advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

i shoot my artwork, and send off the hi-res images to printers for
magazine ads and invites. so this is what i noticed.....

for my needs,,,right now,,,,dslr's are a pain in the @ss.

i need at least 8mp for a 300dpi print quality 8x10. i don't for a
second believe a 6mp dslr is as good as an 8mp advanced p&s. the image
quality might be better, but an 8x10 print is an 8x10 print, and with
300dpi that means at least an 8mp camera.

the dslr has a better more subtle value/color range, but a p&s gives me
what i want.

because i focus in on artwork, i prefer the manual focus on my lumix
fz30. with the dslr's i pretty much would have to depend on their auto
focus, unless i change the screen.

if you have to ask about a noticeable quality difference in images,
then an advanced p&s is all you need.

the only advantage i can think of is if you buy into a dslr system, you
can use the lenses and just buy better bodies in the future, but buying
into a system = more money to spend.

the lumix uses a leitz, the sony(dsc-r1) uses a zeiss,,,and the cameras
look cool.

check out steve's digicams and image resource for great comparative
sample images.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

<krugs525.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
> trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
> go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
> all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
> is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
> get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
> $1000).
>
> The main things I'm looking for are:
> - Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
> which is nice)
> - Good image quality
>
> Here are some of the questions I have:
> - Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
> and 8 x 10?
> - How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
> the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?
>
> Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

Buy the lens. Then get the camera that goes with it.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

You get alot for your money with the 12x zooms. The H5 set at 5mp it is
14x optical zoom or 504mm equivilant. Add on the 1.7x telephoto lens and
you get 856mm equivilant. Panasonic offers the same Smart Zoom feature,
Canon does not. For what you get with 12x zooms you would pay 5-10x that
for a dslr and not get Lcd preview, no sensor dust, and probably no
image stabilisation. For lowlight the H5 works fine with up to 30
seconds shutter and an upgraded noise reduction. Its to bad they have no
Bulb setting. True iso performance is better and other parameters have
more options with a Dslr. But super zooms do very well at what they do
for little cost. Its an optimised package. I use the H5.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

krugs525.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
> trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
> go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
> all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
> is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
> get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
> $1000).

I would recommend the new Canon XTi (aka 400D) and the Sigma 18-200mm
zoom as a starter set. I have this lens on the original Digital Rebel
and have found it to be a great all purpose lens. Plus, this is just
the start for this combination. When you buy a super zoom P&S there are
very little upgrade options. With a Rebel XTi the options are nearly
unlimited. Another thing to consider is the far superior low light
performance of a DSLR. To me the single big advantage of the super zoom
P&S cameras is the addition of image stabilization. This can also be
had with a DSLR but comes at a price.

> The main things I'm looking for are:
> - Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
> which is nice)
> - Good image quality

Do you want/need the ability to shoot wide angle shots? If you do then
the DSLR is the better choice, IMO. If all you want is medium and
telephoto then a super zoom might fill your needs.

> Here are some of the questions I have:
> - Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
> and 8 x 10?

I recommend getting the highest megapixel camera you can afford. A 5mp
shot printed at 8"x10" is stretching it.

> - How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
> the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?

There is a HUGE difference. If you want good low light performance then
the decision is easy. Get a DSLR.

> Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

My advice is for you to figure out what subjects you wish to shoot and
under what conditions and then study the cameras available and then make
a decision. An educated consumer is typically one that is satisfied
with his choices.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

Pete D wrote:
> LOL, this is all wrong!

ok....explain. i admit a lack of info. it's just my explanation of what
I need.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

I am a confirmed dSLR user who shoots only in raw and individually processes
every image.
I have a closet full of lenses.
I stongly believe that unless you are committed to raw image processing and
understand why you would feel compelled to use a specific lens for a
specific purpose that the dSLR, in its current design paradigm as a 21st
century 1950's vintage Exacta, is absolutely the wrong camera for the
majority of dSLR users.
If you want to shoot in jpeg, if you are not interested in color management
and are not committed to processing and printing every individual image to
whatever you consider its ultimate potential then it may be quite unwise to
lug around a heavy and inconvenient dSLR.
I am not sure that the dSLR is worth the weight and inconvenience penalty
that its form factor imposes on users in the most common settings in which
they will want to use a camera. The presumed benefit of the dSLR in enhanced
image quality for most users is illusory at best given the end purpose for
which the images will be used.
The experience I have had using advanced P&S and EVF digital cameras leads
me to believe that for most users these are by far the better option.
Specifically the newer generation of high megapixel, image stabilized all in
one long zoom cameras are more camera than what most consumers will ever be
able to utilize. Their advanced jpeg algorithms are, in my opinion, certain
to deliver better images than any comparably priced film camera despite the
serious latitude problems of current generation digital sensors.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

LOL, this is all wrong!

<bruin70 RemoveThis @mail.com> wrote in message
news:1157422758.146059.45860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>i shoot my artwork, and send off the hi-res images to printers for
> magazine ads and invites. so this is what i noticed.....
>
> for my needs,,,right now,,,,dslr's are a pain in the @ss.
>
> i need at least 8mp for a 300dpi print quality 8x10. i don't for a
> second believe a 6mp dslr is as good as an 8mp advanced p&s. the image
> quality might be better, but an 8x10 print is an 8x10 print, and with
> 300dpi that means at least an 8mp camera.
>
> the dslr has a better more subtle value/color range, but a p&s gives me
> what i want.
>
> because i focus in on artwork, i prefer the manual focus on my lumix
> fz30. with the dslr's i pretty much would have to depend on their auto
> focus, unless i change the screen.
>
> if you have to ask about a noticeable quality difference in images,
> then an advanced p&s is all you need.
>
> the only advantage i can think of is if you buy into a dslr system, you
> can use the lenses and just buy better bodies in the future, but buying
> into a system = more money to spend.
>
> the lumix uses a leitz, the sony(dsc-r1) uses a zeiss,,,and the cameras
> look cool.
>
> check out steve's digicams and image resource for great comparative
> sample images.
>
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

krugs525.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
> trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
> go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
> all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
> is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
> get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
> $1000).
>
> The main things I'm looking for are:
> - Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
> which is nice)
> - Good image quality
>
> Here are some of the questions I have:
> - Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
> and 8 x 10?
> - How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations
> vs. the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big
> difference?
>
> Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?
>
> Thanks!

It's not the cost of the DSLR plus lenses, but the cost of the SUV you have
to buy to carry all this stuff. If you already have an SUV, then all you
need in addition to the photographic equipment is a wheelbarrow, so that
when you reach your destination, you can proceed to areas which the SUV
can't reach. Some people use a large backpack, the one's with a metal frame.

Another option is to engage the services of a coolie or sherpa, but they are
demanding Union rates these days. Illegal imigratnts come a little cheaper.

Buy a superzoom. I have a Panasonic FZ30, and although it is by no means
pocketable, it does all I ask of it.

Dennis.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

bruin70.TakeThisOut@mail.com wrote:
> i shoot my artwork, and send off the hi-res images to printers for
> magazine ads and invites. so this is what i noticed.....
>
> for my needs,,,right now,,,,dslr's are a pain in the @ss.
>
> i need at least 8mp for a 300dpi print quality 8x10. i don't for a
> second believe a 6mp dslr is as good as an 8mp advanced p&s. the image
> quality might be better, but an 8x10 print is an 8x10 print, and with
> 300dpi that means at least an 8mp camera.
With entry level DSLR's at 8MP (eg Canon 350D), this is a moot point
anyway, but even if entry level DSLR's were still at 6MP, it's the
quality of the pixels that counts. 6 million good pixels beat 8 million
average pixels. There may be a handful of situations where an 8 p&s will
beat a 6 dslr, but only very few.
>
> the dslr has a better more subtle value/color range, but a p&s gives me
> what i want.
that's fine. but p&s is quite limited in the dynamic range and colour
accuracy. it's good enough for some needs, not good enough for a lot of
needs.
>
> because i focus in on artwork, i prefer the manual focus on my lumix
> fz30. with the dslr's i pretty much would have to depend on their auto
> focus, unless i change the screen.
Firstly, AF in a DSLR is significantly better than in a P&S. It is far
faster, and far more accurate. On manual focus, the focussing screens in
DSLR's are a long way short of the focus screens of older 35mm cameras.
They are duller, lack microprisms etc. But, despite those limitations, I
haven't seen a P&S that comes close to a DSLR for manual focus. Despite
the DSLR viewscreens being quite ordinary, they are still a zillion
times better than anything using an EVF. If manual focussing ability was
the only criteria, and I had to choose between an olympus e500 (the
worst viewscreen I've seen in an SLR) and something like a Pana FZ30,
I'd take the Olympus any day.
>
> if you have to ask about a noticeable quality difference in images,
> then an advanced p&s is all you need.
that's a bit simplistic. in daylight on full auto, there may not be any
significant difference. Move to low light, or try to be a little more
artistic with a blurred background on a portrait, and you need a DSLR.
>
> the only advantage i can think of is if you buy into a dslr system, you
> can use the lenses and just buy better bodies in the future, but buying
> into a system = more money to spend.
It only costs more if you let it. For many people, a basic kit in the
form of a body, kit standard zoom, and kit telephoto zoom, is all they
ever need. Such a combination will still blow away anything in the P&S
category for image quality. But if my photography desires change and I
now want a 24mm wide angle, or a true macro, or a flash with a GN 50, by
buying into an SLR, you can add that extra feature simply by buying the
appropriate lens/accessory. Find that you regularly go to shoot kids
plays where the room lighting is a bit dark? easy, go buy a 50/1.4 or
85/1.4. You don't have that option with a p&s.
>
> the lumix uses a leitz, the sony(dsc-r1) uses a zeiss,,,and the cameras
> look cool.
of course looks is the most important part of a camera. BTW, panasonic
don't use a leica lens, and sony don't use a zeiss lens. panasonic use a
panasonic manufactured lens and sony use a sony manufactured lens. These
lenses are manufactured according to designs from leica and zeiss. Can't
tell you if they are manufactured to the same tolerance that leica and
zeiss would normally use.
>
> check out steve's digicams and image resource for great comparative
> sample images.
and you will find the scales tip heavily toward DSLR's.
>
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

Pete D wrote:
> LOL, this is all wrong!

You top-post a convincing argument, backed by facts, sir. (*)

BugBear

(*) Sarcasm, obviously
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

Graham Fountain wrote:
> Firstly, AF in a DSLR is significantly better than in a P&S. It is far
> faster, and far more accurate. On manual focus, the focussing screens in
> DSLR's are a long way short of the focus screens of older 35mm cameras.
> They are duller, lack microprisms etc. But, despite those limitations, I
> haven't seen a P&S that comes close to a DSLR for manual focus. Despite
> the DSLR viewscreens being quite ordinary, they are still a zillion
> times better than anything using an EVF. If manual focussing ability was
> the only criteria, and I had to choose between an olympus e500 (the
> worst viewscreen I've seen in an SLR) and something like a Pana FZ30,
> I'd take the Olympus any day.

This I have never understood. I have never (not once) managed to
accurately focus using just the screen on any SLR. Not on my D200, not
on my 7xi, not on my XD7. I also have never managed to accurately judge
DOF on any of these, despite years of use (well the 7xi has no DOF
preview, but the others do). Yet I keep reading people say they focus
using only the screens (without split-screen or other aids). Am I
missing something? I mean, I can get focus in the ballpark, but always
found that I could easily spot that it was out of focus when I projected
the slides. Not to mention 100% crops in digital.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

krugs525.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
> trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
> go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
> all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
> is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
> get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
> $1000).
>
> The main things I'm looking for are:
> - Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
> which is nice)
> - Good image quality
>
> Here are some of the questions I have:
> - Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
> and 8 x 10?
> - How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
> the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?
>
> Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?
>
> Thanks!

There is never going to be a happy consensus here one way or the other,
there are a lot of people who will say dSLR, dSLR, dSLR despite never
really knowing why they bought one in the first place, they just read
someone that dSLR is better, hence must get one of those.

Then there are a lot of folks who simply don't know what they really want
and they might buy anything someone else recommends, i've seen so many
people with "fashionable" cameras that really don't perform anywhere near
as well as a "quality P&S".

As one other person here noted, the camera is no where near the most
important item in a photographers bag. The best camera, dSLR, or large
format film, in the world, will never make up for someone who simply cannot
take a good picture.

Personally, and that's all it is, my opinion, and for me. I bought a DSC H2,
because it was a step up on my years old 2MP camera, it has all the
controls I needed, it was affordable and didn't require any other outlay
(except the memory card).

Having bought the H2, i've found I can take pictures that knock the socks
off several of my friends all of whom have either D70's or 350D's. That
alone can easily justify my decision, imo.

So, finally, i'd say you're best bet really would be to buy a nice P&S
"first" and if you find that it is limited, or it isn't performing the way
you wanted, then consider going the dSLR route. Since IF it can do
everything you need, you'll have saved yourself a lot of money.

Duncan

p.s. As I tried to point out several times, these are just my opinions, if
you want to take umbridge at anything within feel free
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get? 

> So, finally, i'd say you're best bet really would be to buy a nice P&S
> "first" and if you find that it is limited, or it isn't performing the way
> you wanted, then consider going the dSLR route. Since IF it can do
> everything you need, you'll have saved yourself a lot of money.

But if it doesn't you will loose a fair bit more money than you would have
if you went for the dSLR in the first place........

One thing which you should seriously considder is buying a second hand dSLR
so somebody else takes the first owner depreciation hit and then start
buying the lenses you want as and when you want them. That way you can
upgrade the body in a few years and still have a great set of lenses.

There is no right or wrong answer.

dSLR's give you infinate flexibility but at considderable expense and
weight.

P&S give a competent package at an excellent cost but there is no upgrate
path (other than part-ex or the bin)

I have owned a number of P&S's in addition to a dSLR and each has it's own
merits and pitfalls.
 >> Stay informed about: advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?