DSLR vs Bridge (FZ200)

Ive gotten myself so confused I think I need to take a nap and start over. From my past post you know that I have a small P&S camera and am looking at the Panasonic FZ200. When you read about the bridge type cameras, you hear over and over that you cant get DSLR quality pictures with them. I can get an entry level DSLR camera package with an additional 55-200mm lens for about 150-200 more than the FZ200.

Just one of the things I want to use a new camera for is for taking pictures of my kids playing basketball, baseball and softball. As far as quality of pictures and being able to "stop motion", everything points to the DSLR. But another factor is when sitting on the sidelines or in the stands, I would like to be able to get pics of my kids in the outfield or other side of the court. What Im reading on this, is that even a 55-200mm lens is only equivalent to a 4x zoom on a P&S so Im gaining nothing in that aspect.

In addition, Im an outdoorsman and love to get pics of wildlife so the ability to zoom in on them is nice as well.

I realize part of the reason to have a DSLR is the ability to change lenses but I dont see myself doing that for what I would use a camera for.

So, those "in the know", for a casual user, wanting to do what I mention above along with the normal family thing and for sure our first cruise memories.......WHAT DO I DO?? Ive totally overloaded my head with all of the things Ive read.

The FZ200 WILL NOT equal a DSLR in the ability to follow focus and track moving objects and produce the image quality of a large APS-C or full-frame sensor. It WILL, however do a fine job of producing excellent images if you take the time to become familiar with its advantages and limitations.

What I mean is that if your job takes you to the sidelines and you need long bursts of images to capture the payday shot, a DSLR is for you. For shooting from the stands at a Little League game or following kids playing in the surf, a high-end bridge like the FZ200 will do a great job. Wide to ridiculous telephoto in a nice compact package can be an advantage and while a bag full of thousands of dollars worth of lenses and a DSLR will equal that range, seeing the difference in an image taken with one or the other on the web or an 8x10 is harder that you would think.

If you don't want to be bothered with lens changes and want a camera that will give you excellent images under a wide range of circumstances, a bridge camera will serve you well.

My personal choice would be a Sony HX300 but that is personal choice and if you like the FZ200, go for it.

My 2¢

Dave

I agree with Dave. I love to take pictures, not photographs.

I get camera envy when I see people with great big dslrs and all their stuff. Then they take 2 minutes to frame and focus a shot - and I just want them out of the way!

I just got the discontinued Sony HX200V on sale and so far I like it. I'm going to a sail boarding competition (to watch) this weekend, so I'll see what it can do. I'm trying to learn more about the manual settings with this one - and we'll be on an Alaskan cruise soon (last minute so I'm not sure when) - and that is the real reason I got it.

Brand is a personal thing, but I went with the bridge camera.

Vic

You can't simply translate the zoom of a dSLR lens into point and shoot X terms.

For example, a 200mm prime lens is technically 1x. But an 18-200mm zoom lens is technically 11x. But both lenses give the same amount of maximum magnification.

Look at it this way --- A 55-200mm zoom lens on your typical APS-C dSLR camera, will give you the same maximum magnification as a 12x-15x point and shoot.

I shot my son's little league all summer... sometimes using a 200mm lens, sometimes using 300mm.

200mm is perfectly adequate zoom on a little league field:

Here is 180mm:

baseball-53.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Here is 210mm:

baseball-71.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

The FZ200 would do a perfectly good job of taking pictures of players standing still on the field. But a dSLR will do far far far better at being able to track focus of action, freeze the action, etc.

This may seem flippant but the bottom line is that you need both cameras. Actually, you need 3 of them -

1) a pocket camera that you can carry with you at all times

2) a superzoom bridge for your wildlife shots

3) a dSLR.

That is what I have.

DON

A dSLR with decent lens is best for wildlife shots:

Soaring over the Hudson by Havoc315, on Flickr

aprilpark-58.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

untitled-3.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

I like your idea donaldc but in reality, at least MY reality right now, that idea is cost prohibitive!!

Havoc's post is pretty much where I was leaning. I have a buddy at work who as an entry level T3 and he has taken some pictures at my kids' games and they have come out really well and he's only a casual photographer like me.

Still have to decide if that longer zoom is for me over the DSLR. The DSLR Im looking at comes with a 75-300mm lens so for most of my shots that would probably be plenty. I think my friends lens is 200 and he brought the players right in and filled the picture from all the way across the diamond.

Thanks all for the quick input

I like your idea donaldc but in reality, at least MY reality right now, that idea is cost prohibitive!!

 

Havoc's post is pretty much where I was leaning. I have a buddy at work who as an entry level T3 and he has taken some pictures at my kids' games and they have come out really well and he's only a casual photographer like me.

 

Still have to decide if that longer zoom is for me over the DSLR. The DSLR Im looking at comes with a 75-300mm lens so for most of my shots that would probably be plenty. I think my friends lens is 200 and he brought the players right in and filled the picture from all the way across the diamond.

 

Thanks all for the quick input

300mm on the Canon T3, is actually the equivalent of 480mm. Comparing that to a bridge camera, it would be the same amount of magnification as approximately a 15-20x bridge camera. If you crop in post-processing, you can make it the equivalent of 25-30x while maintaining adequate resolution.

dSLRs won't generally have the "wow" 50x reaches of some bridge cameras -- but those "wow" specs are basically useless.

Zoom power is only a ratio - not an indication of the reach of the lens.

So, while a 50~200mm zoom would be a 4x lens (200 / 50), a 10~40mm would also be a 4x lens.

A better way to compare a DSLR's "range" to a bridge camera is to add up all of the lenses you have, and get a collective "x" power.

So say you have a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens, collectively, this would be about 12x (200 / 18).

With my DSLR, my shortest focal length lens is 10.5mm, and the longest focal length is 400mm. So collectively, I have a 40x zoom range (400 / 10.5). It's just that I need to swap out a couple of lenses along the way, as individually, no lens is more than 4x.

And that is the whole concept behind a DSLR, multiple lower zoom power lenses having higher quality vs. a single lens on a bridge camera having lower quality.

Of course, it can cost $$$ and a heavy package to do so in comparison to a bridge camera, but that is the price you pay for the best quality.

One alternative solution I use is my Nikon V1. It has a 1" sensor - the same sized sensor as the Sony RX100. With a cropped factor of 2.7, I can put a high quality DSLR on the V1 using the Nikon FT-1 adapter and the result is a high-power lens for sports.

I did this recently at a baseball game at night. Although the field was lit with lights, most cameras including both bridge cameras and DSLRs with consumer grade zoom lenses would not do the job. But I used a Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8 on the V1, which gave it an effective focal length of 230mm.

I think I posted this before, but here is a series of 36 photos I took with the Nikon V1's fast continuous burst mode. These were all high resolution photos, and I stitched them together for a time lapse sequence (I had to reduce the photo sizes for posting to YouTube).

I was sitting about half way up in the stands (being the 85mm lens was a prime, I could not zoom); so I kind of "zoomed with my behind".

But there are probably no bridge cameras that could have done this; and even a DSLR, certainly not a DSLR/lens package costing $1,000 (which is what I paid for the Nikon V1, FT-1, and 85mm f/1.8). I bought the V1 last Dec when Nikon had them on deep discount for $299.

I am getting off subject, but I have to tell you, the V1 is just FUN.

Zoom power is only a ratio - not an indication of the reach of the lens.

 

So, while a 50~200mm zoom would be a 4x lens (200 / 50), a 10~40mm would also be a 4x lens.

 

A better way to compare a DSLR's "range" to a bridge camera is to add up all of the lenses you have, and get a collective "x" power.

 

So say you have a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens, collectively, this would be about 12x (200 / 18).

 

With my DSLR, my shortest focal length lens is 10.5mm, and the longest focal length is 400mm. So collectively, I have a 40x zoom range (400 / 10.5). It's just that I need to swap out a couple of lenses along the way, as individually, no lens is more than 4x.

 

And that is the whole concept behind a DSLR, multiple lower zoom power lenses having higher quality vs. a single lens on a bridge camera having lower quality.

 

Of course, it can cost $$$ and a heavy package to do so in comparison to a bridge camera, but that is the price you pay for the best quality.

 

One alternative solution I use is my Nikon V1. It has a 1" sensor - the same sized sensor as the Sony RX100. With a cropped factor of 2.7, I can put a high quality DSLR on the V1 using the Nikon FT-1 adapter and the result is a high-power lens for sports.

 

I did this recently at a baseball game at night. Although the field was lit with lights, most cameras including both bridge cameras and DSLRs with consumer grade zoom lenses would not do the job. But I used a Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8 on the V1, which gave it an effective focal length of 230mm.

 

I think I posted this before, but here is a series of 36 photos I took with the Nikon V1's fast continuous burst mode. These were all high resolution photos, and I stitched them together for a time lapse sequence (I had to reduce the photo sizes for posting to YouTube).

 

 

I was sitting about half way up in the stands (being the 85mm lens was a prime, I could not zoom); so I kind of "zoomed with my behind".

 

But there are probably no bridge cameras that could have done this; and even a DSLR, certainly not a DSLR/lens package costing $1,000 (which is what I paid for the Nikon V1, FT-1, and 85mm f/1.8). I bought the V1 last Dec when Nikon had them on deep discount for $299.

 

I am getting off subject, but I have to tell you, the V1 is just FUN.

30 years experieince and agree 100% that you do not need 3 cameras or sacrifice image quality and shuteer speed with a bridge camera.

Just get a small RX100 or Nikon J1 or V1, and don't look back.

You will get:

- High qulaity images

- small solid construction (not large plastic body on bridge)

- abilty to change lenses (with the Nikons)

Tough for me to take sides in this debate since I have both. I have a Canon SX40 and 60D. I take the bridge camera with me when I need a long zoom since I am unwilling to buy a good 800mm zoom for the 60D. While the bridge does not have the same detail as the DLSR it is pretty good. Here is a picture I took in Washington (with the bridge) around 11 blocks from the Capitol. On the other hand, the flexibility with the 60D is great.

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff386/mmkbx75/IMG_0197.jpg

This may seem flippant but the bottom line is that you need both cameras. Actually, you need 3 of them -

 

1) a pocket camera that you can carry with you at all times

 

2) a superzoom bridge for your wildlife shots

 

3) a dSLR.

 

That is what I have.

 

DON

My cruise package is very close to that except for #2, I substitute a Nikon V1 and DSLR lens for a bridge camera.

I took this with a 70-300mm DSLR lens with the V1 (emulating a 189-810mm focal length)

The bottom line for how you accomplish all of your photo needs is what you already have and what you can use to supplement that. For instance, unless you have a good set of Nikon lenses, a Nikon V1 and FT-1 adapter would not be cost effective - if you had to buy DSLR lenses to go along with it.

While this may be one "bridge camera alternative" solution for Nikon DSLR owners, it may not be the best solution for other owners.

Here is some action shots taken with the FZ200 I found.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51862069

What do you think

For sports photography, especially field sports its a pricey and ambitious undertaking.

You simply will not get good action pictures with a P&S at any distance.

IMHO like another poster suggest a mirrorless with a good zoom and fast focus or a entry DSLR from Canon/Nikon will yield you lots of good capability. To move up any further will push your budget from 1K to 10K

You get 90% capability for the first extra 900 bucks you might spend and the rest 10% capability for the really hard / far shots will cost you another 9K.. that is the price of sports photography.

But you will be happy stepping up from any P&S to a canon/Nikon entry DSLR and 55-200 or 55-300 or 70-300 class lense for outdoor sports pictures. Indoor/night pictures you better be ready to spend 10K :D

This may seem flippant but the bottom line is that you need both cameras. Actually, you need 3 of them -

 

1) a pocket camera that you can carry with you at all times

 

2) a superzoom bridge for your wildlife shots

 

3) a dSLR.

 

That is what I have.

 

DON

That's what I carry, although there are times that I leave either the DLSR or superzoom on board.

Thank you everyone for passing on your knowledge and experience. After discussing it with the "boss" lady at home. I think we are going to spend a little bit more and go with an entry level DSLR. After seeing my step son's pics with his T3i and a buddy at work who has the T3, if I can get the pictures like them, I will be ecstatic.

So now I have another question. I like Havocs explanation of the 300mm lens and what "power" it emulates (the FZ200 is only 24x zoom anyway). I have two options, camera comes with the 18-55mm lens and an additional lens. One option is with a 70-300mm lens which has no image stabilization built in. The other is 55-250mm lens with image stabilization for $50 more.

Whats the verdict experts? Losing the 50mm and gaining stabilization for $50?? (am I really losing much with 50mm?) Or saving the $50 and losing stabilization?

I really appreciate your knowledge and input. Hopefully Im not being annoying with all the questions. Im really a newbie at this stuff!

Darron

Thank you everyone for passing on your knowledge and experience. After discussing it with the "boss" lady at home. I think we are going to spend a little bit more and go with an entry level DSLR. After seeing my step son's pics with his T3i and a buddy at work who has the T3, if I can get the pictures like them, I will be ecstatic.

 

So now I have another question. I like Havocs explanation of the 300mm lens and what "power" it emulates (the FZ200 is only 24x zoom anyway). I have two options, camera comes with the 18-55mm lens and an additional lens. One option is with a 70-300mm lens which has no image stabilization built in. The other is 55-250mm lens with image stabilization for $50 more.

 

Whats the verdict experts? Losing the 50mm and gaining stabilization for $50?? (am I really losing much with 50mm?) Or saving the $50 and losing stabilization?

 

I really appreciate your knowledge and input. Hopefully Im not being annoying with all the questions. Im really a newbie at this stuff!

 

Darron

See my article on adding lenses to your kit. It is newbie-friendly and may answer some of your questions.

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/addinglenses.html

Dave

Thank you everyone for passing on your knowledge and experience. After discussing it with the "boss" lady at home. I think we are going to spend a little bit more and go with an entry level DSLR. After seeing my step son's pics with his T3i and a buddy at work who has the T3, if I can get the pictures like them, I will be ecstatic.

 

So now I have another question. I like Havocs explanation of the 300mm lens and what "power" it emulates (the FZ200 is only 24x zoom anyway). I have two options, camera comes with the 18-55mm lens and an additional lens. One option is with a 70-300mm lens which has no image stabilization built in. The other is 55-250mm lens with image stabilization for $50 more.

 

Whats the verdict experts? Losing the 50mm and gaining stabilization for $50?? (am I really losing much with 50mm?) Or saving the $50 and losing stabilization?

 

I really appreciate your knowledge and input. Hopefully Im not being annoying with all the questions. Im really a newbie at this stuff!

 

Darron

There are other factors when comparing lenses other than image stabilization and focal length. How well the lens prevents flare, the sharpness of the lens, how fast it focuses, and most important, it's maximum aperture. I'm not a Canon shooter, so I'm repeating things I seem to remember others saying...

By reputation, that 75-300mm Canon lens is a bad lens, but the 55-250 has a good reputation.

The benefit of image stabilization:

To avoid motion blur, the longer the focal the length, the faster the necessary shutter speed.

So for example.... With the kit lens set at 55mm... You should use about a 1/70 shutter speed, if not stabilized. Anything slower, and you will likely get motion blur.

On a 300mm lens on that camera -- You would need to use 1/500 speed, to get a sharp image. Slower, without a tripod, you would probably get motion blur.

Now, when shooting action shots -- you want a fast shutter speed anyway.

But there are times you need a slower shutter speed in order to get enough light into the camera.

So if you use 300mm image stabilized lens -- then you can get away with a shutter speed of 1/125.. instead of 1/500 -- big difference.

So yes, on longer focal length lenses, image stabilization is very valuable.

A lens that I use -- which is a spectacular lens for the price -- is the Tamron 70-300 usd.

It has image stabilization. It is super high quality glass, high quality build. Ultra silent focus motor. With currently available rebate, it is $350 on Amazon and other places.

While slightly more expensive than the Canon lenses you are looking at, the quality is well worth the difference in price.

Let's put it this way -- Canon does make a couple lenses that 70-300 with ultra silent motor and image stabilization --- they cost $650-$1300+

The Tamron has the same features, and very comparable image quality -- for $350.

I use the Sony version of that Tamron lens, so I can vouch for it.

The lens is simply amazing for its price. When I use it, I feel like I'm using a much more expensive lens.

There are tradeoffs with the two lenses.

Here are a few sample photos at different focal lengths:

18mm:

50mm:

100mm:

200mm:

250mm:

300mm:

So you can see that while the difference between 250mm and 300mm is noticeable, it is not significant.

One thing to point out that the difference between 50mm and 100mm or 100mm and 200mm are fairly significant, but between 200mm and 300mm not as much.

The reason is that there is a 2x difference between 50mm and 100mm, and 2x between 100mm and 200mm. But between 200mm and 300mm, there is only a 1.5x change, so the rate of change is decreasing. You would have to go from 200mm to 400mm to maintain the same rate of change.

And between 250mm and 300mm the difference is only 1.2x, which makes it only noticeable.

I would not worry so much about the difference between 250mm and 300mm. Other factors such as VR and lens quality is going to be more important.

While VR is sometimes helpful, it is not always needed or is it always an advantage.

Here is something many people do not know. You should never use VR when using a shutter speed greater than 1/500 sec.

First, it is probably not needed at fast shutter speeds, and second, if you exceed the sampling rate of the VR mechanism (which is usually around the 1/500 sec point), the VR mechanism cannot keep up (it is not fast enough) and may end up over-compensating, which could cause blur to be worse.

Some manufacturers may use different sampling rates for their VR system, so depending on what rate they use, the 1/500sec may not be the cutoff point. It could be higher or lower.

You should usually not use VR when using a tripod either as again, it is not needed. And the vibration compensation could be recouped back into he lens when on a tripod and again, make the blur worse.

Again thank you havoc and awboater for your detailed information and knowledge. From almost ALL of the reviews, the 300mm lens that is with this camera is not good at all, people generally say run from it while the 250mm gets quite a bit of praise for an entry level lens. I believe between what you both have said plus the reviews, I will go with the 250mm and if the hobby bug hits me, upgrade later on once I am more educated on this photography stuff.

Thank you everyone once again.

Darron

You've got some great advice! I started out with a T2i and the 18-55/55-250 combination, and then of course...

I have one other suggestion for you, and a question.

The suggestion is, if the budget allows, get an external flash. I have a Canon 430EXII, but you may not need that much. The new 270EXII looks like a very nice general purpose flash. The pop up flash can be limiting. You're limited to direct flash (which can be fairly harsh) while an external model can bounce flash off the ceiling for a softer effect. Also, although you're less likely to use a flash with the 55-250, a longer lens can cast a shadow on the pop up flash. It's not a must, but you'll appreciate it down the road.

And the question: Do you intend to shoot video with the camera? If not, drive on, if yes, I'd offer a suggestion for you to consider.

Since you are specifically looking at the 55-250mm I thought I'd share these. These were taken on an overcast day from the "short right porch" at Yankees Stadium about 8 rows up. (about 350 feet from home plate) with my Canon T1i (older version of the t3i)

(note that I was able to stop the ball each time)

I didn't crop or edit these in any way other than to shrink the file considerably.

I apprecitate everyone's input on all of my questions. I finally bit the bullet and purchased a Canon T3i with the extra 250mm lens. I realize this is totally entry level but thats where I am on this hobby. Years ago I had a big 35mm camera kit that was given to me when the owner passed. It had all kinds of lenses etc in it. I only scratched the surface on what that thing could do. Since then its been totally P&S. The camera just arrived yesterday and its sitting there laughing at me, daring me to try to figure it out!!! That process begins tonite after work!

D

I agree with Dave. I love to take pictures, not photographs.

 

I get camera envy when I see people with great big dslrs and all their stuff. Then they take 2 minutes to frame and focus a shot - and I just want them out of the way!

 

I just got the discontinued Sony HX200V on sale and so far I like it. I'm going to a sail boarding competition (to watch) this weekend, so I'll see what it can do. I'm trying to learn more about the manual settings with this one - and we'll be on an Alaskan cruise soon (last minute so I'm not sure when) - and that is the real reason I got it.

 

Brand is a personal thing, but I went with the bridge camera.

 

Vic

I had the Sony HX200V, until it was stolen, and I really liked it. I think you'll like it as well.