[philodox]

Thanks for the input Steve. The Olympus SP-570 UZ looks interesting as well. Becoming just a little overwhelmed with all the choices.

EDIT: Do they do worse in low light because of the lower ISO ratings? The DMC-FZ50K only has ISO 1600 at full size, but the leica lense on it is f/2.8

EDIT2: Henry's has a Nikon Coolpix P80 with a case and a 4GB card for $485CDN.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

I disagree. You don't have to have pro gear to be a pro photographer.

That's true, but it helps. First of all, when you're charging money for your work, your clients expect the best quality possible. While skill is certainly number one in importance, pro bodies and lenses guarantee you have maximum flexibility to get the shot under any circumstances, that the image will be recorded as clean and sharp as possible, and that there's less chance of an equipment malfunction ... ie: better equipment is more robust, dust/water resistant, etc.

Secondly, when someone pays you money to shoot their wedding for example, they expect you to have at least as good and preferably better equipment than the guests. Yes, it's strictly perception, but to many, perception is reality. When the crowd of well-wishers gather around to take the cake-cutting shot, or any shot, the "pro" needs to command respect ( in order to not be pushed out of the best positions for the best shots.) Impressive equipment goes a long way in achieving this. IMO of course.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

I know this is a Nikon thread, but I've sort of been flip flopping lately... Not sure if I want to just drop around the same amount of money I was looking to spend on an SLR and get a top of the line point and shoot.

There are certainly excellent fixed lens digitals out there, but for about the same money you could likely pick up something like the Nikon D-40 SLR which isn't much larger than some of the better fixed lens offerings and gives you the option of upgrading lenses should you ever decide to.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree.

Yea, well I disagree. So there!
^_^

I would not pay someone 4000$ unless I had the peace of mind that their equipment was up to the job.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do they do worse in low light because of the lower ISO ratings?

The reason is that they have smaller sensors. They can sometimes go up to high ISOs, but the results are either noisy or smoothed over by noise reduction. Under normal situations, they're fine. They just aren't designed for extreme situations.

The trick to point and shoots is finding one with a really good lens. They have an advantage over DSLRs in that they can be designed to perfectly match the lens built into them. DSLRs have to be able to work with any lens. If the lens on a P&S is good, the camera is usually good.

I would recommend a good point and shoot over a cheap DSLR. At the price you are talking about, it makes sense to buy the camera you will use today, and not worry about ugrading in the future. In five years, whatever you buy will be totally obsolete anyway. (But it will still be able to take fantastic pictures.)

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the input Steve. The Olympus SP-570 UZ looks interesting as well. Becoming just a little overwhelmed with all the choices. EDIT: Do they do worse in low light because of the lower ISO ratings? The DMC-FZ50K only has ISO 1600 at full size, but the leica lense on it is f/2.8 EDIT2: Henry's has a Nikon Coolpix P80 with a case and a 4GB card for $485CDN.

They are completely different beasts. Take your best P&S, and then even just try a D40. The D40 should blow you away. You will probably notice that the DSLR helps you take a better picture. Both because it's using:
A) Better optics. (Did you see the size of those lenses! The shear amount of light they let in vs. a P&S says something)
B) Better sensor. (Push a P&S into hit's 'high' ISO range, and WATCH OUT!!!. Modern DSLR's can shoot usable shoots at 1600ISO or higher.)
C) Faster response. Push the shutter release on a DSLR and a P&S. Just try it.

The list goes on and on, to about 100 places.

If you have used a P&S and a DSLR, you will instantly see why the DSLR is the best choice for taking more technical (and artsy) pictures.

The ONLY reason I would ever use anything less than a DSLR/SLR, is if size/weight were a factor. For me thankfully, it is not so much.

Don't even get me started on battery life.
P&S.... 60 photos or so. What a battery drain!
D50? well over 1400 photos. Now that's something I can take on vacation.

 

[Towert7]

philodox, I should also day that you seem to be very undecided. It seems you are just looking at possibilities, without so much trying them out. Don't make a decision without seriously trying them out.

Also, check out places like dcresource.com and see their comments and what not.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The trick to point and shoots is finding one with a really good lens.

That is the main reason that I'm leaning towards the Panasonic or the Leica.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif At the price you are talking about, it makes sense to buy the camera you will use today, and not worry about ugrading in the future.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks again for the advice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Take your best P&S, and then even just try a D40. The D40 should blow you away. You will probably notice that the DSLR helps you take a better picture. If you have used a P&S and a DSLR, you will instantly see why the DSLR is the best choice for taking more technical (and artsy) pictures.

No offense, but did you even look at any of the camera models I was quoting? These are basically DSLRs that don't have interchangable lenses. I'm not talking about a little slide camera that you fit in your pocket. The lenses that they come with are actually quite good.

That said, some of your points do ring true and I do realize that there are comprimises in limiting myself to one lense. Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif philodox, I should also say that you seem to be very undecided. It seems you are just looking at possibilities, without so much trying them out. Don't make a decision without seriously trying them out.

That's the understatement of the year.

I'll definately try some cameras out before I settle. Just trying to get an idea of what to look at. There is so much gear out there.

 

[jayehs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif These are basically DSLRs that don't have interchangable lenses. I'm not talking about a little slide camera that you fit in your pocket. The lenses that they come with are actually quite good.

I never really understood the point of getting these larger P&S like DMC-FZ50k. They are not much smaller than an SLR, costs about the same as an entry SLR. So why not get an SLR? I'm not sure what kinda sensor these P&S use but if they use small sensors like those small P&S then no they are not basically DSLR's that dont have interchangeable lenses. Sensor is the biggest limiting factor in P&S IMO.

I would either get an SLR or a smaller P&S... nothing in between.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayehs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never really understood the point of getting these larger P&S like DMC-FZ50k. They are not much smaller than an SLR, costs about the same as an entry SLR. So why not get an SLR?

They have more features than the entry level SLRs and in some case better manual control. The one lense that they do come with is often of very high quality.

How much would it cost you to buy an entry level DSLR and a top quality all rounder zoom lense with Image Stabalization? If you're not a pro, how often are you going to be reaching for other lenses with this sort of setup? If I think I could live with what the one lense that it comes with, why would I go for a DSLR over something like the DMC-FZ50k?

I'm still doing some research on the sensors and reports of how they perform in low light as this seems to be the only real downside in my application.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayehs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never really understood the point of getting these larger P&S like DMC-FZ50k. They are not much smaller than an SLR, costs about the same as an entry SLR. So why not get an SLR? I'm not sure what kinda sensor these P&S use but if they use small sensors like those small P&S then no they are not basically DSLR's that dont have interchangeable lenses. Sensor is the biggest limiting factor in P&S IMO. I would either get an SLR or a smaller P&S... nothing in between.

I can only see one major +ve about the DMC-FZ50k versus the current entry-level DSLRs: the ultra-versatile lens.
1) It can focus to within 5cm in 'Macro Mode'
2) Large maximum aperture - F/2.8
3) Superb range: 35-420mm (35mm equiv)

If you look at some test shots, the FZ50 performs wonderfully at base ISO. The resolution is very good, even better than some DSLRs. However, bump the ISO up to a few hundred and the performance goes down the drain.

 

[philodox]

Upon further reading, it seems that you actually can get three 'conversion lenses' for the DMC-FZ50k, a Tele, a Wide and a close-up. Not sure how good they are, but this at least gives you a bit of variety. Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can only see one major +ve about the DMC-FZ50k versus the current entry-level DSLRs: the ultra-versatile lens.

That is what first attracted me to it. When you compare the f/2.8 LEICA DC VARIO-ELMARIT 12x optical zoom lense to what comes in most of the DSLR kits it starts looking very good. I don't see myself having the budget to buy a comparible lense or a slew of lenses to form that kind of range for a DSLR any time soon. Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you look at some test shots, the FZ50 performs wonderfully at base ISO. The resolution is very good, even better than some DSLRs. However, bump the ISO up to a few hundred and the performance goes down the drain.

I've been comparing the specs of the D40 to the DMC-FZ50k and they have the same ISO sensitivity ranges. Is there really *that* big of a difference between a 10MP 1/1.8" CCD and a 6MP DX format CCD?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif one major +ve 2) Large maximum aperture - F/2.8

First off, that's hilarious that I see you type +ve. A teacher used that in class and no one understood what it meant. ^_^

We have to be careful though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a F/2.8 on a 1.5 crop sensor is quite a bit more narrow than a F/2.8 on a 2x crop sensor. I'm not sure why this is (it really doesn't make sense to me yet), but that's what I've been told. Actually, the more that I think about it, perhaps it does make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox No offense, but did you even look at any of the camera models I was quoting? These are basically DSLRs that don't have interchangable lenses. I'm not talking about a little slide camera that you fit in your pocket. The lenses that they come with are actually quite good.

Ohhhh, let me pull the dagger out of my back. ^_^
No, seriously I didn't try those P&S's.
If they are truly basically DSLR's without interchangeable lenses, then get the P&S and be done with it. You'll save 20$cnd and it'll prevent you from spending more money on camera upgrades and whatnot (thus potentially saving you 6000$cnd).

I'll say this. I wouldn't trade in my 3 year old Nikon D50 for ANY of the current P&S's out there today. My D50 helps me enjoy photography.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If they are truly basically DSLR's without interchangeable lenses, then get the P&S and be done with it. You'll save 20$cnd and it'll prevent you from spending more money on camera upgrades and whatnot (thus potentially saving you 6000$cnd).

That is exactly what I'm worrying about. I want a good camera, but I don't necissarily want a new head-fi like hobby that is going to be a huge money sink.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

If I think I could live with what the one lense that it comes with, why would I go for a DSLR over something like the DMC-FZ50k?

Because you "think" you could live with the one lens?

You seem to have made up your mind that this is the route you'd prefer to take, and that's fine. If you're not as enthusiastic about eeking out better quality photos from your camera equipment as you are about the sound from your audio equipment (there is a huge selection of phones and amps that cost and perform less than the equipment I've seen you with, but you chose to go beyond that), then you won't get the urge to upgrade in the near future. I think that those of us who seem to be pushing you in the DSLR direction are taking upgraditis, which definitely exists in photography, into consideration. The nice thing about upgrading a DSLR, is that you can leap-frog .... the better lenses you buy in the future for your entry level body, can be used with a future body upgrade .... be that in 6 months or years.

You're right, you can't get ( at least not buying new ) the same features like massive zoom range and vibration reduction in even an entry level DSLR for the same money. But, like most electronics these days, you get what you pay for. So for a manufacturer to be able to give you those extra features at a certain price, they have to give up something ... and that's generally flexibility, expandability, and a certain amount of quality.

Everyone has different priorities and tolerance levels to upgraditis, so ultimately it's your decision which way to go. If you're just getting your feet wet in photography, then a lesser initial dollar investment is probably the way to start. The cameras you're mentioning offer way more than the tiny, slip-in-your-pocket models, and any major difference in picture quality between them and an entry-level DSLR should only be noticable in larger prints/screen shots.