Alaska - Nikon D5000 or FZ200?

[andver13]

I leave for Alaska 4 weeks today and will practice with the camera for a few days between now and then. Please give me some advice between borrowing my Dad's Nikon D5000 (lens AF-S nikkor 18-55mm, 3.5-5.6) or buying a FZ200. If I borrow the Nikon I will purchase a Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for it to hopefully get some decent wildlife pics (although I'm a complete newbie with DSLR). The price of the Tamron lens ($420) and FZ200 ($470) are almost the same on Amazon Canada.

 

My photography experience - limited to mostly point & shoot cameras. I have a Sony DSC WX300 which we used for Europe in 2013. Captured the moments and photos were okay but underwhelming. Would like to capture some better Alaska photos.

 

I think the main opportunities for photos will be: Denali 2 days, Seward to Anchorage train, Hubbard, Juneau Whale watching excursion, Skagway Chilkoot train, Ketchikan town, ISP town, Vancouver, and then Whistler BC with some moderate hiking at the mountain peaks, etc. Will likely need both a wide enough lens for landscapes and around the ship as well as some telephoto for wildlife.

 

So I guess the questions are:

• Nikon D5000 with 2 lenses as noted above or the PZ200?
  
• Can one get decent shots with the D5000 with very limited DSLR experience?
  
• Is it worth carrying around the extra weight of the D5000 for what may be better (slightly better?) photos?
  

 

Any and all help appreciated.

[pierces]

Based on your listed experience and the quality of what you can get out of the FZ200, I'd go with the FZ200. (There's actually a lot of reasoning behind that short answer. :) )

 

There are many on this forum that routinely pump out remarkable photos with the FZ200 and while it has a lot of advanced features, it is more P&S friendly than any DSLR.

 

Enjoy Alaska!

 

Dave

[c230k]

Take a look at this Photo & Camera Discussion thread

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1694983

 

Will give you a good idea about the FZ200, thread was started almost three years ago and is still one of the most popular. Agree with Dave, will be a lot easier to learn and use while in Alaska.

 

Another place to look and learn about the FZ200 - Graham Houghton has done excellent work on learning about this camera youtube -

 

Also his free manual to down load and learn a lot .

http://www.grahamhoughton.co.uk

 

Tom :cool:

Edited August 3, 2015 by c230k

[shrimpboat123]

I leave for Alaska 4 weeks today and will practice with the camera for a few days between now and then. Please give me some advice between borrowing my Dad's Nikon D5000 (lens AF-S nikkor 18-55mm, 3.5-5.6) or buying a FZ200. If I borrow the Nikon I will purchase a Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for it to hopefully get some decent wildlife pics (although I'm a complete newbie with DSLR). The price of the Tamron lens ($420) and FZ200 ($470) are almost the same on Amazon Canada.

 

My photography experience - limited to mostly point & shoot cameras. I have a Sony DSC WX300 which we used for Europe in 2013. Captured the moments and photos were okay but underwhelming. Would like to capture some better Alaska photos.

 

I think the main opportunities for photos will be: Denali 2 days, Seward to Anchorage train, Hubbard, Juneau Whale watching excursion, Skagway Chilkoot train, Ketchikan town, ISP town, Vancouver, and then Whistler BC with some moderate hiking at the mountain peaks, etc. Will likely need both a wide enough lens for landscapes and around the ship as well as some telephoto for wildlife.

 

So I guess the questions are:

• Nikon D5000 with 2 lenses as noted above or the PZ200?
  
• Can one get decent shots with the D5000 with very limited DSLR experience?
  
• Is it worth carrying around the extra weight of the D5000 for what may be better (slightly better?) photos?
  

 

Any and all help appreciated.

 

A couple of years ago I was faced with a similar problem before we went to Alaska. I wanted to purchase a 100-500mm lens for my DSLR. After I got to the camera store and saw how big and heavy it was, I was glad the sales person showed me the FZ200.

 

I have never regretted the purchase. If you would like to see the photos I took on our CruiseTour, I posted a review here:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1897694

 

The other thing I especially liked about the FZ200 was the full HD video movies and full auto-focusing while zooming.

[chipmaster]

Size matters, I'd get the D5000 and 70-300 ( consider the Nikon used for 300 bucks or so on Ebay or CL ). Get a good and you can flip it for breakeven. Buy new and plan to lose 30% of the value.

 

THe superzooms are compromises. Put the D5000 in auto and or move it to sports mode and you'll do better than most P&S if you don't mind the weight.

 

Unless you plan to use the P&S extensively it is also going to lose you money.

Edited August 4, 2015 by chipmaster

[andver13]

Put the D5000 in auto and or move it to sports mode and you'll do better than most P&S if you don't mind the weight.

 

I guess that's another part of my dilemma - would the D5000 in Auto or Sports mode be better than the PZ200. I don't think I'll be good enough at an SLR in a few short weeks to make much use of the manual features. Probably would spend too much time adjusting and figuring out the settings and no experience to go by. But if D5000 in Auto is better than the PZ200 than that might be the way to go.

 

I appreciate the other responses and links provided on the PZ200. Had a quick look and am impressed with the quality of the photos for a P&S camera. I'm pretty sure the Tamron 70-300 lens optics are better than the PZ200 but there seems like there is much in the PZ200 that make a picture turn out really good. The picture of the whale breaching (I should be so lucky to see that!) did look a bit grainy as did some of the others - not sure what happened there - but overall pictures did look very good for a P&S (and better than my Sony).

 

Still undecided at this point - will have to check things out further. Appreciate any further thoughts and guidance on this.

[havoc315]

Auto mode is auto mode. Won't be any better on the fz200, won't be any worse on a dslr.

 

With a far superior sensor, even stuck in auto mode, you will get better images with the d5000.

Look at this:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5000-versus-Panasonic-LUMIX-DMC-FZ200___587_818

 

Go to the "measurements" tab and look at the graphs.

 

There are still reasons to get the fz200 over the d5000:

1. Smaller and lighter

2. No need to ever change lenses

3. Longer telephoto than most dslr+ lens combinations.

 

And... When using generic dslr lenses... Sticking to auto... You're not getting the best potential out of the d5000, so you might not see massively better images than the fz200.

 

If size isn't an issue, and you want to continue to improve your photography skills, stick to the d5000. If you prefer simplicity and compactness, go with the fz200. (Which isn't tiny, but smaller than the d5000+70-300)

[peety3]

A counterpoint against DSLR: user skill with respect to focus. DSLRs rely on contrast-based autofocus (in most cases), which in turn relies on discrete focus points. Managing the point(s) to use, how they're selected/tracking, and hand-eye coordination to keep the point(s) on-target, is a definite learning curve. The larger sensor and potentially larger aperture results in notably thinner depth of field (focus), which makes focus accuracy more important in the DSLR world. Managing the AF points becomes both a strategic and tactical thing, though somewhat camera-dependent.

 

My vote is to stick with P&S unless/until you're ready to jump into DSLR full-bore.

[pierces]

A counterpoint against DSLR: user skill with respect to focus. DSLRs rely on contrast-based autofocus (in most cases),

 

I think you have that backwards. DSLRs use a fixed number of phase-detect modules that receive redirected light from the mirror. Contrast detect AF on non-hybrid mirrorless or compact cameras use any (or many) selected areas to measure image contrast directly from the sensor.

 

Dave

[peety3]

I think you have that backwards. DSLRs use a fixed number of phase-detect modules that receive redirected light from the mirror. Contrast detect AF on non-hybrid mirrorless or compact cameras use any (or many) selected areas to measure image contrast directly from the sensor.

Correct - my mistake for trying to type while sitting on a meeting call at work. *oops*

[pierces]

Correct - my mistake for trying to type while sitting on a meeting call at work. *oops*

 

Yup...multi-tasking has its price! Take a multi-tasker's IQ and divide it by the number of tasks...;)

 

Been there, done that.

 

Dave

[havoc315]

A counterpoint against DSLR: user skill with respect to focus. DSLRs rely on contrast-based autofocus (in most cases), which in turn relies on discrete focus points. Managing the point(s) to use, how they're selected/tracking, and hand-eye coordination to keep the point(s) on-target, is a definite learning curve. The larger sensor and potentially larger aperture results in notably thinner depth of field (focus), which makes focus accuracy more important in the DSLR world. Managing the AF points becomes both a strategic and tactical thing, though somewhat camera-dependent.

 

My vote is to stick with P&S unless/until you're ready to jump into DSLR full-bore.

 

That might be m advice if he already had the p&s. He has the dslr... So the question is whether to replace the dslr, with a p&s. To me, switch to the p&s if he wants smaller, and to save lens swapping.

 

If he is just looking for the best images, he will be better off with what he has.

[pierces]

 

If he is just looking for the best images, he will be better off with what he has.

 

True, but is one is unused to choosing the correct lens for the situation, changing lenses in general and flipping through settings, the possibility of missed opportunities is greatly increased.

 

The picture you take will always be better than the one you didn't. :)

 

Dave

[havoc315]

True, but is one is unused to choosing the correct lens for the situation, changing lenses in general and flipping through settings, the possibility of missed opportunities is greatly increased.

 

The picture you take will always be better than the one you didn't. :)

 

Dave

 

True, but that goes both ways. If you are already familiar with the D5000 settings, you will lose shots because you're not used to the FZ200 settings.

 

Of course, we know that everyone misses shots. I do find it amusing when a dSLR newbie expects that every shot will come out flawlessly... "why are some of my shots soft.."

 

We miss shots either completely (not having the camera ready), we miss shots with missed focus, we toss shots because of horrible exposure, etc. We all lose and miss shots...

 

The issue for each of us, is within our budgets, what will gives us the highest number of "keepers" that meet the quality we want. (and I'm including missed shots as non-keepers).

 

There is no universal answer to this question, or we would all be carrying the same camera. For many, the answer is their smart phone. For others, the smart phone may be too limiting or too low of quality.

 

I primarily shoot with a full frame dSLR, I shoot with a lot of primes and a couple limited zooms. No superzooms. I definitely miss some shots because I have the wrong lens on the camera at the wrong time. But I also get more "keepers" that I'm happy with, since I might have a stellar lens on the camera for the right shot at the right time.

Thus, when I have my 300mm prime on my camera... I might get a great 300mm shot, but also miss a wide angle shot opportunity. If I had a camera like the FZ200, I would have gotten both shots, but perhaps not been thrilled with the quality of either. So for me, it's 1 keeper plus 1 missed shot, versus 2 so-so shots that I'm not sure whether I would want to keep. Or put another way, I'd rather have 2 or 3 fantastic perfect amazing shots, than 10-20 so-so adequate shots.

 

But it's a subjective personal question... combining their shooting style, the quality they hope to achieve, etc, etc.

 

If you'd be unhappy with the image quality of the FZ200, then you will get very very few keepers. If you are happy with the IQ, then you may find you get a huge number of keepers. If changing lenses aggravates you, then you might lose a lot of shots with a dSLR. On the other hand, most superzoom P&S are very slow to zoom in and out (I don't know about the FZ200), so you might lose shots just waiting for the camera to go from wide to telephoto, which you can do faster with a dSLR. (And focus faster with a dSLR too, for less missed shots).

 

I think the best we can do to help on forums like this, is based on our experiences, to lay out the strengths and weaknesses of different systems and different choices.

[havoc315]

The picture you take will always be better than the one you didn't. :)

 

Dave

 

Or one could say that 1 fantastic capture is better than a SD card filled with 1,000 so so images.

[xlxo]

One other thing to consider.... mirrorless will consume more power than an DSLR because of the LCD screen. You might a need budget a 3rd or 4th battery during your travels if you have the cameras always on without an outlet nearby to charge.

[Turtles06]

One other thing to consider.... mirrorless will consume more power than an DSLR because of the LCD screen. You might a need budget a 3rd or 4th battery during your travels if you have the cameras always on without an outlet nearby to charge.

 

The OP is not considering mirrorless, but a DSLR (Nikon D5000) v. a bridge/superzoom (Panasonic Lumix FZ200).

[framer]

Whatever you do get it soon and read the manual and practice about 1000 shot under many different conditions. I'd guess the FZ200 is more what you're use to. Buying a consumer $400 lens to put on a 6 - 8 year old D5000 is a waste. Using auto function IMHO will give you a low keeper rate. Either camera will give you great scenic shots. It's action time that you will come up short. Having fun is the main goal, hope you get lucky.

 

framer

[peety3]

That might be m advice if he already had the p&s. He has the dslr... So the question is whether to replace the dslr, with a p&s. To me, switch to the p&s if he wants smaller, and to save lens swapping.

 

If he is just looking for the best images, he will be better off with what he has.

It's his dad's DSLR that he can borrow. That says to me that he's not as intimately familiar with it as the actual owner.

[emeybee]

Compromise. Get the FZ1000. Ease of the FZ200 but a bigger sensor.

[chipmaster]

Whatever you do get it soon and read the manual and practice about 1000 shot under many different conditions. I'd guess the FZ200 is more what you're use to. Buying a consumer $400 lens to put on a 6 - 8 year old D5000 is a waste. Using auto function IMHO will give you a low keeper rate. Either camera will give you great scenic shots. It's action time that you will come up short. Having fun is the main goal, hope you get lucky.

 

framer

 

If you are going to pray and spray I'll take a consumer DSLR even an old one over the most modern P&S superszoom. I've shot the D5000, D5100 and they aren't too shabby with the 70-300. I'll take that over almost any consumer P&S as the focus and FPS will be far superior. Of course if do have to change lenses than that is a problem but have smartphone and 70-300 and you are covered IMHO.

[andver13]

Thanks for all the input and links. I’m leaning towards the PZ200 - one of the reasons being the HD movie capability and it’ll save me bringing my Sony camcorder as well. Although, in a sense it bothers me to spend money on yet another P&S camera. I think I’ve spent around $1,500 including two Canon P&S purchases that I regret. Hindsight is 20/20 but probably should have got the PZ200 in 2013 instead of the Sony DSC WX300, but my wife loves this Sony P&S so that’s all good. I think generally a DSLR and lens keeps it’s value better than a P&S camera.

 

I do have one additional question regarding the 70-300mm. If cropping the image at 300 focal length using software – would this be better than the FZ200 at 600mm? I.e.) if I got a good wildlife shot.

 

Also, is the Nikon 4fps “better” than the PZ200 12fps? Is there a reduction in the PZ200 IQ when using that burst mode?

 

Listed some of the advantages for each of my options - but as some have helpfully pointed out there are other considerations with regard to shooting style, "keepers", user skill, etc.

 

D5000 Advantages

• Auto mode will have better images than PZ200 due to larger sensor
  
• Phase detection autofocus is faster and more accurate
  
• Zooms in and out faster
  
• Tamron lens transferable to another Nikon FX or DX camera
  

 

PZ200 Advantages

• Easier to learn on
  
• Smaller and lighter
  
• No need to change lenses
  
• Switch to full HD movies and auto-focus while zooming
  

 

I’d still like a few really good shots so the DSLR is not out of the running given the better IQ. I plan on making it to Henry’s camera store on Friday or Saturday so that’ll probably help me when having an actual look at the telephoto lens and PZ200.

 

Still mulling over my “keeper” perspective. And maybe it’s okay to go with the DSLR given that the wife is backup with the little Sony P&S. Saw some of the Graham Houghton stuff on PZ200 – quite impressive. Looks like I could grow my photography skills with either camera but perhaps more so with DSLR in the long-run.

[havoc315]

Thanks for all the input and links. I’m leaning towards the PZ200 - one of the reasons being the HD movie capability and it’ll save me bringing my Sony camcorder as well. Although, in a sense it bothers me to spend money on yet another P&S camera. I think I’ve spent around $1,500 including two Canon P&S purchases that I regret. Hindsight is 20/20 but probably should have got the PZ200 in 2013 instead of the Sony DSC WX300, but my wife loves this Sony P&S so that’s all good. I think generally a DSLR and lens keeps it’s value better than a P&S camera.

 

I do have one additional question regarding the 70-300mm. If cropping the image at 300 focal length using software – would this be better than the FZ200 at 600mm? I.e.) if I got a good wildlife shot.

 

Also, is the Nikon 4fps “better” than the PZ200 12fps? Is there a reduction in the PZ200 IQ when using that burst mode?

 

Listed some of the advantages for each of my options - but as some have helpfully pointed out there are other considerations with regard to shooting style, "keepers", user skill, etc.

 

D5000 Advantages

• Auto mode will have better images than PZ200 due to larger sensor
  
• Phase detection autofocus is faster and more accurate
  
• Zooms in and out faster
  
• Tamron lens transferable to another Nikon FX or DX camera
  

 

PZ200 Advantages

• Easier to learn on
  
• Smaller and lighter
  
• No need to change lenses
  
• Switch to full HD movies and auto-focus while zooming
  

 

I’d still like a few really good shots so the DSLR is not out of the running given the better IQ. I plan on making it to Henry’s camera store on Friday or Saturday so that’ll probably help me when having an actual look at the telephoto lens and PZ200.

 

Still mulling over my “keeper” perspective. And maybe it’s okay to go with the DSLR given that the wife is backup with the little Sony P&S. Saw some of the Graham Houghton stuff on PZ200 – quite impressive. Looks like I could grow my photography skills with either camera but perhaps more so with DSLR in the long-run.

 

Good summary.

 

To answer your questions........

Ok, this is confusing, but the 70-300 isn't 70-300 on the d5000. And the fz200 lens isn't really a 600mm lens.

The "effective" focal length of the fz200, which takes into account the sensor size, is 600mm. The 70-300mm would effectively be 70-300mm on a full frame dslr. While the d5000 sensor is much bigger than the fz200, it's still smaller than full frame. It's effective focal length become 105-450 on the d5000.

So you're comparing 600mm vs 450mm. Yes, you will get more cropping latitude on the d5000..... Bringing actual "zoom in" capability pretty close to each other.

 

The d5000 is fairly old for a dslr but still has advantages. For long term growth and learning, it's hard to beat a dslr. While mirrorless (like the a6000) can now match or surpass a dslr in most capabilities, a traditional dslr can remain a better learn instrument. The spacious body makes it easy to adjust manual controls. The layout is a bit more universal. Most books and other learning instruments assume you are using a dslr. And there is a huge library of lenses to grow with.

If you ever become truly serious about photography, you will quickly outgrow the fz200 or the d5000.

 

In terms of burst mode, there should be no degradation of iq. I haven't looked into this issue, but you need to measure 2 things:

1. The d5000 continues to track and autofocus at 4fps. Does the fz200 continue to adjust af, or lock af on the first shot? (Some p&s do this)

2. How big is the buffer for burst shooting on each camera? In other words, how many shots can the buffer hold before the burst has to slow down.

 

I'm guessing that the fz200 has the "better" burst mode, but would need to examine these issues.

 

Here is my question for you... Have you played around with the d5000? How does it feel? Is it fun taking pictures with? Or does it feel cumbersome and complicated? Some people love the tactile feel of a "real" camera in their hands. (Of course all cameras are real, just talking perception). Other people feel it's out of their element.

[havoc315]

Alright... I answered my own questions.

In terms of burst shooting with tracking autofocus:

The d5000 will do 4fps (depth tracking, you need to keep the af point over the subject yourself)

The fz200-- for full resolution bursts, 12 fps locks af on the first shot. If you want continuous af, it is 5.5 fps.

The buffer on the fz200 is 12 full resolution jpegs. Versus 20+ on the d5000.

In other words, on the fz200, you can hold down the shutter for 1 full second and get 12 shots, but then slow down. Or, with af, holding down for about 2 seconds. The d5000 will keep going for over 4 seconds, but get less shots per second.

 

So no black and white winner, but overall, the fz200 would seem to have a slightly better burst rate. But pretty close when you look at all factors.

 

One keeper issue that nobody has mentioned--- the startup time on a dslr is much faster. You can lose a shot just waiting for a p&s or mirrorless to turn on. The 1/2 second difference may not be relevant to most shooters, most of the time. But to some shooters, sometimes, it is critical.

Edited August 6, 2015 by havoc315

[peety3]

It's a bummer that you're trying to make a long-term decision <4 weeks before going to Alaska. It also seems like you're getting caught up in the specs of the D5000, when you could just draw a box and write DSLR in it (it's someone else's camera, and you could easily choose a different model when you're ready to take the plunge).

 

Sorry to hear that you think you've already spent $1500 that you regret on camera purchases. We all do it...in one way or another. I read Thom Hogan's article about buying a tripod (essentially, you can spend $1100 or $1700; either way you end up with an $1100 tripod, but how many junkers you buy before then defines how much you'll spend in total), and sure enough I recently bought a $1400 tripod, leaving our previous $400 tripod as "the wife's tripod" (not to mention the $75 camera store special...).

 

I often tell people to go browse lensrentals.com. Click on a lens or camera, and read the "Roger's Take" (or whoever wrote the blurb for that particular item). I consider it "man to man gear talk", straight from the heart, from people who get to experiment with whatever isn't rented that night/weekend. Also, if they won't rent it, you shouldn't buy it...it's either too delicate, or such junk that it'll lose value FAST. Their blog is also educational with a neat mix of humor now and then. One of the blog posts basically characterized a DSLR as a film camera with a two-year advanced purchase of film, and it makes sense for me. Oddly, I seem to get the new camera itch about every two years...hmmm.