Can't answer because I'm in exactly the same situation!..

Yeah, I hear tou. I'm just hoping to get some positive feedback here...

The superzoom will not work as well in lowlight situation and it will not focus as quickly. If you want to shoot any type of action, school sports, basketball, etc., then you should pickup a dslr. The higher ISO photos of a dslr will look much better..

Take a look at the pictures in this thread and you'll be convinced of the power of a dslr. Granted, this is an expensive lens but with a dslr you'll be able to achieve this.http://forums.dpreview.com/...ums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=24398448.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

I'm in a simular position..

Please correct me if I'm wrong on anything, but I'll share my thought process. I am not pro and haven't bought anything yet but the the bootom line is that superzooms are a little cheaper and more "convienient" but suffer with photographic quality..

Superzooms:.

Generally cost <$500Wide range of zoom with one lens, generally of poorer qualitySmaller appature lensMuch smaller sensorSomewhat more limited manual controls.

Generally, the weak point with superzoom cameras will be the lens and the sensor..

DSLRs.

Start at $500+Larger, higher quality lensInterchangable lenses, for a variety of situations, these can to be expensiveMuch larger sensor.

Generally, with SLR cameras, the weak link with dSLR cameras is having a user who doesn't know how to use the camera well..

I guess it came down to if you want to become a photographer or just take pictures. If you want one camera that will be easy to use and take decent pictures (no better and some cases not as well as a "point and shoot") and don't want to spend a lot of time learning how to use a camera, the superzoom will be the best choice. However, if you want to spend the time and money to get better pictures than the average P and S, like the ones posted above, the SLR is the only way to go. You couldn't take those pictures with a P and S..

I haven't decided if I want to take that plunge yet but I realize the bigger question now is how much time do I want to spend devouting to the craft of photography.....do I want to just take pictures or be a photographer?.

What I've decided is to wait and test my commitment. I'm going to take a month or two and learn the manual features on my P and S and learn more about photography before making any purchase.......I have realized that I have only half-used all the features of my P and S camera due to laziness and that it'll take much better pictures than I have been taking the past year.....maybe I have all the camera I need right now and just don't know it...

Hi.

I was in your same situation. I really struggled with this decision. I had a p&s that was very basic. I looked at everything from other P&S to the Nikon D200!!! Absolutely overwhelming..

But, for me personally, I decided against a DSLR because I didn't want to have a multitude of lenses to carry around with me for various situations. Yes, you could get a little better photo, but it's just not very practical for me at this time. The size of the camera turned me off a bit. I already tote so much around with me when we go out that I knew I would be grabbing my old P&S in many situations. I'm not a professional and if I ever thought about heading that way, I could get something to suit my needs then. And the price.

Lots of money!!.

I basically just take photos of my kids and family events... and I wanted something that could comfortably cover my bases. So I decided on a Kodak Z712 IS. It has a LOT of manual settings that I'm still trying to learn. But those settings can allow more freedom. I was having trouble getting that stopped action, but it was just something I wasn't doing...

Great action shots!! I like it's low light capabilities and the colors are nice. I think it will be a fun camera to learn more with..

It is a tough decision. There are so many great cameras out there. You can always join a flickr group to learn more about a specific camera. I found that very useful..

Good luck with your decision...

Photofisher said:.

What I've decided is to wait and test my commitment. I'm going to take a month or two and learn the manual features on my P and S and learn more about photography before making any purchase.......I have realized that I have only half-used all the features of my P and S camera due to laziness and that it'll take much better pictures than I have been taking the past year.....maybe I have all the camera I need right now and just don't know it..

There's only one way to find out and you've made the smart choice. Learn more about the art of photography and find out what your current camera can do. Once you've done that and *then* if you feel limited, it's time to move on to something that will give you more tools, more opportunities to take even better pictures. It's the old "walk before you run" thing..

I would urge, though, before you generalize on superzoom image quality, take a few minutes to look at some of the pictures put up in the Panasonic Talk forum, the ones shot with the FZ cameras. Example: if you can successfully take photos of jets at an air show, you can certainly capture your kids in full flight..

Mike marshall: FZ50, XR-2 SLR..

Matcat5 wrote:.

I am looking to purchase a new camera. I do not know whether to gowith a superzoom (dslr-like) or to go ahead and go for a dslr. Icurrently have a small p/s and I like that it is a pocket camera-typeand ready to go in a moments notice, with decent results. I amlooking for something more to use on sports and family events thatwill get better results..

If you don't already know that you will be exceeding the capabilities of a compact, you are not ready for an SLR-based system.. no insult implied or specified, simply a fact..

An (d)SLR based system is *much* more expensive to get into.. the 'one-lens' solution is not really any better (and often worse!) than the superzoom solution..

I have scoured over the forums and expert reviews and have yet tofind the answer that I am looking for. I really like the preview ofthe fuji 8000fd and all it has to offer on paper. However since Iwant to capture sports (from the kids) is this a good choice. Ireally like that it has the only lens you should ever need in onepackage with all the other goodies mentioned in the preview. Irealize that it does not include the fuji super ccd, but I guess myquestion is can any superzoom do anything close to what an entrylevel (say Nikon D40 or Rebel XTi) can do?This is for family use not professional. Thanks..

For family use... it all depends on how much you *want* to learn... to get the best out of a (d)SLR, you need to learn a whole lot of technique, a lot of photographic technique... you need to come to grips with the limitations of the (d)SLR - depth of field (shallow), no movie mode, cost, weight, bulk - before deciding...

A good superzoom (and they are all *good*), will do 90-95% of what a (d)SLR can, but at a fraction of the cost.. it is that last 5% that makes or breaks - and can be very expensive....

Dunno if that helps..S.**My XT IS Full Frame APS-C/FF of course!*****So is my 5D 35mm/FF**..

My experience with a superzoom is that it is fine if you can go with some restrictions like low light issues, picture quality in general, no expandablity, lesser user comfort (in terms of handling and controls) etc..

My suggestion would be to fix the budget first and then see if you can get a decent DSLR kit (Eg: Onlympus double lens kit is considered very good value for money) in that band and if so, go ahead and buy DSLR, else if you really feel you want to just forget everything and just need to go, point and shoot, go for a DSLR..

Http://budding-nature-photographer.blogspot.com/(Minolta Dimage Z1 experiences are share here)..

Thanks for all of your responses thus far. The core of my question, however, has not really been answered yet..

I need to know if you can get "decent" results with a superzoom at a wide range of events, or is it limited to brightley lit situations. As an example, would a superzoom work well capturing action in a basketball game indoors from the stands at like 330 to 70 ft away? Will a superzoom capture "decent" photos at a night football game from the stands? Finally will a superzoom capture a "decent" photo inside at a birthday party in low light situations when my 5 year old blows out the candles? These are my primary concerns. I have a simple p/s that cannot perform these shots now and want to know what to step up to..

Recommendations of particular models would be nice as well. Ie.. Fuji 8000sd, Canon s3 or s5, Kodak or panny in the superzooms and Rebel XTi, Nikon D40-D80, or one of the 2 Pentax models or even the Sony Alpha in DSLR. Also if stepping up to the DSLR what type of lense will get you to 18x zoom?Again Thanks in advance...

Thanks for all of your responses thus far. The core of my question,however, has not really been answered yet.I need to know if you can get "decent" results with a superzoom at awide range of events, or is it limited to brightley lit situations.As an example, would a superzoom work well capturing action in abasketball game indoors from the stands at like 330 to 70 ft away?Will a superzoom capture "decent" photos at a night football gamefrom the stands? Finally will a superzoom capture a "decent" photoinside at a birthday party in low light situations when my 5 year oldblows out the candles? These are my primary concerns. I have asimple p/s that cannot perform these shots now and want to know whatto step up to.Recommendations of particular models would be nice as well. Ie..Fuji 8000sd, Canon s3 or s5, Kodak or panny in the superzooms andRebel XTi, Nikon D40-D80, or one of the 2 Pentax models or even theSony Alpha in DSLR. Also if stepping up to the DSLR what type oflense will get you to 18x zoom?Again Thanks in advance..

You're asking a lot... people who take good pictures of indoor sports games at a distance of 100m will use a DSLR and lens that needs a flat-bed truck to carry it around on. You can't expect something small that you can stick in your pocket to be able to do the same. For low light situations you will definitely get better pictures from a DSLR because the much larger sensor (about 10x larger) picks up more light. So if you plan to use ISO 800 / 1600 a DSLR is a much better bet, even if you leave it on 'P' (fully automatic) mode to start with.

For an example of how some compact cameras perform in low light, have a look at.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=24434301.

The main answer to your question is that, yes, a DSLR with a superzoom (like the Tamron 18-250, which has a 14x zoom ratio) will be able to cover a wide variety of 'normal' situations. The main drawback with superzooms like this is that to keep the weight and size reasonable they have a relatively limited maximum aperture, typically something like f/5.6 at the long end, which is not ideal in low light. You could certainly take indoor pictures in a stadium at 250mm and f/5.6, but the shutter speed would probably be too slow to freeze the action. For birthday party shots by indoor light (or candlelight) you would need a prime (non-zoom) lens with an aperture of f/1.8 or similar..

No one camera (or more accurately, one lens) is going to be able to do everything you want, from candlelit parties to remote sports action. If you reach the point where you decide that it might be a good idea to have more than one lens according to what you are shooting then you need a DSLR (Nikon D40/D40x, Canon Rebel XT1, Pentax K100D, Oly E410 / E510, Sony alpha 100 - all are good). A sensble combination of lenses here would be general-purpose superzoom (like the above-mentioned Tamron 18-250) plus something like a 28mm or 50mm f/1.8 for low-light indoor shots.

If you decide that you do not want the fuss of DSLR and changing lenses, then you have to accept that whatever P&S or bridge camera you choose is not going to be able to cope with every extreme situation that you find yourself wanting to take photos in..

Best wishesMike..

It appears that the Fuji S6000/6500 has the best low light characteristics of the superzooms...

I doubt that a superzoom can do 95% what a dslr can do. I have both and recently used my excellent Sony DSC V-3, P&S (every bell and whistle imaginable, Nightshot, Infra-red, continuous shot, raw mode, etc..) in low light using ISO 800..

The shots were much noisier compared to my Nikon dslr's. Here is an example of a "snapshot" taken with a dslr that I don't think would've come out this good with a point and shoot. You live once, why not get the best images possible..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Get the super zoom..

Trust me - I was in the same situation about 5 or 6 years ago... once you start, you never stop!.

I bought a 300D, and since then have moved up gradually through various lenses, flashes, bodies, lighting gear, etc etc..

I've spent over 10k on stuff I really don't need that much - and although I make a substantial part of my living off it now, it really really gets addictive..

So, unless you have plenty of money, or very strong will power, stick with the high-end compact super zoom. That way, you'll have the best in the market for what you get..

Otherwise, you'll have an "entry-level" slr - the "entry" part being the entry into lots more spending. They're the equivalent of a gateway drug http://www.instantphotos.co.nz..

Yep, thats my point exactly..

It seems that getting a dSLR is only worth it if you want to take up photography as a serious hobby. For me, I don't even know if my P and S will give me the pictures I want.....for example, I have been dissappointed with the macro pictures I have been taking ......I was using the "cuisine" mode on my camera, zooming in, and shooting freehand.....fuzzy, poor depth of view, with a reflection. Last night I learned how to turn the flash up, cranked up the ISO to 1600, gave myself nice soft background lighting, used a tripod that I hadn't used, and learned how to turn on the super macro mode on my camera. I came out with better results than ever before. And I haven't even made a serious attempt at photoediting yet..

So I don't know if I'll be happy with P and S quality yet, which is (forgive me here) basically what I'll be getting with a superzoom.....a superzoom just seems to be a very versitile P and S..

If I find that I'm unhappy with my P and S capabilities and want to spend many hours learning the craft of photography and hundreds to thosands of dollars more in the long run, I'll go dSLR. Otherwise, maybe a superzoom or more likely nothing at all...

Sorry I meant 30 to 70 ft not 330...

Don't play with non DSLRs..

You will frustrate the living daylights out of yourself and spend more money as you will have to buy a DSLR anyway..

Go into a shop and look through the finder of a compact and a DSLR..

Its chalk and cheese..

Then Do It and Make Some Great Photographs..

Research is no substitute for doing..

No one can make a decision for you - you must do that..

Peter.

Persuasive Marketing Systems -inc Copywriting, Design & Photography..

I haven't been in a gym yet, but have taken some shots outside in the late evening/night with mine. I also captured some great photos of my kitchen at night with just a single light over the sink. I've been playing around with the "low light indoors" settings with my camera (Kodak Z712 IS). The zoom is really nice for a P&S. I am very pleased with what I'm getting..

I would be happy to send you some sample photos that I have taken with mine recently. Again, it's not the exact situation you describe, but it's close and may give you an idea..

A DSLR would give you better images in those situations if you want to have the lenses to do the job..

Matcat5 wrote:.

I need to know if you can get "decent" results with a superzoom at awide range of events, or is it limited to brightley lit situations.As an example, would a superzoom work well capturing action in abasketball game indoors from the stands at like 330 to 70 ft away?Will a superzoom capture "decent" photos at a night football gamefrom the stands? Finally will a superzoom capture a "decent" photoinside at a birthday party in low light situations when my 5 year oldblows out the candles? These are my primary concerns. I have asimple p/s that cannot perform these shots now and want to know whatto step up to..

It depepnds on your definition of "decent" results. The situations you've presented here are very challenging in terms of lighting and my guess is while a superzoom might produce ok photos, it will not give the results you want at the long end of the zoom. It may if you keep the focal lengths short so you can use the widest aperture to get the most light to your sensor..

In these situations you need high ISO performance and a reasonably fast lens. This is where a DSLR shines. Indoor basketball and outdoor night football are quite low light situations that also require a fast shutter speed to catch and freeze the action....again this is the realm of a DSLR in most normal cases..

Recommendations of particular models would be nice as well. Ie..Fuji 8000sd, Canon s3 or s5, Kodak or panny in the superzooms andRebel XTi, Nikon D40-D80, or one of the 2 Pentax models or even theSony Alpha in DSLR. Also if stepping up to the DSLR what type oflense will get you to 18x zoom?.

In terms of value, the Pentax K100D is the best deal going at the moment with the Pentax rebates. But, an 18x zoom means nothing at least to me......18x is a zoom ratio, not an actual lens specification. A lens with a focal lenth of 10-180mm would be an 18x zoom, which covers extreme wide angle to moderate telephoto....a lens from 28-500mm would cover wide angle to extreme telephoto, but bith could be called 18x zooms. The term XXx zoom is really more of a marketing ploy that an actual lens specification..

In terms of a DSLR no one makes such lens with a large zoom ration as the lenses are quite difficult to design and there are too many compormises at the long and wide ends to make such a zoom feasible. About the longest practical zoom ratio you will see for a DSLR would be the Tamron 18-250mm, which has gotten excellent reviews, although at a cost of a bout $500 for the lens alone..

However, I am of the opinion that two lens with shorter ranges make a much better kit and yield much better images. For what you are asking, the Pentax with the 18-55mm kits lens plus a good consumer 70-300mm zoom (either the Sigma or the Tamron), would make the most sense and yield the best images for the money..

JohnPentax *ist-D, K100D, Fuji F20/31fd, Oly Stylushttp://www.pbase.com/jglover..

I used to have a KM A2. When it broke and I replaced it with a DSLR, it was a real breath of fresh air..

There are things about the A2 that I miss, and it would be nice to still have it around, but certainly not instead of a DSLR..

IMO, Pentax K100D with a two lens kit (18-55 & 50-200) should suit you well assuming you can get a good deal. For very low light stuff, you can get a nice fast 50mm lens really cheap in K mount if you can handle manual focus..

Peter.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Matcat5 wrote:.

Thanks for all of your responses thus far. The core of my question,however, has not really been answered yet.I need to know if you can get "decent" results with a superzoom at awide range of events, or is it limited to brightley lit situations..

Probably suffering here from information overload, but let me ask - what are you going to do with these pictures? If you are going to be simply printing out snapshots of what you have taken, or looking at them on screen, I'd say superzoom is the way to go. You can get better quality on dSLR for sure, but it probably isn't worth the size/bulk trade off. And, even if you have a dSLR, chances are you will STILL want your compact/superzoom, because of how versatile they are..

So. Go buy the superzoom (Canon s5 with flip out screen would be my favourite - that screen makes a big difference!) and if you find yourself bupmping up against the camera limitations (not just being disappointed with the pictures) go and buy a dSLR (Olympus E510 twin lens kit would be my bangs-for-bucks choice)..

Ham===http://londondailyphoto.blogspot.com..

Finally someone with some sensible advice! I know that going with a dslr would be the best choice for some. However, in my situation it would only lead to more unecessary purchases to get that perfect shot!! I have always believed in the KISS system. That is Keep It Simple Stupid. Thank you...

Matcat5 wrote:.

Finally someone with some sensible advice! I know that going with adslr would be the best choice for some. However, in my situation itwould only lead to more unecessary purchases to get that perfectshot!! I have always believed in the KISS system. That is Keep ItSimple Stupid. Thank you..

Finally huh? You can't decide what kind of camera to get, we take time to try and help you with our thoughts and opinions and then you come out with a rude comment. Aint that something... have fun with your superzoom.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

If you already know the answers, what sort of game is this..

You could have bought your little thing without this charade..

Peter.

Persuasive Marketing Systems -inc Copywriting, Design & Photography..

Uh, isn't this a beginners forum? I do appreciate all of the input, however, most of you seem to be giving info on the ideal situation. It just seemed like some very sensible info from someone in the know. I hope I didn't offend anyone, as that was not my intention. I am just trying to find out what is best for my situation...

Matcat5 wrote:.

I am just trying to find out what is best for my situation..

For me, DSLRs are a simple, effective photographic tool. Wether they are the best for your situation depends largely on how much you will use high ISO, I guess..

Peter..

SO, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THIS INFO IS INCORRECT! RIGHT!!!!..