Move from dslr to superzoom

iwb

We have owned a Canon DSLR since they first came out below €1,000. Current one is an EOS D450. The reason was to get pictures where consumer models were too slow at the time. Nothing too demanding but mostly kids in action, either day to day, or on the pitch.

We never got into the camera very much. We often get very good pictures with it and overall, are glad to have spent the money. We don't know how to use it other than on auto and we only own the kit lens. This is a problem as we can't get the action from any distance if at a match and dark days are a real problem sometimes. Ours play rugby and its often a dull winters day.

The other factor here is that our old digital 8 camcorder died recently, so we can't get video anymore.

I am strongly considering buying a superzoom like the DMC-FZ150. It gives us video recording, reportedly with good quality and it appears to take good pictures.

My biggest concern is that we'll sell the D450, buy the superzoom and be really sorry for some reason or other. Has anyone done the same and been sorry to have switched?

mel.b

I have a Canon 400D and switched to a bridge camera (Nikon P500). I honestly thought I would regret it, but I'm much happier with the Nikon. It is so much lighter to carry around and this is important when I am traveling and spending all day sightseeing, walking around cities (no more sore neck). I also don't have to worry about carrying a camera bag around and switching lenses which is a plus. I took it with me on safari at Xmas in 2011 and got some really good shots too. The only downside is the battery life isnt great on it.

westdub

If you want to take sports/action pics I heard shutter lag in Bridge cameras is a problem, have a read of this.....http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3188759

brokenarms

I bought a fugifilm hs50. Thinking all the bells and whistles were great. In reality I really missed the large sensor . The shots where noisy as hell . The pictures lacked the detail of even a kit lens.

I went back to dslr.

mel.b

brokenarms wrote: »

I bought a fugifilm hs50. Thinking all the bells and whistles were great. In reality I really missed the large sensor . The shots where noisy as hell . The pictures lacked the detail of even a kit lens.

I went back to dslr.

No offence to the OP, but they only have the kit lens and haven't worked out how to use the camera in anything other than auto - i don't think they'll notice the difference in sensors or be able to pick up noise in the pictures unless they are blowing them up to large sizes.

iwb

Absolutely no offence taken. We know we are not using the camera to anything close to its abilities. We also have no intention (or money) of buying lenses for the camera.

I wouldn't like to think that we will see a big difference in the quality of the shot taken. That would be a major concern.

I read that thread on dpreview and as usual, it brought up more questions! I know I could spend the next month reading up on cameras. The X-S1 they talk about in the thread sounds great but is twice the price of the FZ150 I was thinking of buying.

Thanks very much for the input.

Decisions, decisions.

brokenarms

I can you say that? Sensor size is the one most important aspect after lens choice.
Anyone can see noise and notice if a picture is not sharp.

Fuzzy noisy or sharp and clean. Thats what I seen when I tried to change. Anyone could have seen it.

The auto mode on a dslr will make a better picture than the DMC-FZ150. My brother has the lumix . For example. We went to take some night shots of the sky last month. My d3100 picked up everything and still had a decent shot at iso1600. His at the same iso got nothing. Hardly one star came out. Thats just one instance.
The only time he got the better of me with it was at a World Super bike race in france. His super zoom managed to get right into the action.

mel.b

iwb wrote: »

Absolutely no offence taken. We know we are not using the camera to anything close to its abilities. We also have no intention (or money) of buying lenses for the camera.

I wouldn't like to think that we will see a big difference in the quality of the shot taken. That would be a major concern.

I read that thread on dpreview and as usual, it brought up more questions! I know I could spend the next month reading up on cameras. The X-S1 they talk about in the thread sounds great but is twice the price of the FZ150 I was thinking of buying.

Thanks very much for the input.

Decisions, decisions.

I'll post up some comparision pics tonight from my dSLR and bridge camera so you can see if you can see the difference

brokenarms wrote: »

I can you say that? Sensor size is the one most important aspect after lens choice.
Anyone can see noise and notice if a picture is not sharp.

Fuzzy noisy or sharp and clean. Thats what I seen when I tried to change. Anyone could have seen it.

The auto mode on a dslr will make a better picture than the DMC-FZ150. My brother has the lumix . For example. We went to take some night shots of the sky last month. My d3100 picked up everything and still had a decent shot at iso1600. His at the same iso got nothing. Hardly one star came out. Thats just one instance.
The only time he got the better of me with it was at a World Super bike race in france. His super zoom managed to get right into the action.

I didn't say that sensor size wasn't important. I said the the OP who only has a kit lens and cam only use their camera in auto is probably not likely to notice the difference. I had a dSLR with various lenses, could use it in full manual and in ordinary everyday shots that are just printed in 4x6 pr 5x7 i struggle to see the difference between the two. Yes of course you will see a difference with high iso, but i think you are missing the point of the OP's post - they are using the camera for 'nothing too demanding but mostly kids in action, either day to day or on the pitch' The OP is unlikely to be out at night taking photos of the stars at 1600iso.

Also you mention that your brothers super zoom did better than your dSLR at the superbikes...this is exactly what the OP wants - he can't get close enough with the kit lens to the kids playing rugby on the field.

magicbastarder

iwb wrote: »

This is a problem as we can't get the action from any distance if at a match and dark days are a real problem sometimes. Ours play rugby and its often a dull winters day.

i suspect that if you're having problems with dark days with a DSLR, a superzoom may not fix the problem. do you know anyone you could borrow a camera from to test?

mel.b

I'm not a great photographer, however I do like taking photos I don't have any pics to give you a like for like comparison, however here are some pics taken with my Nikon P500...

You could argue that some of the Nikon pics aren't as sharp as the dSLR ones, however most of those were taken from a safari truck with the engine still running so the vibrations would have had an effect, especially at full zoom.

To give you an idea of how close the zoom can get
1. The perspective shot



2. Zoomed in


And some other shots...








And some with the dSLR (canon 400d, mostly with Sigma 17-70 lens)









Hope that helps you make the decision!
Mel.b