A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 5th 06, 10:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dennis Pogson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

wrote:
I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).

The main things I'm looking for a
- Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
which is nice)
- Good image quality

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?
- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations
vs. the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big
difference?

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

Thanks!


It's not the cost of the DSLR plus lenses, but the cost of the SUV you have
to buy to carry all this stuff. If you already have an SUV, then all you
need in addition to the photographic equipment is a wheelbarrow, so that
when you reach your destination, you can proceed to areas which the SUV
can't reach. Some people use a large backpack, the one's with a metal frame.

Another option is to engage the services of a coolie or sherpa, but they are
demanding Union rates these days. Illegal imigratnts come a little cheaper.

Buy a superzoom. I have a Panasonic FZ30, and although it is by no means
pocketable, it does all I ask of it.

Dennis.


  #12  
Old September 5th 06, 12:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Graham Fountain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 162
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

wrote:
i shoot my artwork, and send off the hi-res images to printers for
magazine ads and invites. so this is what i noticed.....

for my needs,,,right now,,,,dslr's are a pain in the @ss.

i need at least 8mp for a 300dpi print quality 8x10. i don't for a
second believe a 6mp dslr is as good as an 8mp advanced p&s. the image
quality might be better, but an 8x10 print is an 8x10 print, and with
300dpi that means at least an 8mp camera.

With entry level DSLR's at 8MP (eg Canon 350D), this is a moot point
anyway, but even if entry level DSLR's were still at 6MP, it's the
quality of the pixels that counts. 6 million good pixels beat 8 million
average pixels. There may be a handful of situations where an 8 p&s will
beat a 6 dslr, but only very few.

the dslr has a better more subtle value/color range, but a p&s gives me
what i want.

that's fine. but p&s is quite limited in the dynamic range and colour
accuracy. it's good enough for some needs, not good enough for a lot of
needs.

because i focus in on artwork, i prefer the manual focus on my lumix
fz30. with the dslr's i pretty much would have to depend on their auto
focus, unless i change the screen.

Firstly, AF in a DSLR is significantly better than in a P&S. It is far
faster, and far more accurate. On manual focus, the focussing screens in
DSLR's are a long way short of the focus screens of older 35mm cameras.
They are duller, lack microprisms etc. But, despite those limitations, I
haven't seen a P&S that comes close to a DSLR for manual focus. Despite
the DSLR viewscreens being quite ordinary, they are still a zillion
times better than anything using an EVF. If manual focussing ability was
the only criteria, and I had to choose between an olympus e500 (the
worst viewscreen I've seen in an SLR) and something like a Pana FZ30,
I'd take the Olympus any day.

if you have to ask about a noticeable quality difference in images,
then an advanced p&s is all you need.

that's a bit simplistic. in daylight on full auto, there may not be any
significant difference. Move to low light, or try to be a little more
artistic with a blurred background on a portrait, and you need a DSLR.

the only advantage i can think of is if you buy into a dslr system, you
can use the lenses and just buy better bodies in the future, but buying
into a system = more money to spend.

It only costs more if you let it. For many people, a basic kit in the
form of a body, kit standard zoom, and kit telephoto zoom, is all they
ever need. Such a combination will still blow away anything in the P&S
category for image quality. But if my photography desires change and I
now want a 24mm wide angle, or a true macro, or a flash with a GN 50, by
buying into an SLR, you can add that extra feature simply by buying the
appropriate lens/accessory. Find that you regularly go to shoot kids
plays where the room lighting is a bit dark? easy, go buy a 50/1.4 or
85/1.4. You don't have that option with a p&s.

the lumix uses a leitz, the sony(dsc-r1) uses a zeiss,,,and the cameras
look cool.

of course looks is the most important part of a camera. BTW, panasonic
don't use a leica lens, and sony don't use a zeiss lens. panasonic use a
panasonic manufactured lens and sony use a sony manufactured lens. These
lenses are manufactured according to designs from leica and zeiss. Can't
tell you if they are manufactured to the same tolerance that leica and
zeiss would normally use.

check out steve's digicams and image resource for great comparative
sample images.

and you will find the scales tip heavily toward DSLR's.

  #13  
Old September 5th 06, 01:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
bugbear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

Pete D wrote:
LOL, this is all wrong!


You top-post a convincing argument, backed by facts, sir. (*)

BugBear

(*) Sarcasm, obviously
  #14  
Old September 5th 06, 04:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
acl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,389
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

Graham Fountain wrote:
Firstly, AF in a DSLR is significantly better than in a P&S. It is far
faster, and far more accurate. On manual focus, the focussing screens in
DSLR's are a long way short of the focus screens of older 35mm cameras.
They are duller, lack microprisms etc. But, despite those limitations, I
haven't seen a P&S that comes close to a DSLR for manual focus. Despite
the DSLR viewscreens being quite ordinary, they are still a zillion
times better than anything using an EVF. If manual focussing ability was
the only criteria, and I had to choose between an olympus e500 (the
worst viewscreen I've seen in an SLR) and something like a Pana FZ30,
I'd take the Olympus any day.


This I have never understood. I have never (not once) managed to
accurately focus using just the screen on any SLR. Not on my D200, not
on my 7xi, not on my XD7. I also have never managed to accurately judge
DOF on any of these, despite years of use (well the 7xi has no DOF
preview, but the others do). Yet I keep reading people say they focus
using only the screens (without split-screen or other aids). Am I
missing something? I mean, I can get focus in the ballpark, but always
found that I could easily spot that it was out of focus when I projected
the slides. Not to mention 100% crops in digital.
  #15  
Old September 5th 06, 04:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
D Russell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

wrote:

I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).

The main things I'm looking for a
- Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
which is nice)
- Good image quality

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?
- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

Thanks!


There is never going to be a happy consensus here one way or the other,
there are a lot of people who will say dSLR, dSLR, dSLR despite never
really knowing why they bought one in the first place, they just read
someone that dSLR is better, hence must get one of those.

Then there are a lot of folks who simply don't know what they really want
and they might buy anything someone else recommends, i've seen so many
people with "fashionable" cameras that really don't perform anywhere near
as well as a "quality P&S".

As one other person here noted, the camera is no where near the most
important item in a photographers bag. The best camera, dSLR, or large
format film, in the world, will never make up for someone who simply cannot
take a good picture.

Personally, and that's all it is, my opinion, and for me. I bought a DSC H2,
because it was a step up on my years old 2MP camera, it has all the
controls I needed, it was affordable and didn't require any other outlay
(except the memory card).

Having bought the H2, i've found I can take pictures that knock the socks
off several of my friends all of whom have either D70's or 350D's. That
alone can easily justify my decision, imo.

So, finally, i'd say you're best bet really would be to buy a nice P&S
"first" and if you find that it is limited, or it isn't performing the way
you wanted, then consider going the dSLR route. Since IF it can do
everything you need, you'll have saved yourself a lot of money.

Duncan

p.s. As I tried to point out several times, these are just my opinions, if
you want to take umbridge at anything within feel free :-)

  #16  
Old September 5th 06, 05:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Ortt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?


So, finally, i'd say you're best bet really would be to buy a nice P&S
"first" and if you find that it is limited, or it isn't performing the way
you wanted, then consider going the dSLR route. Since IF it can do
everything you need, you'll have saved yourself a lot of money.


But if it doesn't you will loose a fair bit more money than you would have
if you went for the dSLR in the first place........

One thing which you should seriously considder is buying a second hand dSLR
so somebody else takes the first owner depreciation hit and then start
buying the lenses you want as and when you want them. That way you can
upgrade the body in a few years and still have a great set of lenses.

There is no right or wrong answer.

dSLR's give you infinate flexibility but at considderable expense and
weight.

P&S give a competent package at an excellent cost but there is no upgrate
path (other than part-ex or the bin)

I have owned a number of P&S's in addition to a dSLR and each has it's own
merits and pitfalls.


  #17  
Old September 5th 06, 10:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Newshound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

Exactly what I would have written. FWIW I use P&S, and I love the image
stabilisation on my S2 which lets you hand hold at 72 mm (equivalent of 420
on 35 mm) at 1/60 or so.


  #18  
Old September 6th 06, 12:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Vidar Grønvold
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

On 4 Sep 2006 17:57:08 -0700, wrote:

I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).


Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?
- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?


Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?


I'm planning to go dSLR myself. Pentax k100d I think. That's a
rather small cam with built-in stabilzation. I have some small
p&s like Canon A620 and Samsung NV3 which can give me good macro
shots without flash in low light, but ONLY if I put the camera on
a tripod. A dSLR will be more problematic to carry. The image
quality as such may not be so much better, but the WAY BIGGEST
advantage , IMO, will be the ability to control depth of field
(with a large aperture lens). Lots of shots becomes much more
interesting with blurred background because the main subject is
what the photo is about and you don't want a lot of things in
the background busying and messing up the pic. I have tried to
blur backgrounds in an editor, but that bokeh looks like ****.
Old primes for Pentax can be had on ebay for 50 dollars. You
don't have to carry around a lot of lenses either. Pick e.g an
50mm f1.4, zoom with your feet, and accept that you are limited
to what the lens you carry can do. You miss some, but get great
shots.

--
regards
Vidar Grønvold

  #19  
Old September 6th 06, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

wrote:

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?


Go to www.dpreview.com and go to the galleries for the cameras you are
interested in. Download a couple of images for each and print them.

What I see is that at 8x10, the 8MP dSLRs are noticeably better than
anything with a small sensor. Whether that "noticeably" is "significant" for
you is definately in the YMMV area.

- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?


The difference is _huge_ in the range from 50mm to 150mm equivalent, since
lenses such as the Sigma 30/1.4, Canon or Nikon 50/1.4, and Canon or Nikon
85/1.8 are superb and (somewhat) affordable.

At the long end of things, the (US$700 or so) Canon 70-300/4.0-5.6 IS lens
will easily _edge out_ the super zooms, but if your superzoom is f/2.8 at
the long end you are using most of the ISO advantage on the dSLR to make up
for the slower lens. Some of the recent superzooms are slower at the long
end, so the dSLRs are pulling noticeably ahead.

The dSLRs in general produce better images at ISO 1600 than the superzooms
produce at ISO 400. And you can put fast lenses on a dSLR. For example, the
Canon 50/1.4 lens on the 300D or 350D at ISO 1600 is seriously amazing for
portraits and concerts where you can get close to the stage. (Note that this
doesn't apply to the 10MP and higher Nikons. Those cameras have trouble at
ISO 1600. We'll see how the 10MP Canon 400D does. If you are interested in
low light, grab a 350D before they're gone.)

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?


DSLRs are expensive*, heavy, and changing lenses is a pain.

*: More accurately, dSLRs aren't so much expensive as a monster sinks of
money afterwards, since there are so many fun lenses to buy.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #20  
Old September 6th 06, 09:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

Vidar Grønvold wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 17:57:08 -0700, wrote:

I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).


Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?
- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?


Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?


I'm planning to go dSLR myself. Pentax k100d I think. That's a
rather small cam with built-in stabilzation. I have some small
p&s like Canon A620 and Samsung NV3 which can give me good macro
shots without flash in low light, but ONLY if I put the camera on
a tripod. A dSLR will be more problematic to carry. The image
quality as such may not be so much better, but the WAY BIGGEST
advantage , IMO, will be the ability to control depth of field
(with a large aperture lens). Lots of shots becomes much more
interesting with blurred background because the main subject is
what the photo is about and you don't want a lot of things in
the background busying and messing up the pic. I have tried to
blur backgrounds in an editor, but that bokeh looks like ****.
Old primes for Pentax can be had on ebay for 50 dollars. You
don't have to carry around a lot of lenses either. Pick e.g an
50mm f1.4, zoom with your feet, and accept that you are limited
to what the lens you carry can do. You miss some, but get great
shots.

Zoom with your feet? Try that getting a good shot of the Bainbridge
ferry, or the north side of the Grand Canyon from the Arizona side....
Grin.

I can't carry a heavy DSLR, and kit of lenses anymore (wouldn't when I
could), so I use a P&S can find that the pictures I get are vastly
better than no pictures at all. Not the solution for everyone, but the
one that works for me.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Studios Shift to Digital Movies jeremy 35mm Photo Equipment 0 July 24th 06 08:26 PM
Digital Stock /Footage & Clips CDs, updated 24/Jan/2006 [email protected] Digital Photography 8 February 3rd 06 04:00 AM
The digital zoom myth busted bob Digital Photography 14 October 28th 04 01:01 PM
FA: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1 Digital camera with Leica 12X optical zoom lens Marvin Culpepper General Equipment For Sale 0 October 15th 04 01:05 AM
FA: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1 Digital camera with Leica 12X optical zoom lens Marvin Culpepper 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 15th 04 01:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.