Anyone here with a DSLR also using a P&S super zoom

[irse]

One thing I don't understand is why can't people respect how others do photography? If it's fine for them then why should it bother you? If I decide to get a superzoom, why should anyone really argue with me as to why? I was just asking what I thought was a simple question. If you don't use a DSLR and a superzoom, then this thread really doesn't apply to you regardless what you think of superzooms. Considering that I was asking about using it as a vacation camera, I must be the lazy, dummy tourist. Well there are reasons for me wanting info about this camera even though I have a D3 and D300s.
1) Whale watching from land with my two kids anytime I want. How will I get closer to my subject? Talk to the whales?
2) Wildlife parks where I'm shooting from a vehicle. Maybe I can get closer to the lions by running up to them?
Been to a surf place like Jaws on Maui where they do tow in surfing with up to 120 ft waves? How do you get closer than shooting from the cliffs?

Those are extreme situations but that is what I was planning on using the superzoom for.

There is more than one way to do photography. And not all may apply to those that feels like a DSLR is the only way.

 

[corkyg]

I am sticking to it. I'm suggesting that one can just get a superzoom lens instead of a superzoom camera if they want something that's more convenient and compact. It'll cost less, have far better image quality, and it has MORE reach if you consider that you can crop the DSLR photo at 300mm to the framing of 30x zoom on whatever superzoom P&S, and still come out ahead in image quality. Then there are the massive advantages in low light.

All good points, but they do not respond to OP's question. I have no intention of buying new equipment just to scratch your itch. Be my guest and buy what you want. Fact is, I seriously doubt that your choice of camera and lens would fit in my bag. You are allowed a space of no more than 3.5-in x 5-in x 4-in. No more, but it can be less.

Irse's note above is spot on all the way. Anything else is blathering.

BTW, exactly what lens do you have in mind?

 

[yhelothar]

One thing I don't understand is why can't people respect how others do photography? If it's fine for them then why should it bother you? If I decide to get a superzoom, why should anyone really argue with me as to why? I was just asking what I thought was a simple question. If you don't use a DSLR and a superzoom, then this thread really doesn't apply to you regardless what you think of superzooms. Considering that I was asking about using it as a vacation camera, I must be the lazy, dummy tourist. Well there are reasons for me wanting info about this camera even though I have a D3 and D300s.
1) Whale watching from land with my two kids anytime I want. How will I get closer to my subject? Talk to the whales?
2) Wildlife parks where I'm shooting from a vehicle. Maybe I can get closer to the lions by running up to them?
Been to a surf place like Jaws on Maui where they do tow in surfing with up to 120 ft waves? How do you get closer than shooting from the cliffs?

Those are extreme situations but that is what I was planning on using the superzoom for.

There is more than one way to do photography. And not all may apply to those that feels like a DSLR is the only way.

I agree with you. Hence I mention that if you really want something compact and easier to carry, get a travel zoom.
If you don't need to go that small and a standard superzoom fits the bill since you don't have to change lenses to get a massive amount of range, I am saying that a $260 28-300mm lens that's the size of a kit lens for your compact DSLR is a better choice on almost all fronts.

If you're like corkyg and absolutely need that last 2" and need it to be 1.5lbs instead of 2.5lbs, and would be willing to sacrifice all of the other benefits of using the DSLR, then go ahead and get that superzoom P&S

 

[irse]

I agree with you. Hence I mention that if you really want something compact and easier to carry, get a travel zoom.
If you don't need to go that small and a standard superzoom fits the bill since you don't have to change lenses to get a massive amount of range, I am saying that a $260 28-300mm lens that's the size of a kit lens for your compact DSLR is a better choice on almost all fronts.

If you're like corkyg and absolutely need that last 2" and need it to be 1.5lbs instead of 2.5lbs, and would be willing to sacrifice all of the other benefits of using the DSLR, then go ahead and get that superzoom P&S

I was looking at the 28-300 and 17-270 from Tamron. My thoughts:
1) Nikon 28-300 is a lot more than $280. More like $900 plus its a big lens with a 77mm front thread. Took a 28-70 2.8 on my last trip and it's the last time I'm traveling with a 77mm diameter lens unless it's to shoot a football game.
2) Tamron 28-300 is also about $600 and the real length is to about 280mm
3) Sigma 28-300 is discontinued. Not much as far as good ratings. But is a bad DSLR lens plus a large crop better than a P&S superzoom?
4) Tamron 18-270 Almost pulled the trigger on it when it was on Amazon for $399. Now its back up to about $580. If it falls back down again, then it may be the one.

Also I was considering the Nikon J1 but was reading some not to good opinions about it. So I may not be getting that.

One user review that I read was from a guy who has a D300 and Panasonic FZ150 and he wsa more than happy with his Panasonic. He knows the limitations of the camera and uses it to it's strength.

 

[corkyg]

Astrodidea, . . Please don't tag me with 1.5 bs - none my notes ever cited weight. Space is critical when flying overseas to places like South Africa, Namibia, and Kenya. If I can get a business or first class ticket, I'll take the DSLR too in a second case. Have you done any serious traveling lately? )

 

[irse]

BTW. I do have a travel zoom but it's too short.

The other issues is traveling with kids and having to lug around too much camera gear.

 

[yhelothar]

Astrodidea, . . Please don't tag me with 1.5 bs - none my notes ever cited weight. Space is critical when flying overseas to places like South Africa, Namibia, and Kenya. If I can get a business or first class ticket, I'll take the DSLR too in a second case. Have you done any serious traveling lately? )

Apologizes I mis-tagged you there. You also have a 5D instead of a D300 so it'd be a lot more than 2".
I don't always travel, but when I do, I'm a photowhore and prioritize my equipment.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[yhelothar]

I was looking at the 28-300 and 17-270 from Tamron. My thoughts:
1) Nikon 28-300 is a lot more than $280. More like $900 plus its a big lens with a 77mm front thread. Took a 28-70 2.8 on my last trip and it's the last time I'm traveling with a 77mm diameter lens unless it's to shoot a football game.
2) Tamron 28-300 is also about $600 and the real length is to about 280mm
3) Sigma 28-300 is discontinued. Not much as far as good ratings. But is a bad DSLR lens plus a large crop better than a P&S superzoom?
4) Tamron 18-270 Almost pulled the trigger on it when it was on Amazon for $399. Now its back up to about $580. If it falls back down again, then it may be the one.

Also I was considering the Nikon J1 but was reading some not to good opinions about it. So I may not be getting that.

One user review that I read was from a guy who has a D300 and Panasonic FZ150 and he wsa more than happy with his Panasonic. He knows the limitations of the camera and uses it to it's strength.

Those are some good sentiments.
Here are some sample shots for the Sigma 28-300mm.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=901
The one I linked at buy.com is in stock and is for the Nikon mount. A superzoom lens definitely takes a huge sacrifice in image quality for all of the zoom you get, especially for one as cheap as the sigma. But if you compare the sample shots, I think you would find that the Sigma still produces nicer images as the bigger sensor is just going to make a world of difference.

B&H also carries the Tamron 18-270mm lens for $399. Although it's out of stock until next week.

 

[irse]

Those are some good sentiments.
Here are some sample shots for the Sigma 28-300mm.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=901
The one I linked at buy.com is in stock and is for the Nikon mount. A superzoom lens definitely takes a huge sacrifice in image quality for all of the zoom you get, especially for one as cheap as the sigma. But if you compare the sample shots, I think you would find that the Sigma still produces nicer images as the bigger sensor is just going to make a world of difference.

B&H also carries the Tamron 18-270mm lens for $399. Although it's out of stock until next week.

I'm going to consider those two lenses again.