf


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Your question was like saying I want a watch that is accurate to 5 seconds +/- a year for $300 or less.  Which one?   To my knowledge the Citizen CTQ57-0953 Chronomaster is currently the only watch that accurate and it can't be legally had for $300.
> 
> Now if you would be happy with a watch that is accurate to 10 seconds +/- a year there are a few that fit the bill.    Sometimes what people want in Column A can not be reasonably combined with Column B at the price they want to pay.


My Casio GShock GW50001jf is under $300 and synchronizes with atomic clocks every night.
It is accurate to +/- 0.5s at any given time.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> The problem is most of the ppl on this forum are higher end camera users.


that's why we spend time on a forum instead of being out there happily snapping action shots with our iPads (true story)


----------



## hejsansvejs (Jun 23, 2017)

fmw said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



Focal length is new to me but I


chuasam said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I understand that but I just can't comprehend the level of some posts. I have a high-end watch and I'm active on watch forums. If someone was looking for a $500 watch I would not tell them to buy a Patek Philippe.
> ...



Yes, having a bit of money means you always have to buy the best and the most expensive of everything. It's a must to splash it around.

You don't have to be a millionaire to buy a fine watch. There's many respectable watches out there for 5k unless you must buy it new.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> You don't have to be a millionaire to buy a fine watch. There's many respectable watches out there for 5k unless you must buy it new.


If you're going to spend $5,000 on some wrist jewelry, don't moan about $300 being all you have to spend on the "best superzoom."
cough up and get a Sony RX10 III 
there are respectable watches at all price ranges from $50 to $5,000


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2017)

This thread was an interesting read. Make sure you have a good tripod and head to support this awesome $300 high-magnification camera. My ex-wife has a smakll digital camera with an increeeeeeeedibly long optical zoom lens. The issue is keeping the camera steadily on-target! It is so,so,soooo important that a video image be stable!


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

chuasam said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Your question was like saying I want a watch that is accurate to 5 seconds +/- a year for $300 or less.  Which one?   To my knowledge the Citizen CTQ57-0953 Chronomaster is currently the only watch that accurate and it can't be legally had for $300.
> ...


As long as it gets a signal from one of the Atomic Clocks.  Not everywhere in the world or the US for that matter gets a signal.


----------



## ZombiesniperJr (Jun 23, 2017)

hejsansvejs said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > So, which one should I choose around 300 bucks?
> ...





480sparky said:


> hejsansvejs said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, a camera will take a photo of something far away with differing quality. Of course it will. Which is why I am here asking WHICH ONE is best at doing so for the price I am willing to pay. You clearly do not know but perhaps someone here do, which is why I made this thread.
> ...


 
If someone say "I want the best offroad car for $30k, do you say "the best offroad car cost $100k so there's no point responding to your dumb question" or "X is the best offroad car for $30k"?
Do you, and some others, seriously don't understand how stupid your posts are? I never said I wanted the best camera there is, I said I want the best camera I can get for this amount of money.[/QUOTE] The way you were saying it made it seem like you were saying what is the best one. (also it might now be a good idea to join a forum and then start saying peoples posts are stupid good way to make people stop helping)


----------



## chuasam (Jun 24, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


the finishing of a watch usually matters more. the much vaunted HAQ Seiko 9F calibers only do +/- 10 a year. My brother has a GrandSeiko Quartz Diver but I shake my head at him because he never even bothers setting it beyond the approximate time *LOL*
oh right..this is a photography forum so ....I borrowed his watch for this shot



back to the topic at hand...a $300 superzoom is going to be woefully inadequate because of the smaller sensor, cheaper processing chip and inferior optics.
If you can afford a better camera without going bankrupt (and you can given your fancy "high end watches") then getting a $300 camera is just wasting good money.


 
here's my own watch so that you don't think that I'm some yob who knows little about watches.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 24, 2017)

Let's dig out a yardstick...


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 24, 2017)

I collected a few watches too.

Keep in mind, the "zoom" ranges are highly dependent upon the sensor size which becomes a multiplier factor in the lens focal length. The image quality is also dependent upon the quality of the lens elements in the lens, and so on and so forth.   So when you go "cheap" you do get your monies worth but nothing like each "step" up in quality/costs.


----------



## benhasajeep (Jun 25, 2017)

I am with some of the others.  There are several cameras with amazing optical zooms in terms of how much the lens zooms.  But they are all jack of all lens lengths, master at none.  There are trade offs when getting these giant zooms lenses.  Normally they are ok in the middle zoom area, and gets worse the wider you go, or the further out you go.
 And as others have stated a very good tripod is needed without a doubt.  The longer the zoom factor the more camera shake will come into play.  So much so, that holding it and just breathing will make the camera move!  And if your doing video the tripod head is just as important.  And since your doing video at a very large zoom, some kind of controlled head is absolutely necessary to get nice fluid movements when panning or moving the camera in general.

To get really good video with any very long zoom, your going to spend quite a bit on a tripod and head.  Well more than your camera budget!

Also I don't believe you stated why you wanted such a long range lens for?  Birding, or other wild game maybe?  That would be a better starting point.  What your actually taking pictures of.  And can then give better advice on the equipment.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 26, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> To get really good video with any very long zoom, your going to spend quite a bit on a tripod and head.  Well more than your camera budget!



Superzooms aren't that heavy. a $200 tripod will be good enough.
I've seen some amazing Carbon Fibre tripods coming out of China for under $200


----------



## benhasajeep (Jun 26, 2017)

chuasam said:


> benhasajeep said:
> 
> 
> > To get really good video with any very long zoom, your going to spend quite a bit on a tripod and head.  Well more than your camera budget!
> ...



The weight is not the issue.  It's sturdiness, and ability to dampen vibrations.  With a really long lens you need a rock steady tripod.  This is the same reason  large telescopes have rock steady tripods, or even pier mounts.  The longer you go out, the more vibrations becomes an issue.  With a camera you can use shutter speed to stop motion.  Video it's not going to happen.  Even wind on the camera / lens will cause vibrations to be picked up on video zoomed way out like that.


----------

