Another "my first dSLR" question and also a price check to see if this makes sense

[AlienHairball]

Hi all, I'm considering my first dSLR and coming from a combination of a Nokia Lumia 920 phone (crazy good pics considering it's a phone) and an old Panasonic Lumix Z28 superzoom. *LOVE* the telephoto reach of the Z28, but I've never been entirely happy with the color it captures and it's not quite as versatile as I'd like.

My primary uses for a new camera are:

• Landscape & Nature - lots of outdoor shots, water, clouds, etc. and hiking in the mountains
• Wildlife - this was the main reason I got a superzoom several years ago

I don't *NEED* an SLR, but I *WANT* one Mainly after a larger sensor, more lens options (compared to the obviously single-lens of my superzoom) and more manual controls so I can get deeper into photography (it's fun, I want to learn more!)

I've read through a ridiculous amount of info on this site and elsewhere and I have a pretty good idea of the exact features I'm after. Basically looking at slightly above true entry-level.

Looking for a great deal through used or refurbished - no need at all to buy new.

Here's what's bubbled to the top for me in my research at similar price points:

• Pentax K-30 or K-50 - these seem *very* similar and I love the feature set
• Nikon D3100 - this seems like a great starter camera from Nikon

I know that based on my "primary uses" it'll eventually come down to getting the right set of lenses and that good telephoto lenses can be very expensive. That's the one thing I'm cringing about right now. I fear the telephoto lens cost.

2 questions for the forum here:

1. If I'm really wanting that telephoto option should I reconsider a new superzoom instead of a DSLR?
2. If I can get the Pentax K-30 used, but in new condition with the Pentax 18-135mm kit lens for $300 should I just jump on that and stop wasting time on the internet?

Thanks for any advice you can offer!

edit: for clarity

 

[AlienHairball]

Going to do a single bump in the hopes this gets more visibility. Thanks!

 

[trekkeruss]

Hi all, I'm considering my first dSLR and coming from a combination of a Nokia Lumia 920 phone (crazy good pics considering it's a phone) and an old Panasonic Lumix Z28 superzoom. *LOVE* the telephoto reach of the Z28, but I've never been entirely happy with the color it captures and it's not quite as versatile as I'd like.

How is it not versatile enough?

My primary uses for a new camera are:

• Landscape & Nature - lots of outdoor shots, water, clouds, etc. and hiking in the mountains
• Wildlife - this was the main reason I got a superzoom several years ago

I don't *NEED* an SLR, but I *WANT* one Mainly after a larger sensor, more lens options (compared to the obviously single-lens of my superzoom) and more manual controls so I can get deeper into photography (it's fun, I want to learn more!)

Your FZ28 already has PASM control.What other manual controls are you looking for?

I've read through a ridiculous amount of info on this site and elsewhere and I have a pretty good idea of the exact features I'm after. Basically looking at slightly above true entry-level.

Looking for a great deal through used or refurbished - no need at all to buy new.

Here's what's bubbled to the top for me in my research at similar price points:

• Pentax K-30 or K-50 - these seem *very* similar and I love the feature set
• Nikon D3100 - this seems like a great starter camera from Nikon

I know that based on my "primary uses" it'll eventually come down to getting the right set of lenses and that good telephoto lenses can be very expensive. That's the one thing I'm cringing about right now. I fear the telephoto lens cost.

2 questions for the forum here:

1. If I'm really wanting that telephoto option should I reconsider a new superzoom instead of a DSLR?

Another superzoom with get you even more telephoto (FZ28 486mm eq. vs 600+), and more bells and whistles, but no better image quality.

1. If I can get the Pentax K-30 used, but in new condition with the Pentax 18-135mm kit lens for $300 should I just jump on that and stop wasting time on the internet?

That's a nice camera. To get roughly the same maximum telephoto as your old camera, you would want a 300mm lens. A new Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.6 lens is $325.95 on Amazon. It is not a fast lens, but it is relatively inexpensive (and of course even less used).

 

[AlienHairball]

How is it not versatile enough?

Low-light performance isn't great and there will never be an option to change the lens for specific needs. It would be nice to have a focus ring for manual focus, too.

Your FZ28 already has PASM control.What other manual controls are you looking for?

You're right on this, I guess I'm looking for more physical controls on the camera itself. That Pentax K-30 (or K-50) with the 2 command wheels, plus obviously being able to manually focus with a focus ring, appeals to me.

Another superzoom with get you even more telephoto (FZ28 486mm eq. vs 600+), and more bells and whistles, but no better image quality.

The image quality is really about the biggest gripe I have. I seriously do love the monster zoom on my FZ28, but nothing ever really "pops" out of my photographs and I'm aware there's a very definitely limit to what the camera can do with the smaller sensor.

If money weren't a factor I'd be seriously interested in the Sony RX10:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Looks like a fantastic camera, but for the money I'd rather invest in a DSLR with a couple of decent lenses.

That's a nice camera. To get roughly the same maximum telephoto as your old camera, you would want a 300mm lens. A new Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.6 lens is $325.95 on Amazon. It is not a fast lens, but it is relatively inexpensive (and of course even less used).

That doesn't seem to crazy a price for a decent telephoto lens. I've looked around a little and would LOVE a faster telephoto lens, but seems to quickly jump out of my current budget.

Let me ask a more specific question which I'm sure comes up a lot around here: just how much difference would I see in image quality going from my FZ28 (2008 superzoom) to let's say that Pentax K-30 (2012 entry/mid DSLR) using low-end lenses such as the 18-135mm WR kit lens? I'm not expecting it to be like comparing Blu-Ray to an old worn out VHS tape, but is it substantially better?

Thanks for the feedback and asking questions that force me to think things through.

 

[tedolf]

Hi all, I'm considering my first dSLR and coming from a combination of a Nokia Lumia 920 phone (crazy good pics considering it's a phone) and an old Panasonic Lumix Z28 superzoom. *LOVE* the telephoto reach of the Z28, but I've never been entirely happy with the color it captures and it's not quite as versatile as I'd like.

My primary uses for a new camera are:

• Landscape & Nature - lots of outdoor shots, water, clouds, etc. and hiking in the mountains
• Wildlife - this was the main reason I got a superzoom several years ago

I don't *NEED* an SLR, but I *WANT* one Mainly after a larger sensor, more lens options (compared to the obviously single-lens of my superzoom) and more manual controls so I can get deeper into photography (it's fun, I want to learn more!)

I've read through a ridiculous amount of info on this site and elsewhere and I have a pretty good idea of the exact features I'm after. Basically looking at slightly above true entry-level.

Looking for a great deal through used or refurbished - no need at all to buy new.

Here's what's bubbled to the top for me in my research at similar price points:

• Pentax K-30 or K-50 - these seem *very* similar and I love the feature set
• Nikon D3100 - this seems like a great starter camera from Nikon

I know that based on my "primary uses" it'll eventually come down to getting the right set of lenses and that good telephoto lenses can be very expensive. That's the one thing I'm cringing about right now. I fear the telephoto lens cost.

2 questions for the forum here:

1. If I'm really wanting that telephoto option should I reconsider a new superzoom instead of a DSLR?
2. If I can get the Pentax K-30 used, but in new condition with the Pentax 18-135mm kit lens for $300 should I just jump on that and stop wasting time on the internet?

Thanks for any advice you can offer!

edit: for clarity

for wildlife, and fast AF take a look at the Nikon 1 system.

Tedolph

 

[John Deerfield]

How is it not versatile enough?

Low-light performance isn't great and there will never be an option to change the lens for specific needs. It would be nice to have a focus ring for manual focus, too.

Well, in very general terms, the larger the sensor the better the high ISO performance and thus the better "low-light" images you will be able to capture.

Your FZ28 already has PASM control.What other manual controls are you looking for?

You're right on this, I guess I'm looking for more physical controls on the camera itself. That Pentax K-30 (or K-50) with the 2 command wheels, plus obviously being able to manually focus with a focus ring, appeals to me.

Ergonomics can play a very large role in which system to buy into. As such, I would suggest holding and playing with any camera you are thinking about prior to purchase. If one feels better to you than another, you have your answer.

Another superzoom with get you even more telephoto (FZ28 486mm eq. vs 600+), and more bells and whistles, but no better image quality.

The image quality is really about the biggest gripe I have. I seriously do love the monster zoom on my FZ28, but nothing ever really "pops" out of my photographs and I'm aware there's a very definitely limit to what the camera can do with the smaller sensor.

Careful!! Any camera is simply a tool used to record light. That is ALL any camera does: record and exposure, record light. If the light is dull, the image is dull. There is no camera in the world that alters the properties of the light it records. The four principle characteristics of light are quality, direction, color, & intensity. The camera has ZERO control over any of these principles. The concern is that if you can't get an image you like with the FZ28, simply buying a new camera isn't the magic answer. If you are outside taking a picture of the same landscape with three different cameras, there isn't going to be a world of difference between them and you will be hard pressed to identify which image was shot with which camera. If the lighting is dull, all three images will be dull!

If money weren't a factor I'd be seriously interested in the Sony RX10:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx10

Looks like a fantastic camera, but for the money I'd rather invest in a DSLR with a couple of decent lenses.

That's a nice camera. To get roughly the same maximum telephoto as your old camera, you would want a 300mm lens. A new Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.6 lens is $325.95 on Amazon. It is not a fast lens, but it is relatively inexpensive (and of course even less used).

That doesn't seem to crazy a price for a decent telephoto lens. I've looked around a little and would LOVE a faster telephoto lens, but seems to quickly jump out of my current budget.

Let me ask a more specific question which I'm sure comes up a lot around here: just how much difference would I see in image quality going from my FZ28 (2008 superzoom) to let's say that Pentax K-30 (2012 entry/mid DSLR) using low-end lenses such as the 18-135mm WR kit lens? I'm not expecting it to be like comparing Blu-Ray to an old worn out VHS tape, but is it substantially better?

Yes & no. In low light you will probably see a difference in terms of noise in the image with the DSLR being better. Outdoors in good light, you will be harder pressed to notice any difference. The most obvious and biggest difference being 135mm is not nearly as long as 486mm! So if you like that 486mm, that will be a problem. But look at your analogy, you are comparing Blu-Ray to VHS. That isn't a fair analogy. The camera is not responsible for the light being recorded. The camera is the Blu-Ray player. It can't help if you put in a DVD (lower resolution) or if one movie was shot digitally at 60 frames per second and another on film at 24 frames per second. Each looks completely different and it has nothing to do with the player! If you want to see huge difference in image quality then you need to learn about light. To put it another way, most landscape photographers will tell you to scout your location and shoot in the early morning or later evening. Why? That is most often when you are dealing with the best quality of light. Whether you shoot in the morning or evening depends on which direction of light you want. And that was just two of the four principles of light!

Thanks for the feedback and asking questions that force me to think things through.

 

[AlienHairball]

Ergonomics can play a very large role in which system to buy into. As such, I would suggest holding and playing with any camera you are thinking about prior to purchase. If one feels better to you than another, you have your answer.

This definitely makes sense. It's frustrating that only certain brands are readily available in my area. Very hard to find Pentax around here these days, but of course Canon/Nikon are everywhere

Careful!! Any camera is simply a tool used to record light. That is ALL any camera does: record and exposure, record light. If the light is dull, the image is dull. There is no camera in the world that alters the properties of the light it records. The four principle characteristics of light are quality, direction, color, & intensity. The camera has ZERO control over any of these principles. The concern is that if you can't get an image you like with the FZ28, simply buying a new camera isn't the magic answer. If you are outside taking a picture of the same landscape with three different cameras, there isn't going to be a world of difference between them and you will be hard pressed to identify which image was shot with which camera. If the lighting is dull, all three images will be dull!

The best experience I've had in comparing my old superzoom to a good DSLR setup was a hike I did a couple years ago with a friend (who had/has a nice Canon setup) to photograph the changing Aspens in in the mountains here. Same lighting conditions, nearly identical composition for some of our photos, but once all was said and done his were *so* much better than mine it was a brutal eye opener hehe. I had tried letting the Panasonic do it's thing with it's intelligent auto mode (works decent) as well as manual and tried to approx. similar settings to my friends settings, taking into account the different sensor size and all that... definitely just approximations, but at least tried to get close to similar settings Just couldn't compare with his shots. Didn't help my photos any that he was using some very good quality prime lenses.

Yes & no. In low light you will probably see a difference in terms of noise in the image with the DSLR being better. Outdoors in good light, you will be harder pressed to notice any difference. The most obvious and biggest difference being 135mm is not nearly as long as 486mm! So if you like that 486mm, that will be a problem. But look at your analogy, you are comparing Blu-Ray to VHS. That isn't a fair analogy. The camera is not responsible for the light being recorded. The camera is the Blu-Ray player. It can't help if you put in a DVD (lower resolution) or if one movie was shot digitally at 60 frames per second and another on film at 24 frames per second. Each looks completely different and it has nothing to do with the player! If you want to see huge difference in image quality then you need to learn about light. To put it another way, most landscape photographers will tell you to scout your location and shoot in the early morning or later evening. Why? That is most often when you are dealing with the best quality of light. Whether you shoot in the morning or evening depends on which direction of light you want. And that was just two of the four principles of light!

I definitely hear you on working with the available light. I still consider myself totally a beginner at best, but I try to be aware of light - quantity, quality, direction, etc.

Ok just realized I'm not really asking a question at this point... sorry about that. I think really I'm trying to work through in my head if I'll enjoy working with a DSLR vs. a Superzoom or if by going that route will I just be faced with different frustrations like less zoom and more bulk? Hard to say as I've never had to "live with" anything larger than my superzoom.

 

[John Deerfield]

The best experience I've had in comparing my old superzoom to a good DSLR setup was a hike I did a couple years ago with a friend (who had/has a nice Canon setup) to photograph the changing Aspens in in the mountains here. Same lighting conditions, nearly identical composition for some of our photos, but once all was said and done his were *so* much better than mine it was a brutal eye opener hehe. I had tried letting the Panasonic do it's thing with it's intelligent auto mode (works decent) as well as manual and tried to approx. similar settings to my friends settings, taking into account the different sensor size and all that... definitely just approximations, but at least tried to get close to similar settings Just couldn't compare with his shots. Didn't help my photos any that he was using some very good quality prime lenses.

Well, what we really want to learn is why his photos were so much better. Lets start with your point of comparison: what was it? Prints of the same image? Looking at the images on a computer monitor? Or simply looking at the images on the back of the camera? Does your friend shoot raw and subsequently post-process the image or were these both just the camera JPEG? Keep in mind that most cameras can be set to process images very differently. A stark example would be telling the camera to record an image in B&W. You get a B&W image and your friend gets color and you want to know what happened to your color! That's an extreme example, but any camera JPEG is a processed image: saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc can all be different even between the same brands of camera because each camera can be set differently. In terms of recording the light, if the light meter tells me the scene is f/8, 1/200th, @ ISO 200… that is what it is for ANY camera! Why? It's the same intensity of light regardless of the camera being used. At that point there is only one possibly substantial difference that I can think of (assuming identical settings/framing). The dynamic range of the scene was too great for the smaller sensor camera but within the range of the larger sensor camera. That is a possibility and one that any current DSLR will do better with.

Ok just realized I'm not really asking a question at this point... sorry about that. I think really I'm trying to work through in my head if I'll enjoy working with a DSLR vs. a Superzoom or if by going that route will I just be faced with different frustrations like less zoom and more bulk? Hard to say as I've never had to "live with" anything larger than my superzoom.

Part of that is an easy answer: photography is always about compromise. In other words, there isn't any one perfect solution. Talk to your friend! He would probably like to have a pack mule to carry every different lens there is "just-in-case". In other words, there will always be some sort of frustration. If I take my wide angle, I see nothing but telephoto shots. If I take my telephoto, I see nothing but wide angle shots. If I take both, I am constantly changing lenses. Unless I take two cameras! And on and on it goes. The advantage to the DSLR is versatility and more control over the depth of field.

 

[NetMage]

On a budget, a newer superzoom is the best telephoto answer.

1. XS-1 can take great pictures but is a bit infuriating to use - if you want a camera to challenge you, this could be it! It's AF is a problematic in low light and full zoom situations. It offers the unique Fuji EXR (larger) sensor and has a great price.

2. Panasonic FZ200 offers nice zoom range with a fixed f/2.8 which makes for fast telephoto, but its tiny sensor limits IQ in challenging conditions.

If you want the responsiveness and control of a mid-range DSLR, the deal on the K-30 is hard to beat - consider the Canon 60D with 18-135 is $767 refurbished from Canon (but with one year warranty). You could probably get a Canon 50D kit used for less, but not like the Pentax.

I would prefer a more mainstream vendor for access to first and third party accessories, but it is hard to argue with that price.