Need Recommendation: Digital SLR or ???

I have a great pocket digital camera (Canon PowerShot S500) and I am not looking to get rid of it, but there are times when I find it lacking.

So I am looking for another camera, I'm thinking I may end up in the digital SLR cameras but I'm not really sure.

What I would really like is:

• An OPTICAL zoom of at least 7x, but more is better.
• PictBridge printer connection (ideal but not a deal breaker)
• At least 1 frame per second capability for action shots
• Rechargable battery
• Easy to use
• "Secure Digital" card format (not a deal breaker if different)

I don't want to spend $1000+ and buy a big fancy camera, I just want one that will allow me to take photos of my daughter's sporting events, etc and be simple enough for my wife to use too. We are in-between sports now, so I am in no hurry to buy, I'm just in the early shopping stages and looking for some ideas.

I'm not at all hung up on it being an SLR type/style. I see no real reason for interchangable lenses, it just seems that as the optical zoom goes up and to get quicker recovery times between shots that the cameras tend toward the SLR design.

My ideal camera would fit in a shirt pocket, and have the features I listed above.

Canon is the best seller on Amazon and get's good reviews.

I like this site for camera comparisons:

http://www.dpreview.com/

They have a good comparison tool.

Fuji cameras are currently getting good reviews for their color quality. I'd just check out the latency and Frames Per Second. I like a camera that can shoot a moving target (I have small children).

PBinWA said:

I like a camera that can shoot a moving target (I have small children).

Click to expand...

That is a big issue with my camera. While it is idea for many things, it has a delay that causes missed shots in action situations. I also find it lacking when shooting photos at her soccer games.

But I will say that my first choice in any camera is a camera that I can comfortably carry. The best camera in the world doesn't do any good if it is so big and heavy that lugging it around is a chore so you leave it at home. My little Canon was their top of the line in its series and I appreciate it for all the features but mostly for the great image quality combined with the tiny size that lets me carry it.

My big worry with getting a larger camera is that I will leave it at home! But for action shots at sporting events it seems my little compact camera is not up to the task.

Yup - I have a Fuji FinePix 602Z that was top of their prosumer line when I bought it. It is "full size" and gets left behind more often because of that. It does shoot good VGA video though so it is nice that I can shoot good pictures and good video with the same camera which is what I wanted 3 years ago when we started pumping out kids. I didn't want to have to juggle a camera and a video camera.

I think the next camera will be something smaller for the pocket. The size/feature issue will always be the major dilemna though.

I don't care that much about megapixels. I think anything over 3MP tends to be overkill and would choose speed and quality of the color and image over higher resolution.

Good luck - let us know what you go with.

Bob,

What is your budget for the camera?

I am curious.. where does the SD Card requirement come from? This makes it a little tough.

Anytime that you want a large optical zoom (i.e. 8x) is going to require a deep lens.. so you are probably going to be looking at bigger sized camera (read cant fit into your pocket).

However, Nikon also just re-introduced a coolpix camera which goes back to using the swivel type of lens (I have in my Coolpix 995 which has taking 8000 pictures today using this design) which allows you to use a big lens (running the height of the camera) in a flip away manner so the camera is more compact when the lens to folded back in-line with the body. The camera just came out and is called the Coolpix S4 and has 10x optical. Uses Secure Digital Media. Continous shooting is 1.3 frames/sec. I think this meets all your requirements.

take a look at the monster lens on that thing. You can see how they can make the camera compact and yet use a powerful large/deep lens with this flip away/swivel design. As a bonus you should be able to take self portraits of yourself as you can flip the lens back at you and still frame the shot by allowing you to see the LCD screen (camera inverts the picture for you so it is right side up *grin* ). I am assuming the S4 allows this, mine 995 does.

The only issue I can think with this design is the red-eye because of the location of the flash relative close proximity to the lens. I recommend you try to find a review somewhere like www.dpreview.com.

Price look very nice.. $320 online.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25533



found a review here:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/coolpix_s4-review/index.shtml

OregonAlex said:

I am curious.. where does the SD Card requirement come from? This makes it a little tough.

Click to expand...

I don't know about Bob, but my preference for SD comes from two situations. First, all of our other cameras, my wife's, mine, and other members of my family, all happen to have SD compatible cameras. Sure makes it easy to swap around SD cards on occasion. Second, Sam's Club sells huge SD cards at a ridiculous price. The current price for a 1GB card is under $80. The 1GB card in my wife's 5 megapixel HP will yield over 600 pix; in my 4 mp Coolpix 4800, almost 1,000 pix. There's no reason to have any additional cards.

The S4 is a cool-looking camera that is the first one I've seen with more than 3x optical zoom yet still fit in a pocket. I bought my Coolpix 4800 because it almost fits in a pocket yet has 8.3x optical zoom; it was the smallest I could find at the time. I paid $312 and see it today for $189. I saw the S4 for $289. I'd be tempted to abandon my 4800 and go with the S4 except for 2 things. I don't like the AA batteries (my 4800's proprietary battery last for more shots and is rechargeable for free; I bought a spare, and I'll never spend another cent for batteries). And, I really like a viewfinder other than the LCD screen; it can get really difficult to frame a shot in a washed-out LCD screen in the middle of a bright, sunny, Florida day. The 4800 has an electronic viewfinder that's tied to the LCD; they work the same. I would have tolerated the batteries if the S4 had a veiwfinder.

Don,

The Coolpix 995 had a viewfinder. Too bad the S4 dropped this.

The other cool feature that I like about the Coolpix swivel camera is you can take a picture from above your head, aiming the lens at a stage above peoples heads, let pointing the LCD straight down so you can see. Very handy for taking pictures in a crowded room.

I have SD and CF cards, so my preference is a new camera that would use either of those rather than bringing in another type of card to have to deal with. But like I said, its not a deal breaker. My logic for wanting to use something compatible with what I already own was very clearly layed out by OkeeDon.

As for the budget, I really didn't set one.

I don't need a quadrazillion-mega-pixels either, I can't recall the last time I actually printed anything larger than 4x6. But that is the reason I'd prefer a higher optical zoom, the digital zooms, to be worthwhile need massive amounts of pixels to give a clear image and I'm pretty much convinced that the digital zoom quality with lots of pixels is still lower than optical zoom with fewer (but adequate) pixels.

B_Skurka said:

I don't need a quadrazillion-mega-pixels either, I can't recall the last time I actually printed anything larger than 4x6. But that is the reason I'd prefer a higher optical zoom, the digital zooms, to be worthwhile need massive amounts of pixels to give a clear image and I'm pretty much convinced that the digital zoom quality with lots of pixels is still lower than optical zoom with fewer (but adequate) pixels.

Click to expand...

Bob,

I bet the digital zoom feature in most cameras is actually a crop operation. check the filesize of the photo. ;-)

if you actully want to do a digitial zoom then you are actually a lot better off shotting the photo wide and preforming a image enlargement in Photoshop using their interpolation algorythm. This way you can increase the number of pixels in your photo with Photoshop using interpolation and then do the crop (i.e. magnification - ).

All the more reason to want optical zoom!!!

just remember.. large optical zoom means much smaller maximum aperature at the high end. translation, less light which requires either a slower shutter speed (blurr) or increased sensor sensitivy/aka ISO equivelent (noise)

so if you are going to be taking lots of low light photos and indoor shots you are better of with a smaller zoom, or even better a fixed lens.


if your current camera can display the f stop/ shutter speed, and/or iso equivelent that it is picking before taking the shot, you can play and see what I am taking about by zooming in and going wide. You will notice that at wide, the f stop number is low (meaning the aperature is higher, which translates to more light coming into the camera) .. you will also notice a faster shutter speed at the widest setting or a low digitial ISO speed equivelent (sensor sensitivity). As you zoom in, f stop goes up, shutter speed gets slower, iso equivelent increases to "faster" film.. Same reason.

B_Skurka said:

All the more reason to want optical zoom!!!

Click to expand...

Yup, I know all that stuff. I've got a couple professional Nikons (F2A), used to do my own developing, enlarging, even wound my own film from bulk rolls, at one time I was averaging about 100' of raw film a week. I realize the lighting limitations of imposed by lense aperature.

The purpose for the longer optical zoom is to photograph outdoor sports such as soccer, horseback riding, etc.

I should have known better.. I will shut up now.

OregonAlex said:

I should have known better.. I will shut up now.

Click to expand...

Just because I know how to shoot FILM, and actually have a dozen or so awards from local shows for my photography, doesn't mean I have a clue who makes a good digital camera that suits my needs. In fact, I don't have a clue. I can frame up a good shot, but I don't know what equipment is out there that will work for me. That is why I need help. I'm really looking to see if someone makes an easy, reasonably compact, good quality camera with more than a very modest zoom.

Bob,

I don't know if your taste matches mine, but here's what works well for me:

I photograph to document and share what I have seen. I don't need hardware optimized for fine-arts photography - that's a different specialty. At the minimum that would require a tripod and I don't want to carry one. The most important thing is to come home with lots of good, maybe not flawless, images that I can sort through later.

First priority is a camera that won't be left home. It has to be pocketable, that's non-negotiable.

Second, a very valuable feature is the leaf-shutter-style lens cover. I decided this after many years of snarled lens-cover leashes, lost lens covers, arguments with my wife when I'm sure I gave the lens cover to her to hold, etc etc. Fumbling with a lens cover is a significant cause of lost or delayed grab shots.

My present travel camera is a Canon A-75 and its travel case is simply an open ziplock bag in my pants pocket that I can get it out of instantly, (or into instantly, if I'm surrounded in a crowd of strangers.) The 3mp is sufficent for my primary use which is sharing photos on my family website, and the very few 4x6 prints I put on paper. The Canon A-95 would allow better enlargements and has a swivel viewfinder but I wouldn't buy a camera for field use that is any larger than that. Canon presently makes the best digital cameras in my opinion.

My next camera will probably have long zoom and image stabilization. I think Canon's S2-IS is the best inexpensive camera in this category except it is large and has that removable lens cap. S2-IS might be suitable for soccer and general photography, but not for travel snapshots because it is too big to carry in a pocket and you would never have it out when the photo opportunity occurs.

I'm fascinated by Panasonic's DMC-LZ2 5mp pocket camera with 6x zoom and Image Stabilization. It's no larger than my Canon A-75 and the zoom and IS are valuable features. One review described it as 'think of a Canon A-95 with 50% more zoom and IS". According to reviews I have seen there are tradeoffs for the zoom, ie noise within dark shadows, the corners aren't as sharp as a lesser zoom, and some barrel distortion at one end of the zoom range. I figure with 5mp there is enough image to crop what I don't like so I don't consider those compromises to be significant. And equally important with the 6x zoom, IS, and small size, it has that leaf-shutter lens cover that makes it truly pocketable. It also uses SD cards and AA batteries, both a plus in my opinion. I suggest check this one out. They are about $200 on ebay, $229 on sale at Fry's Outpost.com.

As you can see here I value functionality over superb specs. Digital cameras have a lifetime before obsolescence of about two years and in my opinion should have taken thousands of exposures and look thrashed by that time.

California,

Do you know of a Canon camera which meets Bob's requirements? Compact AND at least 8x optical zoom? that's the tricky part. There are lots of compact camera out there which fit in your pocket and there are lots of cameras with 8x or more optical zoom. Just not many that are both.

When it is compact it is hard to give you a Looooooonnnnnnnnggggggg zoom because you don't have the space for it. That is why Nikon makes that funky swivel lens design. It allows them to put in a longer lens which runs the height of the camera body instead of the thickness of the camera body. Allowing you a longer lens.

ps. Nikon's offical name for the Nikon S4 is:

COOLPIX S4 - Pocket Zoom

emphasis on Pocket AND Zoom.

Alex, with my strong bias toward IS, portability, and convenience, the Panasonic DMC-LZ2 5mp is the camera I will check out next. It may or may not be the solution but its at the top of my list at the moment.

I like the swivel Nikons. I took hundreds of soccer pictures of my daughters and their games using my Nikon Coolpix 950 (2mp) with Nikon doubler. State of the art in Y2k.

Bob,

as you stated you understood aperature and all that .. just might want to look at these max aperature values for the lens on the S4.

Aperture: Five-step; aperture values for the entire zoom range are: f/3.5, f/4.0, f/6.8/ and f/13.6

f/13.6??? ouch ouch. wonder where f/6.8 is in the zoom range? that would be acceptable. f/13.6 better not be cloud in the sky that day. Then again what do you expect for $300? Camera AND a good fast Lens?

California,
IS definately is nice for shooting without a tripod in low light cases where the picutres are of stationary objects. This low light case would be when using a zoom at its longest setting (i.e. smaller aperature) or indoor shots. As you know IS allows you to use a much slower shutter speed without worring about you shaking the camera and blurring the photo. However, I don't know if I would trade a fast quality lens (with a low max aperature throughout the range) for IS. Especially if what you are taking a picture of things are that have a tendancy to move; as in sports/action photos using a zoom or wide angle of children and guests indoors. In those cases an IS system will attempt to increase your shutter time (to decrease noise), but effectly allowing your moving subject to blur the picture without any doing from the photographer's camera shake.

If you are a landscape photographer, do lots of macro photography of plants, or just generally take pictures of stationary objects without lugging around a tripod then IS is ideal. IS is effectively compensation for slow, less expensive lens in some cases, if your subject matter is stationary. However, sometimes there is just no substitute for a high quality expensive fast lens. Unfortunately.... I am gonna go cry now about how expensive good lens are... and that I can not afford them. damn.

Alex, I think you are preaching to the choir. Better specs (f stop in this instance) are always better but you reach a point where the precious camera doesn't get much use.

Bob knows this and can afford whatever he wants,

B_Skurka said:

Yup, I know all that stuff. I've got a couple professional Nikons (F2A), used to do my own developing, enlarging, even wound my own film from bulk rolls,

Click to expand...

BeenThereDoneThat. I worked for an aerial photo outfit and processed B&W enlargements up to 36" x 36" if I remember correctly. Then I had my own enlarger and developing setup at home, film winder, tanks and all. I understand the relationships of exposure/aperture/focal length/film size/ISO. (ASA in those days). 40 years later, my 2mp Nikon Coolpix 950 and its matched doubler were an $800 system, expensive for me but also worth it to me.

B_Skurka said:

I realize the lighting limitations imposed by lense aperature. The purpose for the longer optical zoom is to photograph outdoor sports such as soccer, horseback riding, etc.

Click to expand...

Yep.

There's no way to stop motion without carrying around big heavy glass. But you tend to leave big heavy glass home, or in its protective case, because it is expensive, heavy, and awkward. I used that big $150 doubler on the N950 only a few times because it was too much nuisance. Half of the fun of kids soccer games is adult conversation on the sidelines. Juggling too much photo hardware plus adult conversation plus the mad scramble on the field = sensory overload.

I come back to my original point, I like simplicity and automation as much as possible so I can concentrate on anticipating the sports activity. And so I don't have a tendency to leave the camera home. Bob can probably carry around a bigger camera for soccer than I would for tourist travel, but I think the larger the camera, the less likely it will be available in the right place at the critical time. One of his specs was shirt-pocket size and my answer is biased toward that because it matches my taste.

Below: enlarged out of a picture I made in 2000 using the 2mp Nikon Coolpix 950 at maximum zoom plus the Nikon doubler on it. I don't know what the effective f stop was but it had to be small given that lens system. The kid is a few hundred feet away, I'm on the sideline at midfield and she's in the diagonal opposite back corner of the soccer field. I think only another $2,000 / 5 lbs of glass could stop that motion.

California,

your photo using the 990 looks a lot like mine with my 995. ;-) No surprise.

If it wasn't for the moving kid the photo would be pretty clear..

You can see from the depth of field that the lens is stopped all the way down. (a lot is in focus). Looks like the photo had plenty of light and is actually a bit over exposed (look at the grass).. perhaps due to the camera setting its focus behind the girl, I assume you had continuous focus turned on and she was probably not the focus point but was actually somewhere closer to infinity. Actually it looks like it is focused on the minivan in the "dark" portion of the frame.. ??? maybe??? so it overexposed your photo by setting the shutter too slow and stopped the lens all the way down for the depth of field? dunno.. hard to tell what it is focusing one but the depth of field and the over-exposure would make me guess that is what happened.
I am assuming this was NOT shot in shutter priority. Prehaps that would have stopped the kid.... you seem to have enough light that day and clearly the lens is stopped down most of the way.

What do you think?

You probably already know this but you can always check to see what f/stop, shutter speed, and iso equiv was used because it is embedded in the JPEG header. Using something like iPhoto or PhotoShop will tell you the values that were used by the camera.


With the Nikon doubler do you lose a few f/stops as a penalty? pretty cool device.. remember the add on film/slide copy shot adapter? pretty funky stuff. I was looking at this photo that someone took and its says the camera was set to 436 mm, ISO 100, 1/526 sec, F6.3, -0.3 EV, -0.30 ev

That has to be with some kind of teleconvertor.. maybe like the one you had? Pretty impressive.
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/nikoncp995_samples2/originals/dscn0380.jpg

To bad the electronics were not more evolved when I bought my Coolpix 995. Its quite a bit slower to power on and has a lot of shutter delay compared to the newer "consumer" cameras. However, I am happy with the optics on it and the sensor is nice for the time period. Can't really complain about the photos too much if you know its its limitations in Auto mode. Sometimes you can overcome a lot of them in manual mode. But when it is too darks, then nothing is going to help you except a tripod.

pretty cool what you can do with the camera set manual mode with a tripod:

38 mm, ISO 100, 1/3 sec, F2.6, +0.0 EV
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/nikoncp995_samples2/originals/dscn0336.jpg

Anyhow, we still use it regularly. Still have not made the photo # "odometer" roller over on it but getting there.

Not sure what our next camera will be. I like the size and build quality of the 995, wife carries it in her purse. ;-) definately not a pocket device. The digital rebels XT are nice, but the bundled lens is a bit weak. I think I would be motiviated too much to buy expensives lens..no doubt the lens will be more expensive then the little plastic fantastic XT.

OregonAlex said:

California,

so it overexposed your photo by setting the shutter too slow and stopped the lens all the way down for the depth of field? dunno.. hard to tell what it is focusing one but the depth of field and the over-exposure would make me guess that is what happened.
I am assuming this was NOT shot in shutter priority. Prehaps that would have stopped the kid.... you seem to have enough light that day and clearly the lens is stopped down most of the way.

Click to expand...

For comparison.. see this photo I dug up from Sports Illustrated web site.
Action stopped, notice the complete lack of any depth of field what so ever!! (lens aperature wide open) and no doubt shoot in shutter priority mode with a huge heavy expensive piece of glass with focus set exactly at the players.. judging from the focus on the grass plus or minus 12". Wow! Nice equipment. I am gonna go cry again.


Anyhow my point is that you need nice equipment but you also need to make sure you have it set correctly for the shot you are taking.. for action shoots, aperature set wide open, and be shooting in shutter priority mode and because of the low deep of field spot on focus.


if you can run that photo through photo shop I wouldn't be surprise if the f stop was around f/10 and shutter was about 1/125?? I am very curious.. if you have the time please report back. Thanks

I think only another $2,000 / 5 lbs of glass could stop that motion.

Click to expand...

Ok, triple my estimate. Link.

Alex, do you have some of your own photos to use for examples?

OregonAlex said:

wonder where f/6.8 is in the zoom range? that would be acceptable.

Click to expand...

ExifRead reports f= 6.8 for that picture. What did I win?!

And 1/60 sec exposure, Focal length 20.4 (near maximum), and ISO 80. There simply isn't enough glass there to stop motion.

Bob, if you want photos like the SI shot you will need cameras like in that Link. And probably stadium lighting.

California said:

I think only another $2,000 / 5 lbs of glass could stop that motion.

Click to expand...

This 1.56 lb Canon 70-200 f/4 lens would do the trick for less than $600.

California . . . I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with cameras.

Nothing will pry my little, but still high quality Canon PowerShot S500 out of my hands when I am on vacation, I even have an underwater case for it that will allow for dive depths of 100' (I only snorkle so the only way I'll go 100' down is if I am attached to an anchor). What I am looking for in a new camera is NOT a camera to replace the S500, but a camera that will allow for more specialized photography such as shooting photos at my daughter's soccer games. I don't want this camera to lug around from tourist place to tourist place while we vacation, I want this camera to take to events where I can reasonably pack in a modest amount of gear and get better than average photos. I'm not looking to resurrect my big Nikons, I don't want to carry a full gear bag and switch lenses, I just want a pretty darn good camera with a good fast lense, quick recovery time between shots (2 or 3 fps) and fairly simple to use so the lovely Mrs_B can use it on occasion.

Bob, that was what I was wanting; something in between my little pocket 7.1 Casio and my full sized Canon SLR. I ended up with a Nikon Coolpix 8800. It seems to fit the bill perfectly for that middle area. The pics are great and the image stabilization apparently is a must for me when using the zoom for soccer pics. I didn't realize how shaky I was until I had the stabilization. I also got some great pics in Hawaii with it.

Here is a pic taken from the complete length of the soccer field. I had to shrink if to get it to fit, but the camera seems to be able to outperform it's operator.

California said:

ExifRead reports f= 6.8 for that picture. What did I win?!

Click to expand...

maybe. Your 990 has/had a max aperature of f/2.4 - f/4.0 with an 8-24mm focal length length WITHOUT a teleconvertor. @ 20.4mm this would be eqivelent to taking the shot with ~80mm lens on a traditional 35mm SLR camera. @20.4 mm I think the max aperature would be somewhere around f/3.5. F6.8 is what you shot, I think from your specs your max aperature would be around f/3.5 because at 24mm it is f/4.0 according to specs for your 990. You camera shot 20mm which is about 3/4 of the way zoom in on your 8-24mm native lens range. This would infer that your aperature was 1/2 closed from its max settting at @20.4mm. Yielding about four f stops. opening it up all the way to f/3.5 should have brought your shutter from 1/60 to 1/500 and that would have stopped the action. Lets assume your teleconvert actually robs you of 1 f stop.. this would still allow it to take the photo at 1/250 at max aperature with the teleconvertor on.

You tell me do you think your camera was setting up to do a landscape shoot instead of an action photo?

I think that is a reaonsable assumption that it choose iso 80 and 1/60 shutter over faster shutter speed and opening up the aperatue max (f/3.5).

California said:

And 1/60 sec exposure, Focal length 20.4 (near maximum), and ISO 80. There simply isn't enough glass there to stop motion.

Click to expand...

pretty sure the glass was not the issue in that shot.

Sorry California... I sense you feel I am criticizing YOU instead of your camera settings.. The camera simply choose the wrong setup in AUTO mode. I will try to find one my photos that you can pick apart to make us even.

However, I am pretty sure we don't attempt to take many action photo with the 995 due to its shutter lag. Here is what I could find right now in a pinch.. however it is at the wide angle end. Typical day at the Oregon coast. Stay away.. ha ha

f stop was also f/6.0 like yours but shutter was 1/279. Have to admit it was taken in Auto mode so I got lucky as it was not setup for an action shot. iso 100. ;-)

Dargo said:

Bob, that was what I was wanting; something in between my little pocket 7.1 Casio and my full sized Canon SLR. I ended up with a Nikon Coolpix 8800. It seems to fit the bill perfectly for that middle area. The pics are great and the image stabilization apparently is a must for me when using the zoom for soccer pics. I didn't realize how shaky I was until I had the stabilization. I also got some great pics in Hawaii with it.

Here is a pic taken from the complete length of the soccer field. I had to shrink if to get it to fit, but the camera seems to be able to outperform it's operator.

Click to expand...

Dargo,

Nice photo... did you leave the camera in Auto mode for this?? I notice it was has a moderately low DOF setting (relatively open aperature) by the blurred back ground. Which is a good thing for action photos...

California,

Here is the best I could come up with. This was a photo taken many years ago on the 995 when we first got it hoping to take some action photos with it... before we came to the conclusion that the shutter lag and slow focus would not allow it. bummer.

as you can tell this photo was taken of third base from the other side of the field (behind first).

zoom was set to 31mm (~140mm equiv using 35mm SLR - note to Bob that was about about a 4x optical on this camera), shutter 1/348, f/5.8. iso 100.

recall your photo was taken at 20mm, 1/60, f/6.8 (max aperature at 20mm I estimate to be f3.5), iso 80.

my
995 lens specs are f2.6-5.1 max aperature @ 8-32mm range apropro.
vs your
990 lens specs are f2.6-4 max aperature @ 8-24mm range apropro.


So you can see this photo my wife took is pretty much zoomed all the way in (31mm out of 32mm - aka 140mm equivelent) and almost max aperature(f5.8 out of f5.1).

stopped the action ok I think. saaaaaaaafffffeeeee!!!!!

Ibrahim said:

This 1.56 lb Canon 70-200 f/4 lens would do the trick for less than $600.

Click to expand...

your 990 was capable of:
38-115 mm (35mm equiv) at f2.4- f4.

vs the Canon lens above

70-200mm (35mm equiv) f/4

Not a bad lens on that 990. ;-) And with that teleconvertor you might lose one 1 f stop.

so maybe it was a
76-230mm (35mm equiv) at f2.8-f5.6???


lens on the 995 (4x optical):
38-152mm (35mm equiv) f2.6-f5.1 not too bad either.

Bob, you sure you really want an 8x.. wow! we are talking like 300mm equiv at the high end. That is gonna be tough to find something very fast in a compact camera at that zoom level. I believe Dargo has an 10x on his 8800 but that is one huge lens.

Dargo's Nikon 8800

35-350mm (35mm equiv - 10x optical) f2.6-f4.9

very nice lens on that camera Dargo!!. Got a way to tell us what the exposure settings where on that photo you took above (your nice soccer shot). I am curious. Looks similiar to the Sport illustrated shot I posted! Well maybe not as wide open aperature.. ha ha.. but on the right track.


similiarlly a Nikon 8700 has a 8x.. also very nice.. its specs are
35-280mm (35mm equiv - 8x optical) f2.8-f4.2