SLR vs. SLR-like cameras-which is better?

Started Nov 24, 2012 | Questions thread
baloo_buc Veteran Member • Posts: 8,813
Re: SLR vs. SLR-like cameras-which is better?

ginny12 wrote:


I guess I can be considered a serious amateur photographer; however I’m new to digital SLR’s: I’ve owned a film SLR (a Sigma camera kit that came with 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 and 70-300mm f4-5.6 zoom lens) since before digital SLR’s became really mainstream and I’d greatly appreciate any feedback that you may give me…

I guess it is hard to use those lenses since you mention that they are for a Sigma camera.

I’ve also owned a Fuji Finepix F30 digital camera. The fuji was a p&s however it also had manual, aperture & shutter priority shooting modes (which I used most often) as well.

I’m looking to upgrade from my film SLR but I’m a bit undecided between a digital SLR vs. SLR-like cameras. Due to the slow lenses that came with the kit; when I was using my Sigma, I’d have a difficult time getting decent handheld shots – all would be dark or have motion blur.

Now, when I look at the digital SLR kits out there – like the Canon Rebel T3i kit with 18-55mm f3.6-5.6 and 55-250mm f4-5.6 zoom lenses :

Good entry level from Canon. Take care to get 18-55 mm IS lens not the poor quality 18-55 mm (non IS version). I gather they are both IS version so they are decent lenses with image stabilization (IS).

or NikonD3000 kit with 18-55mm f3.6-5.6 and 55-200mm f4-5.6 zoom lenses:

I’m not quite sure how to proceed..

This is also an entry level camera that has, unfortunately, some flaws regarding high ISO quality (ISO 800 would be the usable limit not ISO3200 or ISO 6400 of the newer versions). I would look rather at the Nikon D5100 that is heavily discounted right now.

My question is:

If I get either the Canon T3 or Nikon D3000, will I have the same issues as I did with handheld shot as I did with the film Sigma SLR (since both the Sigma kits’ and the Canon/Nikon kit lenses are the same speed)? Or, being that these are digital, not film SLR’s, are there other factors that come into play that enable the user to capture better images even though the lens is still the same speed?

If it's motion blur you can increase the ISO. Neither of the two cameras you picked are high ISO kings but Canon is a little better.

If the issue was with you hands tremor then both kits have IS/VR that will give you at least 2 stops advantage.

My second question is;

I have also started looking at SLR-like cameras since they can come with faster lenses (such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 which has a max. aperture of f2.8). They also offer quite a lot of zoom (24x for this Panasonic). Comparing this to the SLR kits mentioned above, the SLR-like cameras seem very attractive.

ISO 100 is similar to ISO 400 of Nikon D3000 so you lose about 2 stops with Panasonic. so you may consider a constant f/5.6 lens (i.e slower than the kit lenses). Canon is a little better at high ISO as I mentioned above.

However are SLR’s superior in any way that I’m perhaps not aware of?

Can a SLR capture better images than a SLR-like camera even though the SLR-like one has a faster lens?

Sorry for such a long a long post… thank you for reading,

Short question yes. With good dSLRs you can go without problem at ISO 3200.

With VR/IS and high ISO you can get very good static object photos in dim light. Here is a photo you would never take with Panasonic without a tripod:

ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/15 s

With Panasonic you would need ISO 100; f/2.8; 1/2 s so a tripod is more than recommended. Moreover you may have less dynamic range.

 baloo_buc's gear list:baloo_buc's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +13 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow