Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (
-   -   fz50 or canon 400d with sigma? (

stefanojoy Oct 12, 2006 6:23 AM

Hey guys,

I know this isa stupid question you think I will be able to get better shots with an fz50 or a canon 400d with a 28-300 sigma or tamron lens? Is a good ultra zoom camera bettar than a good dslr camera body+cheap lens?

I found the 400d camera body at a very good price and I don't know what to do.

What do you think?

kenmck15 Oct 12, 2006 6:26 AM

just generally speaking, i upgraed from a pana fz30 to the canon 350d and personally i feel the shots are signifcantly better. I find the dslr easier to use and image quiality is outstanding.

Without a doubt the pana did a great job but after owning a dslr now, i realise the differences.

I guesss you cant realy appreciate teh dslr until you havent used one

i wold go the 400d hands down


stefanojoy Oct 12, 2006 9:56 AM

Mmmmm... so you think that a dslr is better than a very good prosumer even with a chep lens like sigma or tamron? I'd like to have an all in one solution, so if I will choose the 400d I will buy a 28-300 lens.... or something like that.... do you still think dslr+sigma 28-300 will be better than fz50 with leica lens?

I'm really torn between these two choices....

bobbyz Oct 12, 2006 10:28 AM

what kind of things you shoot? Do you really need 300mm? Single lens solution like 28-300 is never good, too many compromises.

robbo Oct 12, 2006 10:53 AM

I have a Pentax *ist DS and also have a Sigma 28-300 lens. The lens is ok, especially when you use smaller apertures. But as was said earlier, most serious photographers don't like such zooms because they produce soft or distorted images at either the wide angle or zoom end. I don't mind. Photography is just a hobby for me .

I would say that the FZ-50 might produce great images in daylight, but the D80 plus Sigma (or Tamron) zoom lens would be better in low light.

If you really want the D80 and want the big zoom, consider the 70-300mm lenses. There are some not so expensive ones out there and usually the images are a little sharper throughout the entire zoom range. You can probably get an inexpensive kit lens to cover the wide angle (18 to 50mm or 18 to 70mm) range.

JohnG Oct 12, 2006 12:19 PM

It depends what you are going to use it for. A DSLR is not a magic point-n-shoot camera. It's just not. Assuming the 400d is of advertised quality (no reason to think it will be a dud) then it is a significantly better camera than the fz50. But, depending on what you want to shoot you may or may not realize any benefit without a better lens AND more work on your part.

I'm disinclined to recommend a DSLR to anyone who wants a 'better' point and shoot. It's a waste of your money because quite honestly you're not using the tool the way it was built to be used. So, you're going to get a larger, heavier camera and if you're wanting just a single lens and (I'm guessing) wanting to shoot in auto-mode you're probably not going to realize a significant increase in quality. It's like driving a Porsche but staying in first gear. Yes the porsche is a wonderful machine but not if you're just going to drive it in first gear. Same with a DSLR.

tmoreau Oct 12, 2006 12:37 PM


Without a doubt the pana did a great job but after owning a dslr now, i realise the differences.

I guesss you cant realy appreciate teh dslr until you havent used one
Ditto, I went from a Minolta A1 to 5D (same types of cameras) and sugest that your better off with a DSLR and/or a pocket-size camera. The ones in the midle... not such a great compromise usually. Then again, if your not driven to explore and learn more about photography, you would probably be happy coasting with a fixed lens cam. See JohnG's comments about point and shoots.

I had a tamron 28-300mm lens and it performed very well (I used it at f/6.3 nearly all the time), but had some limitations as far as auto-focusing and low-light compared to primes (an unfair but realistic comparison). Rumors are that this tamron performed better than its competition, but I cant verify that. I would opt for a 18-200 though to get the wide angle, 28mm is not wide enough in general. Image quality could be a little better with better lenses, but will generally still be better and more flexible than with a fixed lens camera. Camera operation is much more important, and in my opinion there is no comparison at all.

I would also question if you need that much reach... but then when I had it I seemed to find lots of opertunity to use it.

A couple shots from my 5D with tamron 28-300 at f/6.3 and 300/210mm

kenbalbari Oct 12, 2006 12:53 PM

I think I would skip the cheap lenses and kit lenses and go with a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for $340 as my main lens. For more zoom, if needed, I'd probably have an eye on adding a Canon 70-200 f4.0 later on, for about $600. And I might consider a Sigma 70-300 f4.5-5.6 a good stopgap for about $200.

romphotog Oct 12, 2006 1:01 PM

The Kodak P712 is 7.1mp, 432mm for $400($200 cheaper than FZ50).
It does everything the FZ-50, except tilt LCD, manual focus.

You also get macro with both and an EVF.

milrodpxpx Oct 12, 2006 1:36 PM

i'm also a DSLR convert. had a panasonic fz30 for about 8 months but was never quite satisfied with the images. when you're considering zoom, you also have to consider that even though 12x is alot, it is only double what 6x gives you. it was a neat feature to have, but i rarely zoomed in completely on anything - found my zoom photos fell in the 6-9x most of the time. a 28-200mm zoom lens covers that exact range, i've been happy with the sigma version (for $75) i got on ebay on my pentax *istDL. try some different DSLRs before you decide on a specific model as well. remember, you're buying into a system that you'll likely stick with for a long time, not just a single camera - when you buy a dSLR.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:11 AM.