Super zoom digital camera or DSLR?

[amir4042]

Hi All,

I consider my self a total newbie in (good!) photography, but I sure like to take this as my hobby. I would be grateful if you could help me with a couple of questions?

1- I have read several posts regarding DSLR vs compact digital cameras and I totally understand that the number of Megapixel is not everything and the size of light sensor matters a lot. However, I could not find a definite answer to my question that what is the quality difference between "super zoom digital cameras" (like Canon Powershot SX20) and a typical canon DSLR? Is the size of the light sensors different in this case?

2- In general, how can I find the size of the light sensor when I want to buy a camera? (what number and where on the specifications sheet should I look for?)

3- Is it possible that I find a super zoom compact digital camera that can take pictures of the same quality as a DSLR, but only with a fixed lens? (so that I can match comfort and quality at he same time ). Or, I should stop dreaming and buy a DSLR?

I appreciate you time.
Cheers,
Amir

[RichardTaylor]

In good lighting & straight forward pics, not a lot of difference between a P&S (or super zoom) and a DSLR
As far as sensor size not a lot of difference with P&S cameras. With DSLRs that is another story depending upon being 4/3, APSC, and full frame..

However. If you want shallow DOF, it really cant be a achieved with a P&S wether it be a superzoom or not (small sensor camera)

(1) Canon 40D with Canon 135 F2 lens @ F2


You want to shoot in low light? If you like noise use a P&S.
(2) Canon G11 ISO 1600

Have a look at the original pic here

Canon G11 ISO 1600 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!.


You want to capture the "moment"
Canon 40D
(3)
With a P&S the birds will be long gone by the tine the shutter activates.

You want to capture fast moving objects - Good luck trying to keep the subjects in focus with a P&S
(4)


The bottom line: Most P&S cameras are great for 90% of shooting conditions in good light IE family/travel etc..
A (D)SLR can be configured to be the almost perfect camera no matter what the shooting conditions. The cost is $$$$ and physical size.

I shoot with a Canon 40D and 5D (with pile of lenses) and a Canon G11 P&S. My wife and sometimes myself uses a Canon SX100 superzoom..

[dlambert]

Good summary, Richard. The only thing I'd add, or amplify, maybe, is that the difference in all of these capabilities is a matter of degree more so than can or can't. For example, the shallow DOF shot in your comment is gorgeous, and you're right -- there's no way I could touch this with my P&S (Panny FZ-28). But I can assure you that I've learned a lot about photography by trying. The shots below are an example -- note that none of them comes anywhere near the shallow DOF on your fast lens, but by composing carefully, I can still get this camera to produce a bit of bokeh, and in the process, I've learned a lot about what works and what doesn't.

IME, the same goes for all the other "challenging" scenarios you pointed out -- a P&S is going to run into a wall before a DSLR will, but the performance envelopes of any given camera-lens combo are going to differ, as well, and I believe you can take better advantage of whatever combo you've got if you understand where the limits come from (to be fair, you've got a pretty big performance envelope at your disposal -- quite a bit bigger than someone who's buying their first DSLR).

For the money, you can't match the versatility of a superzoom-type P&S, but you should expect to run into limits, and when you hit those limits, you're out of options. With a DSLR, you're buying greater limits (in the body) and the ability to buy lots more limits (lenses, flashes, etc.) any time your budget permits.

[dave.turley]

Hi Dave,
Just purchased a Panasonic fz38, and although I'm completely new to 'photography as a hobby' I must say, if I can get some shots like the ones you've posted here with my new camera, I'll be very happy. Could you (if you read this, give me some detail about the pictures you've posted so I can use that info as a starting point for some practice?...If that's not too cheeky.
Thanks mate
Dave

[dlambert]

All the principles that apply to taking great pics w/ DSLR's apply in the same way to superzoom P&S cameras like ours. The biggest difference is that the limits of the equipment are so much more pronounced on the smaller cameras that they show up right away. Our cameras have great reach, for instance, but between the smaller optics and smaller sensor, they have a hard time using that reach without great lighting.

All of these pics had the aperture was as wide-open as the lens would allow to help create a narrow DOF. The other thing I try to do is stay out of "auto" mode - mostly because I want to keep the ISO setting from going above 200, and the full-auto setting doesn't honor the ISO limit setting (on my FZ28, at least).

You can probably also see the difference in bokeh between my pics & Richard's. Even though I got the camera to produce that out-of-focus effect on the background, it's nowhere near as creamy & smooth as Richard's first picture. This is due mostly to the lens - note that he was shooting at F/2 with a high-quality lens -- this really makes a difference, as you can see.

Pic 1 - F/4, 1/125, ISO-125

Pic 2 - F/4.4, 1/160, ISO-100

Pic 3 - F/4.4, 1/80, ISO-200

Pic 4 - F/3.7, 1/15, ISO-200

[inkista]

Originally Posted by amir4042

1- I have read several posts regarding DSLR vs compact digital cameras and I totally understand that the number of Megapixel is not everything and the size of light sensor matters a lot. However, I could not find a definite answer to my question that what is the quality difference between "super zoom digital cameras" (like Canon Powershot SX20) and a typical canon DSLR? Is the size of the light sensors different in this case?

Yes, the size is quite different.



That little purple box labeled 1/2"? That's just a little bigger than your P&S sensor. The SX20 uses a 1/2.3" sensor. The typical crop-body Canon dSLR uses the red 1.6x crop box.

But you were also misinformed in some ways about the idea that image quality is based solely on the size of the sensor. Under certain specific conditions, the 1/1.7" sensor and fixed lens in the G10 can rival a medium format digital back (that would be bigger than the full frame box), if you're looking at the print and not the pixels. Bigger sensors have their advantages and can do things smaller ones can't, but that's not the whole story.

2- In general, how can I find the size of the light sensor when I want to buy a camera? (what number and where on the specifications sheet should I look for?)

It's usually called "sensor size". For example, if you go to the spec. sheet that dpreview has for the SX20, you'll note that it says "sensor size: 1/2.3" (6.16 x 4.62 mm, 0.28 cm²)"

The 1/x" measurement thing btw, is giving the size of things via video tube standards. It's a weird, strange measurement where the numbers aren't actually the dimensions of the sensor in any way. That is, nothing is 1/2.3" on that sensor. What's 1/2.3" is the diameter of the video tube that that sensor would go inside. Dpreview has a good page explaining this, and it also gives the specific sensor sizes.

3- Is it possible that I find a super zoom compact digital camera that can take pictures of the same quality as a DSLR, but only with a fixed lens? (so that I can match comfort and quality at he same time ). Or, I should stop dreaming and buy a DSLR?

This actually isn't the big question. A lot of digital bridge and compact cameras can certainly rival dSLR quality--under certain limited conditions. But when it comes to versatility, the SLR system can do a lot more and look a lot better outside those conditions. If you're doing landscape photography outdoors, stopped down, with a lot of bright sunlight, it's going to be hard to tell a P&S photo from an SLR one.

But if you're indoors without a flash... you'll probably be able to tell at a glance.

It's not all about strict image-quality off the sensor. The strengths of the dSLR world are that you're using a completely different system. You can swap lenses and use very wide and very fast lenses with max. apertures wider than f/2. You can use an external flash. You can time a shot without any shutter delay. You can shoot bursts. You have full manual control. You have much higher usable iso settings.

So, the question is: what do you want to be able to shoot? For some things, a bridge/compact is going to be a better job. For others, an SLR. Most people who purchase an SLR still have a compact and still use it. I own a Canon 50D and a dozen lenses, and I just bought the Powershot S90.

Different tools. Different tasks. Think of it as the difference between having a swiss army knife and a big red tool box. Sure, you can loosen or tighten a screw with a swiss army knife. But if you've got to assemble ten bookcases, you want the power screwdriver. But that doesn't mean you still won't want the swiss army knife.

There's also a third option, btw. These days, we're getting a new class of camera that's coming right between the SLRs and the bridge cameras. Some folks call them EVIL (electronic viewfinder/interchangeable lens). The first ones to arrive were micro four-thirds (the green 4/3" box), but we're also starting to see a few APS-C (1.5x/1.6x) sensors arriving in the arena. The Panasonic G1, GH1, and GF1, the Olympus E-P1, E-P2, and E-PL1, and the Samsung NX are these type of cameras. Little bigger than a compact. Lot smaller than an SLR, with SLR-sized sensors. Sony says they'll be coming out with one this year.

Right now, they're about as expensive as SLRs and the lens selections are slim and slightly more expensive than SLR lenses, but the EPL-1 is showing that the price trend may be heading downwards (initial kit MSRP is $600). It might be worth your while to take a look at those, if smaller size and big sensor are something you're looking for.