What do you suggest?

[jonathon6017]

First off let me point out that I have a strict $400-$500 budget that will be in no way negotiable (unfortunately)

I currently have a Canon Powershot A490 with CHDK installed to give me a bit more control over it. The camera is ok but lacks most controls I'd want and my biggest complaint is that it only has a 3x zoom. Many times this has became a limitation to my shooting abilities (I often go to events in which I simply can't move closer).

I've looked at both Bridge/Superzoom Cameras and DSLRs Bridge Cameras have the zoom I want and have manual controls and Av and Tv Modes. The DSLs have Full Manual/Av/Tv and is said to have better photo quality but most kit lenses are only about 3x zoom.

What do you guys suggest I do? I am still an amateur so I'm sorta stuck between this superzoom and possibly a DSLR (I'm unsure of which one)

[OsmosisStudios]

Comparing superzoom bridge cameras to SLRs is kinda like comparing a Honda Civic to a Boeing 747. Yes, they're both modes of transportation, but it's not really fair.

[Doug Pardee]

If you're on a strict budget, forget about DSLRs. DSLR expense only starts with the camera. The camera is the centerpiece around which you add other equipment. From a few surveys I saw a while back, very few people have spent less than $2000 (US) on their DSLR equipment, and the median is over $5000.

The DSLR just doesn't have much advantage if you can't afford to outfit it the way you need to.

[gturner]

SLR is not the place for you.
Canon G12 would be my pick. Feels awesome, has all the dials and has a v good IQ

[ceremus]

In line with what Doug says, getting a DSLR isn't so much a straightforward upgrade to a point & shoot camera as it is a full transition to a new camera system. And in that system, the camera's lenses tends to be the much more important factor than the camera itself. Actually since they've gone digital the camera is the most disposable component in the mix, you'll upgrade your camera as new models come out, discarding or mothballing your current body, but your lenses, flashes, and other components of the system will stay with you.

If you're on a hard budget limit you're pretty much stuck with the P&S option. Look for cameras with lower megapixels, around 10, no more than 12, because those will tend to work better in low light. (The more photo receptors you cram onto a smaller camera's smaller sensor, the smaller they are, the less light they are able to gather, which makes them worse in low lighting, and gives them less dynamic range.) Likewise, if you get a camera with a smaller zoom range, then its lens will also do better in lower light. These lenses tend to be able to gather more light than a superzoom lens, whose lenses will tend to have narrower apertures. Whether you want the better low light performance or the longer zoom range will factor in to the type of camera you ultimately buy, whether it's a performance P&S camera like the G12 or the Canon S95 / S100, or a superzoom bridge camera.

[inkista]

Couple things.

"Zoom" is a relative measurement. It's not really a great way of judging how much reach/magnification a lens gives you. Most of us use focal lengths, because it's an absolute scale. The zoom factor is basically reached by dividing the long end of the lens by the short end.

So, 1-10mm lens would be 10x,
So would a 2-20mm lens.
Or a 60-600mm lens.

Each would give you a very very very different amount of reach/magnification, if they existed.

So, when you're comparing the superzooms you like, I'd highly recommend that you look at the "35mm equivalent" focal length figures. That should normalize things across different sensor sizes for you, if you happen to be comparing cameras with different sensor sizes.

You also need to ditch any numbers that are inflated by "digital zooming", which is essentially just cropping.

And you also need to understand that all this zooming/reach is basically done by cropping, anyway--the tiny sensor size is the reason for the reach. What looks like 500mm on a P&S is in no way equivalent to the actual reach you'd get on a dSLR with a 500mm lens. On the P&S camera, you're really only using a 100mm lens with a 5x crop factor (but that's another story).

A superzoom might be the right way to go for you, but they have one typical area of weakness, and that's in low-light situations. Here are the reasons why:

A smaller sensor tends to exhibit more noise than a larger one, because of sensor density. And superzooms are often using smaller sensors than the "enthusiast compacts" (like the S90, G12, XZ-1, etc.) 1/2.3" is relatively standard on superzooms (like the FZ150 you link to), while enthusiast cameras tend to use 1/1.7". It's not a huge size difference, but can gain you a half stop to a stop on high iso performance.

Secondly, increased magnification registers camera shake more easily. This is why a lot of these cameras come with stabilization. But the more you zoom in, the faster your shutter speed has to be. If you're stuck at lower ISOs, and your lens is at f/5.2 (the max. aperture at the telephoto end of the FZ-150), you may need 1/200s or so on the shutter speed to eliminate camera shake blur, and not enough light to achieve it.

dSLRs can overcome this in two ways: much larger sensors and better high ISO performance, and the capability to mount a faster lens with a much larger max. aperture setting.

Nearly every superzoom fixed lens is going to have a maximum aperture of f/5-f/6 at the telephoto end of the focal length range. You can probably only achieve available light shooting at the wide end of the lens, where it's f/2.8. Again, enthusiast compacts (Canon S100, Panasonic LX-5, Olympus XZ-1) may open up as wide as f/1.8 or f/2 at the wide end of the range, and be at f/4 or f/3.5 at the telephoto end.

Superzoom range is usually only going to be extra useful outside in the daytime, or with a flash. Indoors event shooting is no what these things shine at. This is why enthusiast compacts, mirrorless compacts, and dSLRs still sell.

[jonathon6017]

Thanks everyone for the replies! The G12 looks like a pretty decent camera. Thanks Inkista for taking the time to create such an informative reply. But from what I gather, (I got a little lost on the part about focal lengths) you guys are not recommending the Superzoom. I am sure that you guys are correct about the sensor size and focal lengths (Inkista defintly seemed knowlodgable) and I won't be able to afford a camera along with a telephoto lenses. Because of this, considering that the only difference that I can spot between the G12 and a DSLR with a kit lenses that the G12 has better is a 5x zoom which you guys have just said is not an accurate way to describing zoom. So based on these facts, if I was to throw the need for a telephoto lences out of the equation, which do you guys would think is better the G12 or an entry level DSLR with a kit lenses such as the Nikon D3000 or the Canon EOS Rebel T3

Excuse me for asking so many questions and I'm relatively new to photography and as demonstrated by reading some of the above posts, I still have some to learn

[inkista]

"Better" depends on what you mean by "better."

Considering a dSLR, however, is out of the running for you with your budget. You might be able to get the camera body for $500, but you won't be able to afford the lenses you'll want as well. And the lenses are the other half of the camera. That's what we keep trying to tell you. (dSLR is not a straightforward P&S upgrade lecture).

For the focal length thing, look at this demonstration of focal lengths.

The Panasonic you're looking at has a "35mm equivalent" (i.e., if you were using a 35mm film camera, the magnification/field of view would be equivalent), of 25-600mm. But the lens that's actually on the FZ150 is, in reality, only a 4.5-108mm lens. It's just that the sensor is 1/6 the size of a 35mm frame of film, so you get a 6x "crop factor" (4.5-108x6 => 25-600).

I'm not saying you're not going to get the zoom you want with the FZ-150. I'm just saying that using that zoom in low-light conditions is not as simple as you might think, since you're used to the much more limited zoom range of the A490 (35mm equiv: 37 - 122mm; real focal lengths: 6.6-21.6mm).

The tradeoff is superzoom range against low light performance. Which one's more important to you? If it's low-light performance, then my recommendation would be to look at the Canon S100, the Olympus XZ-1, or the Panasonic LX-5. If it's superzoom range, then you've already picked the one you want.

As dSLR shooters, we're sensor size snobs, that's all. We have this simplistic belief that bigger is better.

[jonathon6017]

Gosh tricky decision. I guess dslr is in fact out...for the low light sensitivity, would the panasonic still be worse or better then my current camera when it is at the lowest zoom. If worse, couldnt a hot shoe flash be a good compensation?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by jonathon6017

Gosh tricky decision. I guess dslr is in fact out...for the low light sensitivity, would the panasonic still be worse or better then my current camera when it is at the lowest zoom.

Better. Newer sensor technology makes even the 1/2.3" sensors considerably better than they were a few years ago.

... If worse, couldnt a hot shoe flash be a good compensation?

Yes, it could work, depending on your working distances. Given that you want more zoom, though, it might not be. Again, physics.

Flash illumination falls off by what's called "the inverse square law". Essentially, the amount of light is inversely proportional to square of the distance travelled.

So, if you double the distance of the light from the subject, you get 1/4 of the intensity of light. You triple it, and you get 1/9. Quadruple it, and you get 1/16th. It's pretty rapid fall-off.

A speedlight's power output is generally given to you as a guide number, that represents how far the light will go (assuming you're using iso 100). the 580EX ii, for example, has a measured guide number (zoomed to 35mm coverage) of 39m. You take the guide number, divide it by the f-number you're using, and that's how far the light will go.

So, at f/4, iso 100, 35mm, full power, the light will travel a whopping 10m. At f/8, ~5m. However, full-power is a stress on your flash, and generally requires somewhere in the realm of 5-10 seconds to recycle (i.e., build up enough charge to fire off the flash) between bursts.

Are you gonna be close enough? Also, remember that a flash is a small, relatively hard source of light. Particularly when used from far away. And it's not going to light up the entire room--only what you aim it at. You bounce to diffuse and soften the light, and you've probably cut your power in half by the diffusion and the increase in distance.

A speedlight is only powered by four AA batteries. It's not the sun.