New Camera

<p>I have been shooting photography for a while now but still consider myself a beginner. I am Looking to buy a new camera and have a few in mind but am really not sure which would fit my style the best. I would like a camera with decent zoom, super macro, and high shutter speed. So far I have looked at the Fujifilm Finepix HS50EXR and the Sony a65 DSLR. They are pretty comparable but I am leaning toward the Fujifilm. I have also looked at the Cannon T3i and Nikon D5100. Am I better off getting an SLR camera or multi lens for macro and high speed shooting? I would like to stay in that $500 price range for the body and am willing to pay out another $200 for lenses. Any advice would be very helpful. Thanks</p>

<p>Not knowing exactly what you shoot, it's hard to recommend any specific camera. The Panasonic Lumix FZ200 is the best superzoom on the planet, for under $500. This camera does excellent macro to super-telephoto with an f2.8 zoom lens. Max shutter speed is 1/4000 sec.</p>

<p>Alex,<br>

There are certain advantages to DSLRs (and DSLTs as the Sony A65); they are usually faster in operation (both autofocus and frames per second), and he ability to change lenses makes for very versatile systems - but a lot depends on getting the right lenses for the job. Decent zoom range with a DSLR quickly means 2 lenses at least - and with a $200 budget, that's very tight. Add a close-up diopter for macro, and it becomes undoable (a dedicated macrolens at these prices is going to be extremely hard).<br>

So, you will have to make a compromise - and either accept to start off with a lot less zoomrange, but with the flexibility and quality of a DSLR, or a bit less optical quality but the versatility of a superzoom bridge, such as the Fuji or the Panasonic Patrick has mentioned. <br>

Only you can really decide where to put the emphasis, how flexible the budget is and what matters most to you at this point in time. Either choice has its pros and cons, so you cannot really go very wrong either way.</p>

So if I am willing to spend extra on

lenses will the overall quality of my

pictures be better in the long run? I'm

just worried about shooting super

macro and moving objects and getting

blur. Also if image stabilization is not

included in the base will quality suffer

noticeably and will lenses be more

expensive?

<blockquote>

<p>will the overall quality of my pictures be better in the long run</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a harder question than it seems... but, let me put it like this: you will have the gear that is less likely to keep you from getting that best overall quality. <br />You will, however, have to learn how to use it, and invest time and effort. Worries about blurred moving objects, and shooting extreme macro ranges - you should worry if you do not know why the problems occur, and what you can do to overcome them. So, a very important part is not the gear you have, but your knowledge about photography, and next how to use the gear you do have.<br>

In other words: reserve a part of the budget for learning - a course (online, a book, or with a local photo club maybe) to learn about composition and exposure. This site also has some very useful articles on it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>if image stabilization is not included in the base will quality suffer noticeably and will lenses be more expensive?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily, but first things first again - understand what the feature is about and how much it matters to you. Image stabilisers are useful, but they can't work miracles. For example: they will not fix blurred photos for high-speed moving subjects. Don't put too much emphasis on a feature as this, first try to find a camera you find easy to handle and hold, within your budget and with the base specs you want and need.</p>

<p>It could still be a bridge camera or a DSLR - how important is that zoomrange, that's the main first question. The fuji has a 42x optical zoom, equivalent to 24mm to 1000mm. To get that range on a DSLR, you're talking 3 lenses costing several thousands (be it US$ or €). A normal 2 lens kit as usually sold with DSLRs has a range of 28-300 basically - so a lot less tele range, and also a bit less wide angle. How important is it to be able to zoom in really far? You really have to dig in and understand these differences for yourself in order to make an informed decision - we cannot do that for you.</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice. I am defiantly ready to invest the time, effort, and cash into learning about and how to use whatever it is I decide to get. I just imagine that in the long run learning how to use a more advanced and versatile setup will make shots a little less difficult in the future, that is at least my equipment preforms as it is supposed to.</p>

<p>I must confess to being a fan of the micro four thirds system for its combination of lightness and image quality. I sold all my Nikon gear to go down this route with the Olympus OM-D E-M5. This is out of your budget, but a Panasonic G5 and kit lens wouldn't be. The G6 is better still. However, the Olympus offers in body image stabilisation which means it works with all attached lenses.</p>

<p>However, it all depends on what you shoot really. The best camera is always the one you are likely to carry with you.</p>