Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 1, 2013, 4:49 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7
Default high end bridge (super zoom) or low end dslr?

Hi guys,

I've been reading the forum for some time and know this is the best place to ask my question - so here goes.

Is it better to buy a high end super zoom type camera (eg canon sx50 or pana fz200) or a low end dslr (eg canon rebel t4i or nikon d3200) ?

I don't want to carry multiple lenses and am more of a point and shoot type of person. However, i do want a certain amount of control such as sp, and ap etc and want the ability to take good quality HD video (eg of my baby).

Picture quality in low light, fast shots (for those instant moments), and the before mentined HD video are what are of greatest importance to me. Weight and portability are also important factors.

So what would you recommend for me?

Last edited by mssurrey; Mar 1, 2013 at 4:52 PM.
mssurrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 1, 2013, 4:58 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

It really comes down to what you shoot, if you shoot in low light environment and stay in flash range superzooms work well. But when you venture out of flash range they run into issue as IQ goes down rapidly.

If you shoot moderation action. The AF systems in them are still not great for that. The dslr AF with a decent lens can do a much better job. Sports shooting will get expensive with a dslr. Completely out of the realm of the point and shoot.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2013, 6:00 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7
Default

I shoot mainly family gatherings/people, architecture, and landscape/(day and night). That's really all I do - i'm not into sports photography, scenes, wildlife, etc

Flash will be mainly for people in low light - the rest are high ISO with slow shutter speed type shots on a tripod.

I see that the FZ200 was a wide apertue throughout the zoom range - you don't think this is as good as a good lens on a dslr?
mssurrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2013, 6:17 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

In high iso, they just do not preform well after 800iso. If your night stuff is on a tripod. You can get away with lower iso long shutter speed.

The fz200 has a fast aperture of 2.8 on the wide end. With low light 4.5 is not fast at all on the long end.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2013, 6:27 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The fz200 has a fast aperture of 2.8 on the wide end. With low light 4.5 is not fast at all on the long end.
I was under the impression that it had an f2.8 throughout the zoom range ??? In any case, it seems that you're more inclined towards a low end dslr....

Also I should make it clear that although i'm not into sports photography I do need to shoot fast scenes (eg kids running around).
mssurrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2013, 6:41 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Low light a big sensor is a big advantage when it comes to iso. The current dslrs all can shoot well at 3200iso, and decent at 6400iso when match with a fast lens. Zooms of 2.8 are expensive though. And primes are limiting for some. So if you can accept the low light limitations, the superzooms are very hand to have. And can give allot of reach out on a budget.

The af systems are better the just 2 years years ago. So in good lighting they can catch a good shot of kids running aroung. But they can not track kids running that well still. And if they are running indoors, the low light really hinder the contrast base af system to get a fast spoton focus.

You seems to be asking allot from a superzoom. And 2 things you indicated are not in their strong suite at all.

If you did not really need those 2 things. And you shoot in good outdoor light, the superzooms do a good job. And they are pretty small and easy to carry around. And for some that is the key thing. A camera that you do not have with you due to the size can be great, but can not capture any quality photos if you do not have it with you.

But that said, for what you want a dslr is the better option.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Mar 2, 2013 at 4:49 AM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2013, 4:38 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,440
Default

Much of what you ask depends on your expectation levels- and to a certain degree,output- such as print sizes,etc...
If you go the DSLR route- and portability is an issue- then you're pretty much stuck with what lens you choose to put on it.
Yes,they have the larger sensor and the better high iso capability,but again- much is governed by the lens attached.
As an "all rounder",the FZ-200 is frankly unsurpassed- fast AF,quick continuous modes,good movie capture,the very fast f/2.8 lens throughout the full 25-600mm zoom range and all the manual control you could want. Plus the handy tilt/swivel LCD,the option to add a microphone,external flash,lens converters etc makes the FZ Panny quite a versatile tool.
Indoor use with no flash however,would be a struggle with moving subjects as their contrast detection AF's need good light to work well- and even with a "low end" DSLR you'd ideally need a faster lens than the usual kit lens affair to deliver good results in that environment.
Possibly one of the better budget DSLR options would be one of the SLT Sony's- as they have built in IS (keeping lens prices down) and are one of the best with regards movie capture.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2013, 4:47 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mssurrey View Post
I was under the impression that it had an f2.8 throughout the zoom range ??? In any case, it seems that you're more inclined towards a low end dslr....

Also I should make it clear that although i'm not into sports photography I do need to shoot fast scenes (eg kids running around).
PS, I goof, I was thinking about the fz150, the fz200 is a 2.8 throughout the range.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2013, 2:03 PM   #9
Member
 
JPW2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Sussex, U.K.
Posts: 48
Default

I had the same decision to make about 4 years ago.Then I had a Panasonic FZ50 then one of the best superzooms for image quality, but NOT good in low light.I was looking to change to a DSLR but had some reservations.

To state the obvious, the main attraction of the superzoom is, well..., the zoom.This type of camera is also smaller and lighter than a DSLR.

My concern on moving to a DSLR was would I miss the long zoom? Short answer is no, I didn't. Looking at your requirements I don't think you will either so provided you can accept the DSLR will be a little bigger and heavier than a superzoom DSLR is probably the way to go for you for all the reasons mentioned in the earlier posts.
__________________
“Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase”.
Panasonic DMC-FZ1000
Sony RX100
JPW2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2013, 2:50 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,533
Default

G'day MS

May I add to the mix and "confuse" you some more
In the household we [she & I] have multiple superzooms & multiple dSLRs

I love my superzoom camera and it travels with me everywhere BUT ...

I also have a Panny G2 with its 14-140mm lens and it is absolutely 'great mate'
- it's light, much lighter than any Ca-Ni-kon system
- the sensor is a 4/3rds sensor - much bigger than the superzoom and smaller than the APS in the Ca-Ni-kon suite of cameras, and
- it's fast in action & focus & other stuff as well

So it might me the sort of mid-way-system that will do what you want
Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Google me at Travelling School of Photography Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
0
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:48 AM.




SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2