Expert Knowledge

[DisneyExplorer]

hi photodisers!

I recently damaged my lens/zoom on holiday (dropped at IOA) and think it will cost at least £100 to fix. its the second time its happened and so the camera (Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX2) now cost me about £400. i've had mixed picture quality results (blur). its a 10mp 4xop and considering instead of repairing the camera, investing/save for a new one.

i have looked at several point-shoots such as the Sony Cyber-shot T100 and new Panasonic Lumix DMC but reviews show its slightly disappointing and many others had similar faults. instead of a point-shoot camera, i have started looking at the SLR type but they look chunky and heavy. i like the compactness and light-weight of point-shoot for going round parks.

i'm not looking for an immediate solution because i want to get my choice right. i feel that to get the best shots: low-light,sport etc, you need to enter the SLR market but do you lose the compactness and light-weight going round parks? are they a hassle basically?
i don't want to loose the 10mp quality of my broken camera but don't mind saving up money for a 'proper' camera if i thought it would be more benefical if you know what i mean?
do you guys think i'm being stupid and should just fix the camera?

thanks for any help!

 

[Groucho]

Hi! Good questions.

First thing - don't confuse megapixels with quality. 10mp is really too much at this point for any point-n-shoot to get decent low-light photos. The reason that DSLRs do better is because their sensor is so much larger. A DSLR at 6mp will capture a much sharper photo than a point-n-shoot at 10mp.

Here's a chart I made showing the relative sizes of common sensor sizes:

Most point-n-shoots (including, I believe, all long-zoom ones except for some Fujis) has the 1/2.5" sensor. The Fuji SuperCCD HR 6mp sensor is 1/1.7" and their 7mp is 1/1.6". The Fuji S6000 uses the SuperCCD HR sensor and is the best low-light ability (by a fair margin) currently available in a long-zoom PnS.

DSLRs are certainly larger and heavier, plus if you want the most out of them, you'll be carrying multiple lenses. However, some of them aren't that much larger. I think the smallest currently are the Olympus ones, they use the 4/3rds sensor which is smaller than the APS-C sensor used in nearly all other DSLRs (except for one or two very high-end full-frame ones), this means slightly more noise but still much better than any point-n-shoot.

Costwise, the difference isn't that bad. A popular choice is the Pentax K100D which can be had for $409 after rebate last time I checked, which'll have a lot more functionality and quality than any point-n-shoot out there.

Yes, it's more bother to carry around, but many of us feel that the resulting photos are worth it.

If you want a compact/pocket camera, you're pretty much stuck with PnSs, but if you are looking at the larger long-zoom PnSs, it's worth considering a DSLR, IMHO.

 

[ukcatfan]

I agree with everything said by Groucho, but would like to add that Pentax has a few very compact lenses available. They would be prime (i.e. no zoom) lenses, but are excellent in photo quality and make the package not much larger than an advanced p&s when coupled with the K100D. The K10D would likely be too large for your preferences.

As for the portability, I just got back tonight from eight days at WDW with a K100D and three lenses. I cannot say that it was too much of an inconvenience compared to a p&s. I have a hand strap just because I cannot get used to a neck strap just yet. I probably was actualy holding the camera around 75% of my walkaround time in the parks and it never bothered me. Plus, my pack has a top storage area that held our sunscreen, snacks, etc. There were a few times when I switched to holding the camera in my left hand, but that was typically just to hold my margarita in my right hand b/c my left was getting too cold!

Kevin

 

[DisneyExplorer]

Thank You Very Much!

 

[DisneyExplorer]

What is the latest SLR? was looking at the new panasonic lumix 8mp 18x op and was put off by mp being less than the broken but do you think that won't affect picture quality (thats where i get confused).

 

[ukcatfan]

What is the latest SLR? was looking at the new panasonic lumix 8mp 18x op and was put off by mp being less than the broken but do you think that won't affect picture quality (thats where i get confused).

With a p&s like the Lumix, I personally would not go over around 6-7MPs. Going above that is almost too much for the little sensor to handle and the result is increased noise. Take a look at Groucho's picture and you can see the difference in size. I believe you get around 13 times more surface area with a DSLR sensor. The one thing you lose with a DSLR though is the large focal length range for an inexpensive price. You would have to spend at least as much on lenses for a DSLR to cover the 18x of the Lumix. But again, I am in the camp that over 10-12X on a camera is too much and that negatively affects image quality.

For inexpensive DSLRs, then two main choices are the Pentax K100D and the Canon Rebel XT. You might be able to find some other deals over on the other side of the pond. Look for inexpensive Nikons and Samsungs. The supply of Nikon D50s dried up over here and Samsung really does not market here. Just to note, the Samsungs are all just re-labeled Pentaxes. The ones with IS are the newer models that directly compare to the Pentax K100D and K10D.

Kevin

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Costwise, the difference isn't that bad. A popular choice is the Pentax K100D which can be had for $409 after rebate last time I checked, which'll have a lot more functionality and quality than any point-n-shoot out there.

I know that the quality of the DSLR will be better, but are you counting the cost of lenses in that figure?

To match the current crop of superzoom P&S cameras you'd need lenses to cover 28mm/36mm to 486mm/432mm. Kit lenses that most of the DSLRs come with usually cover the wide angle, but getting good zoom lenses that can reach 400mm+ seem pretty expensive. A quick search on B&H gives prices ranging from ~$150 to over $1000!

And, I've read that many of the cheaper zoom lenses have the same CA/PF and softness problems that the P&S's often do; sometimes focus speed problems, too.

 

[ukcatfan]

I know that the quality of the DSLR will be better, but are you counting the cost of lenses in that figure?

To match the current crop of superzoom P&S cameras you'd need lenses to cover 28mm/36mm to 486mm/432mm. Kit lenses that most of the DSLRs come with usually cover the wide angle, but getting good zoom lenses that can reach 400mm+ seem pretty expensive. A quick search on B&H gives prices ranging from ~$150 to over $1000!

And, I've read that many of the cheaper zoom lenses have the same CA/PF and softness problems that the P&S's often do; sometimes focus speed problems, too.

You do make a good point, but I want to add that everyone considering the jump needs to think about their own personal needs when making the decision. I had the S1 IS, but I almost never used the zoom past what a normal camera can do. This was especially true at WDW. I was always longing for a wider angle there. The one exception is AK. I probably used my kit lens for nearly 90% of my shots last week at WDW. The only time I used my tele lens was at Fantasmic and I could have even gone with the kit there. I mainly used it b/c my aperture at 80mm on that lens is wider than the aperture at 55mm on the kit. I also used my prime 50mm for a few low light shots.

Another thing that you might not be considering is the crop factor of the lens on a typical DSLR. It is around 1.5 on most, so my 80-210mm lens was really covering the 120-315mm range in 35mm terms. I know that 315mm is not 430mm, but how often do you really need that extra bit? I just use a cheapo used Tamron, but the IQ and focus speed is at least on par with a bridge camera. Plus, I only paid $25 for it. For my setup, a new DA50-200mm would be better and would run around $150 or so, but with as little as I use that range, I am happy with what I have right now.

Kevin

 

[DisneyExplorer]

i'm going to sound very stupid! Sorry!! whats a DSLR?

 

[ukcatfan]

i'm going to sound very stupid! Sorry!! whats a DSLR?

In the simplest terms, it is a camera that takes the light coming in from the lens and directs it to the viewfinder with a mirror. When you press the shutter, the mirror moves out of the way and the light exposes the sensor. Typically, these will have changable lenses, but they do not have to. (I am pretty sure all current models offer this though) The big benefit is that the sensor is much larger, so you get less noise and more true resolution. For example, a 6MP DSLR will likely have more true detail that say a 10MP p&s. Some of the top model DSLRs max out around 10MP, so that just shows that 12MP p&s models are nothing more than marketing hype.

Kevin

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

You do make a good point, but I want to add that everyone considering the jump needs to think about their own personal needs when making the decision. I had the S1 IS, but I almost never used the zoom past what a normal camera can do. This was especially true at WDW. I was always longing for a wider angle there.

Interesting ... I'm exactly the opposite. I almost never want the wide angle at Disney (all I ever seem to get in my wide-angle pictures is tons and tons of people you don't know -- mostly their backs! ). I prtty much kept our old camera at its maximum (3x) the whole time and was always longing for more zoom ... thus my new S3.

I'd love to have a DSLR with a 50mm prime for the low-light stuff, but I don't think I could ever justify the other expenses.

Another thing that you might not be considering is the crop factor of the lens on a typical DSLR. It is around 1.5 on most, so my 80-210mm lens was really covering the 120-315mm range in 35mm terms. I know that 315mm is not 430mm, but how often do you really need that extra bit?

I do understand about the crop factor.

Personally, most of the pictures I've been taking with my S3 are at the far end of the zoom, too ... I can't think of a single time that I've ever been disappointed with the wide end or found myself wanting anything wider. If I've got a really huge landscape I want to capture, I can make a panoramic shot with PhotoStitch.

But, I often find myself wishing I had even greater range, so I'm getting a teleconverter; a Raynox DCR-1540PRO -- 665mm!

For me, I *know* that I would not be satisfied with a max of 315mm, and that means bigger and more-expensive lenses, for me, if I ever go the DSLR route.

 

[ukcatfan]

When I first got my S1, I was shooting a lot more tele shots, but everyone has their own shooting styles and mine lends itself to the wide side. I mainly bought it for the IS. Back then, there were almost no cameras with IS that were not bridge cameras. That is not the case now.

The wide angle comes in handy for me at WDW when I want to take unique perspective shots because often to get everything in the frame from those perspectives, 36-38mm is just not enough.

The S1 was switched out under the sensor recall to a S2 and I still keep it in my bag for when the need arises. Usually it is the DDs taking shots with it though.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

I know that the quality of the DSLR will be better, but are you counting the cost of lenses in that figure?

To match the current crop of superzoom P&S cameras you'd need lenses to cover 28mm/36mm to 486mm/432mm. Kit lenses that most of the DSLRs come with usually cover the wide angle, but getting good zoom lenses that can reach 400mm+ seem pretty expensive. A quick search on B&H gives prices ranging from ~$150 to over $1000!

Combine the K100D mentioned and the Pentax 50-200mm lens and you'll be spending less than $600 total. Not just as much reach as the S3 but a cropped photo at 200mm will easily be sharper than an S3 photo at 12x.

And, I've read that many of the cheaper zoom lenses have the same CA/PF and softness problems that the P&S's often do; sometimes focus speed problems, too.

Apples and oranges, really. The SLR lenses are generally compared to other SLR lenses, not PnS lenses, which will generally be inferior across the board (smaller and lower-priced, to say nothing of the compromises to make one lens with a huge zoom range.) The softness of PnS images is usually due to the significantly smaller sensor. As for focus - again, generally SLR lens focus speed is compared to other SLR lenses.

This is probably the way it should be; it really isn't fair to compare a relatively low-price PnS with a more expensive, larger, and more complex DSLR.

Back on topic - DisneyExplorer, more megapixels usually means worse quality, not better. It's all about the sensor...

 

[DisneyExplorer]

my best pal has the Canon EOS400 and really impressed. so been looking at their slr cameras, are canon the best?

this might also sound stupid and please forgive my ignorance but if you buy a slr, do you have to buy a lense for it or will there be a standard one attached?

 

[ukcatfan]

my best pal has the Canon EOS400 and really impressed. so been looking at their slr cameras, are canon the best?

this might also sound stupid and please forgive my ignorance but if you buy a slr, do you have to buy a lense for it or will there be a standard one attached?

I do not think it can be broken down into terms that simple, but Canon are the most popular. Every single DSLR out there is a good camera though. The best one is the one that is best for you. Look at what features are important to you and what you can afford. The most important part IMO though is how it feels in your hands. If you are not comfortable using it, the results could suffer or you will just end up leaving it in the closet. For example, I was set on the Rebel XT (350D for you) at first, but after I held it and played with it a little I knew it was not the right model for me. I was almost sold on the Nikon D50 until I found out that the Pentax had a very similar feel with more bang for less money.

You do not have to buy the initial lens, but as a beginner I do not see why you would not. It is often called the "kit" lens. None of them are spectacular in terms of optics, but all are better than p&s quality. In terms of construction quality and ease of use, the Canon and Nikon kit lenses are not as highly regarded as the other brands such as Pentax, Sony, and Olympus. Optically all are about the same though. C & N are the big dogs so they intentionally offer a little less overall quality for the kit lens to encourage upgrades. As such, if you plan on sticking with the kit lens for some time, that could be a check against C & N. To be fair, Nikon does offer an upgraded "kit" lens for a little more money that is better than the 18-55mm model.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

There's definitely no "best" camera as there are so many features. The good news with DSLRs is that they're all terrific, so no matter which you get, you'll almost certainly be happy. In terms of entry-level DSLRs, each brand has a few strengths and a few weaknesses. You have to decide for yourself which is the best fit for your needs.

 

[DisneyExplorer]

Do any SLR use SD cards?

 

[Groucho]

Pentax and Nikon use SD. Sony and Canon use CF. Olympus uses CF and xD.

 

[Master Mason]

Pentax and Nikon use SD. Sony and Canon use CF. Olympus uses CF and xD.

The really high end Canons will use both CF and SD, but probably not what the OP is thinking of buying.

 

[DisneyExplorer]

are most dslr cameras pretty good in low light? this i felt was a major disadvantage to the point and shoots.

​