Superzooms vs DSLR

[Telex]

Hi everyone,

I've decided to get a camera for Christmas this year, as I'm going to be taking some trips next summer. Also, I am a casual birdwatcher and would like to try my hand at photographing them. With that in mind, I've been looking at the new 18x superzoom point-and-shoots, like the Panasonic Lumix FZ18, as well as entry-level DSLRs like the Nikon D40. I'm just trying to decide what would be a better fit, and have a few questions:

1. Is the shutter-speed issue on point-and-shoots a huge deal? I've used my brother's DSLR and some point-and-shoots, but not enough to really decide for myself. I heard that for bird photographs, the pauses between button-press and picture can be rough, but is it worth the extra money?

2. How much do superzoom lenses cost for DSLR's? I wouldn't want anything fancy, but would like a pretty big zoom, comparable to around a 12x or 18x.

3. I generally enjoy learning to use new equipment, but also do not want to worry about little settings when sightseeing in Europe next summer. How much of a commitment is it to get confident with snapping photos with a DSLR over a point-and-shoot? And are the rewards of the flexibility of a DSLR worth it if I remain a casual photographer?

I suppose my biggest concern is getting an ultra-zoom point-and-shoot and then a few months later deciding I want a DSLR... I want to buy a camera I'll be satisfied with for a few years at least, and will allow me to get what I want out of my photos (which I know is a very subjective goal, heh).

So, to summarize this post: Is the price jump from a superzoom point-and-shoot to an entry level DSLR worth it for someone who is interested in casual photography/vacation pictures?

(And again, I know this is very subjective, so really any advice regarding the comparison of the two would be very helpful)

Thanks

[A.M.D.A.]

Well, the right camera for any particular person depends on what he/she is planning to use it for – among other factors.

Re: 1. I have a Panasonic FZ7K, and find that shutter delay issues to not be so big a deal as many people are led to believe. With the "economic" point-and-shoots, shutter delay issues may increase significantly. Fast memory cards and correct camera settings can somewhat reduce this problem. However, D-SLRs do have faster response times compared to any compact digital camera on the market. (This may be changing as technology advances).

Re: 2. Super-zoom lenses for DSLRs don't nearly come close to the ones available in compact-digital cameras. For one, their maximum lens aperture tends to be pitifully "slow". (e.g. f3.5-5.6 or f3.5-6.3). You won't get as much creative freedom with such range of f-stops. The longest zoom range in a single interchangeable lens is currently the new 15x TAMRON 18-270mm f3.5-6.3. Super-zoom lenses for digital SLRs also tend to be "fat" and often require large-sized filters which aren't at all cheap. Lastly, there is a rule-of-thumb that states that the longer the zoom range on a particular lens – the less image sharpness and image quality. This is simply because in order to squeeze that "awesome" zoom, manufacturers must compromise on other parts of the optic – thus damaging image quality. Not to mention the high-price tags on such super-zoom interchangeable lenses. ($400+).

Generally, two or more medium-zoom lenses are best. (e.g. Wide-angle to short-telephoto and short-telephoto to long-telephoto).

Re: 3. It's down to personal preference here. Do you mind carrying a heavy DSLR – and at least one lens, probably two? Point-and-shoots are more feature-limited, which can help if you don't want to be wading through a DSLR menu searching for a specific feature while a ton of other ones that you will likely never use are getting in the way. DSLRs do indeed provide better image quality when matched with good lenses, but compact digital cameras should satisfy most casual photographers.:thumbsup:

Perhaps later down the road if you decide to pursue photography as a serious hobby, and are more experienced – then a DSLR might be an option. I would recommend sticking with a P&S or compact-digital camera for beginners/casuals.

[Anbesol]

I find metering (Aperture, shutter and ISO) absolutely fascinating. Some people find it boring, if you find it boring, then just stay away from SLR. If you can learn how those three metering functions work then you will get a great benefit from SLR. If you just want to throw it in automatic mode and let the camera do the work, then get the point and shoot. But if you can dedicate some good time into learning the art, then you will love what you can accomplish with SLR technology.

Ease and convenience = point and shoot
Hard work pays off = SLR

If you decide SLR is the way to go, stay on these forums, and learn from the photographers in this community! We have a huge array of pro's and experts on this forum and they are always happy to explain the science and details of the technology to you.

[Jenn_B]

The principles of photography don't change with your camera. Either a good superzoom or an SLR can be as simple or complex as you wish to make it. Don't let yourself be intimidated by an SLR. It's just a camera, not black magic.

SLRs have larger sensors that produce cleaner images under any lighting condition. Yes, a casual photographer will benefit from this. Even if you never take the kit lens off, or take the camera out of program mode, the SLR's larger sensor will make a difference for you.

[SWriverstone]

Hi Telex...I'm in the almost identical situation as you...trying to decide between a Nikon D40 or (in my case) the Canon SX10 (which I think is superior to the Panasonic Lumix, but that's somewhat subjective).

First, if you haven't, read this thread on Non-DSLRs vs. DSLRs:
Is the quality gap between DSLRs and non-DSLRs narrowing?

Some good info/opinions there, as well as some sample images from both.

I shot with a Canon 35mm SLR for years prior to the digital revolution...so I know all about metering, exposure, etc.

But for the past few years, I've shot about 20,000 images with a Canon PowerShot S2 (first in the line that currently tops out with the SX10).

I've found the creative control, ability to manually adjust exposure, and zoom range of my (now old) S2 to be fantastic. I've used it on several overseas trips, and I'm also an avid motorcycle tourer, and I've taken that S2 everywhere.

A part of me really longs for the unquestioned quality of a DSLR like the D40...but just when I think I'm about to "pull the trigger" on a DSLR...I'm pulled back to the superzoom side by the sheer convenience and flexibility of the SX10.

I've been hashing this out with many people over the past few weeks, and here are my conclusions:

1. If most/all of your images will end up on the web (e.g. you don't plan to print lots of large images for wall-hanging and gallery display), then the quality of a DSLR is really a non-issue. The quality of superzooms is MORE than enough for excellent 800x600 images online. But if you *do* plan to be printing a lot of large images (bigger than 8x10") then you'll need the superior resolution and quality of a DSLR.

2. If compactness/portability is important (like it is for me when I'm on my motorcycle)...and you don't want the hassle of switching lenses, then the superzoom is definitely the way to go. Some have commented that superzooms like the Canon SX10 are almost as big as a DSLR...but they're still *not* as big (especially when you add a long-range zoom to the DSLR).

3. Superzooms give you virtually all of the manual control of aperture, shutter, and focus that DSLRs offer. They also offer advanced features like exposure and focus bracketing, and even white balance bracketing (on some models).

4. Depth-of-field control is somewhat more limited with a superzoom, but this primarily applies to shorter focal lengths. The great thing about superzooms is focusing at 20x zoom on an object just 10 feet away...which gives you amazingly narrow DoF for some beautiful results.

5. Superzooms shoot video; most (if not all?) DSLRs don't. If you ever want to shoot some video, this is a consideration.

6. RAW format images: most superzooms won't shoot RAW (the Canon SX10 doesn't, but I think the Panasonic does?). For me, this isn't really an issue, because almost all of my shots end up on the web (see #1 above).

7. Low light - no question, DSLRs perform better here with less noise. But I've found my superzoom (with image stabilization) does perfectly well when (again) the final result is destined for the web.

The bottom line is that if you are NOT a working, professional photographer, there's a LOT to be said for going with a superzoom.

In my opinion, (and I'm not a working professional photographer), the gains achieved by going with a DSLR are simply not significant enough to warrant the increased price and reduced compactness.

For their price and their relative compactness compared to a DSLR, superzooms are a fantastic deal wiith enormous range and flexibility.

This is why, in the end, I'll probably end up going with a superzoom.

Scott