Had to post a reply to congratulate Hercules on his Avatar (having watched the film 300 recently on HD-DVD!)

If a friend asked me the same question as hearing_aid, I would probably recommend the superzoom route first for the many reasons given by the "pro" superzoom posters, i.e., lens flexibility, size, less long term committment to one brand, value, ease of use, etc. If he/she was committed to the idea of a DSLR, or was particularly interested in low light/indoor photography, I'd say go for the DSLR, but then would find it difficult to recommend a particular DSLR and lens combination, and would not want to commit my friend to a unneccessary expense and to one brand.

My DSLR, Superzoom, and pocket digicam all get used regularly - the Nikon D40 DSLR and bounced flash for indoor subjects and special occasions where I can take all the kit, the Sony H5 superzoom with teleconverter for birds and wildlife, and the Fuji F31 digicam for informal and "just in case" shots. With Photoshop processing, they all give acceptable images in good light. The superzoom first route for me was a good learning experience and enabled me to make a better choice on the subsequent DSLR for my useage. All the cameras have given me a lot of satisfaction, but I always did a lot of research on reviews and forums to get advice from experienced photographers.

The DSLR route is the more difficult in choosing the appropriate equipment, involves the higher initial cost (and extra lenses can be tempting, expensive and may not get used much), and requires a higher commitment in learning and post processing of images. Yes, only a DSLR will do in certain situations, but the image quality of the top superzooms is pretty good where plenty of light is available.

Finally, the superzoom route first left me the option of the DSLR to come later - the money spent on the superzoom was not wasted.

1eyedeer wrote: Hey thanks for the comment on the Avatar with my 450D i had the 17-85 and the 70-300 and it was a hassle changing lenses all the time (maybe not to change them) but carrying them around, now i sold them and pulled the plug and bought me the new Tamron 18-270 VC i am really happy with the lens, also have the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 30 1.4 for low light shooting

My turn! :lol:

On the different forums you see fierce debates vrs DSLR & SuperZooms.
So I thought I'd give my input on that as I've had both the DSLR & SuperZoom the past year.

DSLR Pluses:
Interchangeable lenses.
Better images in low light past 400 ISO
Better fast action
RAW images


DSLR Minuses:
EXPENSIVE! (try buying the lenses need to match the 460mm range of a superzoom)
Size and Weight! Too bulky when you have to take all the gear with you, especially if you fly or take a bus.


********************

SuperZoom Pluses:
Light. Excellent for taking on Flights or Buses.
Long zoom ranges
Very inexpensive compared to dslr's
The latest SuperZooms are closing the gap between the DSLR's.

SuperZoom minues:
Poor images after 400 ISO
Not as good in fast action shots
lenses are attached to the body of the camera and cannot be removed.
Many have no RAW feature.


Now my personal experience is when I was using my DSLR Olympus E-510 with three lenses, I found myself leaving the camera home more and more as I didn't want to pack all that gear with me. When I had the superzoom, I found myself taking the camera everywhere as not to miss any potienial shots. So, I sold my DSLR and went back to the SuperZooms.

To Summarize:
If you are a professional photographer or just want to get the ultimate quality photographs, no matter the cost, size or weight then an SLR with a big telephoto lens is the way to go. If however you are not a professional or have deep pockets $$$ and want to take some excellent photography, I would go for a quality Super-zoom camera.

jack55 wrote: I tend to agree with you about the new super zooms getting better, i had the 450D now i sold it and bought the 40D that is amazing also Tamron 18-270 VC, Tamron 17-50, Sigma 30 1.4, and i just bought the Canon 70-300 IS DO lens i think once you get into the dslr world it becomes a disease an addiction that you can't stop oh well, and to top it off i sold my Fuji S100fs (don't know why though) and just bought me the canon SX10 IS that is a pretty good one and the reach 28-560 WOW, but the thing is (i haven't tried it with the SX10 yet) sure in good light outside i get similar IQ but what happens once the sun goes down or on cloudy days, that is where the dslr jumps way ahead, but like i said i want to try it with the SX10 first

An interesting post - one person's very valid point of view. I don't disagree with you in principle, though I'd put some advantages and disadvantages differently.



I used to have the FZ30 and it had raw. I think that there are several other fixed lens cameras that have raw, so I'd delete that as an advantage to a dSLR.

My list would look different. Mine would be:

DSLR Minuses:
Size and Weight
Interchangeable Lenses
Expensive

You don't have to buy everything all at once, and the lenses (your biggest expense) can last 30 or more years. So if you figure in a lifetime of re-buying lenses with fixed lens cameras versus buying the dslr body by itself when upgrading, the greater entry cost (a VERY large entry cost!) isn't as high as on first appearance.

I'd add interchangeable lenses as a minus (as well as a plus). It's more work and takes extra timeto have to change lenses every few shots.

For superzooms, you wrote:

The expense question is somewhat relative, as I mentioned above. Fixed lens cameras have a lower initial cost, certainly.

It's the last statement that I think is interesting. I've been reading that now for the past 3 years or more, and haven't seen it yet. I had originally owned an F717 and it took excellent pictures, though the lens was shorter than I would have liked. I replaced it with an FZ30 and found the image quality on the Sony was better, much more to my liking. And I didn't think the FZ30 was any worse than any other ultrazoom camera on the market at the time - adding all those extra mp didn't do the image quality any good (less dynamic range among other things). I still don't think they've closed the gap much more than they had in the days of the FZ30 (though they are perhaps better than that camera was). That's not to say that many, maybe even most, people won't be satisfied with the image quality froma fixed lens camera. That's a matter of someone's personal taste and all of us are different that way.


I have a feeling that we probably agree with each other about the lenses, but I don't agree with how you worded it (it's a symantics thing). I think having a fixed lens on a camera, one that can't be removed, is an advantage. You don't have to mess with it, you don't have to pay attention to dust. However, it's the fixed focal length of the lens that's a disadvantage - it is what it is, and you can't change it. That, to me, is the disadvantage, not the fact that it can't be removed. In fact, I'd put the fact that the lens can't be removed under superzoom advantages.

Just my opinion,but I'dput the summary like this:

If you wantto have the capability ofthe best image quality under all circumstances, then buy a dSLR. If you willbe happy with the image quality of a superzoom, buy a superzoom. If you aren't willing to compromise on weight, bulk and ease of use, buy a superzoom. If you want to experiment, are gadget oriented and interested in stretchingyour abilities as a photographer, then get a dSLR, pro or not.

I'm no pro I'm a not very good amateur. I love my dSLR, I have no desire to go back to a superzoom, I'm perfectly happy to drag around a backpack full of equipmentjust about everywhere I go. But it's not for everyone.

There is also one other very good use for Liveview.

I have a number different brands of DSLRs (some of them repairs that I've done), and I use the liveview on my Olympus E-510 to help with focusing old manual focus lenses(Nikon, Olympus, Minolta MC/MD, and Tokina AT-X, etc), attached to the camera via adapters. The liveview allows you to magnify the central area, which makes manually focusing thelens quite easy. In my opnion, this is the best use for Liveview.

mtngal wrote: Everyone is different for sure.

I still stand by what I said, (minus the RAW)

I've shot as a pro and amateur for over 40 years, my Dad was a pro and so was his Dad, (by pro, I meant they did it for a living and used Nikons & Medium format in the old days.) I myself have owned and used 30+ cameras over the years... So I know a little bit about it. I had a Olympus DSLR E-510 with 3 lenses for the past year, but got extremely tired lugging the stuff around and losing shots because I had the wrong lens in a given situation and had to change them. The superzoom is great for that. Now I'm firm believer that it is the person behind the camera and not so much the camera that makes the shots. Check out the many photo's I've posted on this forum and they will hold their own with the DSLR gang.

Enough said.

The Sony A200 is a an excellent starter D-SLR. IN fact its what I use to take pictures of fire and rescue related stuff which is part of my job where I live. Get a good lense for it and you have a camers that will give you a lot of options without being overy complicated. Also if you can afford a sandsic Exterme III memory card to go with the purchase I would buy one. The card is very fast and when you start to do action stuff like a swiftwater rescue or sports the card will help keep the burst mode going at a a good speed.

From my experience The tamron 28 - 300 is a good all in one lens to start with and play around with (if you want to get a non kit lense with your camera, I find the kit lenses a litle soft) and an 8GB card will give you 1,850 pictures more than enough for everything except a natural disaster where you loose the ability to up load the pictures to your computer at the end of the day or weekend because the power is out. Thats why I have 2 8GB and a couple older CF cards as backups, just in case something happens and I can;t get back to my computer or the ppwer goes down for a couple of days - yes it happend once to me a few years back ran out of battery power and memory card space. Also the battery in the A200 lasts way longer than Sony tells you it should. I can easily get over 1,000 shots on a full battery charge. 2 Batteries should be more than enough power for a full day of shooting and most likely even a full weekend.

If it was me I would also be looking at Sonys A700 vs A200 not A200 vs A300. Jim C has an A700 and from what I have been reading and hearing its an awesome and great camera and could do as a sports camera. I was on a budget when I got my D_SlR so I ened up with the A200 and love what it does for me.

dave