Camera Size Matters!

You could be forgiven these days for sometimes thinking that the only points that really matter with regard to a digital camera are sensor count and sensor size. However whilst these are quite vital areas to take into consideration some other aspects can be just as important. We try to raise those issues that we feel matter because often they don't appear to be an important factor at the time of purchase of a camera, and only become apparent with use. 

We are often reminded of this from time to time by comments that we read or that are made to us, and the recent new larger sized full frame DSLR's, and the hopes of many that these herald a new era of larger sensor cameras reinforces this. As the differences between the different camera types narrows, the sensor resolution, ISO range, etc, those factors that remain different will assume ever greater importance. The size and weight of a camera and the lenses it uses, is one such matter.

To many the size and weight of a camera are seen as either not important, or indicative of the quality of the product, with bigger and heavier equipment being classed as having better build quality and specification. Whilst these views can be correct to a certain degree they don't tell the whole story. If you have big hands then it's true a small camera can sometimes be awkward to hold and use, but whatever your size no one wants to lug around equipment that is heavier than it needs to be. It's not just that larger and heavier items become a chore to carry much more quickly that lighter ones, but that knowing this can influence how often they are used. 

Several times recently we have read of users that have bought cameras that have turned out to be bigger or heavier than they first realized, (purchased online on the basis of reviews and specifications without personally handling them - always a big mistake), and don't feel comfortable carrying them around for more than a short while. Whilst there are those that tend to dismiss digicams and the smaller entry-level DSLR's as only for those with little photographic experience nothing is further from the truth. For as we have said many times it's not what you have that counts, but how you use it that ultimately matters. 

We mention this because we often travel independently, much preferring to be free to choose what to do, and when to do it. If we find something of interest, we like to take time to stop and explore. If your traveling for several weeks somewhere, and have gone halfway around the globe to do so, to do otherwise seems foolish. However on a recent occasion we traveled as part of a group as it suited us better. It was also quite revealing in more ways than we expected.

Others traveling with us often left their cameras behind unless they could guarantee that there would be occasion to use them. Which astounded us and left us feeling rather bemused seeing as we were somewhere none of us had been before and most were unlikely ever to visit again, and new sights and experiences were being encountered on an almost constantly occurring basis. We were in fact in China, (this was back in May 2006), spending several weeks visiting most of the major cities, renowned cultural and historical sights, and much more besides, all incorporating extensive travel over the countryside by plane, boat, train and coach.

Most put it down to the difficulty and awkwardness of carrying cameras around when they were large and heavy, finding somewhere safe to put them down without also lugging a camera bag around, and the fear of the attention now drawn to those using cameras that look large, expensive, and worth stealing.

Although not quite as small or light as many digicams, our DSLR's are still quite easy to carry compared to many other's, and they can easily be slipped into ordinary bags when needed, which can be quite small in size. It's a major factor that was considered when they were purchased. Having a large, heavy, and expensive camera and lenses that produces outstanding image quality isn't worth a bean if because of their size, weight, or value, you are reluctant or afraid to carry them around as much as you would cheaper or smaller ones, and thus end up not taking half as many shots as you would have otherwise. And loosing the opportunity to take once-in-a-lifetime shots that often turn up when least expected. 

In our view it makes having a camera pretty pointless if this ends up being the case, and indicates better than anything else why renewed emphasis is now once again being placed on the production of smaller sized main-stream DSLR and digicam type cameras. Whilst there are some that complain cameras are too small, it's actually what the vast majority of users not only want, but need.

It's goodbye Kodachrome........after 74 years

It was perhaps something that has seemed inevitable in recent years and sure to happen at some stage sooner or later, the demise of one of the most famous films of all time, Kodachrome. The only question seemed to be when it would occur. That point at which Kodak felt that continuing to manufacture and distribute it was just no longer tenable given the massive fall in sales due to the onslaught of digital cameras.  

Now eventually the nettle has been grasped, the announcement has been made, and Kodachrome is no more, consigned to the annals of photographic history along with so much else that has gone before. It doesn't mean that film as a genre is finished and will soon disappear completely, or that other slide films will not continue to be made, but it does mark what many will view as the final nail in the coffin of film photography as a major medium, and serves to illustrate if any were needed just how swift and decisive the decline in film use has been. According to Kodak digital is now 70% of their business, with film accounting for just 30%.

There may be those of you who will wonder just why we here at a digital camera website are commenting on the passing of one particular type and make of film emulsion. We'll, the truth is that Kodachrome wasn't just another film stock. It was the first, the original colour slide emulsion, the first colour film of any type, and used a unique chemical processing format unlike all the slide films that followed, which use the universal E4 chemical development process. In truth whilst that gave it a distinct advantage in some respects, and indeed it took many decades after it was first introduced for a real competitor to arrive in the shape of Fuji's Velvia, this factor has probably also led to it's demise.

What is perhaps just as important to realize is that it took until the late 1960's/early 1970's for colour films in general to become commonplace in use. Today we take it for granted, but until that era colour was just far too expensive - and not very good on the whole. Generally it was all just black & white, with the choice of good quality Kodachrome slides as the only real and affordable option. So the passing of Kodachrome is the end of a very significant era for photography as a whole, and one that many will mourn.

Kodachrome. 1935-2009. R.I.P.

Fast Cards needed for video capture

We keep on trying to emphasize the fact that newer and higher performance cameras need higher specification accessories and nowhere is this more significant than with memory card performance. It isn't just the basic card capacities that need to rise as you buy higher resolution cameras with more megapixels, but the speed at which they can read/write data. Or rather the speed at which data can be read from them or written to them. The slower these read/write transfer rates are the bigger the problem will become with some of the newer cameras, and in some cases rendering the task undertaken impossible to achieve.

This is particularly so with those cameras now equipped to take HD video of either 720p or 1080p, and the Canon 500D is a prime example of this. Using it's 1080p mode with a 45x SD card only allows for 8 seconds of capture. And this was at the camera's paltry 20fps frame rate (which doesn't really allow for fluid motion video), due to the limitations of it's two-channel read-out of sensor data.

Panasonic 'Class 10' SDHC cards

The latest speed specification to be developed by the SD Card Association is 'Class 10'. This spec builds on those of the current 'Class 6' structure with further enhanced speed performance. Panasonic have been the first maker to launch some Gold series 'Class 10' SDHC cards which will be arriving shortly in 4, 8, 16, and 32Gb capacities capable of up to 22mb/s.

This is an important step because although capacities of the newer high capacity SDHC cards can now match those of the original CF card format now mainly restricted in use to the more professional cameras, CF having been supplanted in most consumer orientated models by the smaller SD/SDHC format, they still lag some way behind CF in terms of speed rating, with the latest CF cards now reaching 200x/300x - 30-45mb/s, the highest speed being reached via UDMA.

With HD video capabilities now increasingly appearing in all types of camera, both digicam and DSLR as well as in many camcorders, where SD/SDHC is the card format in use, cards with faster read/write capabilities are vital if adequate performance is to occur.

Sandisk 32 Gb 'Class 10' SDHC 

Not to be outdone by Panasonic, Sandisk will shortly introduce what is claimed as the worlds fastest 32Gb SDHC card. Like the Panasonic Gold series this adheres to the new SD class 10 specification and reads/writes at up to 30mb/s. It has the capacity to record up to 160 minutes of 1080p HD video at a data transfer rate of 24mb/s. The card will be available from about August and it's introduction underlines just how important fast transfer memory cards are.

HD video formats - recording and editing

With the number of HD video enabled cameras being introduced increasing at a fast rate you'd be forgiven for thinking that this must mean that capturing and editing such video is now easy, and well within the capabilities of most users and their computers. Sadly this is not the case and could well be the cause of much disappointment when this fact is discovered. 

The main file format used for HD video is AVCHD. This has been developed by Sony & Panasonic and is based around the H.264 codec also known as MPEG4 AVC or MPEG4 part 10. Many current HD video capable cameras, camcorders or digicam/DSLR's, use this because it's highly efficient at squeezing good quality video into the least possible space. This means it's ideal for getting the maximum recording time on HD drives and memory cards. However the downside is that this type of compression is harder to edit than the older frame-based video formats such as Mini DV, MPEG2, etc.

Generally MPEG4, (and unlike MPEG2 it's not just one specification but a number of individual one's all classed under the MPEG4 banner), is designed to produce better video than MPEG2 in less space, roughly half. This sounds wonderful, but the problem is the hardware requirements needed both to play video back, and particularly to edit it. Whilst many computers these days have specifications which allow for the fairly easy editing of Mini DV and MPEG2 video this doesn't apply to AVCHD, which needs 2-4x times the processing capabilities, and often still isn't enough.

We have seen reports that suggest that as a result even those with fairly highly specified systems, (a Quad core system with 6Gb ram, 64bit Vista, and a HDD raid array can't really be called an 'average' computer specification even these days), find editing AVCHD format video a bit of a struggle. Others have just given up in disgust. One, after having his high spec Mac laptop take 36 hours to render a 90 min HD movie, has stated he won't touch HD video again. 

So be warned, if you want a camera with HD video capabilities you may find your computer spec when undertaking editing takes you back to the good old days of early photo and video editing where you went away and did other things whilst the computer struggled to undertake the tasks assigned to it. And although most current new video editing applications offer AVCHD editing options it seems that which one you choose to use is vital in this respect, with some performing far better and with greater speed and ease than others. 

It's interesting to note that Pentax have used the older motion-jpeg (mpeg) file format in their new K7 HD video enabled DSLR  rather than AVCHD, as indeed have Nikon with their D5000 and Olympus with the E-P1. The downside is that you need bigger storage space because you get less video footage per Gb. The upside is that editing is much quicker and easier with a wider range of editing suites and lower specified computer systems which form the majority of those in use today, dual-core, single HDD, 32bit O/s systems with perhaps 2-3Gb ram. A reasonable spec these days and quite sufficient for most digital photo needs, but lacking perhaps when AVCHD video of either 1080p or 720p resolution is involved. . 

Pentax K7 - another DSLR with HD video

After a lot of rumour and speculation which has been on-going for some considerable time Pentax have finally revealed the new DSLR about which there has been all the conjecture, the K7. This camera, which is destined to replace the current K20D, is stated as being the start of a new series with an as yet un-named replacement for the K200D apparently due at some stage. 

Perhaps the most noteworthy points are that it is smaller than the K10D/K20D, reflecting the current trend back to smaller cameras again after a period where many have increased in size and weight, being almost as small in height and width as the original ist-D, but fatter and squarer, and has been fitted with HD video capture, the 720p variety, although at 30fps and saved as motion jpeg rather than AVCHD. Beside this there have been a whole raft of detail changes at just about every level and it does seem to be a 'new' camera in most respects as opposed to a refreshed or upgraded model as the K20D was compared to the K10D. The fitment of a larger 3" high resolution 920,000 dot LCD in combination with the smaller size has seen a complete re-design of many of the controls and hard button placements, and for current Pentax K10D/K20D users who upgrade will probably take some getting used to.

Going through the control layout the most significant changes are that the multi-way controller has finally been dumped in favour of individual buttons along with the ditching of the large AF point selection wheel, a much smaller one now surrounding the AF button. The only omission we could find, if you could call it that, is that there is no longer a dedicated anti-shake sensor button/slider switch, anti-shake now being turned on/off through the main camera menu. 

We don't quite know what the significance of this is, whether it indicates Pentax think the system should just really be left 'on' all the time as the default, because diving into the menu to engage/disengage it seems a bit weird, and counter-productive to quick and easy picture taking in just the same way that using the main menu to change metering pattern or AF point with some other cameras can be. We'll admit we tend to leave the IS on our Canon telephoto lenses switched on all the time now as even at high enough shutter speeds a small benefit in respect of sharpness still seems to accrue, but we're not sure this is truly applicable to the shorter focal length lenses, and of course a considerable 'hit' is taken as regards battery power drain when any form of IS is used resulting in less shots per charge. However the K7 also has a new and larger capacity battery pack which could well offset the extra power drain/strain that the new features such as HD video will impose.

There seems to be a lot of good points with regard to the K7, and the fact it's acquired a magnesium alloy body in addition to the stainless steel inner chassis and body sealing puts it firmly in the Canon 50D/Nikon D300 league. And that's where the downside appears, because the price has risen to match those cameras. At roughly double the cost of the current K20D at around £1300 with a standard DA 18-55mm WR lens it might not sell as well, although if the revised specifications and improved processing work, (there's new 4 channel readout from the sensor as well as other things), it might just prove to be a winner.

As always a good performance in respect of image quality can offset high cost, but a poor one can't, no matter how good the general specifications of a camera are, so it will be interesting to see how the Pentax K7 scores in this respect.

Update  -  It now seems that after producing some pre-production K7's which were distributed to magazines/websites etc for evaluation and review purposes Pentax have chosen to fit production cameras with a modified sensor. There is no real indication as to whether the original K7 sensors were to the same specification as those used in the K20D or not. Planned reviews have now been put on hold until such times as Pentax deliver the new sensor specification cameras to allow for revised and updated tests to be carried out.  

This sensor revision poses big questions and means there's still no clear idea as to whether the camera will manage to equal the image quality that others can reach, or beat them. At this late stage it indicates that either a significant problem has been encountered somewhere which impinges badly on image performance which had not shown up before, or an adjustment can improve it to a really marked degree, and enough to justify this action before production proper starts. This could be vital considering the much higher cost of the K7 compared to the current K20D.

New Pentax 18-55mm & 50-200mm WR lenses

To match the new K7 and the other weather sealed/resistant DSLR's Pentax have made to date two new WR versions of the standard 18-55mm and 50-200mm lenses have been announced. This seems a sensible move although we aren't quite sure if these are meant to replace the current offerings or just compliment them. Cheaper basic versions - plastic mount & no manual focus 'quick shift' - are of course already made to be sold in the Pentax K-m DSLR single & double lens kits, (they aren't available separately).

We don't know what the UK prices will be but in USD's these WR lenses are $199 and $249 respectively. This may seem on the expensive side when compared to similar offerings from other makers but when you realize they have metal mounts, the 'quick-shift' system, come with dedicated lens hoods, and of course have that WR sealing besides the markings for focal length and focused distance then they look to be better value. This is especially so as for many users a pair of lenses like these, plus perhaps a macro lens in some cases, is all most really find they need or want to cover most picture taking situations that they face.

Sony A230/330/380 DSLR's

The steady release of new DSLR camera announcements that started weeks after the PMA show finished has been continued by Sony, who have revealed updated models to replace the current A200/300/350 designs. Most comments to date have tended to concentrate on the fact that the core specifications remain unchanged, the A230 having 10.2mp, the A330 adding quick-view and articulated rear LCD, and the A380 gaining a higher resolution 14.2mp sensor, and whilst this is correct it tends to overshadow the fact that some quite substantial changes have been made in some areas.

The almost identical bodies - the main difference is the articulated rear screen - are both smaller and lighter than the current A200/300/350, with much fewer 'hard access' buttons, and are quite different in styling and design. Like the Pentax K7 there is now no anti-shake on/off slider switch, but they have gained an on/off camera switch around the shutter button similar to the designs used by both Pentax and Nikon on their DSLR's. Sony have stated that the cameras have been designed to appeal to first-time DSLR users and the re-styled design and simplified layout would certainly attest to that.

Apart from the re-designed bodies image processing has been improved, and an early review of a A380 would seem to indicate that there has been some small measure of improvement in image quality. Four new better 'standard' lens designs using all-plastic construction and with improved autofocus, which Sony have termed 'SAM' (Smooth Autofocus Motor), have been introduced to go with them. They are 18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm, and 35mm macro. 

For current Sony users perhaps the most telling departure is that support for Compactflash has been dropped in favour of SD/MS slots, and none of the cameras feature a movie mode although they all have HDMI ports. Sony obviously feel that current A200/300/350 owners won't be tempted to move to them and would look at the A700/A900 or their replacements instead. Indeed rumours of a video enabled 17mp replacement for the A700 have been around for a while, and a video enabled DSLR of some kind must surely been on the cards at some stage, given the others that have appeared from other makers.

As with many other DSLR's these cameras seem to be mostly a case of evolution rather than revolution and as we have also stated before is no bad thing when the basics are okay. Currently Sony stand third in DSLR sales behind the big 'two', Canon & Nikon, which shows that their DSLR range hits the right note as regards overall specification, performance, and price. Fighting shy of fitting even the A380 with HD video could also been seen as a sensible move given as nobody is quite sure as to how useful or wanted it actually is. Just because a few demand something or think it's a wonderful addition doesn't necessarily mean the majority of the buying public does, or is willing to spend the extra to get it.

Olympus E-P1 micro 4/3rds camera isn't EVIL at all

Some considerable time after the announcement of the mirror-less micro 4/3rds interchangeable lens mount standard and the arrival of the first cameras to use this, Panasonic's G1 and GH1, comes the official news of the first Olympus camera to be made using this format, the E-P1. 

Unlike the Panasonic offerings this doesn't seem at first glance to aim to be a DSLR camera in disguise, and it isn't and doesn't, it's not an EVIL camera at all, and indeed looks more like a classic compact style camera. But looks can be deceptive, for the camera is a modern version of the classic Olympus Pen F interchangeable lens half-frame film camera's of the 1960's to 1980's, and alongside rangefinders one of the original alternatives to SLR cameras with the ability to change lenses when needed.

Olympus have a long history of producing small cameras, most of which are well known and some of which have become classic cameras of the 1950's to mid 1980's film era. The 35mm OM series of SLR's, the XA rangefinders, and the half-frame Pen's including the interchangeable lens Pen F variants.

Designed to be as small as practicable using current components the E-P1 is effectively an Olympus E-620/E-30 DSLR squeezed into a smaller metal covered body, and featuring a 720p HD movie capture mode - 1280x720 at 30fps saved in m-jpeg format - is as much a contender in the alternative-to-a-DSLR stakes as any other compact type camera, more so in may ways because of the combination of the larger sensor and the ability to change lenses, with two adapters being made that will allow the use of almost any Olympus Zuiko lens ever made, either the current 4/3rds system types or the older 35mm film OM ones.

Although the sensor seems to be the same 12.3mp live MOS one as used in current Olympus DSLR's image processing has been improved with the use of a lighter anti-alias (low-pass) filter than previous cameras combined with a new TruePic V processor, which apparently removes any moire at high frequencies i.e. high resolution without colour fringing. Whilst being quite a bit smaller than the Olympus E450 DSLR, the smallest DSLR currently produced, it also manages to incorporate an anti-shake sensor which the E450 doesn't possess. However it's not all good news. As is often the case something has to give when any attempt to squeeze a quart into a pint pot is made, and in this case it's what missing that's of concern.

One of the main desires of those wishing for a small sized, large sensor camera, is the ability to be able to use it easily and discreetly, and these objectives are harder to achieve with a camera that has no optical finder - you have to use the rear LCD screen for any type of capture, still or movie, nor is there any built-in flash capability. An add-on viewfinder and flashgun will be available but these tend to offset the discrete and pocket-able aspects which such cameras are bought for, as well as markedly increasing the overall cost. 

Personally we can't see the point at all in a camera like this that doesn't have either a viewfinder of some kind, optical or electronic, nor a built-in flash, and these factors may eventually outweigh the advantages the camera has in other areas for those who may be attracted to a camera of this general size and design.

Nikon D5000 v Canon 500D

With several reviews now around, the contest between the two latest HD video enabled 'consumer level' DSLR's from Nikon and Canon would seem to indicate that it's about equal on points, and that one doesn't have any significant advantage over another in general. What is also clear is that the increased resolution of the 500D - 15mp against the D5000's 12.3mp - doesn't bring any real benefit but does seem to hamper it's DR, the highlight range being significantly less.

Of the two the Nikon D5000 is seen as the better camera in general terms, but suffers from it's digicam type control layout, whilst the lower resolution bottom hinged 'flip & twist' rear screen is considered a mixed blessing and a bit of a fudge. The much higher resolution fixed screen of the 500D being generally preferred along with the superior control layout.

Once again it serves to illustrate that these days the differences between various camera makes and models isn't either as great or as significant as it once was just a few years back, it's all swings and roundabouts with no one model having a clear and decisive advantage over another, and that the decision as to which camera to buy is often decided by factors such as the current system used or the memory card type.

Panasonic issues firmware updates for 'battery safety'

Panasonic has released some firmware updates for a growing number of its latest digital cameras, including the GH1, G1, ZS3 and TS1, which has resulted in a growing backlash from it's camera users. When installed the new firmware can identify genuine Panasonic batteries and prevents the use of any third party battery packs. The company says it has taken this move to ensure the safety of its digital camera users against any possible injuries because of overcharging, internal heating, or short circuit, in poorly designed/manufactured/substandard third-party batteries. 

Whilst this seems on the face of it sensible move it has caused something of a furore amongst current and potential Panasonic users and at present it stands accused by many of trying to control the market for spare batteries for it's cameras. What is perhaps worse is that whilst current Panasonic camera users have the simple option of not loading this update if they don't want to, it's not clear as to whether all future production models will include such 'battery safety' firmware as default giving new purchasers no option but to accept this restriction.

Many camera users can't see what all the fuss is about and consider it's simply down to money, the desire not to pay the higher cost of 'proper' makers batteries against the cheaper generic versions made by battery makers themselves, and feel people should take the cost of spare/replacement batteries into account when weighing up which camera to purchase and stop whingeing and whining. 

Were it that simple. The cost factor is only one part of the equation. The greater issue is that once makers have sole control over the manufacture, supply, and use of batteries, then they also control camera obsolescence. Once they decide not to make a particular battery type any longer - and the battery shapes/sizes are being changed/upgraded on a regular basis - then the cameras that use that particular shape/size/capacity effectively become time-use limited and face being obsolete once the current battery no longer holds an effective charge.

Unfortunately, as we have often pointed out in this respect - see our page on  Batteries - this is a problem that affects many digital camera users whatever the particular camera make. Only those cameras which use AA's are currently exempt from this potential problem.

New Mamiya digital backs

Following the recent news that Phase One had taken a controlling share of the medium format camera maker Mamiya comes the announcement of three new Mamiya M series digital backs for the 645AFDIII medium format camera. The M18, M22, and M31 backs are based respectively around 18mp, 22.1mp, and 31.6mp sensors and incorporate 2.2" LCD's featuring a live preview mode.

The M18 has 9µm (micron) pixels on a 44.2mm x 33.1mm sized sensor, the M22 also has 9µm pixels on a larger 48.9mm x 36.7mm sensor,  whilst the M31 has 6.8µm pixels on a same size sensor (44.2mm x 33.1mm) as the M18. Why there are different sensor sizes with the largest sensor resolution on the smaller size, or even two only slightly different resolutions on different sized sensors we don't quite know, it seems a bit illogical to us. 

Of course the advantage of these backs over the current high resolution FF DSLR's from Canon, Nikon and Sony is that the pixel sites are quite a bit larger, producing lower noise and wider DR levels. Anyway, each digital back can either be purchased separately or as part of a 645AFDIII system camera kit which includes a Sekor 80mm F2.8D lens. No prices are yet available.

Phase One in Leaf assets buyout

In a move that looks like a further consolidation of the medium format sector, Phase One have revealed that in conjunction with managers of medium format maker Leaf they are in the process of buying the key elements of the business from owners Kodak. The research, development, and production capabilities along with the brand rights will be acquired by a new company, Leaf Imaging Ltd, which is 100% owned by Phase One, and will have licensed access to Kodak's intellectual property portfolio. The Leaf Aptus range of digital backs will continue to be made and developed by the new company, but the AFi-II camera system will not initially be sold.

This seems like another move in the direction whereby medium format makers are attempting to consolidate their position so that all the various factors surrounding the design, development and manufacture of the cameras they produce are under their direct control rather than the previous system of using outside contractors that existed for so long in the film camera era, but which has caused much grief lately in the digital era when key individual contractors have gone to the wall.

DSLR Lenses - Superzooms v twin-lens combo

We've just read yet another superzoom comparison test, this time between the Canon 18-200mm EFS IS and Tamron's 18-270mm Di II VC LD. Once again the final verdict seems to be the same. The lenses are quite good for what they are and the focal lengths they span using the very latest optical standards, but at the end of the day you pay for the convenience of an all-in-one lens with a reduction in image quality, and at some cost money-wise.

A twin lens set-up, like say a 18-55mm/55-250 EFS combo from Canon, may be seen as less convenient than a superzoom spanning the same focal range owing to the need to swap lenses as required, but will cost far less, since the telephoto will cost on average half of the superzoom, and the shorter focal length lens will probably already exist having come with the DSLR purchased. More to the point the two lenses will each produce better image quality across their respective focal ranges because of the fewer optical compromises needed compared to a superzoom, which needs to have it's aperture stopped down more by comparison, and this factor always seems to be mentioned at the end of any superzoom test.

Another point that is rarely mentioned however, is that despite how much smaller current superzooms are than early examples, they are still fairly big and bulky, especially when zoomed out to maximum telephoto length, are considerably bigger/longer/bulkier than say a 55-250mm at maximum telephoto, and much more so than a simple 18-55mm when used at the shorter focal lengths. And despite appearances aren't quite as versatile either. They can't focus as close at any respective (true) focal length, and thus don't give the magnification ratio's the separate lenses can.

Yes, superzooms appear on the face of it to be very convenient, but this is paid for in a variety of ways, some of which aren't always as obvious as others.

More details on various aspects of lenses in general and DSLR lenses in particular can be found in our  Lenses pages section