[Anastie]

I used to do masses of photography. But over the years got bored carrying around different lenses. Then discovered digital photography and enjoyed having the all in one zoom lens. Loved the no more large bag full of lenses and flashes to carry around. A couple of years ago I bought a Panasonic FZ3 which I love. It gave me a great lens and compact size.

I am now after a change! Looked at Nikon D40, Olympus E410 and at a Pentax K100.

All DSLR's. But I then saw the FZ50. Not to much cheaper than the others but cheaper and one lens!!

I like depth of field preview, and compact size. Any thoughts on my choices? I wonder looking at this if I may have decided on the one lens panny solution. I just don't want to regret not going DSLR!!

Thanks

[Pirate!!]

Ahoy!

OK, so take this as Pirate's golden nugget advice. Mmmmmmmmmm! Right. FWIW, you can get a Sony Alpha A100K (even off eBay) for circa £350.00. You can also get a Pentax K100D from Argos for £279.99 with kit lens. Not as good as the Super version, but hey! Good enough.

Panasonic DMC-Fz50 (IMHO) is still the leader of the prosumer/bridge pack with one exception, the Sony DSC-R1. OK, so the Panasonic's have theoir shortcomings in terms of noise. Nothing new there. Easily sorted with noise reduction software.

There are other makes with better IQ (Fuji for example) that reportidly have better IQ, but no image stabilisation (OIS). For any long zoom camera at 300mm or thereabouts, OIS ought to be a major consideration), otherwise it's tripod time (not always convenient).

Frankly, for the price, I would look (again on eBay) for the Olympus E510 2 lens kit.

I also have the Panny FZ3 and am currenly looking at both the Sony R1 and Panny FZ8 as potential replacements. Nothing wrong with the FZ3 per-se.

So, in conclusion, here's my shortlist (subject to your budget) and in no particular order

DSLR

Pentax K100D kit from Argos (or K10D) - (also look at Samsung GX-10) + Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro from OneStop Digital.
Olympus E510 2 lens kit via eBay - general decent dSLR with LV
Sony Alpha A100K (eBay) - prices dropping fast. New models released.

PROSUMER/BRIDGE

Panasonic DMC-FZ50, FZ18 or FZ8
Sony DSC-R1 (if you can find one cheap enough) - try eBay
Fuji (various models) - no OIS

Personally, and I reiterate, I don't know your budget, the Pentax K100D looks good. Why go prosumer for the same money as dSLR? This is why the Sony R1 went belly-up . . . overpriced!

Good luck. Let us kow what you decide.

[onefivenine]

By the sounds of your past experiences I think you'll regret not going dSLR.

You could - for instance, get an 'all-in-wonder' 18-200mm lens with Image Stabilising, on a dSLR, and no compact/bridge/P&S will compete with it...

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by onefivenine

By the sounds of your past experiences I think you'll regret not going dSLR.

You could - for instance, get an 'all-in-wonder' 18-200mm lens with Image Stabilising, on a dSLR, and no compact/bridge/P&S will compete with it...

Here Here I think you will end up regretting not getting a DSLR you are used to the flexibility that they give and the time will come
Maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but one day LOL

you don't have to hump loads of kit around

[Yandros]

D40+kit lens, and a Nikon 18-200mm VR

Yours for £693, then put the 18-55mm kit lens on ebay

Lightweight all-in-one image stabilised DSLR!

The only thing it lacks is DOF preview unfortunately

[Brammers]

I second the previous advice - cheap DSLR + a superzoom lens, 18-200 or 18-250. Make sure you get one of the stabilised ones (Nikon 18-200 or Sigma 18-200) or a body with stabilisation (Sony, Pentax). DSLR superzooms are slooooooow at the long end, you'll need the stabilisation in anything but the brightest sunlight there. I still fondly remember my Minolta A2's 28-200 2.8-3.5 - imagine that in DSLR size today!!!

I don't think Olympus do superzooms? Someone correct me pls!

The AF will be better, write speeds faster and high-ISO performance will largely offset the lens speed. Better viewfinder too.

DoF preview... Is it really that good? You're aware that it's not accurate - it just gives a rough idea? The only thing I ever use mine for is demonstrating what an aperture is...

[Pirate!!]

I love my DoF button Brammers! Night shots make the most of it (I tried it in NY). The difference in the viewfinder when adjusting aperture and having the DoF button pressed on the A100 will nail the image from OOF to in-focus. Not essential granted, but a nice tool.

[Brammers]

Yeah, it shows a difference for sure. But you do know that the DoF previewed in the viewfinder isn't the same as in the final shot? It's only an estimate. And seeing as we all know that small aperture = large DoF... I just don't see the point really.

[Pirate!!]

Well my ol' chummer . . . I likes me DoF button. Like I said, it aint essential, but it does help. Surprising really . . watching OOF bits of an image come into focus when pressing and turning buttons/dials.

A darned nice feature (IMHO), which I really wish Sony had retained. So . . that's 2 bottles of vino collapso down my neck!

Time for the anti-freeze! Actually, (off topic), I'm looking to aquire another cam for 'her indoors'. The FZ3 is OK, but the viewfinder is small. LV is OK FWIW. Looking for Sony R1 (eek) or Panny FZ8 (ahh). The latter looks fave @ the mo. There are some right muppets on eBay!

[Brammers]

Well my ol' chummer . . . I likes me DoF button. Like I said, it aint essential, but it does help. Surprising really . . watching OOF bits of an image come into focus when pressing and turning buttons/dials.

I just don't get what it actually does for you... You already know that the DoF gets wider, but the DoF preview won't actually tell you how much wider - it just gives a rough idea. To me this makes it useless. Note that old film SLRs did actually show the exact DoF - they didn't use the crazy viewfinder technology that screws it up today, so to me this has to go down as one of those legacy features like top LCD screens - something that's simply been replaced nowdays.

[stylgeo]

What do you mean it is not accurate? If the DOF preview button closes the aperture at the excact f-number you set your camera, then, if only darker, the image would be exactly the same recorded in your sensor as the one you see reflected through the pentaprism!

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by stylgeo

What do you mean it is not accurate? If the DOF preview button closes the aperture at the excact f-number you set your camera, then, if only darker, the image would be exactly the same recorded in your sensor as the one you see reflected through the pentaprism!

Err, no I don't think so. I believe the DOF you get though the viewfinder (wide open or stopped down via DOF preview) is about 2 stops off.

[Brammers]

What do you mean it is not accurate? If the DOF preview button closes the aperture at the excact f-number you set your camera, then, if only darker, the image would be exactly the same recorded in your sensor as the one you see reflected through the pentaprism!

Nope. That's what should happen. What actually happens though is that the viewing screen in your camera is 'oiled' - the matt glass messes around with the light. The advantage is that you can see the effect of focus with slow lenses - the disadvantage that depth of field is no longer correct.

Take a zoom lens. Start at wide - say f2.8, and zoom it in to say f5.6 at 70mm - or whatever. The viewfinder should get 2x as dark as the lens loses 2 stop of light. Does it?

[tdodd]

18 months ago I faced a similar decision. Back then I had narrowed my choice down to an FZ30 or some sort of DSLR. I had a Pentax 35mm SLR, a flash and three lenses from back in the 80s, when I used to be a hobbiest, but had slipped into happy snappy mode over the years with little 35mm P&S cameras.

It was a very tough choice whether to spend £340 on the FZ30 or a whole lot more on a full blown DSLR and one lens, just for starters. I am a bit of a stickler for quality, performance and VFM in my purchasing decisions. The clincher was when I actually tried out an FZ30 in the shop. I hated it. The EVF was horrible and grainy, and lagged terribly when following a moving subject or just panning around to explore compositional options. Based on that alone I knew I would not be content. Throw in the lousy high ISO performance, slow AF for sports, shutter lag etc. etc. and the tempting £340 entry (and exit) point did not seem very tempting at all.

I bought a 30D with 17-85 lens and do not regret my decision one bit. I've sold pictures taken in my first two weeks with that camera and successfully shot a wedding for a friend a couple of months later, having added a 580EX flash to the collection.

18 months on I have added a 40D body and five more lenses to my kit list. So far I'm in for about £5k and I don't mind one bit. I'm enjoying my photography and making a few bob on the side.

This may sound a bit snobby, and I certainly don't mean it to be, but I suspect if I had bought the FZ30 it would hardly get used - hopeless for weddings and sports/action/birds in flight or evening event photography. The small sensor also limits the ability to create a shallow DOF for more creative photography as well.

If I was looking for a bridge camera then, based on the value I now place on high ISO performance, I would suggest looking to see what Fuji offer these days, with their super-CCD sensor. They also tended, 18 months ago at least, to offer a wider end to their zooms - 28mm equivalent rather than 35mm. Whether that's still true today I don't know but back when I was looking at the FZ30 I think now that the equivalent Fuji of the time would have been a better bet.

[stylgeo]

Hmmmm, I've never thought of that! Trivia of the day! Thanks for clearing that out! So, the DOF button is inaccurate? But if I dial in, say f/16 in aperture priority and press the DOF button, doesn't it close down to f/16? You can clearly see the aperture becoming a pinhole. I am sorry, maybe it's because it's late but I can't figure this out. What do you see in the viewfinder in that case?

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by stylgeo

Hmmmm, I've never thought of that! Trivia of the day! Thanks for clearing that out! So, the DOF button is inaccurate? But if I dial in, say f/16 in aperture priority and press the DOF button, doesn't it close down to f/16? You can clearly see the aperture becoming a pinhole. I am sorry, maybe it's because it's late but I can't figure this out. What do you see in the viewfinder in that case?

Actually I only found this out recently too, as I was forever getting a shallower DOF than the preview indicated, and blurry pics as a result. In fact (and Brammers may correct me if I'm wrong) wide open f2.8 looks like about f5.6 in the viewfinder. Basically I now stop down 1-2 stops more from the preview that looks right.

[Brammers]

Yeah, that's roughly correct Yandros.

Basically, the viewfinder always shows more DoF than is actually present - as I said this is a result of the matte finish that allows you to see focus so clearly.

So when you stop it down to f16 you're seeing an approximation of f16 - yes it closes the aperture down to f16, but the paths between the sensor and the lens and the viewfinder and the lens are different. The sensor has nothing in the way once the mirror moves - the viewfinder has all kinds of crazy surfaces doing weird things to the light - and that's why it's not exact.

And because it's not exact, and you therefore can't rely on it, I don't really see the point of it.

Remember that it's more exaggerated with wide apertures. My dynax 7 has a great little feature that tells you what the DoF is when you press the DoF preview button - absolute genius. To give you a quick idea, set a 20mm lens at 2m focus. The difference between f2 and f4 (2 stops) is about 3m, but between f5.6 and f11 (again 2 stops) is from 20m to infinity!

[stylgeo]

I am sorry guys, i really can't get it. The light information that leaves the back of the lens, either gets diverted by the mirror to the pentaprism (or pentamirror) and reaches the viewfinder or it goes straight to the sensor. If the debate was about darkness or f-stops referring to the amount of light, or bluryness due to bad refractions or different colours due to whatever there is there, I would accept it. But I really can't understand how it is possible to get a different depth of field, which is produced by the elements of the lens and the aperture disks, not the pentaprism neither the focusing screen before the pentaprism. The DOF is produced by the lens and remains the same as soon as it leaves the back of the lens. How can a matte piece of glass affect DOF if you say that the DOF preview really closes the aperture disks to the indicated f-number? Maybe it looks like it produces more DOF due to the small size of the viewfinder, ie. more difficult to see where the out of focus plane begins.

[Yandros]

Having just looked around for a definitive answer, it's actually a bit of a hot topic. The generally accepted answer is that it's NOT due to the magnification factor of the viewfinder, but is because the ground glass of the focussing screen acts as a host of microlenses. These microlenses brighten the viewfinder image, and in order to do this must be effectively 'looking down the centre of the lens'. This partially negates the effect of the stopped down aperture setting, and also increases the perceived max aperture of the lens.

[Anastie]

Thanks for all the replies. Budget wise, I want to keep it down. The other thing to through in the equation and the main reason I am wanting a new camera is I am off to Thailand later in the year. Is it cheaper to buy cameras over their I wonder?

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Anastie

Thanks for all the replies. Budget wise, I want to keep it down. The other thing to through in the equation and the main reason I am wanting a new camera is I am off to Thailand later in the year. Is it cheaper to buy cameras over their I wonder?

You need to watch our for international warranties (or lack of). Nikon for example honour warranties on lenses but not bodies bought overseas.

Btw, if budget is tight, the very cheapest option would be something like a Sony A100 and perhaps the Sigma 18-200. I'm recommending the Nikon though as I have the 18-200, and it's the best performing lens of the bunch. (fast focusing, brighter max aperture and very good glass for a superzoom)

[Brammers]

but is because the ground glass of the focussing screen acts as a host of microlenses. These microlenses brighten the viewfinder image, and in order to do this must be effectively 'looking down the centre of the lens'.

This is getting there.

If you shoot with a narrow aperture, the light takes a very straight path right up the centre of the lens - the aperture blades close right down and the light that wasn't travelling in a straight line is stopped. The DoF is wide because the light is travelling in straight lines.

If you shoot with a wide aperture, most of the light comes in from the sides of the lens and gets curved around - this is all very technical and weird but the reason that you get that DoF effect is because the light doesn't travel in straight lines.

The coatings on the screen in your viewfinder, the same coatings that make things so easy to see while using it, mess around with the light and therefore the DoF.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Brammers

This is getting there.

If you shoot with a narrow aperture, the light takes a very straight path right up the centre of the lens - the aperture blades close right down and the light that wasn't travelling in a straight line is stopped. The DoF is wide because the light is travelling in straight lines.

If you shoot with a wide aperture, most of the light comes in from the sides of the lens and gets curved around - this is all very technical and weird but the reason that you get that DoF effect is because the light doesn't travel in straight lines.

The coatings on the screen in your viewfinder, the same coatings that make things so easy to see while using it, mess around with the light and therefore the DoF.

Oh dear, it's turning into another one of those "get out my old lecture notes" threads . I've a degree in Physics btw Brammers, but sadly very very rusty. I think my last optics lecture was in 1988!

[stylgeo]

Well, everything sounds really interesting! I really need to look into this, not that i use the DOF button really often but I really love this kind of trivia. Thanks guys for explaining things to me, and sorry Anastie for hijacking your thread!

[Brammers]

I did GCSE Physics... does that help? :D

I've always had a good brain for understanding theories - it just all makes sense to me. As to whether I can make others understand, or whether I know the details... Na-ah!

But if you think about it - light travelling in straight lines coming from all depths of the image, blades cutting off all the crazy light that makes things blurry, versus light travelling from different angles therefore not being in focus being allowed to form the majority of the image... well I think it makes sense :E

[stylgeo]

Well, tbh, I still can't understand how the coating at the viewfinder makes an out of focus part of the image to pop into focus. Light always travels in a straight line. What you might mean is that when the aperture is closed down, it tends to get more parallel.
So, my problem to understand this theory is this. The "image" that leaves the end of the lens has a depth of field of, say 15cm. This is a plane in the picture of equal distance from the photographer, since we are not talking about T&S lenses. I don't want to get into photons and lightspeeds and Stephen Hawking theories or Einsteins relativity theories about light, because first this is not the place to dicsuss these things, secondly it is irrelevant and thirdly I might be completely wrong . So, from an optics point of view, the projected image from the lens, reaches the mirror, then goes through the focusing screen and the condecer lens (correct me if I'm wrong), both of which are just there to correct the projected image (which still remains with a DOF of 15cm) go through the pentaprism. The pentaprism then sends the image through the diopter correcter eyepiece in the viewfinder. None of these parts of the camera, in my understanding, have any effect on the dof. Since, as you said before, the depth of field is created by the aperture opening due to the angle that the light goes through the lens elements, the "image" that leaves the lens remains the same since the focusing is done only in the lens and not through any other part of the camera. All the other adjustments are done in the "image" that leaves the lens, with a DOF of 15cm.
Just to understand where I am going with this, just think of an out of focus or blurry image on your PC. There's nothing you can do about it, all the srarpening in the world wont bring the image into focus. So, how can a condecer lens or a focusing screen correct the DOF of an already projected image that left the lens?
Am I making any sense?

Again Anastie I'm sorry for hijacking this thread. As for your question, just to add my two cents I must agree with Yandros. Go for a cheap DSLR body with an all-around lens, like the sigma 18-200 OS. You can't go wrong there! And yes, you will get it cheaper from Thailand!

[Brammers]

Yeah - you're getting there.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it works myself - as both Yandros and I have said it's something to do with the microlenses on the viewfinder screen...

So to summarise - the light (which is bent by the glass btw - it travels in straight lines but the glass can curve it - this is why we get chromatic aberattions - when the light wavelengths aren't all curved to the same point) leaves the lens with the DoF set - then takes 2 routes.

If it goes to the sensor then there's no crazy microlenses etc on it (well actually there are, but ignore these...) so the DoF is as it was when it left the lens.

If it goes to the viewfinder then 'something' messes around with the light and changes the apparant DoF - amongst other things, brightness included.

Here's an article which doesn't say what does the messing around - but does give examples using live-view and a picture taken through the viewfinder:

http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/...lr-viewfinder/

Tbh I can't help you any more - I don't know why the viewfinder does what it does myeslf. But it does - and it makes sense that it does, and that's enough for me :D

[Brammers]

Oh - and to the OP. Get a small DSLR with a superzoom.

Nikon D60 + 18-200VR if you've got the money.
Sony A350 + 18-250 if you've not (stabilised by the sensor)
Sony A100 + 2nd hand 18-200 if you've really not got the money :D

[stylgeo]

Thanks Brammers for that. Sorry if I am in a pain, but to accept something I must first understand the workings of it! I'll give that article a read!!
Thanks again!

[Anastie]

Hijackers
But seriously thanks for the advice