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

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!

The first question you need to answer is do you want to carry around the
lenses for the dSLR, you will need at least two to match what you can get
with a 12X super zoom. BTW I am in the same boat except I already have had a
Panasonic FZ20 and I currently have the 30. Now I am trying to decided if a
dSLR like the Sony a100 (it has OIS built-in to body so all lenses are OIS)
or go for the FZ50 which I currently have on loan from Panasonic. I went out
today and took some shots with the 50 to see if it is something I could live
with. My backyard shots have left me wondering if the 50 is worth the
upgrade from the 30.

If I go for dSLR I will loose zoom as I plan to have only one lens for it
probably something like a 28-200 or something close to that. Even with the
1.6 crop factor that is much less zoom than my Panasonic. Since I use zoom a
lot it is a concern.

The reason I am considering a dSLR again (I had a 20D and hated it) is
because I like the lower noise at higher ISO and I like the increased depth
of field. The super zooms with the small sensors make it hard to get good
depth of field using full auto. I can do ok fooling with the aperture
priority mode but I really don't want to go that route all that often.

R


wrote in message
oups.com...
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!

You get alot for your money with the 12x zooms. The H5 set at 5mp it is
14x optical zoom or 504mm equivilant. Add on the 1.7x telephoto lens and
you get 856mm equivilant. Panasonic offers the same Smart Zoom feature,
Canon does not. For what you get with 12x zooms you would pay 5-10x that
for a dslr and not get Lcd preview, no sensor dust, and probably no
image stabilisation. For lowlight the H5 works fine with up to 30
seconds shutter and an upgraded noise reduction. Its to bad they have no
Bulb setting. True iso performance is better and other parameters have
more options with a Dslr. But super zooms do very well at what they do
for little cost. Its an optimised package. I use the H5.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

LOL, this is all wrong!

wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Pete D wrote:
LOL, this is all wrong!

ok....explain. i admit a lack of info. it's just my explanation of what
I need.

Pete D wrote:
LOL, this is all wrong!

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

BugBear

(*) Sarcasm, obviously

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.

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.

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?

In some situations, yes, in some, no.

- 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?

Yes. ISO 1600 on most dSLRs has less noise than ISO 400 on many (most?)
P&S cameras. Some dSLRs are still better at 3200 than P&Ss at 400. Plus,
you can get lenses for the dSLR that have much larger apertures than the P&S
camera. The ISO alone will give you 4x the light sensitivity, and a good
lens can double (or even quadruple) that again, giving you 8x to 16x.

However... because dSLR sensors are larger, the lenses have to be
commensurately larger, and are much more expensive. You're going to shell
out a LOT more money, and carry around gear that is MUCH larger and heavier.
And spending a bunch of money on a dSLR doesn't do you nearly as much good
if you're only going to stick a cheap, crappy lens on it.

Also, rememeber that the dSLR won't make you a better photographer. A
poorly-composed snapshot that's entirely devoid of noise isn't really of any
more use than a poorly-composed snapshot with a good amount of noise. And a
good photographer with a P&S will take vastly better pictures than a
beginner with $10,000 worth of dSLR gear.

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

Many, but we don't know if they apply to you. As
off-of-the-top-of-my-head examples, if you want fast shutter response, there
are only a couple of P&S that will do. On the other hand, maybe you don't
like carrying around a big bag full of photo gear when you go on vacation.
Maybe you don't want to spend $600 or more on a camera, and then have to
spend nearly that much again (or more) on lenses. There are a lot of ups
and downs to each.

steve