Considering Downgrading from DSLR to P&S

[lensmith]

<p> I currently own a Canon 20D and I have been thinking about selling my DSLR and my other equipment and purchasing a higher-end compact (no, not the Leica...that's too high end). My reasoning is that I really cannot afford to purchase the other lenses I'd like to enjoy using the system I have. Additional lenses are simply too expensive, especially if you want quality. Yes, I can and have rented lenses, but that's money wasted. <br>

<br>

The other motivator is convenience. I have been leaving the 20D behind because it's too bulky to carry around. My wife and I were in DC a few weeks ago and it was a pain to lug the 20D around the city. <br>

<br>

Finally, while I love my 20D (it was purchased based on the strong recommendation of a professional), it's getting long in the tooth and probably needs to be replaced. If I did, I want to go to a full-frame, and maybe pick up an old-school 5D, but that's costly and I would still be back in the same place. <br>

<br>

So I am seeking advice on your suggestions for a good compact for a downgrade. If I sell what I own that I have to support the 20D (Camera, 580, 28-135, Tripod, etc.) I could get about $1,000. So that would be my upper limit. Since I am downgrading, I might as well downgrade to something that us high-end. <br>

<br>

My requirements would be that it has a fairly fast cycle time, a fast lens, IS (if possible), a flash and that it's not large (as a compact) that it's actually a mini-DSLR. I don't need to put it in my pocket. I have an iPhone 4 that I can use in a pinch. I am a casual photographer, so I have no special needs.<br>

<br>

I was thinking along the lines of the Canon G11, but I am willing to go (gasp) off-brand and look at something other than a Canon.<br>

<br>

Thanks in advance your your thoughtful advice and comments.<br>

 

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>The G11 is OK but it doesn't have an EVF, the OVF cannot be accurate for framing and never have shooting info displayed (I always wonder why not?). The zoom range is not much either.</p>

<p>For $249 you can get a Kodak Z981 with 14mp, 26X zoom, with EVF of course, fully manual, IS, RAW</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Len:</p>

<p>A friend of mine bought a Canon S90. He remarked the other day how he rarely uses his 20D anymore.</p>

<p>I have a Panasonic LX3 that I really like.</p>

<p>The newest versions of these are the S95 and LX5. They're certainly worth a look.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[SCL]

<p>Don't forget the current micro 4/3 cameras by Olympus and Panasonic, recently joined by Sony (different mount I understand).</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I dont want to turn this thread into a "dslr is so much better" type of thread but... there are a few other options that you have not considered in my opinion.</p>

<p>#1. Just because something is getting "long in the tooth" does not mean it takes any worse pictures than it did when it was brand new.</p>

<p>#2. Consider a couple of "cheap" prime lenses, you will be amazed at how you start to enjoy your photography (toss a 50mm 1.8 on your 20d and it helps with the bulk, and you will have top-notch IQ)<br>

#3. I had the same issue with taking my dslr with me thinking that it was "too bulky". My best recommendation is to- just do it- as you start carrying it everywhere with you, it becomes much less of a bulk issue than you make it in your mind.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision!</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>In overall terms I do not consider a move to a top line compact camera a 'downgrade' so long as you keep you DSLR for the 'jobs' it does best. I'm away on an extended trip at the moment and I decides for convenience to just take one camera with me and it is my Pany FZ50 and the DSLR with all its lenses is at home. As I move around I am slightly amused at all the folk, most likely just snap shooters, with their Canon DSLRs. If you are unlikely to print bigger than A3 and mostly work through the web then a camera like the FZ50 is plenty more than adequate and for the era features such as OIS, long zoom, and video really is an upgrade on the average DSLR in features and convenience along with relative light weight. Personally I am very glad financial restraints led me to my Nikon 5700 way back instead of one of the current DSLRs of the time. I'm no longer a pro so do not need the DSLR and while 4/3 is a step in the right direction they pale in comparison with my FZ50 [ I expect Canon have a comparable model, SxxIS or something]. If only they would bite the bullet and stop pandering to compactness and bring out a FZ50 4/3 equivalent with constant, or near constant maximum aperture instead of the dreadful "DSLR" practice of loosing two stops as you zoom, even on short focal length range zooms. I considered 4/3 for this trip and rejected it for this basic reason.<br>

End of rant :-)<br>

for now </p>

[unangelino]

<p>Len</p>

<p>I make this decision this all time.</p>

<p>However, I always keep my DSLR. The reality is that over the course of a year I take about 4 times as many shots with my P&S relative to my DSLR. But, the fact is that when I want or need a DSLR it's nice to have it on hand.</p>

<p>Your 20D may have some miles on it, but it's still very much up to the job. Unless you crop a lot or print very large it's not likely to hold you back.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[dg1]

<p>I no longer have a DSLR and I'm quite happy with the compacts I use. I do however have a panasonic G1 that fills in quite well for DSLR-like needs with it's AF 14-45mm and 40-200mm lenses. I generally use it with a little Industar 69 lens from a half frame Russian Chaika pocket film camera and a few Olympus OM prime lenses when I'm doing my own thing, which is most of the time. <br>

I mostly use my compact "kit" lately however, which is a Ricoh GX8 for wide an normal use, and also a Sony H-20 for tele and HD video. The Ricoh has a teleconverter lens that gives about 22mm with it's regular 28mm default. The GX8 is an obsolete model, but Ricoh has some very nice newer models also. I'm very pleased with the IQ I get with the GX8 because it seems to lack a certain digital look I notice from most small sensor compacts, and the Sony itself is quite amazing for a really tiny sensor camera and it's 380mm equivalent tele end is f/4.4 which is faster than most small tele zoom cameras at the long end.<br>

There's a lot to choose from in compacts these days, good luck!</p>

 

[bill_tuthill]

Len, do you take pictures in low light? If so, consider the Olympus E-PL1, which has much higher image quality than the Canon G11 and costs about the same. If not, consider the Panasonic FZ35, which is so flexible (486mm telezoom!) you will be happy to be rid of your 20D.

[w_t1]

<p>i consider the fact that my g9 not having an EVF a plus. Yes, I know it's a crappy optical viewfinder. The only thing i miss on it is lack of HD video and wide angle. I think the G12 will have 720p. If you have an EX flash hang on to it if you stay with G-series</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>In addition to the FZ50whose lens is fixed in position all the time and is ready to shoot within the time it takes me to raise the EVF to my eye I also have the Olympus TCON x1.7 which gives me about 735mm equivalent angle of view and an earlier purchase Raynox 2020 which gives me a 950mm AoV ... OIS works well with both adaptors. For web use I can quarter crop the 10Mp file to give me 1800mm AoV such as for surfing shots from the beach or wild life. Mind you they need post processing in my case Paint Shop Pro but I have the camera set to low contrast so I can add what is needed rather than committing myself to full contrast before I shoot.<br>

It also depends on what kind of photos you take in low light because virtually any camera will take shots in low light of static subjects so long as you keep the camera steady*. Even my original Coolipix or maybe it was Coolicam would give long exposures to match low light levels .... it hooked me on digital that little toy :-)<br>

*it can be fun to be moving such as in a car and open the shutter for a period .... :-)</p>

[fp_anderson]

<p>For P&S the Lumix Lx5 mentioned is a great option but will not have the reach of your 28-135 (40-200 EQ) though. If you need the telephoto reach you might look at the FZ35 from Lumix - you won't believe what such a small package can do. (size: <strong>http://tinyurl.com/2bgxnh9)</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

Keep in mind that all P&S are going to have lag time you don't notice with the 20D plus they will not offer the high ISO quality of a DSLR. Imaging-resource.com lists lag times and the Lumix cameras above are among the shortest of P&S.</p>

<p>When I sold my 20D I purchased a 450D - it is really a lot smaller/lighter and offers image quality that compares to the 5D (ref: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/XSI/XSIA.HTM).</p>

<p>Lastly I viewed your flora shots. In general P&S cameras are not going to offer the shallow depth of field that isolates the subject.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!<br>

F.P.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>What Erik said.</p>

<p>I once owned a 10D, the predecessor to your 20D. I currently own a G11, in addition to a 5D and a 40D. I can promise you the 10D, coupled with my 28-135 (which I still own, but which largely gathers dust) took far better pictures than the G11 does -- slam dunk!</p>

<p>If you're expecting better image quality out of a more modern P&S, don't. You won't get it. Your 20D is still an excellent camera. If you're wanting to reduce weight/bulk, then do consider a P&S. If you can afford to do so, you might want to get a cheaper P&S and not sell the 20D + lens and flash. That way you will have the best of both worlds. You can carry the P&S when you need to be light, and you can use the 20D when you need better pictures.</p>

<p>Contrary to claims above, you can frame up your pics with a G11 either using the optical viewfinder or the LCD on the back. The LCD does show all your shooting info. It's a fine camera. However, you might find that other cameras meet your walk-around needs better and possibly even for less money. That said, I would still choose the G11 for my needs. I love the (admittedly crappy) optical viewfinder, the hotshoe, the fast X-sync speed, the RAW encoding, and the "cool" factor. I agree with WT that you should hang on to your Speedlite if you jump to a G series camera.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Blanket statements like "the 10D took far better pictures than the G11" are misleading. This is true only if you throw in high ISO, because at ISO 80, the G10 and G11 are clearly better in studio comparisons. G10 on left, 10D on right, ISO 80.

<table>

<tr><td>

<img src=http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG10/Samples/comparedto/G10_ISO80_0378-crops.jpg>

</td><td>

<img src=http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS10D/Samples/Compared/D60/Indoor/10d_100-002.jpg>

</td></tr>

</table>

The 28-135, perhaps Canon's best consumer lens, is 45-216 crop equivalent. Yikes, I would hate not having the wide end.

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, gee, Bill, at what FL and aperture on the G11 vs. what lens, FL and aperture on the 10D? OK, I suppose you can put a crappy lens on the 10D and get a crappy picture. What does that prove? (But if that's your point, I agree with you.)</p>

<p>The sensor and format on the 10D are not nearly so limiting as the sensor and format on the G11. Put a decent lens on the camera (e.g. the 28-135), and it should perform pretty well, with low light performance superior to any compact P&S and with a much broader range of useable apertures. There, is that better?</p>

[bill_tuthill]

DPreview tests DSLR models with 50/1.4 or similar, so if anything, the G10 zoom is at a disadvantage here. No EXIF, so:

 

G10: ISO 80, 1/50 second, F4.

 

10D: ISO 100, 1/2 second MLU, F9.

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ah, it appears the 10D crops are blown up to about 200% magnification. No wonder it looks like crap. Yes, the G10 is indeed a higher resolution camera. More pixels there. I guess that's an obvious thing. Perhaps memory gets a bit fuzzier with age, eh?</p>

<p>That said, the sharpening algorithms in my G11 is so aggressive that I get little black specks along high contrast borders, and some surfaces (like people's faces) seem to turn to plastic. This happens at any ISO, and I don't consider it a desireable quality. However the camera does turn out sharp images. I'll give it that.</p>

<p> </p>

[bill_tuthill]

Thanks Sarah, I missed the 200% zoom thing.

[phototransformations]

<p>If I were to buy only one camera to replace a DSLR, it would probably be the Panasonic FZ35, which is an amazing little thing -- incredibly light, surprisingly good image quality, easy to use. However, you lose the ability to get shallow depth of field or fine-grained images at higher ISO.<br>

So instead I bought two cameras to replace my Nikon D80 and assorted lenses. (Well, theoretically to replace; though I havn't used my Nikon gear at all since I bought these cameras, I will eventually sell them off). I now use the Panasonic G1 with 14-45mm and 45-200mm Panasonic lenses, and occasionally a 50 1.8 or 55 2.0 "legacy" lens for portraits. These, plus filters, extra batteries, and a charger, all fit in a relatively small camcorder bag. For walking around when this seems like too much kit, I have a Samsung HZ35 in a bag on my belt. This "travel zoom" has a 15x zoom and some of the decent qualities of the Panasonic FZ35 without the bulk, though the image quality is not as good. A similar Panasonic is the Panasonic ZS7, which I rejected primarily because it is reported to have unreliable metering in low light, but whose IQ about matches the FZ35.<br>

So, for your $1000, you could get a G1 and two kit lenses and also a 10-15x zoom travel zoom (Casio also has one, and it's cheaper than the Samsung or the Panasonic and nearly as good). Or, just get a Panasonic FZ35 for $325 for so and see what else you need as you see how you take pictures. </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>It is so easy to blur backgrounds in editing I don't really follow this preoccupation with shallow DoF in-camera ... I prefer in most things to have control through the total process of making the final product. Naturally if I was limited timewise or impatient I would think differently :-)</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>Your post-processing skills must far exceed mine. I can rarely get a convincing blurred background in Photoshop compared to what comes naturally from a camera with a larger sensor. I'm even considering buying a plug-in for this purpose, since I seem to be shifting back to P&S and m4/3 from DSLRs, as I miss the ability to isolate the subject through shallow DOF.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>When I travel away from home, my Nikon D300 stays home, and my Canon Powershot A650IS is my take anywhere camera.</p>

<p>I have installed CHDK, for free, on the 650 and I now can shoot raw or DNG along with jpegs, I have a live histogram in record mode, I know battery usage to nearest 1% (4 lithium AAs last for a long time), I can bracket, and CHDK provides options beyond imagination. Since the program is on a memory card, one can revert to the original 650 just by putting in a different memory card. No permanent changes are made to the 650 or its firmware. I don't know the current availability of the 650, but I like it better than the G10 or G11 because it is more grippable, uses AA batteries, and has a flexi-LCD. The advantage of the G11 would be a wider wide angle.</p>

[russharris]

<p>I tried using my G9 in a low light scenario at a concert instead of my dSLR - result: a wasted opportunity as the noise levels were so high the images are unusable.</p>

<p>I now use a Nikon D40 + 35/1.8 lens - it's ultra-portable and I get the shots I want in most lighting. I'll never use a point n shoot again</p>