DSLR Dilemma......

tkin

tkin

Back to school!!
siddharthx64 said:
So for entry level DSLRs, and with our meagre budgets, we might as well forget about superzoom capability :'(
Click to expand...
Pretty much, one of the reason I want to buy the FZ200 for 30k is that a DSLR will give me better images for sure, but I'll lose out on both macro as well as telephoto, not to mention the ability to go from 60-600mm in a few secs.
 
pranav0091

pranav0091

I am not an Owl
I'd like to point out something that seems to be rather conveniently forgotten/brushed aside -

A 600mm lens is only twice as magnifying as a 300mm lens of the exact same parameters (forget the max focal length, obviously). The image gets doubled in AREA not dimensions. This is a BIG stuff to remember because a circle with double the area is only sqrt(2) = 1.4 times larger than its smaller cousin in absolute dimensions. Its not as big as you think. Worse, its MUCH smaller than you probably think.

Secondly the sensor size can compensate to a little extent to help in Zoom by cropping the image. 600mm PnS vs 400mm APS-C DSLR ? I think you'd be better off choosing the DSLR. And lenses are easily available upto 300mm for DSLRs.

OIS/Tripod. Yep. So what is that you are going to shoot with that mighty 600mm lens anyways without having a super steady hand camera ? If you need to carry a Tripod along with a PnS, then you know how serious you are about stuff.


So, if superzoom was one's priority, then they shouldnt be looking at a DSLR - you will need to change lenses and that also means that you'll need to lug around all that weight. On the other hnad if you are serious about photography, then having a 600mm lens suddenly doesnt make you special, ask Sujoy he has a massive 500mm lens - ask him the pain involved in just carrying it around.


PnS's including superzooms are all-in-one devices; stuff that you put in your bag when you go off to some place and just want a few pics to put on FB. On the other hand a DSLR is a more specialized device. Sure, it wont be able to get that eagle 200m away that your frind is checking out on his dainty superzoom, but then neither can his images be as impactful as yours assuming you are equals in skill.

I understand the need for a long lens, infact I am looking for one myself. But here on this thread I find that its being given an unnatural amount of weight. Hence the rant :)

No device is clearly superior than the other, no device is "the best". But if you know your needs, there is always a "best choice for your needs"
 
sujoyp

sujoyp

Grand Master
yes pranav I can easily say that any Nikon DSLR+a Nikon 70-300 VR can beat any superzoom easily ...but lens cost alone more than any superzoom..almost 28k

but pranav u are really underestimating the value of long zooms in superzoom ...just using a tripod with SX50 will give u quit good result
*www.flickr.com/photos/thebirdguy/

all pics taken with SX50 ...I find it as good as my 150-500 pics

Its very simple and straight ...
your budget is under 30 and want to do birding then get a superzoom...
your budget is 30-40 - get canon 600D combo soo that u get canon 55-250 for cheap and do a little bit of birding with some compromises.
budget 40-50 ...get Nikon D5100 body+Nikon 70-300 Vr lens
budget 50+ lots of choices

ooh yes and as pranav said lugging a 2KG lens is real pain ...now my total combo weight is 2.5 KG and had to keep on walking and taking hand held shots...just for comparision superzooms having this 50x zooms weight just 500GM ..
 
srkmish

srkmish

Ambassador of Buzz
i have seen amazing bird shots with fz200 and it is the fastest of the best 3 superzooms currently - sx50,hs50 and itself. but im keeping my sx50 as i like the extra reach and i have also seen amazing results with this cam by kenn and tony britton( you can google them for their images). i will be trying out their recommended settings on the next bird shoot
 
nac

nac

Aspiring Novelist
But how easy/tough it is to track the bird in flight with live view or EVF at full zoom. I find it really hard to track with my SX130 using live view.
 
srkmish

srkmish

Ambassador of Buzz
sx50 is horrible at tracking as its viewfimder is horrible plus slow shot to shot time. hs50 is better owing to better af, shot to shot times and viewfinder. but then again fz200 beats hs50 . that leica 2.8 lens on the panny is a great one. but consensus is that bif shots is best reserved for dslrs with perfect viewfinders, gazillion af points, great continous af tracking and much better shot to shot time. serious bif photographers cant rely on superzooms currently. who knows what situatiom will be like in 10 years
 
nac

nac

Aspiring Novelist
^ Even with the high quality EVF find in Sony RX series, it would still be tough to track BIF, I assume. I think, OVF can be very much be useful in this regard. But even then, is it easy when using super tele photo lens? I don't know. I guess it's little painful to pan a heavy lens handheld every now and then. We can use tripod or monopod, but again how easy it is? I wonder how the cameraman shooting cricket match track the ball precisely (at least most of the time) with the bazooka they use.

I really like to see Fuji X S2 with their latest X20's sensor, AF and Fuji's hybrid VF (OVF+EVF) + the constant aperture, weather shield while keeping or bettering the focal range of X S1. Wow!!! it would be one helluva competition along with Stylus 1 and RX10.
 
sujoyp

sujoyp

Grand Master
Nac you are right I could easily shoot BIF using my light weight Nikon 55-200 ...its light as kit lens and 200mm gives you bigger field of view
I just could not manage even a single BIF shot using my 150-500 ..maybe due to heavy weight or small field of view ..tried several times..but failed ...still I need to try using my D7000+150-500 combo hope it can get the shot I want
 
izzikio_rage

izzikio_rage

Technomancer
For BIF i think the biggest advantage that an SLR gives is the super fast focus and burst speeds and at times great quality at high ISO. I've tried this with bridge cams with 20x zooms and either the focus is off or I missed the best part of the flight or the high ISO gave a bad image (since shutter speed and aperture both need to be high)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom