Matching the versatility of a S9600

OSiriS

I've been on the fence for a while about what camera to buy. While the Fujifilm S9600 seems to been highly versatile and give decent results for a relatively cheap price, I'm starting to lean more towards a Canon 400D for the superior quality, and the option to be even more versatile, albeit with the cost of extra lenses.

I'm wondering if anyone could tell me how many, and what kind of, lenses a DSLR camera would need to be able to take all the types of shots a bridge camera such as the S9600 can take out of the box.

mathias

The S9600 has an equivalent of 28mm -300mm range ( in 35mm terms ) , so to get that range on a 400D , you need at least two lenses ,

Dont be tempted by the single lens offerings , the quality can be dreadful , keep the zoom to 5X or less for each lens ,

Id recommend the 17-85 mm , and a good 70-300 IS lens , there are many variations of these lenses , L types are the best but also the most expensive.

The 17 -85 and the 70-300 IS canon lenses are good , and about average pricewise. Dont forget you also have the Tokina , Sigma , third party lenses to consider also ,

www.fredmiranda.com

is a good site to get lens reviews

magicbastarder

the fujis are good cameras, but i've never been able to warm to the LCD in the viewfinder.

bp_me

Nikon d80 with 18-200 VR is an exact match (almost.. 18 is 27 on the wide end) for the s9600 range. The lense will be slower though. Many people swear by it as a walkabout lense. Personally I find the 18-135 fine for walk about and know what other gear I want to add for the shots I want.

As for canon, Im not aware of any one canon lense that covers the same focal lengths...

mathias

As posted , dont touch the likes of an 18-200 ( 11 x zoom ) etc on an SLR , the quality is not too good ,

There is significant barrel distortion at one end ( plus chromatic aberration ...color bleed if you like ) and pincushion distortion at the other.

There is a reason why Canon dont do that type of range , its a waste of time quality wise.

Again , as posted , check fredmiranda for user reviews and samples, you'll see what I mean , theres no point spending money on an SLR and skimping on the lenses.

OSiriS

Thanks for the responses. I'm not interested in a one lens for all occasions. While I have seen some fantastic results from the S9600, the extra quality and the room for growth draws me towards a DSLR. Being unfamiliar with lenses I was concerned that it might take 3 lenses to give the versatility I'm looking for, but now it seems my initial budget can be a bit more modest.

Stephen

It can be even more modest if you settle for something like the 400D with kit lens plus a Sigma 70-300APO lens. The Sigma is hard to beat for its price range. I got mine for $140 in B&H in New York, and its available on eBay for about €150 from hong kong.
Downside is you don't get image stabilisation, but since I never had it on any of my lenses in the first place I don't miss it

Calina

I second the recommendation of the Sigma...however: here is my two cents worth.

You're interested in the versatility of an SLR and that's a good thing. It can be incredibly versatile. However - my general advice on it would be the following:

Get the camera and the kitlens. Work with the kitlens for a month or so and use that time to identify what you miss from it, ie is it reach (in my case, it was lots and lots of reach) or is it something else (in which case a lot of people will walk in and recommend the 50mm 1.8 which I just cannot warm to). Only by using the camera will you get a feel for what's missing with that basic lens.

It's not the world's greatest lens - this is true - but it's a reasonable starter lens and I have taken some outstanding photographs with mine and more than anything - it showed me the way I wanted to go. So then I bought the Sigma 70-300mm.

Be prepared to experiment.

magicbastarder

i'd be one of the people leaning to the 1.8; not necessarily for low light capabilities, more for depth of field.

OSiriS

My motivation for making this post was not so much to get specific lens recommendations, but rather to help me understand lenses a bit. To a beginner the vast array of lenses available can be quite bewildering. Even if you have a vague idea of what you would like to achieve, it can be difficult do find where to begin researching a purchase. The replies have been helpful in giving me that starting point I need.

elven

In general, to realise what you're looking for in a lens is to start taking photographs with minimal kit - as Calina says, the kit lens - then see what you're lacking. Then it's down to finding out what your priorities are in terms of speed (being able to shoot in lower light), focal length, and even something like weight/size has to be taken into account. Most people try to cover the entire range from extremely long to extremely wide but won't necessarily heavily use both ends. At the moment, I'm using a 100mm, and a 50mm. I take the odd shot with the kit lens but somehow they never end up being keepers... the thing is, though, to figure out your own habits and needs.