DSLR or High Zoom camera?

LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-12 AT 02:56PM (MST)[p]I know that it seems like every week there is another rookie like me asking this question ha... But I am very interested in getting into outdoor photography, BUT I honestly don't know where to start, so some help would be great!
So I have 3 questions...

#1. Do you prefer DSLR or high zoom cameras? Why? What are the benefits to a DSLR camera? And what are the benefits to a high zoom camera?
- For a DSLR camera, someone told me to look into a Canon 30D with a fixed Canon 300mm IS Lens. Would you agree or no?

- And for a high zoom, I've looked at the Panasonic FZ200 and it looks pretty good. What do you think about it?

#2. I'm looking for something under $1,000 or so... Don?t wanna spend a ton of money because I know it will probably be out-of-date in about 2 years anyways and I'll be wanting a new one...

#3. And which camera would you buy if you were in my shoes?

Thanks for the help!
hubba_3

Can't answer your questions without asking some of my own.
When you say "outdoor photography" are you going to be concentrating on wildlife, or mostly landscape pics?
What will your pics be used for, prints for your wall, or just internet sharing? Is the possibility of making money with your shots a consideration?
Do you think this hobby will grow, or just be a time filler between hunting seasons?
The answers to some of your questions depends a lot on your answers to these.
I can't answer any of your questions about the Canon or the Panasonic since I shoot Nikon. I shoot a DSLR because I want the best quality shot I can get. I'm not a pro but if that once-in-a-lifetime photo op presents itself, I want to get a great shot, and maybe retire with the proceeds. Not likely, I know, but who wants to take another blurry pic of Sasquatch.
Cameras don't quit working when they get "out-of-date". When it comes to photography equipment, something new and wonderful is always just around the bend. Buy what will work for you now, since once the photography bug bites, you'll probably want to upgrade anyway. Buying quality equipment is a good investment, especially if you buy from the used market. Most notably with top quality DSLR lenses, they hold their value extremely well.

Sorry I wasnt very specific...
When I say outdoor photograhy, I want to take pictures of landscapes, but i will be concentrated on wildlife (deer, elk, antelope, etc.)
And I'm not really focusing on making any money from it. I just wanna take some sweet pictures for internet sharing/showing other people and just enjoying them. Maybe if im any good at it, I will try to make a career out of it. But for now, just to enjoy them...
And yes I do think this hobby will grow. Right now I have a tines up scope cam and i?ve gotten really into that.. I have gotten some decent pictures of animals in the past, but i wanna get some better up-close pictures like I always see on this site.
And you said that you prefer the DSLR camera if you want to get that "once-in-a-lifetime photo", but why do you think the DSLR would be better than the superzoom camera for getting that type of picture? Do you think that the superzoom cameras arent as capable of getting that type of picture? Or do you just have more confidence in the DSLR???

And i am pretty sure that this hobby is going to grow, but i also want to start something on the less expensive side ($1,000) and then buy something much better in a few years if I feel like it and i get into it alot(which i think i will).

So that is kinda what i?m thinking here. What do you think? What would you recommend for me?
Sorry about all these "dumb" questions lol.
Thanks for the help!

Without going into specifics and discussing a camera I know nothing about (high zoom P&S cameras), the fact that should be most relevant to you is: Professionals use DSLR's. They want and need the best image quality possible and pay thousands of dollars to get it. They wouldn't spend all that money if a $600 P&S produced the same quality.
You need to understand that the great close up images on this site are exactly that, taken relatively close up. No camera is going to produce a frame filling, tack sharp image of a buck a half mile away. The pros can't do it and you won't either. Digiscoped and long zoom P&S shots are fun and are great for documenting what you've seen but not many of those shots ever make it onto someone's wall or the cover of a magazine. That is where the money is.
IMO you'll be handicapping yourself with anything less than a DSLR. My recommendation to you, (given your budget and my affection for Nikon) is to get a D3200 camera and pick up a used Nikon 300mm AF lens. Then save your money and purchase a quality 1.4X teleconverter when you can. You'll get amazing shots with that combo.

I just upgraded to a 7D and will likely sell my 40D. Let me know if you're interested. It's in perfect condition.

All depends on your priorities and the amount of money you have to spend. I personally shoot a High zoom point and shoot. If you look in my HAC you will see that it does take some decent shots. But most are not even close to the quality of some of the pros that frequent this site that shoot top end cameras with top end glass. But for me, I'm happy with the results of my point and shoot. I'm just playing and not lookin at getting into the professional side. I'm currently shooting an Olympus SP590UZ which has a 26X optical zoom. I also have a 1.7X mulitiplier for it which I use on a tripod and I find beats the hell out of holding a camera behind a spotter and trying to digiscope. My camera is pretty darn cheap and I pack it everywhere. It has taken a beaten and has done me well.

BCBOY,
What is your HAC? And I like the look of some of the high zoom cameras(mainly because they are cheaper and have some serious zoom on them), BUT I think that is why I have my tines up scope cam for when the animals are farther away. I know the high zoom cameras can get some decent pictures from a longer distance than the DSLR cameras, but thats why i have my scope cam. I think Im gonna focus on getting a DSLR camera for those times when I am closer to the animals to get some really good pictures, and then With the scope cam, I can take decent pictures from a long ways away. Im looking for better and clearer pictures, so I think that the DSLR is for me...
What do you guys think? Agree or dont agree?

The HAC is the Monster Muleys 2012 Hunt Adventure Challenge.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=show_thread&om=3&forum=DCForumID55&omm=0

All my photos were taken with a point and shoot big zoom camera to give ya an idea of what these cameras are capable of doing. Like was said in an earlier post though, the close up animal shots are normally taken at very close range. But there is a good mix of longer range shots in my HAC as well.

I'll have to agree with BCBoy.

DSLR's are awesome for the highest quality images if you want to be able to print full size, but it costs $5000 - $10,000 and 35 lbs of gear on your back to compare to a 25-600mm equivalent zoom point and shoot like the Panasonic FZ150 that only costs $450!

If you want to go with the ultimate in light weight quality, something like a Sony WX150 for $189 and a scope)cam adaptor to mount it on your spotting scope is awesome. The thing takes amazing photo's and full HD video. I've had both a WX150 (now my boy has it) and a WX5 (wish I handn't sold it). They take some creat pics and even better video in full daylight.

Anyway, only go down the dslr route if you have some serious cash to spend and want a tank load of gear to haul around on your hunts and scouting trips

Cheers,
Pete

>>DSLR's are awesome for the highest
>quality images if you want
>to be able to print
>full size, but it costs
>$5000 - $10,000 and 35
>lbs of gear on your
>back to compare to a
>25-600mm equivalent zoom point and
>shoot like the Panasonic FZ150
>that only costs $450!
>
>Cheers,
>Pete

Pete, put the pipe down.

As for the question, I have used a few Panasonics and was impressed with the quality. That being said, I now use a Nikon DSLR for my backpack hunts.

If weight is an issue, Panasonic (good). If not, DSLR (better).

>Pete, put the pipe down.
>
>As for the question, I have
>used a few Panasonics and
>was impressed with the quality.
> That being said, I
>now use a Nikon DSLR
>for my backpack hunts.
>
>If weight is an issue, Panasonic
>(good). If not, DSLR
>(better).

Put the pipe down? Maybe you should take you're own advice there

You couldn't carry all those same lenses needed to get 25-600mm on that Nikon dslr 50' into the backcountry, much less try to hunt with it.

DSLR's are worthless for filming wildlife unless you are in Yellowstone filming from your car or you have some serious dosh invested in monster lenses.

My pack loaded with my DSLR kit includes a 600mm, 70-200 zoom, 24mm, 11-16mm, carbon tripod / video head and weights 40 something lbs all up with just a rain jacket bino's and one water bottle.

So you have to decide, are you hunting or filming? Even then if you choose to film, you can't take it all and most people can't afford any of it.

In any case you'll have to spend at least 5 times that $1000 budget to cover the full range of the FZ150 or FZ200 with a DSLR kit to get the same quality.

Don't get me wrong DSLR's are awesome, but are also a can of worms.

Cheers,
Pete

>You couldn't carry all those same
>lenses needed to get 25-600mm
>on that Nikon dslr 50'
>into the backcountry, much less
>try to hunt with it.

True. I thought the poster was looking for a camera that would take quality shots. You have to agree, quality goes to DSLR. Weight goes to PS high-zoom.



>DSLR's are worthless for filming wildlife
>unless you are in Yellowstone
>filming from your car or
>you have some serious dosh
>invested in monster lenses.

I would disagree, I seem to get some pretty good wildlife stills with a 70-300 and it hasn't been in YNP yet.



>So you have to decide, are
>you hunting or filming?
>Even then if you choose
>to film, you can't take
>it all and most people
>can't afford any of it.

I must have missed where he was deciding to hunt or shoot pics.

>In any case you'll have to
>spend at least 5 times
>that $1000 budget to cover
>the full range of the
>FZ150 or FZ200 with a
>DSLR kit to get the
>same quality.

I think you are referring to zoom and not quality. We already discussed which one excels in qulaity.



>Cheers,
>Pete

Back at you. Craig

I was just trying to make the counter point about what all is involved in digging into the DSLR can of worms. Inexpensive big zooms for dslr's are generally not as good as the long zoom on the FZ150. Especially if you use a doubler to try to get the same zoom range.

I've seen some of your images Craig and they are truly spectacular, but you won't be getting that close to critters around here where I live with over 2 million people and 300 elk! If you do, you have 3 seconds to get the shot of their rump and they are bolting

Cheers,
Pete

LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-12 AT 07:14PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-12 AT 07:12?PM (MST)

We were at this crossroads earlier in the year. I ended up with the Sony Cybershot DSC

http://snapsort.com/cameras/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-HX200V

The Panasonic mentioned above was my 2nd choice after a month of mental masturbation. There are many sites out there that let you compare the features and benifits so that you can make an informed choice.

The wife was sure she wanted a DSLR but I convinced her, and she through many independant sources that a DSLR is for those that love photography and want to tinker to get that perfect shot. The only way to get good with a DSLR is to practice well enough that when crunch time comes and you have a brief photo op window that you will know enough what to do to get that shot. You will probably need at least a few lens's to get anywhere near the flexability of a super zoom.

The 2 cameras above will blow away most smaller point and shoots. They will also impress and piss off your friends that have to work really hard and put all their years of practice in there equal to/slightly better than /slightly worse than DSLR shot.

If you want to get into photography and it become a hobby/passion then DSLR

If you simply want to take nice photos on your trips and focus (no pun inteded) on the outting then go with a quality superzoom like the Sony or Panasonic.

It also bears repeating that for screen shots at normal magnification and photo printing up to 8x10 you will be hard pressed to tell the difference between a nicely composed DSLR vs Superzoom image. If you are printing wall posters than the DSLR is a must.

One cool feature of the Sony is that the Auto setting actually takes 2 shots and quickly combines them for impressive depth of field and exposure. The composite image make you look like an expert to all but an expert pixel peeping your original image.

Bill in MI