Talk:Superzoom

Superzoom cameras?
Some Bridge digital cameras ive hard on marketing may fall under the category of 'superzoom cemeras' and describes as such, due to their large zoom ranger compared to normal compact/Live-preview_digital_cameras.

Some updating needed?
Isn't it getting a little out-of-date now to suggest that 4× zooms and upwards are "unconventionally large"? My camera, for example (a Canon PowerShot A710IS) has a 6× zoom, but is not considered a superzoom, bridge or prosumer model. And that's not even a current model. (Yes, I know this article is about SLRs, but where do cameras like mine fit in? Bridge camera is just not the right place.) Loganberry (Talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very out of date now. 4x is the norm for point and shoots. Many of the more expensive versions have 10x and Bridge Cameras such as the Pentax X70 or Nikon Coolpix P90 both advertise 24x SLR-like (super) zoom. According to the article 20x is high end. Obviously this is so outdated the facts are beginning to be plain wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.200.77 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article to only classify double digit zooms as "superzooms" and removed a lot of low zoom ratio lenses from that huge, superfluous product list. 69.25.29.125 (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis
Added Synthesis tag to the article because there is lots of description of a type of lens (Superzoom) but no reliable (or even unreliable) sources making these claims or describing a class of lens "Superzoom". There needs to be sources describing this as a real type, not a hodgepodge of references to articles or manufacturing docs describing high zoom lenses. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You want to question the article title and its sense?
 * Thats not the right tag for your reason. Again: Inline tags are better, as they can be related to the argument itself.
 * Don't be vague. Find an exact reference if you think there is a reliable source giving the ABSOLUTELY right, FINAL answer.
 * IMHO too much tag and words for a simple figure. Do you like discussions which can never be solved? Tagremover (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Available sources do not use the term "Super Zoom" at all. Recovering one of the unreadable sources shows only usage, no definition. None of these are reliable sources. No published reliable sources and using published sources where the editor has assembled (synthesized) what he/she thinks is proper usage means the ARTICLE "contain(s) previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources". So the tag describes the problem. If you do not want to fix the problem or tag the article so other editors can fix the problem the only other step is AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly unrealistic and pointless. Do you want to delete ship and boat for watercraft? Is this a real question, are you lonely or seeking a quarrel?
 * Fact: Refs and uses for "Superzoom" are plentiful
 * Fact: Article exists since 2004, since 2006 as an own article
 * Fact: YOU will NEVER find an exact definition !
 * Hopefully this helps and is the end of discussion. Tagremover (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: A technology section was planed by me for some time and is done in the next months. Tagremover (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr.. uses (of) "Superzoom" may be valid for Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. You need to read WP:V and WP:RS, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not "sources", no matter how "plentiful" they are. Lots of articles from 2004 have been deleted, age does not = encyclopedic quality. And we are not talking about exact definitions, this article has no definitions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Superzoom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080519180300/http://www.sonystyle.ca:80/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=1004862&navigationPath=32090n100269n100355 to http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=1004862&navigationPath=32090n100269n100355

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OR list
The list in this article is all WP:OR so I am removing it to talk, if someone wants to fulfill WP:BURDEN and supply references, feel free. So far it has NO references, an editor set the parameters, and editors add items based on those parameters. The list is also mostly a WP:LINKFARM. It was correctly removed as "unencyclopedic". "list must follow Wikipedia's content policies" WP:Source list. There was a suggestion it be move to List of super zoom lenses, but that corrects none of the problems. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR history
Per this summary, there is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. Its not a problem of sources generated by "lens manufacturers themselves" (although that is a non-third party sources and also a problem). The problem here is citing sources that are WP:PRIMARY / "close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved" and writing a WP:OR history from that. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". So - if something that happened in 1983 was important then a current reliable secondary source has to say that. You can't cite a primary source from 1983 and then add your own original thought and claim that some event that happened in 1983 was significant. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to edit war over a fundamental misunderstanding of what a secondary source is. Cheers. Mliu92 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The text that has been reverted twice is copied below, with two images retained because citations are embedded, annotated with comments on how the added references support the statements in footnotes:

A superzoom lens, also known as an ultrazoom or all-in-one, is a type of photographic zoom lens with a large zoom ratio, which is the ratio of the longest and shortest focal lengths. Typically, these span the range from wide angle to extreme long lens focal lengths, in one lens.

In general, a superzoom lens is one with a zoom ratio greater than the 3× or 4× (e.g., 28-85 mm or 70-210 mm) of a standard zoom lens, with superzoom lenses typically having a zoom ratio of at least 10×.
 * History and design

The development of superzoom lenses began in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1984, a "superzoom lens" group review for Popular Photography gathered 34 lenses with zoom ratios ranging from 4× to 6×, nearly all released after 1982, but noted "the golden era of the single, all-purpose, superwide-to-supertelephoto lens is not yet here". The use of the term "superzoom" was muddled somewhat after Olympus released a bridge camera, named for "bridging the [market] gap" between point-and-shoots and single-lens reflex cameras, as the Infinity SuperZoom 300 in 1988, as it was equipped with a modest 38–105 mm lens (× zoom ratio).

Early examples of an "all-in-one" lens included Tokina's 35-200 mm lens (× zoom ratio), which was said to "[embody] practically all focal lengths you are likely to need" in 1983. Kiron Lenses released a 28–210 mm (× zoom ratio) superzoom lens in 1985; in the same year, Soligor released a 28–200 mm (× zoom ratio) lens. Tamron is credited with releasing the first autofocus superzoom in 1992, a lens covering 28–200 mm (× zoom ratio) for 35mm film SLRs. The Tamron lens has 16 elements in 14 groups; two aspheric lenses and plastic components made the Tamron superzoom considerably more compact than the earlier Kiron.

Advantages of using a superzoom include compositional flexibility, reduced need to swap lenses, and enhanced portability by consolidating the functionality of multiple lenses into one.

However, due to trade-offs in the optical design, superzoom lenses are noted for having poorer optical quality at the extreme focal length ranges, mostly distortion at max wide angle and long lens ranges. The long focal lengths normally have to be combined with image stabilization.


 * You need to read through WP:PST re: Primary sources - "created during the time period being studied" - "newspaper articles" (in this case we have magazine articles). In this historical essay you have written, you are the historian - i.e. you cite a primary source from a period of time and then make a claim about the significance of that event. In order to verify all of this you have to cite a historian. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have read through WP:PST re: Primary and Secondary sources. I see the exact phrase "created during the time period being studied" has been extracted from the full sentence "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." Selectively quoting "created during the time period being studied" without including "by a participant in the events being studied" creates a narrow definition that restricts contemporaneous sources strictly to being primary sources. I respectfully suggest the full definition should include the important restriction "by a participant". WP:PRIMARY provides the summary definition "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.", which I feel is not particularly clear in making the link between "close to an event" and "accounts written by people who are directly involved" thanks to the WP:WEASEL "are often".
 * WP:PRIMARY also states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:SECONDARY defines a secondary source as "[one that] provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.", which makes no restrictions on the age of what can be considered a secondary source. Contemporaneous articles may be secondary sources, as long as they meet the definition provided. The citations in the proposed copy are reliable, secondary sources, as they are published magazine articles which provide an interpretation of verifiable facts, for example, that a 4-6x zoom ratio (fact) was called a "superzoom" (interpretation) in 1984 (O'Connor (Dec 1984), Pop Photo). The author of the citation (magazine article) is not involved in the event (design / manufacturing of a lens).
 * As I noted in the initial response, I'm not going to re-revert the deletion. I'll leave the "essay" here in Talk to document the use of secondary sources, though. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are missing the concept of a primary source. They depend on context and do not depend on anyone being "directly involved". When you are talking about history then a contemporaneous source is a primary source,it has no "thought and reflection". A reliable secondary source may incorporate some of this material you found but it would be in a book or article written in the last few years by XXXXXX (the notable writer on the topic). None of these sources even come close to that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Tables of Superzooms?
I have removed these added tables. Most of it is original research of commercial webpages and/or unverified, Even when you click through to the linked article. Also a large part of the information and entries are not Superzooms per led def and contained excessive listings of unexplained statistics per WP:NOTSTATS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)