Reading mode: Light Dark

Bridge Camera or Entry dSLR? Which is right for me and what some options?

Go to last post
H

HawkTx

Active member
Messages
68
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1
I wrote the below on the wrong forum originally so I'm re-posting it here so it reaches the 'target audience'. I've already gotten some good advice but would like a bit more.

**I wrote this long post (below) and realized that maybe a lot of people wont want to read through it all so here's the condensed version. I'm looking for a fast camera to take pictures of my kids who don't like to sit still. I need a decent zoom for sporting events, but I don't want to carry around a ton of different lenses. I'm looking to spend in the neighborhood of $400, but don't mind buying used. Can i get what I want from a bridge/superzoom camera (eg canon sx50, hx300) or do I need a dSLR with a good range lens (eg Nikon D5100 w. 18-105mm). If you are willing to read my post below please do as it explains more :). Thanks!!

_______

Ok so to start I don't really know anything about photography (which is why i'm here asking these questions). That being said i have a VERY VERY basic understanding of the correlation between aperture/fstops, ISO/exposure, and shutter speed. The first camera I ever learned to use as a kid was a 35mm canon (~25 years ago) so i had to learn a LITTLE. Basically I understand that the larger the aperture the more light it lets in at one time which means you can have a shorter shutter speed all of which is relative to the ISO you're shooting at which is basically dependant on how much light you've got in the first place. It's basically all 'theoretical' knowledge so I don't have any practical experience and couldn't tell you what ISO you'd need to shoot at under what lighting conditions and what f-stop & shutter speed you'd need to use to get the type of photo you want etc. etc. I also know that depth of field in a pictures is related in here somewhere but I forget how exactly.

Now that you know how little I know let me tell you how I want to use the camera. I have 2 kids and 99% of the photos I take will probably be of them. In the past the point & shoot camera's I've had have been reasonable for my needs, but now that I have kids that don't sit still and are now starting to play sports I need something better & faster. My last 2 cameras were basically 'slr style/shape' digitals with ~15x optical zoom (a 35-420mm and a 5-75mm). I will also use the camera on vacations to take wildlife or scenery portraits too, but that won't be as often.

So FINALLY here is my barrage of questions as referenced in the title of the post. There's just so many choices out there I'm not sure what I need. I think if i can at least narrow it down to a "type" that would help so maybe that's first question...then if i decide on a type some of you more experienced folks can help me pick a few good options that I can go look at and decide which is right for me. In my research (aka google) I've come to the conclusion that I'm either looking for an entry level SLR camera plus a flexible lens (maybe 18-105mm or 18-55 + 55-200mm), or some kind of bridge camera. My biggest gripes with my previous cameras basically relate to speed. It either takes too long between shots that I miss the one I want...or there's so much lag after I press the button that I miss the shot I was framing...trying to catch that 1 second window when both my kids are looking at the camera etc.

I am also 'somewhat' concerned about size (ie...i'm not really concerned at all if it takes the pictures I want, but my wife is concerned) ;). I don't mind a larger camera (small dslr + lens), but i'm not going to be toting around multiple lenses. It would be nice enough if the camera fit in my wife's purse or a diaper bag etc. (lens attached if possible).

Of course LASTLY budget is also an issue. I'm really only looking to spend around $400 on a camera. That alone probably puts the SLRs out of my range, but I have found what I think are solid SLRs for that price. For instance I can get a Nikon D5100 with 18-55mm kit lens brand new for under $400. Of course I want a longer zoom lens, but this tells me that if i start looking at used cameras/lenses maybe I could find what I want (if indeed a dSLR is what I need). Luckily in the bridge/superzoom category I think I can get pretty much anything within that budget...the 3 I've looked at most closely are the Sony hx300, Canon sx50, and Lumix Fz200. I know these are all superzoom cameras sporting 40x+ optical zoom ranges...but I'm willing to consider smaller zoom for sure. I've been plenty happy with the range of my 5-75mm

I realize this is a long post and hopefully at least a few knowledgeable people have been willing to read through it all and give me some insight. Which 'type' of camera will meet these needs. Then some recommendations within the type would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to ask any other questions you like.
 
If you were to go for a DSLR you would need two lenses, one for most family shots and another longer lens for sports. Given your budget and that you don't want to carry a lot of gear, I think that a DSLR would not be right for you. There are several good bridge cameras that would meet your needs. Since one problem with bridge cameras is that they are not good in low light due to their small sensors, I'm a believer in bridge cameras that take an accessory flash. The accessory flash is more powerful, it saves the camera's batteries, and the ones I would recommend can be used for bounce flash. Bounce flash gives a much nicer more natural light than direct flash.

I suggest looking at the Panasonic FZ70, Canon SX50HS, and Fujifilm HS50EXR. The Nikon P5200 does not take an accessory flash. The Panasonic FZ200 is a very good bridge camera but it costs around $600. I like the FZ70 because it has a 20mm equivalent wide end. I like the HS50EXR because it has a manual zoom ring that I find faster and more precise than the power zooms on other bridge cameras. It also has a little bigger sensor than the others.

I think that any of these three would be good for you. I suggest handling them if you can. You may find one has better ergonomics for you than the others. FWIW, my choice would be the FZ70 because of the 20mm wide end.
 
Last edited:
mgd43 said:
mgd43 wrote:

If you were to go for a DSLR you would need two lenses, one for most family shots and another longer lens for sports. Given your budget and that you don't want to carry a lot of gear, I think that a DSLR would not be right for you. There are several good bridge cameras that would meet your needs. Since one problem with bridge cameras is that they are not good in low light due to their small sensors, I'm a believer in bridge cameras that take an accessory flash. The accessory flash is more powerful, it saves the camera's batteries, and the ones I would recommend can be used for bounce flash. Bounce flash gives a much nicer more natural light than direct flash.

I suggest looking at the Panasonic FZ70, Canon SX50HS, and Fujifilm HS50EXR. The Nikon P5200 does not take an accessory flash. The Panasonic FZ200 is a very good bridge camera but it costs around $600. I like the FZ70 because it has a 20mm equivalent wide end. I like the HS50EXR because it has a manual zoom ring that I find faster and more precise than the power zooms on other bridge cameras. It also has a little bigger sensor than the others.

I think that any of these three would be good for you. I suggest handling them if you can. You may find one has better ergonomics for you than the others. FWIW, my choice would be the FZ70 because of the 20mm wide end.
Click to expand...
Hm...i was hoping on a dSLR i could get away with 1 lens like an 18-105 or 18-200. I don't mind post processing a wider shot if the quality is high enough...of course the 18-55 that comes with most of the dslr's just isn't going to fly :P. Still though...the lenses are proving to be the crux of my search for sure. I did find someone selling a Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $400, but they were non VR so i thought at least on the 55-200 that would likely be a blur issue.

I don't mind considering a bridge camera as long as the pictures snap fast enough. That's been my biggest gripe with the ones I've had previously. I'm not as concerned about 'low light' photos because generally there isn't much 'action' in low light so as long as there's a decent flash (as you mentioned) it can compensate well enough with a slower shutter speed. I'll be sure to look for one that takes a separate flash if I find the built in to be a problem.

I found the FZ200 for 450 which is in budget for me. Would that be my best pick of the bunch you mentioned? Ignoring the zoom range for a moment how would the G15 or G1x compare? Those are 2 others roughly in budget I was looking at.
 
The main problem you've had in the past with shutter lag is mostly due to AF issues. Whenever you're using auto focus, the camera won't let you take a picture until focus is achieved. This may be because there isn't enough light to focus, but if you've mostly used p&s or bridge cameras in the past, it is most likely the cameras AF system.

Most p&s or bridge cameras use contrast detection AF (CDAF) systems which are slower than those that use phase detection AF (PDAF) in their AF systems. PDAF systems are found in DSLRs and Sony SLTs, but some mirrorless models have started to incorporate phase detection info into their focusing systems. CDAF systems basically require the lens to move in and out of focus to determine what is in focus, while PDAF systems allow the lens to move directly into focus. To get a better understanding take a look at this:

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org

Most bridge cameras share the same sensors as p&s cameras but have better optics and more controls. Because they use such small sensors they often have problems with low light performance. What this basically means is that they have a low ISO threshold before the image stats to get too noisy/grainy. So the lower the light level in your scene, the more you might need to boost ISO to get reasonably fast shutter speeds to avoid blur. However, bridge cameras will most likely get unpleasantly noisy at lower ISOs than cameras with APS-C sized sensors. If you're shooting in bright light outside, this may not be an issue. But if you are shooting indoors it may become a problem.

Another way to combat this could be to use a wider aperture to let more light through the lens. Most of the optics on most bridge cameras don't open that wide though.

Also, lenses with longer zoom ranges tend to make optical compromises by design. This means they may not be sharp through sections of their range. Reviews will point this out for specific cameras.

Now there are bridge cameras or p&s cameras that do better in these areas, but they seem to be out of your budget.
 
One thing I didnt see emphasized enough is the VAST difference in image quality between the two. Look at this link. An APS-C sensor is like 12 TIMES bigger than the 1/2.3 inch used in most bridge cameras. http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/pictures#1

A bridge camera (aka superzoom) is great for taking pics of birds and far off stuff outside, but is terrible for everything else in comparison. A DSLR or mirrorless or even an enthusiast compact is much better at low light shots.

If you really need the zoom, consider a travel zoom instead which is a compact camera such as the canon SX280 that has around 20x zoom. Its image quality is IDENTICAL to the bigger bridge cameras and you can do just as much with them, despite the extra knobs and stuff on the bridge ones...its just buried under menus n such.

Another option is an enthusiast zoom such as the P7700/P7800, G15/G16, LX7, RX100, etc. These are all pocketable and thus easy to carry and use, have modest zooms of 4x to 7.1x, but have bigger than average sensors and better glass. I personally use the RX100.

If portability isnt as much of a concern then the DSLR is the way to go. (or mirrorless). You can have a few different lenses and depending where you go, you can pretty much figure out which one to take with you. DSLRs also are known for faster autofocus.
 
HawkTx said:
HawkTx wrote:
HawkTx said:
mgd43 wrote:

If you were to go for a DSLR you would need two lenses, one for most family shots and another longer lens for sports. Given your budget and that you don't want to carry a lot of gear, I think that a DSLR would not be right for you. There are several good bridge cameras that would meet your needs. Since one problem with bridge cameras is that they are not good in low light due to their small sensors, I'm a believer in bridge cameras that take an accessory flash. The accessory flash is more powerful, it saves the camera's batteries, and the ones I would recommend can be used for bounce flash. Bounce flash gives a much nicer more natural light than direct flash.

I suggest looking at the Panasonic FZ70, Canon SX50HS, and Fujifilm HS50EXR. The Nikon P5200 does not take an accessory flash. The Panasonic FZ200 is a very good bridge camera but it costs around $600. I like the FZ70 because it has a 20mm equivalent wide end. I like the HS50EXR because it has a manual zoom ring that I find faster and more precise than the power zooms on other bridge cameras. It also has a little bigger sensor than the others.

I think that any of these three would be good for you. I suggest handling them if you can. You may find one has better ergonomics for you than the others. FWIW, my choice would be the FZ70 because of the 20mm wide end.
Click to expand...
Hm...i was hoping on a dSLR i could get away with 1 lens like an 18-105 or 18-200. I don't mind post processing a wider shot if the quality is high enough...of course the 18-55 that comes with most of the dslr's just isn't going to fly :P. Still though...the lenses are proving to be the crux of my search for sure. I did find someone selling a Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $400, but they were non VR so i thought at least on the 55-200 that would likely be a blur issue.

I don't mind considering a bridge camera as long as the pictures snap fast enough. That's been my biggest gripe with the ones I've had previously. I'm not as concerned about 'low light' photos because generally there isn't much 'action' in low light so as long as there's a decent flash (as you mentioned) it can compensate well enough with a slower shutter speed. I'll be sure to look for one that takes a separate flash if I find the built in to be a problem.

I found the FZ200 for 450 which is in budget for me. Would that be my best pick of the bunch you mentioned? Ignoring the zoom range for a moment how would the G15 or G1x compare? Those are 2 others roughly in budget I was looking at.
Click to expand...
For sports you want at least 300mm equivalent (200mm on your camera). That means a DSLR, mirrorless system camera (MILC), bridge camera, or travel zoom. With a DSLR or MILC you would need two lenses or an all-in-one (aka superzoom) like an 18-200. The problem is cost. You might be able to get a used DSLR with a used all-in-one for $400 but it would be older gear. I tried going to keh.com which is the best for used gear, but I'm having trouble with their website. I'll try again later. The D3100 is a good camera, but the 18-55 and 55-200 are older less sharp versions and lack VR. I also don't recommend getting used gear without a return privalege and a warranty from a reliable source.

High end compact like a G15 or G1X are good cameras, but their lenses don't approach 300mm equivalent so they may be too short for sports. Travel zooms have long lenses but they lack a viewfinder so they are not the best at following the action of sports.

That leaves a bridge camera unless you can come up with enough money for a DSLR and all-in-one lens. The FZ200 is a very good bridge camera, but they run $600+ new so that one must be used. If it doesn't come with a return privalege or warranty from a reliable source it's a gamble.

I just checked keh.com. I'm most familiar with Nikon so that's what I checked. I found a D60 (ex $165) and a Sigma 18-200 OS HSM (ex $254) for a total of $419. keh grades very conservatively. Their ex is in very good condition. It almost like new.
 
Last edited:
For $400 you're not going to be able to get the equipment necessary to take on most sports.

If you give up that, then a camera like the Canon G12 will do great photos of kids. You need to learn how to half press the shutter and set the controls manually.
 
Ahh thanks i'll check out keh.com and see what I can find.

As for the FZ200 pricing i'm not sure about ALL the sites I found it on, but b&H has the fz200 NEW for 550 which is definitely a site i trust. I've also done well on BuyDig where I found it for 520, but sometimes it can take a while to ship. I don't know about primotronix for sure which is where I found it for 465, but the others are still less than $600 and new for sure.

I was afraid the zoom on the two G cameras would be lacking which is why I asked. At worst I'll look closely at the FZ70. Thanks again!
 
thebustos said:
thebustos wrote:

The main problem you've had in the past with shutter lag is mostly due to AF issues. Whenever you're using auto focus, the camera won't let you take a picture until focus is achieved. This may be because there isn't enough light to focus, but if you've mostly used p&s or bridge cameras in the past, it is most likely the cameras AF system.

Most p&s or bridge cameras use contrast detection AF (CDAF) systems which are slower than those that use phase detection AF (PDAF) in their AF systems. PDAF systems are found in DSLRs and Sony SLTs, but some mirrorless models have started to incorporate phase detection info into their focusing systems. CDAF systems basically require the lens to move in and out of focus to determine what is in focus, while PDAF systems allow the lens to move directly into focus. To get a better understanding take a look at this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus

Most bridge cameras share the same sensors as p&s cameras but have better optics and more controls. Because they use such small sensors they often have problems with low light performance. What this basically means is that they have a low ISO threshold before the image stats to get too noisy/grainy. So the lower the light level in your scene, the more you might need to boost ISO to get reasonably fast shutter speeds to avoid blur. However, bridge cameras will most likely get unpleasantly noisy at lower ISOs than cameras with APS-C sized sensors. If you're shooting in bright light outside, this may not be an issue. But if you are shooting indoors it may become a problem.

Another way to combat this could be to use a wider aperture to let more light through the lens. Most of the optics on most bridge cameras don't open that wide though.

Also, lenses with longer zoom ranges tend to make optical compromises by design. This means they may not be sharp through sections of their range. Reviews will point this out for specific cameras.

Now there are bridge cameras or p&s cameras that do better in these areas, but they seem to be out of your budget.
Click to expand...
 
BobSC said:
BobSC wrote:

For $400 you're not going to be able to get the equipment necessary to take on most sports.

If you give up that, then a camera like the Canon G12 will do great photos of kids. You need to learn how to half press the shutter and set the controls manually.
Click to expand...
With BRIGHT light you can certainly do Horse racing with a Nikon D40 and a Sigma 70-300mm HSM lens for 400 bucks. Then the window drops off..Bright light. I really think a SX50 with an external Flash would check all marks. Go to the Powershot forum and check out their work. Low Light equals bounch flash and the 50 has a hot shoe.
 
Joseph Mama said:
Joseph Mama wrote:

One thing I didnt see emphasized enough is the VAST difference in image quality between the two. Look at this link. An APS-C sensor is like 12 TIMES bigger than the 1/2.3 inch used in most bridge cameras. http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/pictures#1

A bridge camera (aka superzoom) is great for taking pics of birds and far off stuff outside, but is terrible for everything else in comparison. A DSLR or mirrorless or even an enthusiast compact is much better at low light shots.

If you really need the zoom, consider a travel zoom instead which is a compact camera such as the canon SX280 that has around 20x zoom. Its image quality is IDENTICAL to the bigger bridge cameras and you can do just as much with them, despite the extra knobs and stuff on the bridge ones...its just buried under menus n such.

Another option is an enthusiast zoom such as the P7700/P7800, G15/G16, LX7, RX100, etc. These are all pocketable and thus easy to carry and use, have modest zooms of 4x to 7.1x, but have bigger than average sensors and better glass. I personally use the RX100.

If portability isnt as much of a concern then the DSLR is the way to go. (or mirrorless). You can have a few different lenses and depending where you go, you can pretty much figure out which one to take with you. DSLRs also are known for faster autofocus.
Click to expand...
I think I need to go handle a g15 and p7700 see if the zoom range will work for me. Those are some i looked at and I know fall in my budget. I know it won't be as good for sports without more zoom, but I can always crop a wider shot. I think the bigger bridges with larger zooms are all probably too slow for sports anyway.

I know without much doubt that a DSLR is what I really want/need, but I can't afford it in the configuration that I'd need.

thanks for the info!
 
The feeling that I get from your question is that you would be much better served with a strong P&S or bridge camera than a DSLR. As the other posters suggested the low light ability is certainly a big downside of the small format cameras and don't underestimate how often that becomes useful. However, in the end the best camera is the camera that you have with you and given that you want to do family photography you will get many more opportunities to take great photos with a portable solution.

Regarding overview of some cameras in your price range, there is a chart (although a bit confusing) located here:

Loading…

www.claritific.com

Seems like the Nikon P330, Canon SX280 and G15 is highly rated in that price range. From your information, I would go with the Canon G15.

Just a note about sports photography. It is actually one of the most demanding areas of photography out there. It demands the most of the cameras AF system and there are $7000 cameras that still don't get it right. You will be just as frustrated with a entry level SLR as with a good bridge camera when you take sport photos. My suggestion would be to choose the best camera for family photography and avoid weighing your options too much based on the sport photography criteria.
 
Hmm...that was one of the cameras I was originally looking at, but had been somewhat talked out of due to sensor size and a few other things. The hot shoe was already on my mind for low light so I wasn't really concerned there. I think my options right now are FZ70 (maybe FZ200 if i can find it cheap enough), Sx50, P7700, and G15. I need to just go handle these and see zoom wise what I feel like i can live with then find the one that has the best quality for a majority of the pictures I can take.

I had pipe dreams of finding something like a D5100 with a 18-100+mm lens but it's just going to cost more than i can afford I think.

Thanks!
 
HawkTx said:
HawkTx wrote:

Ahh thanks i'll check out keh.com and see what I can find.

As for the FZ200 pricing i'm not sure about ALL the sites I found it on, but b&H has the fz200 NEW for 550 which is definitely a site i trust. I've also done well on BuyDig where I found it for 520, but sometimes it can take a while to ship. I don't know about primotronix for sure which is where I found it for 465, but the others are still less than $600 and new for sure.

I was afraid the zoom on the two G cameras would be lacking which is why I asked. At worst I'll look closely at the FZ70. Thanks again!
Click to expand...
It could be that the price of the FZ200 is coming down because a replacement is on the way. B&H is definately trustworthy. I've been dealing with them since the early 80's.
 
HawkTx said:
HawkTx said:
mgd43 wrote:

If you were to go for a DSLR you would need two lenses, one for most family shots and another longer lens for sports. Given your budget and that you don't want to carry a lot of gear, I think that a DSLR would not be right for you. There are several good bridge cameras that would meet your needs. Since one problem with bridge cameras is that they are not good in low light due to their small sensors, I'm a believer in bridge cameras that take an accessory flash. The accessory flash is more powerful, it saves the camera's batteries, and the ones I would recommend can be used for bounce flash. Bounce flash gives a much nicer more natural light than direct flash.

I suggest looking at the Panasonic FZ70, Canon SX50HS, and Fujifilm HS50EXR. The Nikon P5200 does not take an accessory flash. The Panasonic FZ200 is a very good bridge camera but it costs around $600. I like the FZ70 because it has a 20mm equivalent wide end. I like the HS50EXR because it has a manual zoom ring that I find faster and more precise than the power zooms on other bridge cameras. It also has a little bigger sensor than the others.

I think that any of these three would be good for you. I suggest handling them if you can. You may find one has better ergonomics for you than the others. FWIW, my choice would be the FZ70 because of the 20mm wide end.
Click to expand...
Hm...i was hoping on a dSLR i could get away with 1 lens like an 18-105 or 18-200. I don't mind post processing a wider shot if the quality is high enough...of course the 18-55 that comes with most of the dslr's just isn't going to fly :P. Still though...the lenses are proving to be the crux of my search for sure. I did find someone selling a Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $400, but they were non VR so i thought at least on the 55-200 that would likely be a blur issue.

I don't mind considering a bridge camera as long as the pictures snap fast enough. That's been my biggest gripe with the ones I've had previously. I'm not as concerned about 'low light' photos because generally there isn't much 'action' in low light so as long as there's a decent flash (as you mentioned) it can compensate well enough with a slower shutter speed. I'll be sure to look for one that takes a separate flash if I find the built in to be a problem.

I found the FZ200 for 450 which is in budget for me. Would that be my best pick of the bunch you mentioned? Ignoring the zoom range for a moment how would the G15 or G1x compare? Those are 2 others roughly in budget I was looking at.
Click to expand...
Actually, contrary to what you read from a lot of gear heads, the kit 18-55 lenses are pretty good optically. They sacrifice build quality and speed to be cheap. Some have more distortion but the camera will correct it anyway. Don't get caught up in the whole "kit lenses suck" mentality. If you don't specifically know why you need something more, you're wasting your money to impress other people. Coincidentally to what you've talked about, the 18-105 and such lenses you've mentioned are in most cases equal to or less than the optical quality of the kit 18-55s.
That being said, an 18-55 is too short for sports. Unless you're a referee or otherwise on the field of play. It would be ok to take shots of the entire game perhaps. But if you want pictures of your kids playing, you need a tele. The travel zooms you have mentioned may work in bright light, but anything less and they will be too slow. If you're fine with that and your kids play during bright daylight hours, maybe look at a nikon 1 system. Small and super fast. Your wife will thank you. I used to shoot kids sports with a slr and 2.8 zoom but have since went with a FZ200 and haven't looked back. 600mm equiv reach (can't tell you how nice this is) at f/2.8 is wonderful. I use this at highschool football games at night under the lights and perfectly happy with the results vs investment and size. I can show some examples if you'd like. Yeah the noise level is greater than a slr but NR software is pretty good these days. And I don't make giant prints of sports pictures anyway. A 2.8 lens will allow you to use higher shutter speeds which will help any beginner to get many more sharp pictures or keepers when shooting kids. The focusing is fast enough with some pre focusing and anticipating where the action will be. Biggest downside in my view is the power zoom. It's slow. That's my take on it. And just PM me and I'll send you a link to view a gallery of night football pictures with the camera.
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
 
One other thing: I bought my fz200 from keh. Like new condition with box and everything for 399 plus shipping. So its within your budget. I had to wait about a month for them to get one in though. They don't get many (maybe a call to them to see what they have in the pipeline)
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
 
Found a thread where I posted some sports shots taken with the FZ200. The PP is heavy as the boys mother seemed to like the look and that's who these were for. I have the unprocessed files as well. Not going to get you on the cover of sports illustrated but its capable enough for any parent wanting memories of their child's games.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
 
HawkTx said:
HawkTx wrote:

Hmm...that was one of the cameras I was originally looking at, but had been somewhat talked out of due to sensor size and a few other things. The hot shoe was already on my mind for low light so I wasn't really concerned there. I think my options right now are FZ70 (maybe FZ200 if i can find it cheap enough), Sx50, P7700, and G15. I need to just go handle these and see zoom wise what I feel like i can live with then find the one that has the best quality for a majority of the pictures I can take.

I had pipe dreams of finding something like a D5100 with a 18-100+mm lens but it's just going to cost more than i can afford I think.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Then get the D3100 Nikon. Its a great camera and costs less. I used a 3100 for a couple of years then downgraded sort of to a SX40 Bridge. No doubt about sensor size and IQ in comparison, however. I can do things quite well with my SX40 that would cost me thousands of dollars in lenses with my old D3100. My daughter just picked up a 3100 plus a 18-55 and a 55-200 for 496 US at Best Buy and thats one of the last places ya wanna buy cameras at IMHO. Good Luck! You can spend a fortune on a body, but the D3100 is low cost and produces Great images even with the kit lenses. If it was me Id get a D3100 plus the kit lenses, sell them both on Craigslist then use the money for the 18-200VR and call it a day.
 
tjwaggoner said:
Actually, contrary to what you read from a lot of gear heads, the kit 18-55 lenses are pretty good optically. They sacrifice build quality and speed to be cheap. Some have more distortion but the camera will correct it anyway. Don't get caught up in the whole "kit lenses suck" mentality. If you don't specifically know why you need something more, you're wasting your money to impress other people. Coincidentally to what you've talked about, the 18-105 and such lenses you've mentioned are in most cases equal to or less than the optical quality of the kit 18-55s.

That being said, an 18-55 is too short for sports. Unless you're a referee or otherwise on the field of play. It would be ok to take shots of the entire game perhaps. But if you want pictures of your kids playing, you need a tele. The travel zooms you have mentioned may work in bright light, but anything less and they will be too slow. If you're fine with that and your kids play during bright daylight hours, maybe look at a nikon 1 system. Small and super fast. Your wife will thank you. I used to shoot kids sports with a slr and 2.8 zoom but have since went with a FZ200 and haven't looked back. 600mm equiv reach (can't tell you how nice this is) at f/2.8 is wonderful. I use this at highschool football games at night under the lights and perfectly happy with the results vs investment and size. I can show some examples if you'd like. Yeah the noise level is greater than a slr but NR software is pretty good these days. And I don't make giant prints of sports pictures anyway. A 2.8 lens will allow you to use higher shutter speeds which will help any beginner to get many more sharp pictures or keepers when shooting kids. The focusing is fast enough with some pre focusing and anticipating where the action will be. Biggest downside in my view is the power zoom. It's slow. That's my take on it. And just PM me and I'll send you a link to view a gallery of night football pictures with the camera.
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
Click to expand...
Yeah i wasn't so concerned with the 'optical quality' of the kit lenses...just the zoom reach. I didn't think an 18-55mm on an APS-C sensor was going to give adequate zoom. I also didn't really want to swap lenses much which is why i was looking for an 18-105 or 18-200 vs the 18-55 and 55-200 combo. I basically wanted a single lens that would work pretty well for what i want 99% of the time. The idea of having lens options down the road appeals to me as well. I did see a Nikon D5100 in Target recently so my wife could see the size and she seemed ok with it. The compact DSLRs seem to be almost the same size as the superzooms (although heavier). I've also been playing with my neighbors EOS 50D. I just love how quickly I've been able to snap photo after photo. I've gotten some great shots of my daughter standing on her own and trying to take her first steps.

After doing a lot of reading/research I've pretty much decided that if i'm going to opt for a 'superzoom' camera it's going to be the FZ200. The pictures you posted look pretty good...certainly good enough for what I want. I do a lot of photoshop for my web design so I know how to work with it, but i'm definitely interested in looking at your originals if possible.

Putting SLRs on the back burner a bit because of cost so I've been looking at some more compact options. Most notably the Canon G15/G1X, Sony Nex 3/5, and Nikon V1. I do realize however that since the sony has a dslr sized aps-c senor i'd be having the same problem as i would on the D5100 for zoom which has mostly lead me to look at the Nikon and Canon. The Canon has edge for zoom (at least when comparing nikon kit 10-30mm lens), but the nikon can take other lenses which is nice. Whats your opinion on those?

Thanks a lot for the post...it's helped me re-focus a bit. I think it will either be the D5100, FZ200, or a toss between G15 and V1.
 
Globemstr3 said:
Globemstr3 wrote:
Globemstr3 said:
HawkTx wrote:

Hmm...that was one of the cameras I was originally looking at, but had been somewhat talked out of due to sensor size and a few other things. The hot shoe was already on my mind for low light so I wasn't really concerned there. I think my options right now are FZ70 (maybe FZ200 if i can find it cheap enough), Sx50, P7700, and G15. I need to just go handle these and see zoom wise what I feel like i can live with then find the one that has the best quality for a majority of the pictures I can take.

I had pipe dreams of finding something like a D5100 with a 18-100+mm lens but it's just going to cost more than i can afford I think.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Then get the D3100 Nikon. Its a great camera and costs less. I used a 3100 for a couple of years then downgraded sort of to a SX40 Bridge. No doubt about sensor size and IQ in comparison, however. I can do things quite well with my SX40 that would cost me thousands of dollars in lenses with my old D3100. My daughter just picked up a 3100 plus a 18-55 and a 55-200 for 496 US at Best Buy and thats one of the last places ya wanna buy cameras at IMHO. Good Luck! You can spend a fortune on a body, but the D3100 is low cost and produces Great images even with the kit lenses. If it was me Id get a D3100 plus the kit lenses, sell them both on Craigslist then use the money for the 18-200VR and call it a day.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top