Digital SLR question..

[KentT]

I'll second the point that you seriously evaluate whether you want to spend the $$ for a true DSLR or go with one of the new mega-zooms. The Canon S3 or Sony H5 will offer essentially everything that a DSLR will -- except storing photos in RAW format and having a hotshoe for an external flash.

After doing a WHOLE lot of researching and shopping to replace my old 3MP Canon PowerShot, I went with a Sony H5 because of it's Carl Zeiss stabilized 12X lens. It has manual mode, aperture-priority mode, shutter-speed priority mode, program mode (which lets you adjust aperture or shutter-speed and everything is automatic), and fully automatic (i.e. point & shoot) with about half a dozen different automatic mode settings.

To say I'm VERY pleased with it is a gross understatement. I've never been able to take as good of photos with a camera, and I grew up with an old match-needle Minolta 35mm, then a Canon AE-1, etc. This is my third digital camera. BTW, I would've paid about 4 to 5 times the price i paid just to get an equivalent DSLR lens -- not counting the camera body... If you don't need RAW format, and if you're not going to be taking dozens of flash pictures, give these new maga-zooms a test drive -- just make sure it has a stabilized lens.

BTW, Sony has recently announced the H7 and H9 models, with a 15X Carl Zeiss zoom, 8MP, shutter speeds down to 1/4000 sec and up to 3200 ISO. They're due to ship in a little over a month...

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H9 and DSC-H7: Digital Photography Review

What would a 465mm zoom lens cost you for a DSLR? What would it weigh? How much would you end up using it?

You can do as much manual control of these as you'd like, or you can use it as a point-and-shoot and get great results...

BTW, I recommend you spend some time on Digital Photography Review and not CNET, ZD-NET, PC-World, Consumer Reports, etc.

Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ

In addition to EXCELLENT product reviews and ratings, they have forums for each of the major brands/models that will let you get feedback from owners and see the photos they're taking with their cameras...

 

[thatguy]

KentT - I have been reading the dpreview.com reviews. they are very good..

the biggest concern I have with the super zooms is although the ISO will go up above 1000 (h1, h2, h5 & S3) anything over like 200 gets very noisy.. so Im not sure what good an iso of 3200 will do.. I also have not been able to play with setting the shutter speed on them as well - a couple more trips to best buy will be needed..

I do like the size/weight of them though.. Based on the reviews I was leaning toward the H2 vs the H5.. but I have not read any H7 or H9 reviews..

thanks

Brian

 

[KentT]

the biggest concern I have with the super zooms is although the ISO will go up above 1000 (h1, h2, h5 & S3) anything over like 200 gets very noisy.. so Im not sure what good an iso of 3200 will do.. I also have not been able to play with setting the shutter speed on them as well - a couple more trips to best buy will be needed..


Brian

What those high ISO settings will do is to let you take ZOOM pictures in extremely low-light (i.e. night-time) situations. Will they be grainy? Yes -- but that's only a factor if you're trying to print 8x10 or something like that -- a 7 or 8MP camera has several times the pixels that a 4X6 print will show. The graininess will largely disappear... They make photos possible that you simply cannot take with other HANDHELD cameras. Similarly, they will work in conjunction with the extremely high shutter speeds to "freeze motion" like cannot be done otherwise. The H7 and H9s will be marketed as "consumer sports cameras" since they have the ISO and shutter speeds to take closeups of sports in motion -- from the stands.

You'll be able to stop motion like I did of this kid on the beach -- except do it at nighttime ball games, for example.

Picture View

Here's an example of the 12X zoom can do. View the original picture and see the detail on this bird -- from over 100 feet away -- handheld without a tripod. Once I saw what this thing will do handheld, I didn't even bother carrying my tripod with me on our recent vacation.

Picture View

I've experimented with 800 ISO on my H5 and 4x6s look fine...

Look at some of these photos taken with an H5. Would a $2000 DSLR/lens combo have done a better job -- probably... Would it it be enough better to justify the expense? Not for me... I'd rather spend the difference on other toys like attachments for my tractors!

Flickr: The Sony H Series - Your Very Best Photos Pool

 

[N80]

The Canon S3 or Sony H5 will offer essentially everything that a DSLR will -- except storing photos in RAW format and having a hotshoe for an external flash.

Well, not exactly. The list is a little longer (faster, more accurate focusing, higher frame rates) the most important being selection of lenses. With the cameras above you are stuck with the lens you have. And being able to 'zoom' is only a small part of what makes any given lens useful. And use of an accessory flash is no small thing either. Again, no need for a DSLR if these aren't things that you need or will grow to need.

And again, everyone forgets wide angle shooting, which you just can't duplicate with a P&S.

give these new maga-zooms a test drive -- just make sure it has a stabilized lens.

But don't get sucked in by the idea of 'zooming'. There are prices to pay. The lenses on these point and shoots are 'slow'. This means they do not open up very wide to allow a lot of light in, and the further you zoom out, the less light the lens lets in. To compensate for this, shutter speeds have to be longer. The longer the shutter speed is, the more that movement of the subject or movement of the camera will blur the image. To counter this you get two things. One is that the ISO goes way up to get a faster shutter speed. As mentioned this leads to noisy, grainy images. The other way is to use image stabilization, which is great but it is very important to remember that this only stabilizes camera movement. If the subject is moving with slow shutter speeds, the image is blurred.

With a DSLR you have the option of purchasing 'fast' lenses. They open up very wide to allow a lot of light in, which allows for faster, motion stopping shutter speeds without the necessity of raising ISOs beyond where image quality suffers.

What would a 465mm zoom lens cost you for a DSLR? What would it weigh? How much would you end up using it?

A fast (f2.8 or f4) 500mm lens would cost $7,200 and weigh a ton. But that's not comparing apples to oranges because the zooms on the P&S cameras are quite slow. Fast glass is expensive. One the other hand, Sigma makes the 'Bigma' which is a 50-500mm for less than $1000. Its big, and still not cheap and it is slow. But you can put that lens on a DSLR and five seconds later you could have a 10mm fisheye on it.

You can do as much manual control of these as you'd like, or you can use it as a point-and-shoot and get great results...

The same is true for a DSLR as well.

Believe me, I'm not knocking P&Ss. They will meet most casual photographers needs very well at a great price. But, if someone is looking to grow as a photographer, they need to seriously look at a DSLR and understand where they differ from P&Ss.

 

[KentT]

For those who don't have an investment in "legacy lens" that they want to reuse, and who do not want to do photography for a living, why should they invest 4-5 times the money to get similar results...

I guess you can't work on your tractor without using only genuine SnapOn tools, either... It's not all in the tools, now is it? -- it's also in the person using them...

I'm not saying the mega-zooms are the equivalent of a DSLR -- only that MOST people can get similar results for a fraction of the price. And with F2.8 at wide angle and F3.7 at full zoom, they're NOT that slow... With Frame Rate, you have a definite point, but not with the overall speed of the lens, IMO.

As far as wide-angle, these come with the equivalent of a 35mm built-in, and adapters are available to take them to about the equivalent of 25mm, in addition to a 1.8X teleconverter. So, you are not limited to just the lens that comes with the camera. They also take the full range of 58mm filters...

It's point-and-shoot only if you want it to be... you have total control over almost all the basic functions, including white balance, light metering pattern, underexposure/overexposure, etc.

Seriously, have you tried one? If so, you might find yourself lugging a whole lot less weight around most of the time. Some pros have...

 

[IslandTractor]

I think Kent and N80 are both correct. I own both DSLRs with pro level lenses and a number of pocket sized digital point and shoots. They both have their place and I'd hate to be limited to one or the other.

The big zoom point and shoots will meet the needs of the vast majority of casual shooters. Anyone who becomes involved in photography as a hobby however will soon become annoyed with the limitations and lack of flexibility and will then migrate to the DSLR. The only point I would add to the debate concerns the person who is on the borderline. The big zoom P+S lenses, good as they are, just don't compete with the "big glass" lenses in a number of ways that might be important to a photographer. They have more vignetting and are generally softer as well as being slower in light gathering ability and in focusing speed. As N80 points out, the big P+S zooms suck at wide angle which is a very important weakness for travel photography. That is not knocking the big zoom P+S lenses though because as bang for the buck they are often great.

The other area where the P+S cameras fall down in my view is that they lose the entire investment, not just the body, when you decide to upgrade. Maybe the current 6-10megapixel cameras will not be replaced as quickly as the earlier point and shoots but I have bought about five digital point and shoots in the past five years but have only replaced my DSLR body once. All the other money invested in DSLR equipment was directly tranferable to the new body (and in fact was purchased originally for a film SLR).

My bottom line advice: If you think photography will become more of a hobby than just capturing decent family photos and vacation memory shots, do yourself a favor and think carefully about the flexibility of a DSLR system before you buy your next P+S.

 

[California]

Getting back to the original poster, who sounds like me - I think he wants something with minimal shutter lag and it takes good pictures.

I suggest look at Panasonic's models. With Leica-designed lenses the glass is pretty good and Panasonic's image stabilization is excellent.

They make bigger cameras but I got the TZ-1. The 350mm f4.2 lens gives 10x zoom, in a camera no larger than many 3x zoom models. It will fit in a shirt pocket.

My whole kit fits in the belt holster shown - camera, spare battery, charger, spare SD memory card, and an SD to USB adapter for uploading the card to any PC.

These are cameras for good light. As several posters have noted, you need a bigger and more expensive camera for low light work. Still, 350mm (35mm equivalent) at F4.2 isn't bad. These cameras are presently on closeout at Costco for $179 and the next model, TZ-3, is just now appearing in the NY professional camera shops around $300 and are probably worth that difference.

Photos: two blue birds (Western Scrub-Jay) at full zoom 10x 350mm f4.2, 1/50 and 1/80sec. Also the camera itself shot with another TZ1 under low light (f2.8 ISO200), hand held 1/8 second. All three would have been impossible without the Image Stabilization.

 

[N80]

I guess you can't work on your tractor without using only genuine SnapOn tools, either... It's not all in the tools, now is it? -- it's also in the person using them...

Well, I don't think I suggested anything along thoses lines. But the truth is that good tools are important if you really want to do good work. Based on your argument, a credit card sized P&S with a fixed focal length lens could be just as good as a Nikon D2X in the right hands. And while a good photographer can make good images with almost anything and a bad photographer can make bad images with almost anything, the fact remains that a good photographer can make great images with great tools.

As I said, the larger P&Ss like you mention will meet the needs of most casual photographers but will be limiting to those for whom photography is more than just taking pictures.

The OP needs to get the right tool for his needs, but to do that he needs to know what tools are available and what they can and cannot do.

 

[dmccarty]

I ordered a D200 this Sunday. Before I ordered, my research took me to the online manual which is darn close to 200 pages. Its been said before but it is worth repeating, that camera's these days are hand held computers that use lenses.

What this means is that the camera is disposable. Yes, it will still work but there will be a more capable system out tomorrow. Most users will use the camera/PC for a few years and the get a new one as capabilities increase.

Years ago I bought a F100 film camera for $1200-1300. This weekend I saw that a camera shop in town has a used F100 for $300. I noticed one of my lenses that I paid about $650 was listed used for $400. The lenses are holding their value but the camera bodies are dropping at least on film cameras. I'm sure the digital bodies will do the same just like film camera bodies and computers.

Reading the D200 manual is like reading any other manual in the computer realm.

If all that is wanted is family shots a birthday parties and holidays printed on 4x6 then a P&S will meet the need. But if the camera being looked at is above a few hundred dollars and one might want to expand their photography then start looking for a cheaper DSLR that can use good lenses. Put the money in the lense. You can always sell the lenses later and get some money back. The body not so much.

Later,
Dan

 

[IslandTractor]

The lenses are holding their value but the camera bodies are dropping at least on film cameras. I'm sure the digital bodies will do the same just like film camera bodies and computers.

Yep. My first DSLR body cost me a bit over $2K and can now be had on ebay for about $300. My second DSLR body just cost me about 1200 and has about four times the speed and three times the sensor resolution as the first. The Canon EOS 1n top of the line film SLR that I used to drool over but could never afford can now be had for a few hundred bucks too. My first digital point and shoot cost over $300 and is now worth about $25. I could however easily sell any of my good lenses for about 75% of what I paid for them over 10 years ago.

 

[KentT]

N80

I don't know how you can say that I'm recommending a credit-card sized P&S when I've been specifically recommending the newer super-zooms with image stabilization. I haven't mentioned the "pocket-sized" P&S cameras at all...

Just so happens that in addition to the zoom lens, these newer cameras provide almost all the manual control over the camera that a DSLR does, so if the user wants to get "more serious" about photography they certainly can do so... and they have the critical image stabilization for those long lens, allowing use of them handheld. They can learn the relationships between ISO, shutter-speed, and F-stops. They can use macro, telephoto and wide angle lens (or adapters). They can learn how to shoot for clarity, depth-of-field or softness. They can learn how to deal with light sources, motion, filters... etc., etc., etc.

Bottomline is that they can learn photography much easier, and much less expensively (if they so desire) than what I went through in the days of match-needle manual 35mm's... and they don't need a $1000 DSLR to do so.
Meanwhile, they're not carrying around a 15-20 lb camera bag, so the likelihood of having the camera with you and ready to take a photo when the opportunity arises if far greater...

BTW, how many DSLRs are used as "glorified (and expensive) P&S cameras?" Probably the vast majority, and for most people, they won't produce significantly different results from these super-zooms...

Moore's Law (related to computers, where computing "power" doubles every 18 months while price is cut in half) applies to digital cameras now also. That $1000 DSLR body will likely be outdated in 2-3 years, just as the $300-$400 super-zooms will be... The DSLR will likely depreciate more than the entire cost of the super-zoom. The DSLR body itself will have a higher "cost of ownership."

So, MAYBE meanwhile you can hold onto some of your "legacy glass" with DSLRs, but maybe not. Due to Nikon's very slow digital camera product development/introduction cycle, an investment in Nikon glass may be a bit safer, but personally I've sold probably well over $2000 worth of lens for older Minoltas and Canons for about 10 cents on the dollar I paid for them... and that's after trying to "make do" for a while with different mounts and adapters that didn't support all the functions of the newer camera body... In my experience, the lens didn't hold their value much better, if any, than did the camera body.

I used to chase the "latest and greatest" computers also -- but now having bought over a dozen in the last 20+ years, I now consider them a "disposable tool" and plan on replacing them every couple of years. I set myself a strict budget of what's the most I can get for $XXX and have saved some serious $$ by doing so... I started my search for a new digital camera the same way -- I set myself a $500-600 target budget, and ended up spending far less, and am quite pleased with the value of the package I bought.

IMO, digital cameras NOR camera lens are a good investment -- unless you're using them to make your living, or you can afford quite expensive hobbies... My recommendation for anyone is to buy the correct digital tool for THEIR needs -- and plan on replacing it.

Meanwhile, these new super-zooms have carved out a niche that bridges the traditional gaps between P&S and DSLRs -- at an affordable price...

 

[BillyP]

All this is good reading but let's get back to thatguys' question.

"I am researching getting a digital SLR, I am tired of taking pictures of the dogs tail because he moved before our digital point and shoot camera took the pic."

Is there a less expensive P & S zoom that will capture a quality image of this elusive dog? On second thought, (because I know where this will head) I'll substitute good for quality. My definition of good is if you had this picture printed at Wal Mart and showed the family, friends or total stranger, could they actually tell it wasn't taken by a DSLR?

 

[KentT]

Is there a less expensive P & S zoom that will capture a quality image of this elusive dog? On second thought, (because I know where this will head) I'll substitute good for quality. My definition of good is if you had this picture printed at Wal Mart and showed the family, friends or total stranger, could they actually tell it wasn't taken by a DSLR?

Haven't tried taking a picture of the dog's tail -- I don't have a dog -- but will birds (pelicans) in flight come close enough?

Pelican in flight on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

pelican_flying3 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

pelican_flying2 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Click on All Sizes above the photos, pick the largest size, and see if the detail is sufficient for your needs. My 14 year old took these on "automatic" mode...

Here's some I took on the bird-feeder when I was first putzing with it, learning the controls.

Album: Bird Feeder

 

[IslandTractor]

Haven't tried taking a picture of the dog's tail -- I don't have a dog -- but will birds (pelicans) in flight come close enough?

Whoa there Kent...do you have a thing for pelican butts? These photos seem to indicate that super zoom fever can overpower aesthetics. I'm half teasing but there is a tendency to over use telezooms that is only encouraged by these new digital superzooms. Zoom and long telephoto have their place for sure but I bet those photos would have been more interesting if they were wide angle rather than proctoscopic shots of the birds.

To address the original poster's question: yes, there are several companies that make quick digital SLRs that could reliably get the dog's face rather than tail. Canon and Nikon are the two market leaders and some of us think you don't really need to look much further. I believe a decent starter outfit can be had for about $700 bucks, perhaps $1000 if you opt for a higher quality starter zoom lens. There are also newer point and shoots, including the new super zoom enhanced function cameras that are also MUCH faster focusing than the older digital cameras. If you really just want to decrease the shutter lag phenomenon, you can either go to a DSLR or a new high quality P+S style camera. However, the DSLR will be four or five times faster to go from off to ready as it doesn't have to get the lens organized and the shutter press to photo time is also instantaneous with the DSLR but is about half a second on a typical (even high end super zoom) P+S.

 

[BillyP]

Thanks, Kent! I already knew the answer I was just trying to get the thread back on track. By the way, those are some good clear pics. Attached is one of some neighbor kids riding across the pasture. It's not all that clear but it was at 10X and freehanded.

 

[KentT]

Whoa there Kent...do you have a thing for pelican butts? These photos seem to indicate that super zoom fever can overpower aesthetics. I'm half teasing but there is a tendency to over use telezooms that is only encouraged by these new digital superzooms. Zoom and long telephoto have their place for sure but I bet those photos would have been more interesting if they were wide angle rather than proctoscopic shots of the birds.

Well, it was my adolescent son at the controls, and the original poster wanted a picture of tails, so what can I say?

Seriously, here's my favorite set from our recent vacation -- and it is almost entirely wide-angles:

St John (USVI) Sunrises & Such - a photoset on Flickr

Thanks, Kent! I already knew the answer I was just trying to get the thread back on track. By the way, those are some good clear pics. Attached is one of some neighbor kids riding across the pasture. It's not all that clear but it was at 10X and freehanded.

Nice shot! I like all those shades of yellow and green. Is that wild mustard in bloom?

 

[IslandTractor]

Well, it was my adolescent son at the controls, and the original poster wanted a picture of tails, so what can I say?

Seriously, here's my favorite set from our recent vacation -- and it is almost entirely wide-angles:

That's more like it.

 

[N80]

I don't know how you can say that I'm recommending a credit-card sized P&S when I've been specifically recommending the newer super-zooms with image stabilization. I haven't mentioned the "pocket-sized" P&S cameras at all...

You misunderstand me. You were making a point that it isn't the tool that matters. I just took that point to an extreme. Tools do matter. I've used cheap Chinese tools, Craftsman tools and Snap-On tools. Each one was a step better (in my opinion).

Meanwhile, they're not carrying around a 15-20 lb camera bag, so the likelihood of having the camera with you and ready to take a photo when the opportunity arises if far greater...

That's a generalization that just doesn't fly. I can pop a 12-24mm lens on my DSLR and it is hardly larger than the type of P&S you are discussing, take far wider shots than any P&S, with higher image quality to boot. I never carry a camera bag at all when I'm out shooting. So let's put the notion aside that because you have a lot of gear that you must carry it all at the same time. I think you base that on the fact that one would have to do that to get the zoom range you seem to think so important. Again, the one lens I mentioned above gives a field of view not even available for a P&S (and those adapters you mention are just more gear to tote and don't yield great results.

BTW, how many DSLRs are used as "glorified (and expensive) P&S cameras?" Probably the vast majority, and for most people, they won't produce significantly different results from these super-zooms...

That is probably true, but I'm not sure what that proves. There are surely an equal number of people with advanced super zooms like yours that don't use or need the features that it has either. That doesn't mean it isn't a great camera.

Moore's Law (related to computers, where computing "power" doubles every 18 months while price is cut in half) applies to digital cameras now also. That $1000 DSLR body will likely be outdated in 2-3 years, just as the $300-$400 super-zooms will be...

I don't buy my gear for resale. And given the disposable nature of all camera bodies that you suggest, it would be unwise to do so. But you make it sound like that's an argument against the DSLR. Yes, the initial investment is higher but as a tool, it is much more versatile and capable of better results. Of course the initial investment will be higher.

The other problem I have with this idea of ongoing improvement is that just because the next camera is better, it doesn't change what mine can do. My current DSLR can outresolve most film and most of Nikon's extraordinary glass. I can make huge prints with these images. A better camera on the market does not change that. So I won't be forced to upgrade and the camera won't cease to function just because there is something new out there.

So, MAYBE meanwhile you can hold onto some of your "legacy glass" with DSLRs, but maybe not. Due to Nikon's very slow digital camera product development/introduction cycle, an investment in Nikon glass may be a bit safer

Well, that's just a brand issue. As I mentioned, I'm using a 25+ year old Nikon manual focus lens on my DSLR. I could sell it now for more than it was originally priced in the early 80's. I'm not too worried about my lens investment. Nikon could, and might, change their lens mount tomorrow. But again, the investment side of the discussion doesn't hold much water for me. A $7000 lens gives you $7000 worth of quality and function. You get what you pay for. It isn't a myth for tractors or photo equipment. (For the record, I buy a lot of used gear and I've never spent more than $1000 on a lens. I do not do, or want to do much telephoto work. Just keeping thigs in perspective)

I started my search for a new digital camera the same way -- I set myself a $500-600 target budget, and ended up spending far less, and am quite pleased with the value of the package I bought.

I think part of the problem is that you seem to think that I'm knocking your camera. I'm not. It sounds like it is perfect for you. I could probably do most of what I want to do with it. Again, all I'm trying to say is that there is a reason that SLR's exist and a reason that they cost a lot.

My recommendation for anyone is to buy the correct digital tool for THEIR needs -- and plan on replacing it.

I think that is fine. And I apply that philosphy to some things. Typically things I'm not deeply into. For cameras, I don't replace stuff until it dies. My DSLR is my first digital camera (I've shot 35mm for years) and being the complicated beast that it is, it may die at anytime. But I conservately expect to use it for at least five years. Probably more. There are very few things that a better body can tempt me with. I don't want or need more megapixles, frames per second, etc. I have no interest in a full 35mm sensor. Better noise at higher ISO's will be the new frontier. And I'm still shooting film (and doing my own developing) with my old manual focus Nikon FA which will function with all of my AF lenses as well.

Here is my pelican, captured with a D200 and 80-200 2.8 lens:

And here is a B&W film image made (the same day as the pelican) with my old FA on film I processed at home:

 

[KentT]

N80...

OK, I'll use your analogy. Craftsman tools are just fine for 90% plus of the market... and SnapOns are used primarily by those who make a living with them... (You obviously know what you're doing, BTW.) I wouldn't recommend them to most consumers, though. My point is that people can learn photography using a superzoom -- if they so desire -- and can produce affordable high-quality "snapshots" if they don't.

No, I don't necessarily think you're criticizing my camera. I do think you've likely never used one of the new super-zooms very much, and I don't think your experience is "the norm" for most people...

 

[Alan L.]

Wow, George, a great display of superior equipment on the bird picture, and more just photographic talent on the bottom one. Looks something you'd see in Life magazine.