DSLR vs compact superzoom: What are the real world advantages of a DSLR over a superzoom compact?
468769
Biggest single advantage (for me) to a DSLR is depth of field. Most if not all copacts are limited to a minimum f8. Some only f5.6. If you do any scenic or architectural photography, being unable to stop sown to f32 or even f16 is a real problm.
687392
Hi.I think that if you are looking for a point and shot like that, it is better to buy a DSLR entry level and consider buying a lens zoom, at the same time or when you can. You will appreciate my advice.
687391
Hi. I think that if you are looking for a point and shot like that, it is better to buy a DSLR entry level and consider buying a lens zoom, at the same time or when you can. You will appreciate my advice.
815616
The camera is NOT a compact camera but it's not a DSLR either. If you are looking for a camera for your purse or pocket then this is NOT the camera to have. It is not as heavy as a DSLR, but you will definitely feel the difference in weight and size in your purse if you put it in there. If you want a camera that takes fantastic shots at DSLR quality this is a great camera. It also has wifi as you know. I sold mine. Why: The battery runs out sooner than I wanted. I went back and bought a compact Canon for the better than my iPhone quick snap shots. Hope I helped.
1678710
I was looking at them both and decided on the 850 some of the new features won out and it still does well with out the wide lens because it lets you combined images right in the camera to give the same effect. Also the 850 was on sale at bestbuy.com today for 248. Also battery life is better with the 850.
1857608
I own both and the only advantage I can see to the Canon is it's smaller size. In my experience the Lumix takes much sharper images with richer color. The canon is almost unuseable indoors, even with the flash my photos are blurred.
1967981
A small aperture bino will suffer somewhat in low light conditions. It does well for it's size but that is always going to be the limiting factor in a compact bino. The views are stellar however. The best compact I've ever looked through and would compare well with something costing three times as much in my opinion.
306198
All of these are on the low-end of lenses and so I don't know if you'll see an appreciable difference in image quality, especially on a budget (D)SLR. The most direct comparison that can be made is to the kit lens. Assuming you've already decided that a zoom lens is necessary, both will have similar image quality, but the advantage of this model is that the widest aperture does not change with zoom - it will stay at f/2.8 over the entire length. Moreover, this has a wider maximum aperture than the kit, enabling for shallower depth of field and more light reaching the sensor. The question becomes, are these aspects necessary/important to you? If image quality is more important than the ability to zoom, then, in general, prime lenses tend to produce sharper images than budget zoom lenses.
391685
I noticed that the SD 960 actually has a faster lens than the SX 200, but I much prefer the beefier body styling and extra zoom on the SX 200. I just wonder how much a difference F/3.4 compared to a F/2.8 in a compact camera like this would really make? I've also been thinking about picking up the LX3, but hearing you say you would trade in makes me wonder, have you found the F/2.0 lense to be a big difference compared to other compacts?
653621
Personal opinion only, I think you'd find this camera would perform fairly well. It seems to do fairly well in low light situations and of course with the super zoom, you can zoom in on the target from considerable distance. Given the relative low price of this camera (compared to others with this zoom capability), your investment would be fairly low and you could always come back and sell one as "used" right here on Amazon.
2204731
@Thomas Ford: Compare your low-light pictures (ISO800+) with his, and you will see the difference. Your camera is a lot more flexible (price-wise, you have a wide angle and a long zoom), but since the image sensor on a dSLR is larger, picture quality in low light will be superior.
1879028
Not quite sure of your question on "better", but I will try to answer. This is not a high end DSLR, but it holds its own in action shooting with excellent clarity. As for limited/low light shooting, I was amazed in what it does without the flash. I have been using a Sony compact disc camera with optional with a fish eye lens for several years taking low light pictures . I most often had to use some form of lighting to get a good shot. The fish eye lens interfered with the flash causing major shadowing. The SZ+31, under the same limited light, gives excellent wide angle pictures WITHOUT a flash and little need to touch-up. We also have a mid-level Canon DSLR that was supposed to replace the Sony. The SZ-31 actually has more features with less bulk and is very user friendly. We are using the SZ-31 infinitely more than the other two. Here is the best clue: My wife does not take well to ANY gadget---until we bought the SZ-31. She loves this thing and so do I.
1002182
These two cameras are both good at what they do but are different in the needs they are designed to address. Your needs (atleast mine) would direct me towards one or the other. You say absolutely nothing about your needs or intended uses so there little else I could add. The zoom range, video resulotion, flexibility, and size differetiate the two. The S95 has a marginal image quality and low light advantage at the expense of lower video resolution and a much shorter telephoto.
2078481
The full-frame sensor gathers more light more quickly and with greater clarity than smaller sensors. This means you get sharper photos with more detail. Plus you can shoot with available light almost anytime, anywhere. The 6D is an amazing camera IMHO.
620261
Pixels are not important with mini cameras. My old Canon with 7 megapixels outperforms the Sony with 20 megapixels, primarily because the Sony has aggressive noise reduction that smears details. Grasss becomes a green blanket, with the Canon you can see each blade of grass.However, the Sony is the best mini zoom selling for under $80 today.
1173623
The wider field of view and the small camera size of the DMC-FX35 are things I like. The FX35 can be purchased today too while the TZ5 cannot. But, I am leaning toward the TZ5 because I also value the features of continuous autofocus and 10x optical zoom and its field of view is also wider than most cameras. This Panasonic page shows the differences between different fields of view. http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/popup/wide_angle/index.html This Panasonic page shows feature differences between the two cameras. http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelComparisonResults?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&catGroupId=75047&surfCategory=Lumix%20Digital%20Cameras&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702&items=214163|214166|213677|
528652
The pancake is more compact and better for portraits (brighter lens means less flash use), but not much of a zoom. If you will be taking pics of your kids sporting events, you will need the bigger lens. Im going for the pancake (it is also worth more!) so its a better deal.