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

[sixone]

I don't carry a bag everywhere, so in my case a superzoom is not any more portable than a consumer-sized DSLR with a compact lens.

"In your case" being the operative term.

Then your acceptance level must not be that high. A DSLR will still blow it out of the water in terms of image quality, and to imply otherwise is foolish.

"Acceptable" was your word, not mine. My superzoom got much closer shots than my DSLR would have, and no mirror slap to disturb the other concert-goers sitting nearby.

I'm not the one standing in the salad bar sporting a tiny sensor with an over-sized DSLR-wannabe lens.

So now it's not a trade-off, it's a "wannabe". Okay. lol

 

[Munky]

When I travel, this bag holds my DSLR attached to a 18-55mm kit lens, and a 35mm f1.8 prime. If I wanted zoom reach, I could substitute the prime for a 55-200mm lens and it would fit just as well. No bulky, heavy, obvious camera bag required.

This is the size of a consumer DSLR and the kt lens compared to an altoids can:

And another view:

 

[Munky]

"In your case" being the operative term.

Your case also applies to you only. Not everyone walks around carrying a bag or purse.

"Acceptable" was your word, not mine. My superzoom got much closer shots than my DSLR would have, and no mirror slap to disturb the other concert-goers sitting nearby.

Then clearly we're not talking about the same concert. No one at my concerts would ever hear the mirror slap.

 

[sixone]

Your case also applies to you only. Not everyone walks around carrying a bag or purse.

Then clearly we're not talking about the same concert. No one at my concerts would ever hear the mirror slap.

That's why I said "not true for everyone". I don't know what you're arguing here.

No doubt your concert would have perfect lighting, as well.

 

[Munky]

That's why I said "not true for everyone". I don't know what you're arguing here.

No doubt your concert would have perfect lighting, as well.

The worse lighting there is, the better a DSLR will look compared to a superzoom.

 

[sixone]

When I travel, this bag holds my DSLR attached to a 18-55mm kit lens, and a 35mm f1.8 prime. If I wanted zoom reach, I could substitute the prime for a 55-200mm lens and it would fit just as well. No bulky, heavy, obvious camera bag required.
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/munky/camera_in_bag.jpg

This is the size of a consumer DSLR and the kt lens compared to an altoids can:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/munky/camera_top.jpg

And another view:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/munky/camera_front.jpg

Something's missing here...Where's the picture with the Altoids can turned up on it's side? Comparing a flat box to a DSLR is apples to oranges.

The kit lens can't get shots of objects it can't reach. Again, apples to oranges.

 

[sixone]

The worse lighting there is, the better a DSLR will look compared to a superzoom.

IF the DSLR can reach from where you're sitting. That kit lens never would. Superzoom - no problem.

 

[Munky]

Something's missing here...Where's the picture with the Altoids can turned up on it's side? Comparing a flat box to a DSLR is apples to oranges.

The thickness of the can is irrelevant. It's only there to give a size reference, and everyone should know how big the can is.

The kit lens can't get shots of objects it can't reach. Again, apples to oranges.

No, but I can move around unlike a dummy tourist to get closer to my subject.

 

[sixone]

The thickness of the can is irrelevant. It's only there to give a size reference, and everyone should know how big the can is.

All of the dimensions of a 3D object are relevant to a comparison of two objects.

No, but I can move around unlike a dummy tourist to get closer to my subject.

Most "dummy tourists" have manners, and can determine whether it's appropriate to move closer to the subject at the expense of the other ticket-holders whose views he may be obstructing.

 

[yhelothar]

A lot of these replies reflect no actual air travel experience overseas, and appear to be pure conjecture. When I travel, the essential bag is my laptop bag. I find the SX30-IS fits perfectly in the center compartment. My 5D MKII does not. So, when I travel i have a pretty good 24-840mm capability. Why would I want to buy a APS DSLR with a 24-300 lens? Not sure it would fit.

Maybe you'd want to buy an APS one since the 5D one doesn't fit? Just a guess. :biggrin:

 

[yhelothar]

It might fit, but I'd have a sore shoulder by the time I got back home.

The SX30IS weighs 600g, an APS DSLR body weighs 650g, the Sigma 28-300mm weighs 400g.

Sorry to hear that an extra pound would give you a sore shoulder. :$

 

[Munky]

IF the DSLR can reach from where you're sitting. That kit lens never would. Superzoom - no problem.

Why are you assuming I'm sitting and not able to move around? Getting closer beats zooming 100% of the time.

All of the dimensions of a 3D object are relevant to a comparison of two objects.

In this case only the dimensions of the DLSR are relevant. And flipping the can would break the scale consistency between the top view and the front view. The can is facing one way for a reason.

Most "dummy tourists" have manners, and can determine whether it's appropriate to move closer to the subject at the expense of the other ticket-holders whose views he may be obstructing.

Not any different that the ones already in front of me and obstructing my view with their zuperzooms.

 

[sixone]

The SX30IS weighs 600g, an APS DSLR body weighs 650g, the Sigma 28-300mm weighs 400g.

Sorry to hear that an extra pound would give you a sore shoulder. :$

Don't have that lens. The two I do have weigh more than the body alone.

And that still doesn't solve the problem of having the wrong lens on at any given time, or the problem of bad conditions for switching lenses. What does two bodies do to your comparison?

 

[sixone]

Why are you assuming I'm sitting and not able to move around? Getting closer beats zooming 100% of the time.

Why are you assuming that it's always appropriate or possible to get closer? What are you going to do when you can't?

You're going to miss the shot completely.

In this case only the dimensions of the DLSR are relevant. And flipping the can would break the scale consistency between the top view and the front view. The can is facing one way for a reason.

That's why we're not seeing a comparison with anything close to the actual size of the camera.

Not any different that the ones already in front of me and obstructing my view with their zuperzooms.

That is quite different from having manners.

 

[Munky]

Why are you assuming that it's always appropriate or possible to get closer? What are you going to do when you can't?

You're going to miss the shot completely.

Because it is possible. It it's not possible in your case, they you'll have to acknowledge that anyone sitting closer will have a better shot than you, regardless of what kind of crazy zoom you have.

The second issue is that there isn't just one "perfect" shot of a subject using just one "perfect" focal length.

That's why we're not seeing a comparison with anything close to the actual size of the camera.

If I put a ruler next to it, are you gonna argue that I should also flip the ruler so only its thin edge is visible? You really wanna argue that point? You're just trolling now, I already explained why the can is facing one way for reasons that should be obvious to a 2-year-old.

That is quite different from having manners.

Absolutely not. And quit diverting the subject to manners.

 

[Throckmorton]

All of the arguments for the superzoom vs the DSLR apply even more to a travel zoom, which is what Munky recommended to begin with.

 

[sixone]

Because it is possible. It it's not possible in your case, they you'll have to acknowledge that anyone sitting closer will have a better shot than you, regardless of what kind of crazy zoom you have.

The second issue is that there isn't just one "perfect" shot of a subject using just one "perfect" focal length.

What does any of that have to do with what I posted?

If I put a ruler next to it, are you gonna argue that I should also flip the ruler so only its thin edge is visible? You really wanna argue that point? You're just trolling now, I already explained why the can is facing one way for reasons that should be obvious to a 2-year-old.

It should be obvious to a 2-year old that it's going to take a bigger bag to carry a DSLR than an Altoid tin, no matter how many pictures you take of the top of the can only. Do you really wanna argue that point?

Absolutely not. And quit diverting the subject to manners.

How many shots are you going to get if a lack of manners gets you escorted out of a venue?

 

[corkyg]

The SX30IS weighs 600g, an APS DSLR body weighs 650g, the Sigma 28-300mm weighs 400g. Sorry to hear that an extra pound would give you a sore shoulder. :$

Weight has never been an issue. It is the size in inches, and much less optical reach.

Why can't we stick to the original thread question? IOW, do any of us who have DSLRs also use superzooms? This is not a DSLR vs. Superzoom question. Unless you have both, you ain't qualified to respond.

 

[Munky]

What does any of that have to do with what I posted?

It refutes your argument that "if you don't have x amount of zoom, then you'll miss that one perfect shot that you got from 300 feet away"

It should be obvious to a 2-year old that it's going to take a bigger bag to carry a DSLR than an Altoid tin, no matter how many pictures you take of the top of the can only. Do you really wanna argue that point?

LOL, do you understand what "scale reference" means? I could have put DVD for size reference, it has nothing to do with how big a bag the DVD will require.

How many shots are you going to get if a lack of manners gets you escorted out of a venue?

That depends on the manners, and not what kind of camera you use.

 

[sixone]

It refutes your argument that "if you don't have x amount of zoom, then you'll miss that one perfect shot that you got from 300 feet away"

That is only PART of my argument, and I'm quite sure I never said anything about any "perfect shot". If you want to argue what I didn't post, please don't quote me again.

LOL, do you understand what "scale reference" means? I could have put DVD for size reference, it has nothing to do with how big a bag the DVD will require.

I do. And a FAIR comparison takes ALL facets into account.

That depends on the manners, and not what kind of camera you use.

You are correct. And manners are PART of what dictates whether you move closer, or make the most of what you have available.

 

[yhelothar]

Weight has never been an issue. It is the size in inches, and much less optical reach.

Why can't we stick to the original thread question? IOW, do any of us who have DSLRs also use superzooms? This is not a DSLR vs. Superzoom question. Unless you have both, you ain't qualified to respond.

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.

Going superzoom lens for the comapct APS-C DSLR instead of getting a superzoom P&S

PROS
Cheaper
Way better image quality
More reach
Way better low light capabilities
Better AF, less shutter lag
More rugged body
Better viewfinder
Better dynamic range
lower noise

CONS
Weighs a lb more
It'll take an additional step to do the crop, which can also be a pro considering you have more flexibility to do your crop after you've taken the pic.
A few inches longer in length.

 

[Munky]

That is only PART of my argument, and I'm quite sure I never said anything about any "perfect shot". If you want to argue what I didn't post, please don't quote me again.

No, that's exactly what your argument boils down to. No other reason why you'd throw around phrases like "never reach from where you're sitting" and "miss the shot"

I do. And a FAIR comparison takes ALL facets into account.

Then your version of a scale of reference would be useless and inconsistent.

You are correct. And manners are PART of what dictates whether you move closer, or make the most of what you have available.

Only if your photography is limited to opera houses. In real world situations that principle doesn't apply.

 

[irse]

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.

Going superzoom lens for the comapct APS-C DSLR instead of getting a superzoom P&S

PROS
Cheaper
Way better image quality
More reach
Way better low light capabilities
Better AF, less shutter lag
More rugged body
Better viewfinder
Better dynamic range
lower noise

CONS
Weighs a lb more
It'll take an additional step to do the crop, which can also be a pro considering you have more flexibility to do your crop after you've taken the pic.
A few inches longer in length.

Don't know which DSLR superzoom lens has more reach and is cheaper than a superzoom P&S (up to about 800mm). All that I looked at was a lot more expensive. Plus it'll be a lot bigger than a superzoom P&S.

 

[sixone]

No, that's exactly what your argument boils down to. No other reason why you'd throw around phrases like "never reach from where you're sitting" and "miss the shot"

Then your version of a scale of reference would be useless and inconsistent.

Only if your photography is limited to opera houses. In real world situations that principle doesn't apply.

If you're going to deliberately misunderstand, please don't quote me again.

 

[yhelothar]

Don't know which DSLR superzoom lens has more reach and is cheaper than a superzoom P&S (up to about 800mm). All that I looked at was a lot more expensive. Plus it'll be a lot bigger than a superzoom P&S.

Did you see the one I linked? 28-300mm superzoom lens is $260 and is about the same size as a kit lens. A Canon SX40IS is $380.
That's equivalent to 450mm of zoom on an APS sensor. Considering the APS sensor is 13x larger than the 1/2.3", one can easily crop to 800mm of zoom and still come out ahead in image quality.

http://detonator.dynamitedata.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?user=u00000687&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buy.com%2Fpr%2Fproduct.aspx%3Fsku%3D203339735%26sellerid%3D13505447

You can see here how much of a crop 1/2.3" sensor is compared to APS. If you consider this in the "range" factor, the DSLR at 300mm will come out ahead of 800mm on that tiny sensor.