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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2006, 11:24 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 103
Default

hi evertone

ime a newbie to this site , in the last 18 months i have bought and resold a d50 twinlens kit a cannon 300d , a e500 twin lens kit , a sony a100 kit, all after owning a fz20 i was looking at shots i have taken with my current camera and i then looked back at my fz20 shots and yes a dslr is better at taking pictures , but if you want long shots at no money a bridge camera is better as the cost of lenses over 300 ml far out weighs the whole thing!! ive sold the sony and bought an fz50 ( ebay bobstunner ) my two other sony fit lenses will be back on there on monday.

changing lenses is a pain in rear and carrying them all around is a bigger pain, a dslr takes better shots no contest but for general all around shots my old fz20 was ok and if you put them side by side with all other camers ive owned there aint a whole lot in it pro ratta .
Attached Images
 
bomber1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 11:33 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 103
Default

sony alpha sigma 70/300 apo shot at 300ml
Attached Images
 
bomber1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 2:17 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

My opinion to all these dSLR V.S. fix lens camerasthing...(which you can choose to disagree)

If a personis seekingto get the most images quality, and is also looking for a camera to learn photography; buthas a budget of say $900 (for example), I think it would be better for him to get a high end pro-sumer such as the R1 fix lens pro. The R1 fix lens pro have a very high quality zoom lens coveringa useful range of 24 mm - 120 mm, and the lens is very close to the R1's large APS-C live preview CMOS image sensor too. (Which is a good thing)

Ofcouse, one can argue that a dSLR with a wide angle "L" glass quality zoom, and a telephoto "L" glass quality zoom (to match or exceed the zoom range of the R1's Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* optics) will be betterthan the R1 fix lens pro. Yes, it is true. However, high quality dSLR lenses are very expensive; prices of such glasses can range from the thousands on-wards. (I say all this because the lens of the R1 [as prov-en by test results] is having the quality of the high quality dSLR lenses) (Not the usual zoom lenses around the $500 range)

My main point is to say that aenthusiast, or someone looking to get more advance in photography with a strict budget; would bebetter well off gettinga high end pro-sumer such as the R1.Because, I clearly don't see the point of someone (in such a case) spending on a dSLR kit with his $900, and is going to keep the dSLR kit as it is. I mean, wouldn'tit bea wiser move for someone toget the R1 (withit'ssuperbquality lens)with $900, then to spend it on a dSLR with a kit lens...

For example, the R1 will anytime produce higher quality images than a Canon EOS 30Dwith kit lens. (Even that cost more than $900...) You would be saying "Stupid"; but sorry to say, that most digital SLR cameras+ kit lenses will be costing around the $900 range...(So, I'll be better well off with the R1)

All this is my point of views concerning the dSLR V.S. fix lens debate.

Regards.

EDIT:

SURE, you can get a more AFFORDABLE dSLR BODY (such as the CANON EOS 350D) with agood qualitySIGMA 17 -70 mmzoom (To match the R1'srange of24 - 120 mm). However, your reach is still shorterand also with slightlyless wide angle (Converted). In addition, your lens qualityis notas high quality as the R1's. OKAY, you can still get a "high quality" lens for the EOS-350D...You can get a wide angle "L" zoom for it and hope that it will fit into $900. Unfortunately, even if you managed to fit into the budget (Which seems unlikely), your zoom reach will be much shorter and stillhaveslightly less wide angle...You would be able to capture as high or higherimage qualities than the R1 though...:lol: (Keep in mind that wide "L" zoom lenses doesn't extend far to maintain image quality)

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USMcost US$1400.

The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM cost US$800 but is F/4.

EDIT again: Even the CANON EOS 350D with the SIGMA 17 - 70 zoom lens will cost more than $900!












BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 2:35 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

The biggest trade-off for a camera like the R1 is lack of flexibility. Sure you can add a tele converter for longer zoombut you're dimishing the quality of your lens, and you'll still have to carry around an extra lens. The R1 is great if it fits you're particular style of shooting (you don't need speed or zoom). An entry level DSLR at least gives you future flexibility, even if it is at slightly dimished IQ because you mate it with a consumer grade lens. And at normal print sizes, to the non discerning eye (which I'd guess is the average user), you likely won't notice the difference in IQ. Kit lenses for DSLR's have gotten a lot of flak, but truth is they offer a lot of bang for the buck. I've made decent money using kit lenses. They are lightweight, work quickly, cheap, and if you know the limitations, you can easily work around them. The drawback to a big prosumer like the R1 and a DSLR is size...if you're not going to carry the camera because it's too big, then neither option is a good choice.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 3:37 PM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
Kit lenses for DSLR's have gotten a lot of flak, but truth is they offer a lot of bang for the buck. I've made decent money using kit lenses. They are lightweight, work quickly, cheap, and if you know the limitations, you can easily work around them.
This is an outstanding point. The truth of the matter is that for the beginner in the world of DSLR, bad pictures are 95% operator error. Once you know what you're doing that drops to about 90% :-):-)

Not saying a body plus kit lens is right for everyone. Just that photography has gotten a lot like golf - everyone wants to blame the equipment for their own shortcomings.

My take is: it still depends on what you want to shoot. If you want a general all-purpose camera that will allow you to learn photography, something like the R1 is great. But, as rjseeney indicated - you lose future flexibility. 24-120mm is fairly limited focal length. So if you eventually want to get into portrait, wildlife, sports or ultra-wide angle shots you're kind of stuck.

So, I don't think it's a matter of one or the other being better for a newbie it's a matter of where you want to be a year or two or three down the road.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 3:40 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

I agree, if you want the extra versatility that a dSLR can offer; then it will be abetter solution.

Forothers whoprefer an all in onesolution, that canproduce dSLR quality like images; the R1 would be a great choice.



BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 4:42 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Ben...Show me the test results that show R1 lens image quality better than the $340.00 Sigma 17-70!

Here are the "objective" test results at slgear.com for the R1, and the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31

That doesn't look like a clear win to me. The Sigma looks like it tests as even a bit sharper, and also with less CA. The Sigma does have just a bit more distortion wide open and also a bit more shading wide open at the wide end of it's zoom.

And of course there are many others which may not start as bright as f2.8, but which will give equal image quality once stopped down to f5.6 or smaller.


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 10:50 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 103
Default

BenjaminXYZi agree with you! thats basically what i was saying,fast long lenses cost a fortune and any dslr without good glass is no better than a good bridge camera,
bomber1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2006, 1:01 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

I do so :?agree just piked up a Sony R1 , i did not know if it was the right choice still trying it but this camera is of such good build, great performance so far wonderfull first pics , easy to use i think it is ,. silent operation , ect i much prefer it to two SLR ive also tried and returned recently very poor build imo. +toy kit lensthe kit lenses on those do not thrill imo ,but the glass on thR R1 is wonderfull like the FZ 20, Btw the R1 has a smart zoom ive been reading reduce MP to 5 or 7 and it gives superb results up to 200, With my Panasonic FZ 20 again superb results for the £££ against long SLR lenses and maybe a Fuji f 30 /40 later for pocxket use i feel im wellsorted tojust get on and take photosinsted of givingC / N / P ect loads of my hard earned to match what i have now and a bad back carrying it all ,I dont want to shoot fast or very low light btw , The R1 must have the most powerfull on board flash it lights up myLarge room just great ,dont think i need an expensive extra flash more savings ,just my opinion / point of view you understand .
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2006, 1:28 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 24
Default

According to me ...i think its a no brainer ... ofcourse the Dslr will outperform the Fz50 in pretty much every aspect.

The speed ... the versatality of switching lenses ... therefore good apertures ... plus the main difference .... THE SENSor ... which is alot bigger than the standard 1/1.8" senosors used on these ultra zooms ....

Its just not a fair comparison ... if u compare the Fz50 with a S9000 or the S6000 then that would be a toughy ...

As people said before ... about the Lieca lens vs the sigma lens ....just becuz the pany has the doesnt mean its gonna grasp more detail ... the sensor is too small ... so i dont think it will make any difference ....

If u read the reviews ... its clear that the lenses dont really matter .. the bottom line is all these ultrazooms have a identical image quality .... the differences are so small that they are not even visible in everyday photos .... the only differences in all these cams are the features like ISO settings or sutter speeds or battery life or screen resolution ... etc ....

The same is the case with Dslr's Canon Xt-Xti-20D-30D-D80- ... all these cams are also similar ... the differences are only in the technology ... like burst speeds ... High iso ... shutter speeds ... etc ... the image quality is really same ...
I agree that there are some differences in image quality at high isos ... but u cant tell by lookin at a particular image and say that ... this one is from a Xt ... and that one is from a D80 ... and so on ....

The competetion is so fierce .. that every company tries real hard to keep their product at a competative price ... but at the same time ... loaded with features ... like its rivels ...

So wat only matters is personal taste ....

Any ways ... that was a long A** speech ... sorry abt that ....
But any ways .. that was from my point of view ... if any of u guys think im wrong or feell i said too much .... no hard feelings ....

peace .......
sr2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
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 6:24 PM.