Which SLR-Like camera is right for me? Fuji finepix s9600 or Panasonic FZ50 or Canon S3 IS?

Hi:

</br>

I am planing to buy a SLR-Like camera

</br>

My photograophy targets are:

</br>

1. Nature photography(Night and Day both). Sometmes I have no control over the

light of the envirement so a sensor with better performance in lower light is

what I really need. This one most important fileds of my photography targets.

</br>

2. Doemstic animals/Pet photography. Taking photos of domestic animals and pets

is my second target.

</br>

3. Street Photography.

</br>

4. Family photos. I know a compact camera , small and pocket one can do it but

I just wanted to cover all my needs.

</br>

5. Maybe this is the most important need. I want a SLR-Like camera that helps

me learn more about Digital photgraphy. So I need it to have all manual

abilities.

</br></br>

After a lot of searching three cameras look good for my needs.

</br>

<b>"Fujifilm finepix S9600", "Panasonic FZ50" and "Canon S3 IS"</b>

</br>

</br>

I prefer a camera that works fine in farms and forests and has enough quality

when the light is not very proper. This camera will be my learning camera so I

need it to be a little easy to use for a new comer in Digital Photography world.

Which Camera is the right one for me?

I really count on your suggestions and opinions.

</br></br>

Thanks </br>

Ali

You can get a DSLR for not much more money than a SLR like camera. I would get one of those instead especially if you want low light.

 

I would consider getting a Pentax K100D for it's in camera stabilization.

 

But given the choice of the above cameras, I would go with the S3 as it has IS and the Fuji doesn't and the Panasonics tend to be noisy.

I would suspect that none of those 3 will have exceptional low-light performance. That's just an unfortunate characteristic of P&S cameras, even the SLR-like versions. At higher ISO settings they tend to get pretty noisy.

<p>

I can't speak for either the Fuji or Panasonic but I have the Canon and avoid using anything faster than ISO 200. I may use 400 in a pinch but really don't like to - ISO 800 is for absolute emergency use only. When used with good light the only serious complaint I have about it is the AF can sometimes be a little finicky.

<p>

To get good low-light or high ISO performance you really have to go the SLR route. The Canon '1' series are very good (I have a 1D MkII and don't hesitate to shoot at 1600 if necessary) and the 5D is reported to perform very well in these situations as well.

<p>

The Canon S3 also has a full manual mode so you can play around with various settings if you want. Again I don't know about the other two.

<p>

<a href="http://www.rtope.com/Alaska">http://www.rtope.com/Alaska</a> were all taken with the S3 IS this past summer - as was this composite of 4 separate images stitched together: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4911459&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/4911459&size=lg</a>

I don't know DSLRs, but from the brands, the Canon. Fuji makes crap cameras(I own one, I know. Now that I have an E-volt instead, I'm planning the best way to destroy it), and I've never even heard of Panasonic cameras. Canon's always good.

Take a look at the Sony DSC R-1

 

If you like wide angle and waistlevel finders you will love it. Otherwise you will hate it.

 

No noise at all in 200 iso 30 second exposures. It is a really fantastic tripod camera. Make sure you shoot raw and get adobe lightroom, which can extract amazing shadow detail. I use mine much more that I do my Canon D1s.

 

Also for available darkness, the Fuji F30 has a cult like following among DSLR owners.

 

Canon has dropped the ball on their non DSLRs now that they don't support raw capture in their newer cameras aside from the spendy pro 1 , but the older G series were pretty good.

As I said my major goal is animal/nature photography and mostly I want to learn, what is the best for learning? I mean the one that has all manual abilities.<br>

Plus I read many good reviews about <b>fujifilm finepix s9600</b>, what is your opinion about it?<br>

Thanks<br>

Ali

Ali,

 

If you like the finepix, go and get it ... you don't need to ask for permission...

 

but the consensus seems to be, that for what you do, you would be much better off with a real dSLR ... the cameras you mentioned are "SLR-like" in only one point ... they look a bit like shrinked SLRs ... but that's about it. Let's face it, they are point&shoot cameras.

This is neither bad nor evil, and they do work ok for quite a few people.

 

Ask yourself, what's more important to you ...

 

Is it small and compact ... go for a P&S.

 

Is is the ability to set things manual (and you'll only use this long term, if that's working without fiddeling in some menues) along with good lowlight and AF ... go for an entry level dSLR.

If you can't afford an SLR, that's fine; I would just forget about high-quality low-light photography (night and indoors without flash) and get the camera with the best long-range zoom/focus capabilities (something you can learn about by reading the reviews at dpreview.com).

 

As others have said, an "SLR-like" camera that has a small sensor will not do well as an SLR in low-light conditions (night and indoors without flash) because the small sensors result in so much digital "noise" compared to the larger sensor in an SLR.

 

See, for example, the "graininess" of the samples on these pages:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms9000/page12.asp

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page15.asp

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page12.asp

 

Except for the Sony R1, the Epson, and the Leica M8 (none of which are good at telephoto photography, and all of which cost a lot more than the cameras you list), I don't know that there are any other non-SLRs with an SLR-size (larger) sensor.

 

But for learning, and if your budget is tighter than it has to be to buy an SLR with multiple lenses (which is understandable; even a partial kit can get expensive), an "SLR-like" camera with full manual control can be a good way to learn.

 

So read the reviews and choose based on the features you want (e.g., full manual control, focusing accuracy at full zoom) and based on cost. The image quality at ISO 100 from any of the three cameras you mention will probably be pretty much the same as with the other two, and at ISO 400 and higher they will all deliver results that are good enough for your own "learning" but not ideal for showing to others.

Ali,

 

I have a Canon S3IS and it has many strengths. Low light shooting is not one of them.

 

Under most conditions, the S3 performs admirably. For low light and action photography, even an inexpensive (relatively) DSLR will give you much better performance.

 

The Pentax K100D has already been mentioned and you might also consider the Nikon D40. Neither costs much more than an "SLR-Like" camera.

 

Rich

Hi:<br>

Thanks everybody for your very kind and great reaplies.<br>

I am really considering Nikon D40 after you menstioned it. It costs around 600$ and it seems the price is going down even more, because of D40x.<br>

Is Nikon D40 the good one for what I need? I read about it in dpreview and it was highly recommended there. Plus dcresorce.com photos with higher ISO looked much better than any D-SLR like.<br>

Thanks<br>

Ali

Ali,

 

A few of my friends have D40's and seem to get excellent performance out of them. I played around with one for about an hour and came away impressed. ISO 400 performance was fine but that was as high as I went with it. Shutter lag was pretty much non-existent.

 

Unless you need the higher resolution of the D40x, save your money and go with a D40. In the real world, the extra mp really don't mean all that much unless you make huge enlargements.

 

Rich

WOw, how great. So it means with less than 600$ I can buy a D-SLR camera with many advantages. The default lens looks to be 18-55. Is it enough for normal life? I know telezoom lenses are needed for wild-life photography but my question is for learning about digital photography is the default lens on D40 enough for me?<br>

Thanks<br>

Ali

In 35mm terms, the 18-55mm "becomes" a 27-82.5mm. That's a decent range for general shooting.

 

Actually, the D40 is only sold as a kit with the 18-55 so there's no choice. If you want the camera, you have to take the lens.

 

From what I've seen (and read) of it, the 18-55 isn't a bad lens. It will never win any awards for sharpness, but it doesn't cost a lot either.

 

The D40x is available without a lens but costs more than the D40 with a lens. Personally, I'd go with the D40 as I rarely enlarge beyond 11X14 and 6.1mp does that easily. If you plan on routinely enlarging beyond that size, you would have to consider the D40x.

27-82.5? That looks enought for me now. The only thing remained as a question is, I will pay more 100-150$ for D40 than fujifilm finepix s9600 (that I planned seriously to buy), I wonder beside the truth that D40 is a D-SLR what are the other things I will gain? Does the quality of images differs a lot from a D-SLR than a SLR-Like? Does it work a lot better in low light than S9600?<br>

Thanks<br>

Ali

I can't imagine any DSLR that cannot beat the S9600 for low light picture quality, speed and response.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Finepix uses software to control image stabilization rather than that system being incorported in the lens (as with Canon and Nikon) or at the sensor (everyone else).

 

I know that you're on a tight budget. However, spending an extra $100-$150 now and not regretting the decision is better than not spending it and wishing that you had bought a real DSLR.

Look at the Fuji S6000fd, instead of the 9600. It uses the 6 meg chip and has better low light characteristics. Highly rated. It is also very reasonably priced. No optical image stabilization however, so long end will require a tripod sometimes. But it can shoot RAW files, that's a big plus.

 

Sony R1 is an excellent camera if you're not looking for a super zoom. It's in a class by itself, as the only non-dslr with big APS sized sensor. And it features a very fine zoom lens. Goes 24mm to 120mm. I replaced my DSLRs with it and haven't looked back (but it's not a replacement for all the other DSLR virtues like speed, and other lens options, I just don't need them). RAW capable.

 

Sony H2 or H5's are also very capable super zooms at decent prices, and have performance and IQ on par with the canon S3. Has optical image stabilzation

 

For a affordable (whatever that means) DSLR, I second the Pentax K100 suggestion above.

 

Look at www.dpreview.com but also at other reviews like www.imaging-resource.com. I tend to prefer the latter, as dpreview sometimes seems have more of a personal agenda, IMO. www.Megapixel.net is also worth a different viewpoint.

Problem with getting a super zoom is that if you are taking pictures of dogs or whatever, is the shutter lag. When you press a button on the camera by the time the camera takes a picture, the dog is out of the frame. For that reason alone I would recommend a DSLR.

There area lot of advantages on buying one of the so-called bridge cameras, like the one you mention:

 

1. You get a lot for the money you spent. For instance, the Panasonic FZ50 has a great Leica lens with focal lenghts 36-432mm, with image stabilization, full manual modes, great interface, and most important if you want to learn, RAW format.

 

2. Of course the bigger DSLR sensors will give you images with less noise, but you can still use ISO 400 and get decent reults to print A4 size, if you use something like Neat Image to clean up noise. You do have to shoot RAW though, as the in-camera noise reduction for JPG is heavy handed.

 

3. Consider the price you would have to pay to buy the lens equivalents for your DSLR: fast f/2.8 standard zoom, and fast f/2.8 telezoom. We are talking serious money here.

 

I really think you should look at tha Panasonics; for instance, the new FZ8 is small (kind like the S3IS), but it has RAW, something Canon has dropped in its digicams. Just do not embark in the notion that you can only take good photos with DSLRs, that is pure BS.

There is a lot of bunkum being put forth by DSLR owners with no knowledge of the Pro-sumer. I own the FZ50 following the FZ20 and FZ30 and apart from some reservations about noise ... the FZ50 is good up to 400ISO and tolerable at 800ISO, horrible at 1600ISO ... I cannot imagin what panasonic will do to make the FZ60 better than the FZ50.

 

The DSLR has the inherant disadvantages of its mirror system that the Pro-sumer doesn't. I have both types of camera and prefer and use my Pro-sumers ahead of the DSLR.

 

I am obviously biased toward the FZ50 but at least I can claim you will not make a big mistake by going for it. :-)

May I suggest looking into the Minolta Z6? I have one and it is excellent!

I heard that Minolta Z6 has lots of noise even at ISO 100.<br>

Is it true Shawn?<br>

Plus I am considering Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 (or H7 or H9 that will be in the market at May). What do you think of them everybody?<br>

Thanks<br>

Ali

Since you seem to now be sold on getting a Nikon D40, I feel I should warn you. The kit lens that comes with it will not be good for low light photography. You'll need another one for that. Since you have a limited budget, maybe a used Canon 300D is best, since its only around $250 used, which leaves alot of money left for buying a good lens. Since you're familiar with DPreview already, read their review of the 300D.

The H5 has god awful shutter lag and slow recycle time, not sure about the H7, H9. But other than it takes very good pictures, has built in image stabilization. H7 or H9 might be a better value as the ISO goes higher.

Whenever anyone refers to a camera like the FZ50 (or the others you mentioned) as a "point and shoot," you can immediately assume that they don't really understand small sensor cameras. It is true that they are grainier in low light - however it is not true that graininess is always undesirable. As an old Tri-X shooter (and a fan of the great street photographers of the mid-late 20th century), I like a bit of texture. No doubt it works better in B&W, but no one can make the categorical statement that grain is always "bad." It can be managed (or celebrated) in post-processing, especially if you shoot RAW. And if you don't shoot RAW, then you really are pointing and shooting (imho) - whether you use a DSLR or not.

 

Ken

Oh Ken ... ouch! :-)