Yes I could, but they are all NEGATIVE features ... LOL
There are many (all) ILC's w/ 1/200 - 1/250s sync speed. Is that an "advantage" compared to 1/4000s flash-sync ???
It depends on your shooting situation. If I am shooting at an event and using a slow shutter speed to keep the background from going too dark, then it doesn't matter to me whether the sync speed is 1/200 or 1/4000.
If I am trying to use an on-camera flash for fill in bright sunlight, then I probably do care.
There are many (all) ILC's, but is that an advantage when you have to carry and change lenses ??? ... How many shots have you missed when changing lenses ??? ... Have you ever "not" taken a shot because you were not sure it was worth the effort/TIME to change lenses ???
Again it's a tradeoff. On one hand you don't lose shots while changing lenses, and on the other hand you don't lose shots because the built-in lens didn't do what you need.
Only a relative few others have "fully" articulating and "reversible" LCD's.
It doesn't matter what cameras in general have. What matters is whether a specific camera has that feature.
For instance, if the OP wants an articulating LCD, and decides on the Rebel SL2, it has that feature. It doesn't matter that some other DSLRs don't have that feature.
Are there others in that price range w/ "auto" low-light "stacking" for lower-noise ???
Perhaps cameras with larger sensors don't need that feature?
Most ALL dSLR have the relative (limited) SAME features, (albeit fewer w/ lower price models).
All cameras have a "limited" set of features.
The important question is whether or not they have a combination that is a good match for the OP's particular needs.
I of course do not argue that ... but is there anything wrong with giving him MORE so he can creatively expand his photography ???
Nothing wrong with providing more options. The question is which options would the OP like?
Perhaps he wants the option of choosing from a wide range of lenses?
Perhaps he wants the option of getting very shallow depth of field?
I don't know what he wants, and therefore I'm not in a position to make a recommendation as to which camera best meets his needs.
About all I can say is that for a large set of very common needs, almost any current model camera will work.
You are not wrong in your interest in interchangeable lenses,
But why when most kit-lenses are SLOWER, and most beginners can't afford to invest in more expensive lenses.
In terms of low light capability and shallow depth of field, it's the aperture diameter that matters, not the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter.
From this perspective, an f/2.8 lens on a 1.7X crop body, would be considered slower than an f/3.5 lens on a 1.6X crop body. At the same angle of view the f/3.5 lens on the 1.6X crop actually lets in more total light than an f/2.8 lens on a 2.7X crop body.
That is implying you have to use a LONGER SHUTTER SPEED ... and of course that is
WRONG since you can use the same shutter-speed and ISO on ANY camera. (And implying otherwise is unfair and confusing to a beginner.)
No.
What I am saying is that with low light photography, the major source of image noise tends to be "shot noise" - the noise inherent in the light itself. Shot noise is a function of total light captured by the sensor. This is the product of the light per unit area times the area.
Thus a smaller sensor generally needs more light per unit area in order to match the noise characteristics of a larger sensor. Given similar technology, and the same shutter speed, a 1.4X crop body at f/5.8 and ISO 800 will exhibit about the same visible noise as a full frame at f/8 and ISO 1600.
With a 2X crop, you need to open up 2 stops (and lower the ISO 2 stops) in order to match the noise performance of a full frame.
It turns out that by the time you open up the aperture to match the noise performance, you also have matched the depth of field.
Only the DOF is changed, (and "wider" DOF can be an advantage since "narrow" DOF can be somewhat created/simulated w/ PP).
Sure. In post processing we can also reduce noise, crop, increase resolution, etc.
One of the choices to make is what we want to do in post processing, and what we want to do in the camera - and that brings us back to personal choice.
many aspiring photographers want this flexibility when making the decision on which system to use.
True, but most don't, and when they (later) want more -- more advanced cameras will then be available so they THEN can get the latest/greatest.
This boils down to a matter of personal style. You can make reasonable cases for or against an Interchangeable lens camera. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. There isn't a single solution that works for everybody.
Absolutely if you are (SOON) going to purchase a "fast" prime, dedicated "macro", "tilit-shift", and/or Ultra-Wide Angle, (UWA), then you indeed NEED ILC. (but w/ accompanying focal-plane shutter and thus slow/long flash-sync SS)
Not everyone needs to sync at high speeds. For instance, I shoot a lot in the studio. A 1/200 sync speed is not a problem for my situation.
Again this gets back to finding a camera that is matched to the needs of the situation. Not everyone is in your situation.
As Michael has pointed out, all modern gear is good, find the one that feels right in your hands, allows you to grow in the hobby, etc.
But I have "grown" in my (pro) hobby since I can now do things never before possible because of its unique combination of options/features.
It all depends on what you want to do. If you want to shoot with tilt/shift (AKA "Perspective Control") lenses, you really do want an ILC camera.
Oh come-on now ... how many now need/use Tilt-Shift ??? (they never were very popular and now the same can be done w/ PP)
Again it depends on the photographer and what he shoots. Personally, I need a tilt shift lens more often than I need high speed sync. But that's just me. I suspect you would be better served with a high speed sync capability.
Do you seriously think this applies to this beginner -- looking for a camera under $1000 ???
I don't think any of these features applies to a beginner with an under $1,000 camera. I don't think he needs GPS, a fast sync speed, a tilt shift lens, 10 fps, or the ability to focus track a fast bird in flight.
Personally, I think any current model DSLR or quality mirrorless is a good choice.
If you want to try out a macro lens that goes from 1X to 5X, then ILC is the way to go. Similarly, ILC tends to offer narrower angles of view with larger aperture diameters.
However, not everyone needs these options. If you are not interested in these specialty lenses, then you may not need an ILC.
OK ... then we agree ... "everyone" does not need an ILC, (and "fixed" w/ "leaf" shutter can be an advantage to those that don't).
Sure, any feature can be an advantage to someone, and you can always find someone who doesn't need a feature.
The key here is which features interest the OP? Your recommendation might actually be the perfect camera for him. He might be better served by a DSLR. Neither of us have enough information to know which is a better match.
It tends to be very subjective, so getting your hands on several options would be a good plan.
But those opinions could also include others that have also use (grown) w/ FZ series, (as opposed to ONLY those who don't even know they are limited by "mirrors" and/or "focal-plane" shutters as the ONLY they have known).
Yes, every camera has limits, even mirrorless. The real question is whether or not the limits are an issue for the OP. If they are, then he should pay attention. If they are not a problem, then he can ignore them.
And a small-sensor has low-light, and larger (40"x60"+) print limits.
Pretty much any camera can make large prints. Once you hit 20 quality megapixels, you can print almost any size. The trick is that one tends to stand further away from larger prints, so they don't need as many pixels per inch.
You do need to look out for excessive noise reduction. Many noise reduction algorithms produce images that just don't look good in large prints.
Dont worry about speculation of what technology will be more common in the future, or what works for people that may have different wants, needs and hands than you.
Why NOT ... Why "invest" today when much better probably will be available later ???
Because at some point you have to buy something.
Truth be told, there is always something better coming out soon, and no matter what you buy, there will soon be a better model at a lower price.
Exactly my point ... ALWAYS something newer, latest/greatest.
Buy the camera that meets your needs today.
And I simply (often) suggest the FZxxx is the lowest cost option w/ most options/features that he can easily use "today", (and quickly grow into the other options/features).
It's not the count of features that matters, it's whether they match up with his needs.
Rest assured that whatever you buy, there will be a much better model available in 5 years. Perhaps some of your current accessories will work with your next camera, perhaps they won't.
My advice is not to count on future compatibility. By the camera that meets current needs. Don't buy a camera because you think next year's model will be a winner.
That is especially true w/ Canon-Nikon because SONY may indeed be a better choice later, AND ... both Canon-Nikon WILL soon have "MirrorLess" that will possibly (somewhat) obsolete their older lenses.
There are a lot of possibilities. Those who speculate on the future, don't have inside knowledge. Those with inside knowledge are not at liberty to speculate.
Go try a bunch and follow your instincts. You will be much happier with gear that feels right and does what you want it to do.
No problem with that advice ...
But many of the photos I earlier posted CANNOT be done with ANY other camera, (SOOC and < $700).
Except for "low-light" -- I challenge you to post SOOC images that cannot be done w/ FZxxx ???
The truth is that you can get great images out of almost any current model camera.
Features vary from camera to camera. if we cherry pick, we can find images that only some cameras can do, but not others.
I have to disagree with the totality of that statement.
For < $1000 I suggest there are not many images that can be shot with another camera that can't w/ FZ ... but can w/ FZ that can't (easily) be done w/ others.
Now, if the unusual circumstances apply the OP, then this is useful information. If the situation is one that doesn't apply to the OP, then it doesn't matter.
For instance, consider a camera that is designed to work in a very hot environment. If you are shooting in a Steel Mill or a a Volcano,
NOW I am INTERESTED ... that is what I WANT ... a camera to use in Steel Mill or Volcano ... LOL
this is a critical feature. If you primarily shoot weddings, it's not something that makes a difference to your needs.
Would you believe I have never shot a wedding w/ dSLR ??? ... (I have only used Leicas and other rangefinders because they have less "lag".)
That's a good point. For some people lag is an issue, and others have no trouble with it. If your gear is meeting your needs, then I am happy for you. However, I will suggest that the gear that is best for your needs may not be the gear that is best for everyone's needs.
