The reason why I'm going through all this is because, I'm trying to decide between the FZ200 and an entry-level, $500 DSLR such as the Nikon D3200 or Canon T3i. I won't be buying additional lenses, so I'm basically comparing small sensor + long focal length to large sensor + small focal length (55mm max I believe)...
And with the FZ200 you won't be stuck with one focal length (or a small range) as you might if you don't invest in DSLR glass.
Also pay attention to other features that may be important to you - such as the FZ200's fully-articulating LCD, fast burst modes, outstanding video capabilities, etc. Remember, your looking at getting either the Cadillac of the superzooms or the Yugo of the DSLRs.
You're definitely right about the Cadillac comparison. I just really want that super clear imagine quality that DSLRs are particularly known for, and I would hate myself if I dished out $500 and wasn't satisfied with the quality. The amazon return thing isn't a bad idea, but I'd have to think about it because I wouldn't feel to comfortable mailing out a $500 item knowing it might get lost in transit. I just wish local stores had one for me to check out, but they don't...
I guess what I really want is for this FZ200 to fool people into thinking its photos were taken by a DSLR
Since the FZ200 has a lot of other great features (longer zoom, constant f/2.8, articulated screen, etc) I WANT it to have the same image quality as a DSLR, so I can convince myself to get it... But at the end of the day, it's all about that DSLR-like image quality
I don't know if this helps or not, but I think everyone wants that--top DSLR quality in a non-DSLR (i.e. cheaper, different lens system etc. and more portable) camera. If it's any consolation to you, if you're relying on a kit lens with the T3i etc. you're not going to be getting the great clarity you could get if you bought a high end lens for your dslr anyway.
I took a photo class with a man who spent thousands of dollars on his DSLR lenses and did sports photos that were breathtakingly crisp. I was pretty impressed--and depressed by my own camera--until I realized I find dozens of photos of our local baseball team really boring! They were great pictures technically--and his lenses and camera were amazing-- but, for my taste in pictures, I realized it was a giant, "So what?" to look at them. (lol)
Plua, imo, there's just so much more involved in a "good/great" photo than the crispness of the expensive lens. Then again, I can't afford hundreds--much less thousands--of dollars for lenses so I have to work within my budget and that means "compromise" and "choices" no matter what you get.
"...to fool people into thinking its photos were taken by a DSLR"
I think a better goal would be to get them to think "Wow! Great photo!"
and I really believe that you can do with any camera, imo, if you have talent--(and, speaking from experience, you can do it with lots of these bridge cameras even if you don't.)
You won't get people here on this forum saying "You took that with an FZ200? It looks exactly like a Canon 6D with top lens!" But for people who -don't- have photography as a serious hobby, it isn't that difficult (in my experience) to "fool" them. Because they don't know much about cameras anyway, lol. "Is it an oil painting or done with acrylic?" "Who cares? It's a masterpiece!"
Most people take photos with their smartphones. When they see you with your big FZ200 they -assume- it's a DSLR. And your photos with a bridge camera are, clarity wise, and reach-wise, and effects-wise so far beyond what most people are capable of with whatever camera they use that "impressing and confusing" them really isn't hard!
Not to go on too long, but mainly I wanted to say, bridge cameras are so much fun--and you can get into post-processing to make your results even better--and balancing "reach, effects, convenience and fun" of a superzoom (plus video) vs. "mediocre lens on a dslr" for me, it would be no contest (unless I really had $4000 or so that I absolutely didn't need or want to use for something else).
P.S. My dslr friends may pixel peep and say their photos have less noise, better bokeh etc. and its all true. But everyone else goes, "I don't see how it could be any better." (I guess if you have lots of friends with dslrs and expensive glass you could have a bigger problem using a superzoom than I do, lol.)
