DSLR vs Superzoom?

[trekkie00]

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.

 

[hikaricloud]

I'll be the first to tell you "superzoom" cameras can be really nice. I've taken good shots with them before. But SLR-type cameras will always be sharper. It's not all about the zoom. Also SLR cameras are more versatile. You can do a lot more with them.

It really depends on what you want to do. Photography is something of a serious hobby for me, but it's not the same for everyone. It really comes down to you. Downside of owning a DLSR is the fact you have to shell out for lenses, so you really want to make sure you're 100% into photography to make that monetary commitment. If that's not the case, get a "superzoom" with a really large optical zoom, like 20x or 22x.

 

[trekkie00]

Thanks for the quick reply, Hikari.

The monetary commitment for a SLR is one of the things that does worry me. I'm still a mostly broke college kid who could probably spend his money on better things than a shiny new camera. Most of the stuff I do is landscapes/nature and occasionally airplanes, not really macro work or portraits.

In general, how much sharper are SLR photos than superzoom photos? Would there be a noticeable difference in most cases? I mean, I'm not really looking to enter contests or anything, I just really would like a high-quality camera with more manual controls and reasonable flexibility.

EDIT: Actually, Walmart.com has one of the best prices on the superzoom, and a 90-day return policy in any store. Probably going to order it online from there, try it out for a few weeks, and make sure that it works right for the things I need. If not, I'll definitely upgrade to the XSi.

 

[Oreo]

Superzooms are more like compacts with bigger zooms than they are SLR's, atleast to my belief.

SLR's are superior, and obviously the more you spend the bigger the difference becomes. The main benefits are there versatility, superzooms usually have limited manual control so you are at the mercy of the cameras Auto engine, although you can probably do a few basic manual settings. An SLR will let you do whatever you want, to an extent.

About sharpness, well that is probably more to do with how much you spend on a lens than the actual camera. An expensive fixed zoom, or limited zoom lens will generally be better than a lens with long ranges. For example the 18 - 200mm VR lens is great at what it does, but the 18-55mm will almost definitely give better quality pictures.

Superzooms have huge zoom ranges and thus the quality is compromised slightly. You will actually find the quality is better at some levels than others.

By the way, you can find some bargains on second hand SLR's. They don't have to be the most up to date cameras to take good pictures. A good camera 15 years ago is still a good camera today. Although that is probably excessive, look for a camera within 5 years or so and i think you will find a good deal

 

[hikaricloud]

Actually, the whole point of superzoom cameras is that the quality isn't lessened since it's an optical zoom, not a digital zoom. Same applies to extended zoom lenses, the quality doesn't really lessen that much at all, it all depends on the quality of the glass.

And most of the superzoom cameras do have basic manual settings, such as shutter speed/ISO/aperture.

Me personally, I would recommend a DSLR, but like I said, it's a huge monetary commitment. Not everyone can afford nice lenses unless they do photography professionally or they just have a lot of money to spend. Try out the superzoom and see how you like it, then make a decision.

 

[Oreo]

And most of the superzoom cameras do have basic manual settings, such as shutter speed/ISO/aperture.

"although you can probably do a few basic manual settings"

Ofcourse it's optical zoom, i know that . But I'm pretty sure its a fact that the higher the zoom range the more the optics have to be compromised in terms of picture quality. After all if it wasn't the case and high range lenses took just as good pictures as fixed zoom or small range lenses, everyone would just get high range.

 

[hikaricloud]

You forget that what you are really paying for when you shell out a thousand bucks for a fixed range lens is the glass, not the range. Glass quality is where the big bucks come into play. Hence why you still see multi-thousand dollar high range zoom lenses used for things like high-action sports photography. Range has nearly nothing to do with quality.

Now the only thing I will concede here: when it comes to MACRO photography, yes a fixed range can be better, mainly because of the ability to fix the focus and the lower aperture settings compared to zooming in all the way on a telephoto. That's why you see macro lenses with fixed range most of the time. But on regular pictures, even ones with selective focus of the non-macro variety, range means nothing. The only thing it comes down to at that point is the quality of the lens you are taking the picture with. The Canon L series is a prime example of that, and you see high range lenses that still take amazing photos, like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L for example. Notice the aperture is lower (most of the high-end lenses have a lower aperture) and it's still got a decently long range.

 

[Oreo]

I'm not trying suggest there is a large difference in quality at different zoom lengths. But i swear there is a very small one. I just can't remember where i read it.. dpreviews.com or something. They mentioned about something to do with the middle of the zoom range of a particular lens was not as sharp as it was at the wide and telephoto end. I'll give you the link if and when i find.

I just had a quick google, and the concensus seems to be that even an inexpensive prime lens is sharper than most zoom lenses, like you say it is probably due to the optical quality as much as anything. But i would really like to find out the absolute truth to what i have read.

 

[hikaricloud]

Okay, so after doing some research, I will concede that generally speaking, zoom lenses are not as sharp as prime lenses. Which I personally think is to be expected since when you zoom in, you have a higher aperture setting. And there can be contrasting issues because of it. So technically, quality COULD lessen with a zoom lens.

That being said! Every lens is made different. While range can be a factor, it is a very minute factor when deciding what you need in a lens. Quality of glass is still much more important. So your comparison of the 18-200mm VR and the 18-55 lens doesn't hold a lot of water, mainly because unless you test them side by side in similar photos, you can't say for sure.. The 18-55 is a nice kit lens, but nothing more, and you can't really compare the two solely based on range.

Here's a great example of what you are talking about though: comparing the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, the 50mm will take much sharper photos. The 18-55mm will have an aperture rating of 5.6 when zoomed into that focal length, while the 50mm will stay a constant 1.8, which will mean generally sharper focus.

My friend Nate has his own photography business, and he chimed in that they generally try to stick with prime lenses since they are sharper for that same reason. They mostly use the 35, 50, and 85mm primes (aperture settings: 1.4, 1.2, and 1.2 respectively) and they are all L series. He also has a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm (both 2.8L). He says that while they take great pictures, they won't be as sharp as the prime lenses. While 2.8 is a great aperture for those ranged lenses (without changing no less), it's still higher, and therefore less sharp. Also, the 70-200 itself loses some contrast when zoomed into 200mm.

So technically, yes, ranged lenses can lose some quality. But every lens is made different and it depends on WAY more than just the range.