Hello, may name is Michael and I'm new to the community and am hoping that there might be a few patient veterans that can help me learn to get the most out of my camera. Firstly, I realized too late that I really want a superzoom camera so that I might take photos of the moon and other astronomical objects. The Sony dsc300 and 400 seem to be the best choice for that, but surely I can convert my camera to be able to do the same thing. My question is: can I do it for less than I can buy a new camera? If anybody's listening, please advise. Thanks Btw, I currently have a Nikon d3300 with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses
superzoom
- Thread starter cocoanut
- Start date
Fred Kingston
Senior Member
Well... I'm probably not much help but the maximum focal length of the Sony 400 is about 1200mm... compared to your max. w/the 55-200 at about 300mm...at the Sony price point of <$450... I don't think there's much you can do to "convert" your D3300 to that...
You don't coinvert a dSLR. You need to get a longer lens, something like a 70-300 maybe. the focal length of a lens describes it's field of view, so your 18-55 is a wide angle to normalish lens. Your 55-200 on the other hand is a decent telephoto at 200. So the larger the number the closer objects can appear vs a smaller focal length. For your D3300 you will want a telephoto lens that goes out to 300mm or further. The D3300 can do it, you just need the right lens. 
nikonpup
Senior Member
do a search in nikonites "moon shots" lots of good shots with a 70-300mm zoom. What are the "astronomical" shots you want to take? Your 18-55mm @ 18mm will work for star shots if you can find a area the is dark at night. Good images processing software will be of great help. Lots of info on the web.
Imo you would be better off staying with your dslr than going to a superzoom camera.
Imo you would be better off staying with your dslr than going to a superzoom camera.
Yeah, your D3300 would need a 800mm lens to actually match the view in the 215mm 50x lens. FWIW, we can buy a Tamron 150-600mm lens for about $1000.
Comparing numbers:
Full frame sensor, crop factor 1x, 1200mm equivalent focal length
D3300 DX, crop factor 1.5x, 800mm equivalent focal length
DSC300, crop factor 5.58x, 215 mm focal length super zoom.
However, the Sony sensor is very small (7.82mm diagonal) and the D3300 is a much larger sensor (28.2 mm diagonal, 3.7x larger already). The tiny sensor lets a 50x zoom be feasible. I think Nikons max zoom is the 18-300mm DX lens, which is "only" 16x zoom. I say "only", that is still very extreme range for the larger camera (and costs $1000).
But let's instead discuss the 200mm lens you already have.
The tiny DSC300 sensor means you have to enlarge it 3.7x larger just to to view at the same size as the D3300 already larger image... like to print the same 8x10 inch prints for example. We could of course print the D3300 image enlarged 3.7x more too. So speaking of the entire full frame view, your 200 mm lens already compares that way, as a 200 x 3.7x = 740mm equivalent result (if compared to the DSC300 print). So my notion is that you are already just about there. The larger sensor will offer less noise at high ISO too. Certainly I would try to compare test prints before actually buying the replacement.
More elaboration in case I did not confuse it enough...
Two numbers here:
3.5x is the magnification difference of 215mm lens on DSC300 and a 200mm lens on the D3300. (200/215) x (5.58/1.5) = 3.46x
3.7x is the frame size difference, D3300 is a larger image than the tiny DSC300. (5.58 crop/ 1.5 crop) = 3.7x
Saying, comparing the 215 mm DSC300 zoom to the 200mm D3300 zoom would compare as being a 3.5x larger view, say on the video monitor screen. The DSC300 is a 3.5x longer equivalent zoom, on a sensor 3.7 smaller. You would see this view as a 3.5x larger zoom, in favor of the DSC300. Comparing images at the same size, you would be certain that the DSC300 was 3.5x greater magnification, which is your goal.
But to do that, these must be enlarged differently, the DSC300 image is smaller, and necessary enlarged more. Which might not be noticeable on a monitor screen, because both have to be resampled greatly smaller to fit on the video screen anyway. If both are shown full screen size, they are enlarged very differently, but details in the DSC300 view will appear 3.5x larger. Because if you view them at the same size, the DSC300 already has been enlarged 3.7x more.
But it means that you can also enlarge the D3300 image 3.7x more, to still be at the same enlargement as the DSC300 image (D3300 has 3.7x more capability to be enlarged before it loses resolution). So in that way, you are already about there. First glance may not see this, but a little reason and thinking should see it.
Just enlarge the D3300 200mm image 3.7x more, and you're there. Justified because the DSC300 image has already been enlarged 3.7x more to view at same size. I am not really a fan of the superzoom idea.
If doing sky images of stars, like star trails or the milky way, your current 18mm lens on D3300 would be the best view (to see a lot of sky). An f/2.8 lens would be a big plus for stars. And 12mm would see more sky.
You could only use greater magnifications for like the moon, or arguably maybe Jupiters moons, but not that many other choices. A telescope for the D3300 would more more ideal for other than stars. An 1800 mm lens would make the moon fill the full height of your D3300 frame, so a 200 mm lens would fill 1/9 of the frame height. Which of course you can crop and enlarge to view it.
The moon should fill about 38% of the frame height on the 215mm 50x superzoom (assuming it offers 4:3 still pictures).
Comparing numbers:
Full frame sensor, crop factor 1x, 1200mm equivalent focal length
D3300 DX, crop factor 1.5x, 800mm equivalent focal length
DSC300, crop factor 5.58x, 215 mm focal length super zoom.
However, the Sony sensor is very small (7.82mm diagonal) and the D3300 is a much larger sensor (28.2 mm diagonal, 3.7x larger already). The tiny sensor lets a 50x zoom be feasible. I think Nikons max zoom is the 18-300mm DX lens, which is "only" 16x zoom. I say "only", that is still very extreme range for the larger camera (and costs $1000).
But let's instead discuss the 200mm lens you already have.
The tiny DSC300 sensor means you have to enlarge it 3.7x larger just to to view at the same size as the D3300 already larger image... like to print the same 8x10 inch prints for example. We could of course print the D3300 image enlarged 3.7x more too. So speaking of the entire full frame view, your 200 mm lens already compares that way, as a 200 x 3.7x = 740mm equivalent result (if compared to the DSC300 print). So my notion is that you are already just about there. The larger sensor will offer less noise at high ISO too. Certainly I would try to compare test prints before actually buying the replacement.
More elaboration in case I did not confuse it enough...
Two numbers here:
3.5x is the magnification difference of 215mm lens on DSC300 and a 200mm lens on the D3300. (200/215) x (5.58/1.5) = 3.46x
3.7x is the frame size difference, D3300 is a larger image than the tiny DSC300. (5.58 crop/ 1.5 crop) = 3.7x
Saying, comparing the 215 mm DSC300 zoom to the 200mm D3300 zoom would compare as being a 3.5x larger view, say on the video monitor screen. The DSC300 is a 3.5x longer equivalent zoom, on a sensor 3.7 smaller. You would see this view as a 3.5x larger zoom, in favor of the DSC300. Comparing images at the same size, you would be certain that the DSC300 was 3.5x greater magnification, which is your goal.
But to do that, these must be enlarged differently, the DSC300 image is smaller, and necessary enlarged more. Which might not be noticeable on a monitor screen, because both have to be resampled greatly smaller to fit on the video screen anyway. If both are shown full screen size, they are enlarged very differently, but details in the DSC300 view will appear 3.5x larger. Because if you view them at the same size, the DSC300 already has been enlarged 3.7x more.
But it means that you can also enlarge the D3300 image 3.7x more, to still be at the same enlargement as the DSC300 image (D3300 has 3.7x more capability to be enlarged before it loses resolution). So in that way, you are already about there. First glance may not see this, but a little reason and thinking should see it.
Just enlarge the D3300 200mm image 3.7x more, and you're there. Justified because the DSC300 image has already been enlarged 3.7x more to view at same size. I am not really a fan of the superzoom idea.
If doing sky images of stars, like star trails or the milky way, your current 18mm lens on D3300 would be the best view (to see a lot of sky). An f/2.8 lens would be a big plus for stars. And 12mm would see more sky.
You could only use greater magnifications for like the moon, or arguably maybe Jupiters moons, but not that many other choices. A telescope for the D3300 would more more ideal for other than stars. An 1800 mm lens would make the moon fill the full height of your D3300 frame, so a 200 mm lens would fill 1/9 of the frame height. Which of course you can crop and enlarge to view it.
The moon should fill about 38% of the frame height on the 215mm 50x superzoom (assuming it offers 4:3 still pictures).
Last edited:
The focal length, combined with the sensor or film size, determines FOV. Focal length alone does not.