Pretty much: I'm using an almost three-and-a-half year old basic point-and-shoot camera (Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ7, 7mp, 6x optical zoom, image stabilization) that has very few manual options and I'd like something more adjustable. Also, it's **** irritating to not have a viewfinder sometimes.
I would still keep the Lumix in my backpack for quick spontaneous photos or trips where I'd be worried about getting a new camera wet (ie, camping).
The last two times I really tried to use my camera, it was at an air show (Wings over Pittsburgh FTW) and at Seneca Rocks.
At the air show, I realized how difficult it was to aim at a rapidly moving target with a camera at arms length away, and it didn't help that it had major focusing issues, something I think manual focus control would help with. At some times, it would take a good second or two to actually take the picture, which really ruins any chance of getting a good shot.
At Seneca Rocks, it had issues with overly bright backgrounds becoming very washed out compared with the foreground or making the foreground extremely dark, something I think a DSLR would probably be better with, or maybe just something with a filter?
I was looking around and kind of reduced the options to the Canon EOS Rebel XSi - I have heard good things about the Pantex K-x, but having no autofocus indicator seems like it would get irritating very quickly, and with the similarly-priced Nikon cameras not having a focus motor in the body, Canon seemed like the best option. The XS would (I think) have all the features I really need/want, but I think the extra AF points would be useful.
But, then I called my dad, who use to have a film SLR. He switched to a regular digital camera awhile ago, mostly to save on film costs. He sounded like "95%" of what I wanted to do with a dSLR, I could do just as well with something like this Canon Powershot SX20 IS, that the stock lens on either of those dSLRs would only be something like 2x zoom at most (the Canon kit lens is 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6), higher powered lenses were expensive (entirely agreed), and they were exceptionally more bulky. Still, I'm somewhat worried about the shutter response - I'd rather not buy a $350 camera, find it's not really suited for what I want, and regret not spending the $200 extra - but the digitalcamerareview.net review sounds like the shutter lag is a hundredth-second faster, but the AF acquisition is about two-tenths of a second slower (twice as long as the dSLR). Don't remember if you can manually set focus points in it, but there is a manual focusing option. (Noob question!) For longer distances, is the focusing "less important" (ie, manually set focus to near infinity and be done?) than for close-up work?
I suppose part of the question is: how much does 2x vs 20x zoom matter on modern cameras? I will admit the main reason I bought my current camera was the 6x optical zoom, because the digital camera I was using at the time had a 2x optical zoom and I couldn't get good distance pictures. Still, that old camera was only 2mp, compared to the 10- and 12-mp cameras out now. Would this mean I could get quality at least similar to my current camera just by cropping a bit?
Any advice? If you want, I can try to post links to some of my pictures from the Panasonic - they're not especially good though.
tl;dr: I'm a camera noob, debating between a very decent superzoom and budget DSLR, not sure if the DSLR would be worth the zoom reduction and extra $200.
I would still keep the Lumix in my backpack for quick spontaneous photos or trips where I'd be worried about getting a new camera wet (ie, camping).
The last two times I really tried to use my camera, it was at an air show (Wings over Pittsburgh FTW) and at Seneca Rocks.
At the air show, I realized how difficult it was to aim at a rapidly moving target with a camera at arms length away, and it didn't help that it had major focusing issues, something I think manual focus control would help with. At some times, it would take a good second or two to actually take the picture, which really ruins any chance of getting a good shot.
At Seneca Rocks, it had issues with overly bright backgrounds becoming very washed out compared with the foreground or making the foreground extremely dark, something I think a DSLR would probably be better with, or maybe just something with a filter?
I was looking around and kind of reduced the options to the Canon EOS Rebel XSi - I have heard good things about the Pantex K-x, but having no autofocus indicator seems like it would get irritating very quickly, and with the similarly-priced Nikon cameras not having a focus motor in the body, Canon seemed like the best option. The XS would (I think) have all the features I really need/want, but I think the extra AF points would be useful.
But, then I called my dad, who use to have a film SLR. He switched to a regular digital camera awhile ago, mostly to save on film costs. He sounded like "95%" of what I wanted to do with a dSLR, I could do just as well with something like this Canon Powershot SX20 IS, that the stock lens on either of those dSLRs would only be something like 2x zoom at most (the Canon kit lens is 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6), higher powered lenses were expensive (entirely agreed), and they were exceptionally more bulky. Still, I'm somewhat worried about the shutter response - I'd rather not buy a $350 camera, find it's not really suited for what I want, and regret not spending the $200 extra - but the digitalcamerareview.net review sounds like the shutter lag is a hundredth-second faster, but the AF acquisition is about two-tenths of a second slower (twice as long as the dSLR). Don't remember if you can manually set focus points in it, but there is a manual focusing option. (Noob question!) For longer distances, is the focusing "less important" (ie, manually set focus to near infinity and be done?) than for close-up work?
I suppose part of the question is: how much does 2x vs 20x zoom matter on modern cameras? I will admit the main reason I bought my current camera was the 6x optical zoom, because the digital camera I was using at the time had a 2x optical zoom and I couldn't get good distance pictures. Still, that old camera was only 2mp, compared to the 10- and 12-mp cameras out now. Would this mean I could get quality at least similar to my current camera just by cropping a bit?
Any advice? If you want, I can try to post links to some of my pictures from the Panasonic - they're not especially good though.
tl;dr: I'm a camera noob, debating between a very decent superzoom and budget DSLR, not sure if the DSLR would be worth the zoom reduction and extra $200.