I'm I ready to get a dSLR? ...really, you can say no

[miler]

I'm new to this forum and there is a ton of great information in here. I went to a local shop and tried out a few dSLRs. They felt great and SUPER responsive -- INSTANT focus lock and INSTANT capture. The photos previewed on the little 3" LCD looked really good -- nice DoF and SHARP even zoomed in. But want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. I don't want to get a dSLR and think "gee, for the $800 I just spent and lugging a big camera around, I expected a lot more"...

I'm looking at getting a camera for me and my wife. My wife will mainly be shooting photos of the kids. The kids never hold still so I thought a manual zoom ring and instant capture of a dSLR may be the way to go. However, a dSLR is a lot more complicated than your PnS and don't want to spend a lot of money if its not going to help much.

Her shooting style is: turn the camera on, select a preprogrammed scene (ie. turn it to the face or the mountain icon), zoom in, pre-focus and shoot! She's not going to want to check to make sure the shutter is high enough or she has it on the right aperture. There will also be times I'll take the camera along to shoot the kids playing soccer, gymnastics, or dancing.

With a dSLR will the camera do most of the lens corrections for you or do you need to do a lot of PP corrections? I've read the "instant results" of a dSLR are often not as good as a PnS. I do have iPhoto and CS3. I make minor exposure, sharpness and straightening corrections on the keepers.

So entry dSLR or something like a Panasonic FZ18 or the Olympus 570uz (with a manual zoom)?

Also, I'll often be juggling a DV camera as well, so I probably wouldn't mess with multiple lens much. Thanks

[JTL]

Welcome to the one millionth "should i get a dslr or an ultrazoom" thread!!!

[miler]

Well that's not very helpful. Wow, I was thinking this was a great forum 'til now. Seriously, I searched all the posts of 2008 and didn't see a similar question asked. Where are all the others?

[stever06]

My take on considerations to go to a DSLR:
1) AF speed
2) DOF control
3) Shot to shot times
4) Cleaner high ISO shots due to larger sensor

If your p&s is falling short in your needs, then its time to upgrade. I binned a FZ18 after 2 months to get my E-510 based on this criteria.
Practice will overcome all your reservations, so don't expect award winners from the start. After all, digital film is cheap.

[TheWengler]

Her shooting style is: turn the camera on, select a preprogrammed scene (ie. turn it to the face or the mountain icon), zoom in, pre-focus and shoot! She's not going to want to check to make sure the shutter is high enough or she has it on the right aperture. There will also be times I'll take the camera along to shoot the kids playing soccer, gymnastics, or dancing.

With a dSLR will the camera do most of the lens corrections for you or do you need to do a lot of PP corrections? I've read the "instant results" of a dSLR are often not as good as a PnS. I do have iPhoto and CS3. I make minor exposure, sharpness and straightening corrections on the keepers.

To get the real benefit out of a DSLR you'll need to learn the settings. In most cases you can just set the camera up for a certain situation (i.e. blowing out birthday candles, playing basketball, etc.). It's not like you'll need to adjust the settings for every picture. When you get comfortable with the settings then you can get more creative.

I'm not sure what you mean by lens corrections. Usually this means fixing things like vignetting, CA's and distortions. The camera doesn't fix anything, it only records what you tell it to. There are generally some in camera options for contrast, saturation and sharpness but a lot of people just shoot RAW. If you shoot RAW then pp will be a lot easier and is more forgiving with mistakes.

If you want to shoot indoor action then you'll need a large aperture lens. For general family photos you'll probably want a flash (something that swivels and bounces).



Well that's not very helpful. Wow, I was thinking this was a great forum 'til now. Seriously, I searched all the posts of 2008 and didn't see a similar question asked. Where are all the others?

Don't take it personally. Someone has to provide the entertainment. You have to understand that for those who visit this site daily, there are tons of these types of threads.

[Rooz]

what sort of zoom range are you after ? with the price of $800 you are unlikely to get a dslr with a long range, thats the main thing you need to consider about dslr vs superzoom like the oly.

is that your final budget ?

[miler]

what sort of zoom range are you after ? with the price of $800 you are unlikely to get a dslr with a long range, thats the main thing you need to consider about dslr vs superzoom like the oly.

is that your final budget ?

Really don't want to go over $8-900 -- more and you're talking about the cost of a family vacation, then I'll be stuck taking photos in our backyard! On another post it was suggested that budget would get an e510 + 18-200 lens. That's not the fastest lens for action, but I assume with a dSLR you could bump the ISO to 800 to compensate and it'd still be sharper than a FZ18 at lessor ISO (I'm not comparing this to prime lens. That doesn't fit my needs).

[TheWengler]

Well I don't know what you think are acceptable results but I was suggesting a large aperture lens in addition to using high ISO not to replace it. I don't know what the FZ18 can produce for indoor sports but I can't imagine it's very good.

[Nickcanada]

Judging from your stated budget and the limited time you and your wife intend to invest to learn the more advanced functions of your camera, like manual controls, I would say stick with a super zoom. Wonderful things can be done with a P&S. DSLRs tend to have very poor auto presets... at least canon cameras do, not sure about other brands.

I bought a Nikon P50 (it's a P&S) and I was very impressed with the value and image quality, and I've been using a higher end Canon prime lens for a while now.

P.S. don't worry about JTL, he's always grumpy..... and I wouldn't have it any other way! haha. :)

Cheers

[Rooz]

the 510 is limited a little in its iso compared to canon/ nikon. its a fine dslr otherwise. not sure what 18-200 lens you would get with it, didnt know that any of the superzooms had an oly mount.

your initial comment about making sure you dont feel like you've wasted $900 tends to ring alarm bells with me cos it flags you are expecting excellent performance but you may struggle to get that with the budget you are allocating. defiantely much better than the fz18 optically, but just measure your expectations with your budget.

the nikon d40 and canon xti are pretty good value aswell at the moment and both perform better at higher iso's than the oly. if the a200 performs as well as the a700 in iso, then its another option for you.

[Nickcanada]

the 510 is limited a little in its iso compared to canon/ nikon. its a fine dslr otherwise. not sure what 18-200 lens you would get with it, didnt know that any of the superzooms had an oly mount.

your initial comment about making sure you dont feel like you've wasted $900 tends to ring alarm bells with me cos it flags you are expecting excellent performance but you may struggle to get that with the budget you are allocating. defiantely much better than the fz18 optically, but just measure your expectations with your budget.

the nikon d40 and canon xti are pretty good value aswell at the moment and both perform better at higher iso's than the oly.


It's not the money that rings the alarm bells for me it's the "auto" only mentality.

There really is no auto program that can read a scene and know exactly how you want it exposed. It takes time and dedication to get good photos, even if you have a $10 000 camera or a $150 camera! it's true, I'm not pulling your leg! honest.

[TheWengler]

It's not the money that rings the alarm bells for me it's the "auto" only mentality.

+1, got to put in the time and effort to get the results

[Rooz]

i agree with both of you. i would suggest though that most people will move from full auto to semi-auto, (Ap or Sp), soon enuf given some time to get familiar with it. alot of people here still use P mode which is essentially full auto and get great results.

[JTL]

P.S. don't worry about JTL, he's always grumpy..... and I wouldn't have it any other way! haha. :)

CheersI wouldn't be grumpy if people actually knew how to SEARCH!!!!!:D:p:D

[Rooz]

I wouldn't be grumpy if people actually knew how to SEARCH!!!!!:D:p:D

like hell you wouldn;t lol

[JTL]

like hell you wouldn;t lolAlright...you got me there! :D

I've got to stop visiting this place so often...it's bad for the brain! :D:D:D

[blackudder]

I have a Canon S3 IS ultra zoom and have been thinking about going to dslr. My thoughts would be thus:

1) For simple ease of use, the P&S dominates.
2) You can get zoom features on a P&S for less than $400 that will cost thousands on a dslr.
3) If you don't plan on taking more artistic pictures OR spending more money, then why move to dslr? You can get a great P&S for less than a base DSLR. And that's not counting putting money into lenses.
4) Do you want to make prints of all, some or most of your photos? If you're talking about 5x7 and sometimes larger, a P&S might be all you need. I believe the dslr will be better for larger prints and probably give greater satisfaction overall if printing often.
5) If you don't want to fiddle with lenses, then you'd need an "all-in-one" type lens for a dslr. From what I've read the lense that come with the kits aren't that good (although I guess that depends on your exposure to what is good vs what is bad).
6) With P&S you can spend <$500 for today's technology. For DSLR you will spend $500 (about) for yesterday's technology. Today's will cost you $600+.
7) As others have said, if you don't want to learn about exposures, white balance, lighting and all the other photography information, a P&S is probably your best bet. You can still utilize that knowledge with some P&S, but with DSLR, I believe it's the assumption that it's the direction you are going, not might go.

You can go look in some of the photo sections (like sunsets) and see some of the shots taken with P&S cameras. There are quite a few - some with the Canon S2 IS that look great.

I've been happy with the S3 IS with the exception of some low light/shadowy situations. For just about any other situation though, it's great.

Unless you plan on investing some cash in reasonable lenses over time or investing some time in photography, I'd suggest the P&S. I also have an S1 IS and my 8 year old daughter can use it. The more I read about Dslr and photography, the more my head hurts. :)

[WestCoast]

Really don't want to go over $8-900

If you want a DSLR setup that has similar zoom to an FZ-18, I'd go with the Nikon D40 with 18-55 mm kit lens ($480) and a Nikkor 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR ($440) (Prices from Beach Camera... they also include a 2 GB SD card with the D40 kit.) The latter lens is prosumer quality, image-stabilized, and has a 35 mm equivalent range of 105-450 mm.

[fionndruinne]

I'm not sure I go for the whole entry-level cam+couple of consumer lenses style of things. It seems to me that low-light capability that you get from a large-aperture lens (allowing you to use natural light more of the time and capture better-looking lighting conditions occurring after the brighter portion of the day is over) is worth getting right at the outset. Slow consumer lenses are so crippling.

Considering you can buy a D40x body for $540 (the price I paid for my D40+18-55mm lens less than a year ago), and a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM for another $400-something, I think that would make for a much nicer setup than a D40(x) w/standard lens + slow telephoto.

That's just me, though.

[WestCoast]

Considering you can buy a D40x body for $540 (the price I paid for my D40+18-55mm lens less than a year ago), and a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM for another $400-something, I think that would make for a much nicer setup than a D40(x) w/standard lens + slow telephoto.

That would be true if the OP is only shooting photos of his/her kids. When the OP was considering the FZ-18, I assumed that telephoto was a priority.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

You mention you thought a manual focus ring would help shoot the kids, I'm not so sure. I find autofocus to be invauable to shoot my own kids. For a start you can frame the picture shoot, frame and shoot given how cheap digital film is.

It's one less step if you don't have to worry about manual focus. Also DSLR's don't have the same focussing aids as the old film SLR's, I for one have trouble manually focussing (but it seams I'm unique in this regard).

[miler]

+1, got to put in the time and effort to get the results

Totally agree. It's not the expensive camera but the experienced photographer that makes great photos. But I don't have either. I just don't have time nor is it my priority to take up a new hobby -- maybe once the kids are older. So I'm seeking advice from those that know.

What I'm saying is, given my non-technical aspect and style of shooting, will a SLR format camera improve my photos?

I'm starting to think the improvement may not offset the cost. The FZ18, or even the FZ8, look like really nice little cameras. I like that you can select aperture or shutter priority. I don't want to be that dad with an over priced camera that doesn't understand what the flower symbol is on the dial.

[TheWengler]

You mention you though a manual zoom ring would help shoot the kids, I'm not so sure. I find autofocus to be invauable to shoot my own kids. For a start you can frame the picture shoot, frame and shoot give how cheap digital film is.

It's one less step if you don't have to worry about manual zoom. Also DSLR's don't have the same focussing aids as the old film SLR's, I for one have trouble manually focussing (but it seams I'm unique in this regard).

I think he's talking about the zoom ring not the focus ring.


Totally agree. It's not the expensive camera but the experienced photographer that makes great photos. But I don't have either. I just don't have time nor is it my priority to take up a new hobby -- maybe once the kids are older. So I'm seeking advice from those that know.

What I'm saying is, given my non-technical aspect and style of shooting, will a SLR format camera improve my photos?

I'm starting to think the improvement may not offset the cost. The FZ18, or even the FZ8, look like really nice little cameras. I like that you can select aperture or shutter priority. I don't want to be that dad with an over priced camera that doesn't understand what the flower symbol is on the dial.

I would say that you might be able to capture more pictures with a DSLR. Better focusing and better in low light. However, without the effort to learn what you're doing you probably won't see a huge increase in quality.

[Franklin]

Miller, I definitely wouldn't get a DSLR. Everything you say points to a (luxuruous?) compact cam.

Imho for you the only advantage of a DSLR would be higher ISO (less noise). As you are interested in just one lens (Superzoom) the Image Quality won't be optimal. Sure, it will beat most Compacts, but it's a hefty investment for a relatively minor gain.

If you want to improve your photography you will have to spend time in it. Throwing money at it doesn't help you much.

The disadvantages of a DSLR versus a compact (and I think they are persuasive in this case):

1. Weight
2. Size
3. Prize

So my advice is, buy a nice compact and work with it for a year. If you run into limitations, then analyze what you need to remove those and if it's worth it for you.

A good compact isn't wasted money, even if you get a DSLR later. There are always times where one is a good choice over the hefty (prizey) kit.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you've got some good advice there Miller from Franklin and Wengler. A superzoom in your price range could work really well for you.

A DSLR in your price range will also do a great job and have a little more flexibility but with a little more learning to be done to reach it's potential and it will be a bit bigger.

Note a DSLR can be left on full auto (I do and I'm sure I'm not alone) or switched between scene modes just like the superzooms you're considering. I really like taking photos of my kids indoors with the better quality flash that you can buy seperately and put on a DSLR (and make it even heavier).

[ghost]

personally, I think you would benefit from a DSLR over a super zoom. The auto mode on a dslr is an invaluable tool if you're shooting kids. If you dont have time to meticulously get the right settings, the auto mode works great. the flash (pop up) on the DSLRs are MUCH better than a PnS, also with no red eye. I say take the plunge, if you dont have time to learn, then so be it. but with a dslr you will want to learn and get better. If you get a D40, Xti, or pentax K1 series, you can get something in your price range with a cheaper zoom lens. take the plunge.... you know you want to.

[great_guns]

I had similar thoughts when I switched from my Panasonic Lumix FZ20 to my Canon EOS 400D (Rebel XTi).

I lost the amazing 12x (35-420mm eqiv.) zoom, the optical image stabilisation, no problems with the x-sync speed on the flash etc. when I moved over. With a few months of use though, I've come to look through these shortcomings while finding workarounds for them and look at the advantages like better photo quality, better low light performance and faster shot-to-shot speeds.

I would never give away my FZ20 for the flexibility it offers me as a single block of fibre/metal that is good for many versatile situations but I now prefer to use the DSLR more.

For your budget, my vote would be you get a body-only Canon XTi or a Nikon D40 and get a good basic zoom lens in the 18-55 or similar focal range instead of the kit lens.

If you do decide on a bridge camera however, do look at the Panasonic Lumix FZ50 because it has a manual zoom ring as well as a manual focus ring which you have indicated a desire for.

[PapayaMoo]

My concern with a super zoom over a dslr is how well will the super zoom work for situation when you're indoors with low light? With a dslr and a fast 50mm lens, f/1.8 or lower for about $100, flash or no flash, you'll probably get better pictures of your kids indoors then an super zoom. I've been doing this since my daughter was born 3 years ago. And I didn't pick it up as a hobby but just simply to make my wife happy because she wasn't getting the shots with our P&S. Now 3 years later, I'm committed to dslr and I understand apertures, shutter speed and iso better and the quality of my shots have gone up also. Bottom line to me is you buy dslr and you can grow with it. Super zoom is nice for now but still not gonna give you the best shots for indoor low light pics and at some point you might grow out of it or maybe not.

[Visual Reality]

My concern with a super zoom over a dslr is how well will the super zoom work for situation when you're indoors with low light? With a dslr and a fast 50mm lens, f/1.8 or lower for about $100, flash or no flash, you'll probably get better pictures of your kids indoors then an super zoom.
A lot of the good superzooms start at f/2.7 or 2.8, which is better than consumer grade DSLR lenses that start at 3.5. You will still need the flash though, unless you want to deal with cleaning up the noise later (and it won't be pretty). That is, unless you are shooting with a Fuji.

Still no match for a 1.4 or 1.8 prime but not that bad either.