SLR or superzoom

[spotodog]

hi,
i am going to buy a new camera - either an SLR or a superzoom. I've read over and over that SLRs have the best image quality - which of course i want - but i am not sure that i would really notice the difference...my main question has to do with zooming and cropping. let's say i have a superzoom camera with the equivalent of a 400mm zoom , and an SLR with a lens with the equivlant of a 200mm zoom. If i take a picture of a bird with both, and then crop the SLR picture - will the result be the same? In other words, will cropping an image with high resolution and good image quality give me the same thing that a slightly lower resolution and higher zoom would give me?

thanks,
Eleanor

p.s. i'm also interested in macro photography. i just know that i don't want to lug around a lot of lenses....

[RonH]

If you are convinced that you do not want to carry extra lenses then you have already made your decision. The advantange of a DSLR is the lense interchangeability. The cameras have gotten lighter but the lense still take up room.

I jumped back from a Nikon 5700 to a KM5D (Sony same thing) and the main reason was the lenses and feel of the older 35 mm SLR.

[TonyW]

If you are interested in macro photography then you are probably better off with a superzoom - they generally have a smaller sensor so the depth of field is greater. And don't assume that SLR's have better image quality - a high end superzoom can match a low end SLR.

Tony

[spotodog]

tony,
thanks for the reply. yeah, i'm leaning now towards the superzoom. i'm just wary of noise levels that some reviews indicate that they have.

eleanor

[TonyW]

Some do some don't - and they're getting better all the time. I have a Fuji 9000 and noise isn't a real problem - and it's just been improved (Fuji 9100)

Tony

[NickLewis]

hi,
i am going to buy a new camera - either an SLR or a superzoom. I've read over and over that SLRs have the best image quality - which of course i want - but i am not sure that i would really notice the difference...my main question has to do with zooming and cropping. let's say i have a superzoom camera with the equivalent of a 400mm zoom , and an SLR with a lens with the equivlant of a 200mm zoom. If i take a picture of a bird with both, and then crop the SLR picture - will the result be the same? In other words, will cropping an image with high resolution and good image quality give me the same thing that a slightly lower resolution and higher zoom would give me?

thanks,
Eleanor

p.s. i'm also interested in macro photography. i just know that i don't want to lug around a lot of lenses....If you are looking for absolute quality, control and flexibility then go for a DSLR. But unless you fit one wide ranging zoom and stick with it, you'll eventually end up with a bag of lenses and other bits and bobs. Which of course let's you optimise your camera for whatever you happen to be photographing at the time.

But you've got to decide whether that is an acceptable outcome. If you really don't want to be bothered with the fuss, then your decision is indeed already made. There's also a cost implication in fitting high end optics, of course!

I actually have a bit of both - a Canon 20D SLR, and a Powershot G6 for when the clutter's too much! And I have been known to scrounge my son's Ixus when even the G6 is too big. But I'm in no doubt which I prefer using. For me, the general useability, handling and ergonomics of the 20D simply blow the others away, even though their functionality is nominally similar.

In answer to your bird question, yes, a smaller equivalent zoom on a high megapixel sensor can be cropped to produce a similar result to a longer zoom on fewer megapixels.

However, the 20D produces far better images than the G6, even though their megapixel counts are similar - 8Mp for the 20D, 7Mp for the G6. The colour rendition and the subtleties of shading are better, & there's noticeably less noise. I believe this is to do with the larger image sensor, which allows higher quality capture.

But, in the final analysis, the best camera for you is one you will actually take out with you and use to take pictures. And only you can decide that. A camera that you leave at home is no use to you at all!

Personally, I'd recommend you go around to a decent local camera shop and try the handling of the various types before making your decision.

Regards
Nick

[spotodog]

tony,
after looking at the pictures in your gallery taken with the Fuji 9000, I'm going to take a look at that camera..of course, the photographer is as important as the camera, and it may take me a while to get anywhere close to your level...by the way, did you use a tripod for the butterfly shot? does the 9000 have image stabilization?

thanks

[sanarita]

I recommend that you give dp reviews a good going over. In this link you will be able to find in-depth comparisons for all popular cameras. I leaned on it heavily when making the exact same decision that you are at. My decision: the Canon 20D, because I was interested in maximizing image quality. I also purchased the 17-85mm IS lens at the same time and have been extremely happy with the set. I added a telephoto zoom lens but I don't use it much and it gets left at home a lot.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp

I also am very intereested in Macro Photography, and recently took a class in the subject. What I found is that for outdoor macro, the best addition to your kit is an extension ring, usually 20mm, that is fitted between the camera and your regular lens. This is a small and easy to carry item. I myself use a set of magnifying lenses that screw onto the filter rings of my lens. I got them inexpensively on ebay, and they are also very easy to carry, and have been bringing me great results.

In my mind, the biggest difference between a super-zoom camera and a SLR is size and weight. My SLR all by itself is quite a substantial handful compared to a compact all-in-one type of camera. The other main point that is important to me is that I am a big fan of filters on the end of my lens, and many super-zoom cameras do not have the capacity to fit a filter on. I cannot imagine doing without a polarizing filter and a lens hood when shooting outdoors. The improvement in picture quality is too substantial.

One of my friends just purchased the Sony super-zoom camera, and I was very positively impressed by it's specifications and reviews. She is also very happy with the purchase, and if I were in the market for a super-zoom camera right now, I would give the Sony very careful consideration.

Good luck on your purchase. The only thing that is for certain is that no matter which you choose, you can't lose. They are both great choices, and either way you go, you will be very happy with your decision!

Helen

[TonyW]

tony,
after looking at the pictures in your gallery taken with the Fuji 9000, I'm going to take a look at that camera..of course, the photographer is as important as the camera, and it may take me a while to get anywhere close to your level...by the way, did you use a tripod for the butterfly shot? does the 9000 have image stabilization?

thanks

I think the butterfly would have been with a Fuji 7000 which didn't have as long a zoom and no I didn't use a tripod (rarely do for outside macros) and no it doesn't have IS. I guess it would help but I can't say I've really ever missed it - I turn up the ISO instead.

Tony

[spotodog]

thanks to everyone for the replies. they are very helpful, and i'll let you know what i decide.
eleanor

[Light and Shadow]

Waht you are considering it depends on what you are trying to achieve. If your intention is for telephoto distance, your 12X optical lens does not have the magnification of that 200mm lens on the DSLR. The 200mm on the DSLR is a true 200mm the 200mm equivalence of the the 12X optical is maybe 30 to 40mm. The 400mm equivalent that is bosted by these cameras in because the crop is equal to what a 400mm would produce, not the magnification of a 400mm lens.

Perspective of the lens is determined by the size of the film or sensor for the focal length of the lens used. we we used the same lens on an 8X10 camera, a 35mm and a superzoom for a subject at a given length, you will find that the actual size of the magnification will be the same on all these cameras.

First vizualize an 8X10 view camera with a large negative. It would be set up with a scene with person in at a particular distance. if we used the same lens on the 35mm or the digital zoom camera. To see what the other camera format will look like would be simply cutting out the smaller film or sensor into the larger negative. The subject will be cropped because the smaller sensor or film is a cut down of the larger negative. If the head were the center of the lens, you could see the whole body in the 8X10 image, the 35mm would show only the head and shoulder of the subject. The digital image would only show the head. The interesting point is the head size on all three images would be identical.

What does this all mean in simple terms: A 60mm cannot have the magnification of a 200mm lens. The shorter focal length is fine for closer work but is not a true telephoto.