Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   Upgrading from Superzoom to DSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/upgrading-superzoom-dslr-155000/)

zoofan May 10, 2009 1:42 PM

Upgrading from Superzoom to DSLR
 
I currently own a Panasonic FZ-18 and the Panasonic TZ-5. I am looking to go to a DSLR. I attended a program for my son the other night and was disappointed with the quality of photos that I got as it was in low light. Trying various settings on both cameras. I had considered another Superzoom however my brother in law got a little better pictures not much with his FZ-28. I love my Superzooms but want to upgrade as the photography bug has hit me pretty well.

I would like for the DSLR to be 10mp and have the stabilzation in the camera body if at all possible. I was looking at purchasing one additional lens as well for wildlife photography as well. I am not particular to a certain brand so its not all that important on that. Have considered Sony,Canon, Nikon and Pentex. Any insights to a good camera that meets this and a lens would be appreciated.

Thanks

TCav May 10, 2009 3:43 PM

Pentax, Sony and most Olympus dSLRs use sensor shift image stabilization in the camera body.

For indoor events in low light (as if there's another kind) you'll need a telephoto lens with a large aperture. The aperture should be at least f/2.8, and larger would be better, but zoom lenses max out at f/2.8. To get a larger aperture, you'll need a prime (fixed focal length) lens. Among the threee brands I mentioned, Sony has the best selection of long fast prime lenses. Olympus does have a 35-100mm f/2.0 zoom lens, but it's ~$2,400, and it might be long enough. For fast zoom lenses Olympus makes a 90-250mm f/2.8 (~$6,000) and Sony has a 70-200mm f/2.8 (~$1,800). There's the Sigma 70-200/2.8 ($800 for Olympus, Pentax and Sony), the Tamron 70-200/2.8 ($700 for Pentax and Sony), the Sigma 50-150/2.8 ($650 for Pentax and Sony), and the Pentax 50-135/2.8 ($750 for Pentax.)

ImKayd1 May 10, 2009 6:21 PM

A 2.8f zoom would be lovely but expensive. Make sure the dslr you get has the ability to go high ISO with low noise. The stats out on the new Nikon D90 in the high ISO range is really good. Read and compare. Good luck.

Suzan

TCav May 10, 2009 6:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImKayd1 (Post 967814)
A 2.8f zoom would be lovely but expensive. Make sure the dslr you get has the ability to go high ISO with low noise.

Good high ISO performance is a good idea. It will let you use a large aperture (for low light) and a faster shutter speed (to reduce motion blur due to subject movement.) And a faster shutter speed reduces the potential for motion blur from camera shake, if you don't have a stabilized system.

peripatetic May 11, 2009 2:01 AM

Do you have a budget in mind?

All of the systems are very good, so it's hard to go too badly wrong, but with a budget we might be able to suggest what gets you best value at the moment. These things change over time.

Also an idea of the sort of things you want to take photographs of would help, as well as your limits on size and weight. Some people really prefer a small camera, and others don't mind something a bit larger.

dougsmit May 11, 2009 12:56 PM

IS in body?
 
Insisting on IS in body will limit your choices since neither Canon nor Nikon play that game. Both companies, however, sell two lens kits with two IS (VR) lenses aimed at exactly your part of the market. I shoot Canon but see no great problem with the Nikon option and would take either of them as a good entry level DSLR. Certainly you could step up higher in either brand if money is no object but I'd check out the Canon XSi with 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS bundle.

BTW, I bought a Panasonic FZ-18 for my daughter and was terribly disappointed compared to my Canon DSLR's. Certainly other respondants are correct that you could spend thousands and get super speed lenses but if I were spending that kind of cash, I'd get a Canon 5DmkII with the kit 24-105 IS and perhaps a second lens depending on what wildlife you are chasing (400mm for birds; macro for bugs). IMHO this is overkill for a first DSLR unless you are obscenely wealthy and considerably more skilled than the average point and shoot graduate.

mtclimber May 11, 2009 8:49 PM

I hope that you will excuse me if I become a "devil's adovocate" for a few moments. As a professional, I have lugged DSLR cameras and a bag of assorted lenses for many years.

I offer this bit of wisdom: A DSLR camera is a continuing investment program, that gets progressively more expensive over the years. In addition, I frankly got tired of hauling that much equipment around all the time.

Last year, I decided to try both the Panasonic FZ-28 and the Sony H-50. my back thanked me a lot. And do you know what? I got photos that had a tad bit of less IQ, but were, none the less just about as good with a great deal more ease of operation. Frankly, I began to enjoy my photography a whole lot more. And I saved a ton of money, while having a whole lot more fun.

It is just a thought, but hey, I like having fun and saving money!

Sarah Joyce

mebareit May 12, 2009 2:08 PM

Based on your complaint, it would look like what you really needed was a good external flash unit. I personally would not buy any serious camera without a hot shoe for an external flash. That was one reason I choose the FZ20 over many other cameras. I am surprised that there are so many expensive cameras without hot shoes. There are many very good external flash units that are not too big and will fit in most camera bags. Don't leave home without one.

Al

zoofan May 12, 2009 8:18 PM

Trying to not go over $1200 however would like to spend less. I have seen some Canon and Nikon DSLRs over on BH Photos website. The come with the standard lens and a 70-300mm lens as well. Would these be good or would I be better off buying a 70-300mm lens from Sigma or Tamron? The Canon was the EOS Rebel XS and the Nikons was the D90 and the D60. I also looked at the Sony's as well. I appreciate all the feedback thus far look forward to hearing more and purchasing my first DSLR camera.

JohnG May 12, 2009 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoofan (Post 968349)
Trying to not go over $1200 however would like to spend less. I have seen some Canon and Nikon DSLRs over on BH Photos website. The come with the standard lens and a 70-300mm lens as well. Would these be good or would I be better off buying a 70-300mm lens from Sigma or Tamron? The Canon was the EOS Rebel XS and the Nikons was the D90 and the D60. I also looked at the Sony's as well. I appreciate all the feedback thus far look forward to hearing more and purchasing my first DSLR camera.

I can't speak to Sony. But the Canon 70-300 IS USM (sells for $560 separate) is vastly superior to sigma or tamron. Focus performance will be a big increase. Sadly the Nikon 70-300 is no great shakes. Unfortunately Nikon has nothing like the Canon 70-300 or 70-200 f4L


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 PM.