35mm equivalent marketing

[no_connection]

Quote

Shoot at staggering distances with the 125x optical zoom COOLPIX P1000 Digital Camera from Nikon. This camera, which has a 16MP backside illuminated CMOS sensor, features a built-in NIKKOR lens with a 35mm equivalent focal length range of 24-3000mm. You can zoom even further with 250x Dynamic Fine digital zoom, which will give you an equivalent focal length of 6000mm. Coupled with these extreme focal lengths is Nikon's Dual Detect Optical Vibration Reduction, which provides 5 stops of optical image stabilization and ensures your telephoto shots are crisp.

Quote

NIKKOR 24-3000mm Lens (35mm Equivalent)

Aperture Range: f/2.8-8

This probably bugs me more than it should, but they always leave out the f45 part from the equivalent equation. Don't large numbers there sound equally impressive?

24-3000mm f15-45 suddenly sounds really stupid when it comes to light gathering.

4.2-532mm f2.8-8 is the real lens but I'm starting to think that is a stretch too. Although it is impressive zoom range tho, but why.

[webrunner5]

It is Really a Aperture Range: f/2.8-8 whether you like it or not. A 2.8 is a 2.8 is a 2.8 I don't care what camera it is on. This is a silly argument. Sounds like DPR.

[UncleBobsPhotography]

40 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

It is Really a Aperture Range: f/2.8-8 whether you like it or not. A 2.8 is a 2.8 is a 2.8 I don't care what camera it is on. This is a silly argument. Sounds like DPR.

It is Really a focal length range: 4.2-532mm. A 4.2mm is a 4.2mm is a 4.2mm I don't care what camera it is on. This is a silly argument.

 

The point is that if you can do it with the focal length then it's no less wrong to do it to the aperture.

[jagnje]

Well you are wrong, it's light gathering ability. What you can do with it...I guess you are refering to shallow dof. Some cameras are designed to have as litle a possible, and it sure does not say 50-20000mm f88 on the lens. 

[Inazuma]

The aperture is the aperture, unless you're talking solely about depth of field. If it was really an f45 lens then you would need insane ISO's to capture images. 

[no_connection]

This is exactly why it's wrong to trick ppl into thinking it's a 24-3000mm f/2.8-8

If it was the front would be 375mm in diameter

If you use equivalency to put things into perspective you can't just ignore or leave out the other parts of it.

[jonpais]

f/8 is f/8. I don’t follow, @no_connection. 

[Aussie Ash]

It is really about

"mine is longer the yours".

[Cinegain]

Think everyone said it already, f/2.8 or f/8 is just that. A smaller sensor just means that if you don't shrink the megapixels as well, you're ending up with tiny little photosites that do not gather light very well. You could make an argument for depth of field, but also imagine what that must be like at 3000mm, you might be happy to have a little bit more in focus. If you're buying a 1/2.3" superzoom for it's fullframe-like look you're only kidding yourself.

Atleast the Sony RX10M_ and Panasonic FZ__00 series have a 1" sensor and don't drop off so bad. This P1000 is just a camera playing the numbers game luring noObs that assume more/bigger is better. Think the target audience is voyeuristic pervs hitting the beaches in broad daylight. Can't believe Nikon decides to bring this abomination to the market but kill off the DL line-up that seemed exciting. Oh well, camera manufacturers make some stupid decisions sometimes.

[noone]

It is not a 24-3000mm  2.8-8 zoom, it IS a 4.2-532 2.8-8 zoom that gives an image like that of a 24-3000 mm f"somethingverysmall" on a FF camera.

Yes, it really is 2.8-8 but equally, yes it is not 3000mm.

It does not give an image like an 24-3000mm AT f2.8-8

You can of course correctly say it is an equivalent 24-3000mm lens that is 2.8 to 8 but equally you can correctly say it is 4.2-532 lens that is equivalent to f45 (or whatever it is).

Does it really matter if we know what it is?