question......superzooms vs mirrorless

[npmommie]

So I am thinking I will be renting a lense at some point for my Pentax dslr before I invest the money.

in the meantime I do want to buy another carry around camera that will take some decent sports shots, like gymnastics.
I realize I won't capture them like I would with a dslr but............

I am now looking at some of the "superzoom" like the Nikon coolpix p510 or the canon sx50 or the Panasonic Lumix fz200.

I am leaning toward the Lumix because of the f2.8, but it has a shorter zoom.

the other thing I am considering is a mirrorless system.

what is the benefit other than the option of switching the lense?
I was looking at teh Nikon J2, and Lumix G3, and still investigating the nex and olympus models.

so I guess my question........what would be the benefit of going mirrorless over some of the fixed lense models I mentioned?

 

[havoc315]

Mirrorless is a very broad category. The Nikon J2 doesn't strike me as great for sports. At a minimum you'd need to add a zoom lens.
Some mirrorless are really closer to p&s, some are closer to dSLR.
For example - the Nex system could largely replace a dSLR. Has a dSLR sensor, can use dSLR lenses, produce dSLR results. The main differences are just the design of the camera body, and a different focus mechanism.
For most people, I'd see the NEX as a dSLR replacement, not as a second camera.

Super zooms can be cheaper in general. While a good mirrorless is akin to a dSLR, a super zoom is more often akin to a mid level compact camera, with a long reaching zoom. (Talking generally, each model is different).
I would see a super zoom as being a "2nd camera" for many people, when you just need something smaller and/or long reach.

 

[npmommie]

so just trying to understand, is it the sensor that makes it closer to dslr?

 

[nowater]

The Coolpix 510 is amazing, nevermind the fact of 42x zoom... I was new to shooting with it so some of these arent that amazing.. but this folder is with only the 510..
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.113996848760461.21278.100004504384202&type=3

 

[npmommie]

The Coolpix 510 is amazing, nevermind the fact of 42x zoom... I was new to shooting with it so some of these arent that amazing.. but this folder is with only the 510..
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.113996848760461.21278.100004504384202&type=3

Those are really great! thank you for sharing!

 

[boBQuincy]

SuperZooms do not appear to go wide, as in *really* wide. 25mm equivalent is about all most of them go to and for me that is not nearly wide enough. "Long" is much easier to do so most of the SuperZooms go really long, longer than most dSLR owners carry or even own (who has a 600mm?)! Aperture can be an issue also, at the long end most of them are slow although some (like the Lumix FZ200) have f/2.8 across the whole range!

For my G3 I usually carry a 7-14 (equiv 14-28) which can get my toes in a vertical image if I am not careful! This lens works on Olympus bodies also. Availability of such a wide lens was important in my choice of a system. Ymmv...

Then there is the sensor. Micro 4/3 has a much larger sensor than the SuperZooms, with all the good things that come from a larger sensor. NEX has an even larger sensor while the Nikon 1 is smaller than the other mirrorless but still considerably larger than the SuperZooms.

A 600mm f/2.8, even with a small sensor, seems like a good choice for gymnastics. To get that kind of lens in 4/3, NEX, or dSLR would be a large, heavy, and expensive piece of gear. Yet we see the pros at the Olympics with these enormous lenses on their dSLRs, they must know something. My guess would be that even at f/2.8 and with stabilization some kind of camera support will be required.

 

[nowater]

Had to add one more for the 510, This shot was over 150+ yards away

https://www.facebook.com/NowaterPhotography

 

[havoc315]

so just trying to understand, is it the sensor that makes it closer to dslr?

Yes, but it depends on the mirrorless system. The Nex series uses an actual dSLR sensor. It can use specially designed lenses, or it can use A mount dSLR lenses with an adaptor.
The Nikon J2 uses a much smaller sensor, the same size found in the Sony Rx100. Bigger than most compacts, but much smaller than dSLR. Many mirrorless use a 4/3 size, which is in between.

Super zooms typically use a much smaller sensor. The advantage of a super zoom is to get huge reach at an affordable price. But you do compromise quality.
Just to get 300mm/2.8 on a dSLR would weight several pounds and could cost thousands of dollars. (Though you can get 300mm/5.6 for just a couple hundred dollars and that may be good enough. )

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

So I am thinking I will be renting a lense at some point for my Pentax dslr before I invest the money.

in the meantime I do want to buy another carry around camera that will take some decent sports shots, like gymnastics.
I realize I won't capture them like I would with a dslr but............

I am now looking at some of the "superzoom" like the Nikon coolpix p510 or the canon sx50 or the Panasonic Lumix fz200.

I am leaning toward the Lumix because of the f2.8, but it has a shorter zoom.

the other thing I am considering is a mirrorless system.

what is the benefit other than the option of switching the lense?
I was looking at teh Nikon J2, and Lumix G3, and still investigating the nex and olympus models.

so I guess my question........what would be the benefit of going mirrorless over some of the fixed lense models I mentioned?

Since you are a Pentax shooter, why wouldn't look at the Pentax K-01 (mirrorless). Currently you can get it without a lens for $346! You can use all your Pentax lenses (without adaptor) and it has the same 16mp Sony sensor that is in the K5, Nikon 5100/7000 and Sony cameras. Its video is actually rated better than the K5 (the K5 is not known for its video). Personally, and this is just me, I wouldn't want to have camera systems with different interchangeable lens lines.

 

[npmommie]

Had to add one more for the 510, This shot was over 150+ yards away

https://www.facebook.com/NowaterPhotography

very nice!

Since you are a Pentax shooter, why wouldn't look at the Pentax K-01 (mirrorless). Currently you can get it without a lens for $346! You can use all your Pentax lenses (without adaptor) and it has the same 16mp Sony sensor that is in the K5, Nikon 5100/7000 and Sony cameras. Its video is actually rated better than the K5 (the K5 is not known for its video). Personally, and this is just me, I wouldn't want to have camera systems with different interchangeable lens lines.

I am going to read teh reviews now.
so you are saying if I got this for instance
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Compac...TF8&qid=1352996495&sr=8-6&keywords=pentax+k01

I could put that zoom lense on my dslr?

 

[hakepb]

Remember for the superzooms, that great pictures outdoors are much, much easier than the indoors gymnastics you mentioned. The advantage of the f/2.8 could be the difference between a useable picture vs a blur.

 

[npmommie]

hakepb thanks.

that is why I am leaning toward the lumix.

 

[havoc315]

Since you are a Pentax shooter, why wouldn't look at the Pentax K-01 (mirrorless). Currently you can get it without a lens for $346! You can use all your Pentax lenses (without adaptor) and it has the same 16mp Sony sensor that is in the K5, Nikon 5100/7000 and Sony cameras. Its video is actually rated better than the K5 (the K5 is not known for its video). Personally, and this is just me, I wouldn't want to have camera systems with different interchangeable lens lines.

Could be an interesting option for the OP. Depending on which Pentax dSLR she has, this camera would actually be an overall upgrade from the dSLR.

In broad general terms, that's the thing to understand --
Most mirrorless cameras are pretty closely related to dSLRs. Not just the interchangeable lenses, but in overall quality. There are certainly some mirrorless systems that can surpass some dSLR systems. Shooting zoom with a mirrorless is no different than shooting zoom with a dSLR -- You need a good zoom lens to do it.
Superzooms are more related to compact cameras. They tend to be more affordable, more compact. Lesser image quality. They are meant overall, in broad terms, more for the point & shooter, who wants a really long reach. Most of these cameras aren't going to be *great* for sports or low light, though the FZ200 does appear to be significantly better than most others. (The FZ200 isn't cheap at 600, but you would never be able to get a constant 2.8 aperture dSLR zoom lens -- and certainly not 600mm zoom lens -- for anything close to $600. Sigma makes a 120mm-300mm/2.8 for Pentax, that runs over $3,000).

So really the downside of the K-01 for the OP --- It just doesn't do anything to solve the zoom issue. You're in the same boat as with your dSLR -- the need to get the right lens. You're just getting something a little bit smaller and a little bit lighter.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Could be an interesting option for the OP. Depending on which Pentax dSLR she has, this camera would actually be an overall upgrade from the dSLR.

In broad general terms, that's the thing to understand --
Most mirrorless cameras are pretty closely related to dSLRs. Not just the interchangeable lenses, but in overall quality. There are certainly some mirrorless systems that can surpass some dSLR systems. Shooting zoom with a mirrorless is no different than shooting zoom with a dSLR -- You need a good zoom lens to do it.
Superzooms are more related to compact cameras. They tend to be more affordable, more compact. Lesser image quality. They are meant overall, in broad terms, more for the point & shooter, who wants a really long reach. Most of these cameras aren't going to be *great* for sports or low light, though the FZ200 does appear to be significantly better than most others. (The FZ200 isn't cheap at 600, but you would never be able to get a constant 2.8 aperture dSLR zoom lens -- and certainly not 600mm zoom lens -- for anything close to $600. Sigma makes a 120mm-300mm/2.8 for Pentax, that runs over $3,000).

So really the downside of the K-01 for the OP --- It just doesn't do anything to solve the zoom issue. You're in the same boat as with your dSLR -- the need to get the right lens. You're just getting something a little bit smaller and a little bit lighter.

I understand the superzoom/bridge cameras. I was addressing the issue of his possible desire for mirrorless. I believe the OP has a K100. The older Pentax', like most of the other brands, do not have the better ISO/noise range that the more modern cameras have. Depending on how much the OP shoots, it may be better to rent a longer zoom for the times it is needed. For those who shoot a lot (this past race season I shot in excess of 50 days with some days being 12-14 hours long) its not financially sound to rent. Not knowing the lenses that the OP has available, I might recommend his purchasing a new K5 for roughly $700-800. Because of the higher ISO availability of the K5, his current lens lineup would become more usable in low light conditions. It really depends on the lens availability of the OP and balancing the photographic triangle.

 

[npmommie]

LOL, first I am a "she".........not that it matters about the camera though

so this is what I have for cameras.
I have a point and shoot Panasonic Lumix , its about 5 yrs old. I use this the most, but I get a lot of blurred shots at gym meets, if the light is good and I am fairly close i do manage to get some decent shots.

I also have a pentax K100d super, with only the lens that came with it.
so I have done a few really good shots of the kids outside in bright light and some good ones inside with flash. have not tried it at a gym meet though.
because of the lens issue. never got around to buying a lens. and to be honest I have only used the camera a few times.

I also have an old SLR film Chinon with a 50 mm lense. takes beautiful shots. but its all manual. and old.

and I use my Iphone

so that is my story. I think I am wanting something less bulky than a dslr to carry around all the time. plus would be good for gym meets.
so I was thinking the fz200 would fit me.
still not sure.

 

[havoc315]

The older Pentax', like most of the other brands, do not have the better ISO/noise range that the more modern cameras have.

Because of the higher ISO availability of the K5, his current lens lineup would become more usable in low light conditions. It really depends on the lens availability of the OP and balancing the photographic triangle.

As I have been considering upgrading my own lenses, I was actually thinking about that. For a non-professional, is a 2.8 lens really as important as it used to be?
Sure, 5 years ago, I might use that 2.8 lens to get a great shot at ISO 100-200.

But if I can shoot a sharp/low noise shot at 400-800 or even 1600+, then do I really need a $2,000 2.8 lens as opposed to a $200 70-200/4.5-5.6 lens?

Because I shoot Sony, I'm considering "upgrading" really cheaply -- Getting a 70-210/constant F4 old used Minolta lens, really cheaply. (under $200) So how much am I really losing, if I'm only losing 1 F-stop? Is it really worth it for me, as an amateur, to spend 10 times more money, for 1 F-stop? With a modern dSLR with higher usable ISO, won't the cheap lens produce pretty similar shooting speed, just at a slightly higher ISO?

I'm just brain storming. I want sharper better pictures, and trying to figure out the best ways to make do, without spending extravagantly.
For example..... I've also considered whether to upgrade the basic "kit lens" -
Tamron has a well reviewed 17-50/constant 2.8, which you can get for $400-$500.
But you can also get a Carl Zeiss 18-85/3.5-4.5 for $600 to $700.
Would the Zeiss give better shots because of it's more presumably more advanced coatings and optics, or would the extra F-stop on the Tamron be more beneficial and lead to better results?

 

[wiigirl]

I think I learned more in this thread today than all week.

 

[photo_chick]

so just trying to understand, is it the sensor that makes it closer to dslr?

I know others have hit on this, but I don't think anyone has addressed the actual mechanical difference.

What makes a DSLR a DSLR is not the sensor, nor the ability to change lenses. It's the fact that it is a single lens reflex camera. That means you look through an optical viewfinder and through a series of mirrors or prisms you then see literally though the lens. You'll see that abbreviated TTL.

With a mirrorless camera they've taken the SLR out and have no mirror or prisms to project the image into an optical viewfinder. They either use an electronic viewfinder or the LCD screen on the back. This lets them make a smaller camera and it can use physically smaller lenses to get the same equivalent focal lengths.

As I have been considering upgrading my own lenses, I was actually thinking about that. For a non-professional, is a 2.8 lens really as important as it used to be?
Sure, 5 years ago, I might use that 2.8 lens to get a great shot at ISO 100-200.

But if I can shoot a sharp/low noise shot at 400-800 or even 1600+, then do I really need a $2,000 2.8 lens as opposed to a $200 70-200/4.5-5.6 lens?

This goes a little OT, but in my opinion no, having an f/2.8 lens isn't as much a necessity as it used to be in terms of light gathering ability. But a lot of that depends on how you shoot. Digital has passed the ISO capabilities of 35mm film, and with the low noise that cameras have today I just don't see a fast zoom as high of a priority for myself when put in terms of just speed. But what I do see as a huge advantage these days is sharper lenses with better contrast. Those things will decrease the appearance of noise and make it easier to manage noise in editing. And to get that you often end up with the faster zoom lenses. Then there's the creative consideration of aperture's affect on depth of field. Another factor is the issue of camera resolution outpacing the resolving power of the lens, and that's where a lot of the lower end zooms have been coming up short, especially older models (Canon 75-300 comes to mind here). We could get away with a softer image with 35mm film than we can with digital simply because that 35mm frame didn't have the resolution that a 15 or 20 MP camera does and that's another reason I might go for the higher end lens, which just happens to also be the faster zoom much of the time.

 

[havoc315]

This goes a little OT, but in my opinion no, having an f/2.8 lens isn't as much a necessity as it used to be in terms of light gathering ability. But a lot of that depends on how you shoot. Digital has passed the ISO capabilities of 35mm film, and with the low noise that cameras have today I just don't see a fast zoom as high of a priority for myself when put in terms of just speed. But what I do see as a huge advantage these days is sharper lenses with better contrast. Those things will decrease the appearance of noise and make it easier to manage noise in editing. And to get that you often end up with the faster zoom lenses. Then there's the creative consideration of aperture's affect on depth of field. Another factor is the issue of camera resolution outpacing the resolving power of the lens, and that's where a lot of the lower end zooms have been coming up short, especially older models (Canon 75-300 comes to mind here). We could get away with a softer image with 35mm film than we can with digital simply because that 35mm frame didn't have the resolution that a 15 or 20 MP camera does and that's another reason I might go for the higher end lens, which just happens to also be the faster zoom much of the time.

It's very off topic, but that is very enlightening. Still leaves me guessing though, as to which lenses would be the best bang for buck upgrades.

Maybe I'll save up my pennies for a nice Zeiss kit lens, while making do with a cheaper zoom lens.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

LOL, first I am a "she".........not that it matters about the camera though

so this is what I have for cameras.
I have a point and shoot Panasonic Lumix , its about 5 yrs old. I use this the most, but I get a lot of blurred shots at gym meets, if the light is good and I am fairly close i do manage to get some decent shots.

I also have a pentax K100d super, with only the lens that came with it.
so I have done a few really good shots of the kids outside in bright light and some good ones inside with flash. have not tried it at a gym meet though.
because of the lens issue. never got around to buying a lens. and to be honest I have only used the camera a few times.

I also have an old SLR film Chinon with a 50 mm lense. takes beautiful shots. but its all manual. and old.

and I use my Iphone

so that is my story. I think I am wanting something less bulky than a dslr to carry around all the time. plus would be good for gym meets.
so I was thinking the fz200 would fit me.
still not sure.

I apologize and I actually thought about it but couldn't figure it out. I just wasn't sure. Since you aren't overly invested in lenses, you have no problem going forward with whatever system and really haven't lost anything. You probably have the DA 3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL. There have been three more iterations of that lens since (DA 18-55 AL II, DAL and the DA AL WR). The optics on all are similar with some saying the last three identical. They are not bad consumer lenses. Even though the K100D Super is somewhat dated doesn't mean that it won't take good pictures. Being a 6mp camera will only mean that you may not be able to blow the image up to wall size . Cameras are very personal pieces of equipment and each photgrapher should choose which way they want to go. For me they are a necessity because of what I shoot. I'm not happy unless I have a battery grip and a constant aperture zoom lens on each camera hanging off each shoulder! DSLR's are not for everyone. If you haven't already, get to a store and try it out. That is the best way to make your final decision. Good luck!!