pranav0091
I am not an Owl
Dont worry. Handle the camera with care and you'll find it should last long. Every product has some defective pieces. 
raja manuel
In the zone
Yes, one needs to know what magnification you need at 50 metres. For example, I took this photo of the launch of the PSLV-C20 blasting off from Sriharikota standing at a beach in Chennai, 85 kms away. It is obviously not zoomed in (I actually zoomed out all the way to the 18mm end to include the foreground for some perspective) but if I had a 50X zoom on my camera I would have been able to get a much much closer shot of the rocket itself than what I could have achieved with the 3X zoom offered by the lens on my camera. However this photo demonstrates another important advantage that DSLRs offer: speed. The camera was safely packed in my bag when I saw the rocket start to climb, but I still managed to fire off several shots before it disappeared into the depths of space thanks to the camera coming alive and focussing quicker than a politician forgets his promises once elected.
And this brings us to another important factor to consider when choosing a camera. DSLRs are heavy and bulky, even with the smaller 18-55 mm lens. It is ideally suited for planned photographs, not so much for capturing serendipitous moments because you are not likely to be carrying it. A smaller and lighter camera with a generous zoom and other features that give you flexibility of use while in the moment might let you capture slices of life rather than slices of light. An interesting image at medium quality will any day beat a boring image at pristine quality.
OP
raj_55555
Journeyman
That's true, with the sx50hs I have taken some amazing pics. Then again whenever I see some bird shot, or portraits the level of details in the feathers or furs are just too much for me not to drool upon. Even on Superfine mode I can't reach the level of photos that the DSLR's have. For example here's a pic that I took using sx30IS, and here's another using 550D (not my pic). Also I miss DOF in the mage.
I know that the photographer matters a lot, but I am sure you would agree that the difference in quality can't be ignore in the later image..
I know that the photographer matters a lot, but I am sure you would agree that the difference in quality can't be ignore in the later image..
tkin
Back to school!!
Some Bridge Cams are faster than DSLRs, check out Panasonic FZ150/FZ200, I'd never seen a faster AF even on DSLRs.
pranav0091
I am not an Owl
Sony ALT series has amazingly fast focus. But I wont recommend them because of the EVF.
I agree fully with this. And DSLRs are the worst cameras to have if you want someone else to photograph you. Dear god, it has to be experienced to be believed. But then, when you are using it after getting decently familiar with it, then nothing even comes close.
I recently went to a mall and they had a small fountain show in the evening. I had a friend's PnS with me and I have never been so disappointed with any camera as much as I was that day. I had grown used to the speed of the DSLRs and was shocked to see how poorly the PnS performed.
I agree fully with this. And DSLRs are the worst cameras to have if you want someone else to photograph you. Dear god, it has to be experienced to be believed. But then, when you are using it after getting decently familiar with it, then nothing even comes close.
I recently went to a mall and they had a small fountain show in the evening. I had a friend's PnS with me and I have never been so disappointed with any camera as much as I was that day. I had grown used to the speed of the DSLRs and was shocked to see how poorly the PnS performed.
sujoyp
Grand Master
lol pranav u r soo true...even I am soo used to the fast startup and fast click and fast saving that a point n shoot seems soo unusable
Just a correction an eye can see 50mm on full frame sensor and not APS-C sensor...on APS-C sensor its around 35mm what our eye sees
As raja said usability is a factor ...but then most superzooms like HX200,FZ150,FZ200 etc have size nearly same as DSLR and need a bag to carry...
A person standing 50 meter away will need a 300mm to capture top to bottom and a 500mm for portraits(half body closeup)
Just a correction an eye can see 50mm on full frame sensor and not APS-C sensor...on APS-C sensor its around 35mm what our eye sees
As raja said usability is a factor ...but then most superzooms like HX200,FZ150,FZ200 etc have size nearly same as DSLR and need a bag to carry...
A person standing 50 meter away will need a 300mm to capture top to bottom and a 500mm for portraits(half body closeup)
pranav0091
I am not an Owl
Thanks for the precise numbers buddy, I was making a very rough guess anyways
You are correct regarding the size of modern superzooms. Another point we miss about superzooms is that with increasing zoom, the wobble of the user's hand is also magnified and its not exactly very pleasant. So beyond a point a tripod begins to make sense. And anyways at that kind of zoom levels, the pic is going to be flat (DOF-wise) and loses that charm which is one of the major factors that differentiates the wide-eyed DSLRs. And if you are not that much into zooming, then the DSLRs surely have the upper hand.
I am not implying the superzooms to be bad, but its suited for a very specific kind of people like those into wildlife or birding or maybe even the moon once in a while (on a tight budget that is, if budget is not a concern then you can get telephoto lenses for the DSLRs too). But for most other purposes the DSLRs have the upper hand, obviously.
@OP: By your own statements you dont seem to be a fan of big-zoom, so I'd guess the DSLR makes more sense. How about a D3100 with 18-200 lens? That'd be very, very hard to beat. Of if you have the cash then upgrade to the D5100. I'd have recommended a couple of canons but price/performance-wise the Nikons are the better deal here
You are correct regarding the size of modern superzooms. Another point we miss about superzooms is that with increasing zoom, the wobble of the user's hand is also magnified and its not exactly very pleasant. So beyond a point a tripod begins to make sense. And anyways at that kind of zoom levels, the pic is going to be flat (DOF-wise) and loses that charm which is one of the major factors that differentiates the wide-eyed DSLRs. And if you are not that much into zooming, then the DSLRs surely have the upper hand.
I am not implying the superzooms to be bad, but its suited for a very specific kind of people like those into wildlife or birding or maybe even the moon once in a while (on a tight budget that is, if budget is not a concern then you can get telephoto lenses for the DSLRs too). But for most other purposes the DSLRs have the upper hand, obviously.
@OP: By your own statements you dont seem to be a fan of big-zoom, so I'd guess the DSLR makes more sense. How about a D3100 with 18-200 lens? That'd be very, very hard to beat. Of if you have the cash then upgrade to the D5100. I'd have recommended a couple of canons but price/performance-wise the Nikons are the better deal here
pranav0091
I am not an Owl
My bad, just checked. I dunno how I got this idea that its around 15k in price 
OP
raj_55555
Journeyman
I would say go with at sujoys advice, d3100 + 18-55 kit + tamron 70-300. AF-s will cost double i think.
tkin
Back to school!!
And a macro lens, so still 50-60k cost(by entry level I don't mean D3200)
sujoyp
Grand Master
tkin ....I adviced tamron 70-300 Di LD macro which cost around 7000 and can do 2:1 macro also from the range of 200-300mm
*farm5.staticflickr.com/4120/4812257886_742293c76e.jpg
Tamron 70-300 Macro Bee by 55Laney69, on Flickr
if u r not into too much detailed macro and fine with just sometimes macro and some closeup of flowers then this lens will be enough ....btw my macro lens can also go upto 2:1 ...its not a big problem
soo the cheapest combo will be
D3100+18-55 = 25k
Tamron 70-300 Di LD = 7k
Total =32-34k
*farm5.staticflickr.com/4120/4812257886_742293c76e.jpg
Tamron 70-300 Macro Bee by 55Laney69, on Flickr
if u r not into too much detailed macro and fine with just sometimes macro and some closeup of flowers then this lens will be enough ....btw my macro lens can also go upto 2:1 ...its not a big problem
soo the cheapest combo will be
D3100+18-55 = 25k
Tamron 70-300 Di LD = 7k
Total =32-34k
tkin
Back to school!!
Nice, so 30k for the cam, 7k for the lens, and bag etc, ~40k?
OP
raj_55555
Journeyman
And a macro lens, so still 50-60k cost(by entry level I don't mean D3200)
Buddy I said d3100 not d3200..
sujoyp
Grand Master
30k for D5100 and 25k for D3100 its ur choice
u can use free bag untill u have 3k more for bag ...u can also get a 2-3k tripod for landscapes..yaah a flash like YN465 will cost another 3800 ...thats all u want basically
D3100+18-55 = 26
Tamron 70-300 Di LD = 7k
Flash = 3800
tripod = 2k
bag for twin lens+DSLR = 2k
total = 40800 ....all covered
u can use free bag untill u have 3k more for bag ...u can also get a 2-3k tripod for landscapes..yaah a flash like YN465 will cost another 3800 ...thats all u want basically
D3100+18-55 = 26
Tamron 70-300 Di LD = 7k
Flash = 3800
tripod = 2k
bag for twin lens+DSLR = 2k
total = 40800 ....all covered
sujoyp
Grand Master
wow Raj ...now u can get
1) D5100+18-55+55-300VR +7k left for bag+tripod
2) D5100+18-55+nikon 70-300VR =all money gone
3) D5100 +18-55 + used tamron 90/tokina 100/sigma 105 macro lenscost 12-14k + save for zoom with 5 +12-13=18k (55-300vr)
4) D5100 body+tamron 17-50 2.8 = 47k and u have 8k , add more for zoom lens and macro lens
5) D5100 body +used tamron 17-50 2.8 +used Nikon 55-300 VR
1) D5100+18-55+55-300VR +7k left for bag+tripod
2) D5100+18-55+nikon 70-300VR =all money gone
3) D5100 +18-55 + used tamron 90/tokina 100/sigma 105 macro lenscost 12-14k + save for zoom with 5 +12-13=18k (55-300vr)
4) D5100 body+tamron 17-50 2.8 = 47k and u have 8k , add more for zoom lens and macro lens
5) D5100 body +used tamron 17-50 2.8 +used Nikon 55-300 VR
OP
raj_55555
Journeyman
wow Raj ...now u can get
1) D5100+18-55+55-300VR +7k left for bag+tripod
2) D5100+18-55+nikon 70-300VR =all money gone
3) D5100 +18-55 + used tamron 90/tokina 100/sigma 105 macro lenscost 12-14k + save for zoom with 5 +12-13=18k (55-300vr)
4) D5100 body+tamron 17-50 2.8 = 47k and u have 8k , add more for zoom lens and macro lens
5) D5100 body +used tamron 17-50 2.8 +used Nikon 55-300 VR
Hmm.. I think I will go for 3rd option. I was thinking if I can get a 2nd hand body, I'll save even more for the lens. BTW Getting a 3 months old canon 60D for 18K. Any suggestions?
____EDIT____
Also it might be a stupid question, but what is the difference between the types of lenses? I know AF vs AF-S. But what is VR, L any other I don't know of?
Last edited: