[- Paul -]

I currently have a Panasonic Lumix FZ28 and am fairly happy with it but the noise levels are beginning to annoy me - Would I be better off with an entry level DSLR? Was thinking about the Nikon D60?

A few issues are niggling me though.

Superzooms give me nearly 500mm of zoom whereas I'll only get 55 with the standard D60 lens.

The superzoom have "live view" - A lot of DSLR's dont.

Please feel free to chip in re any other cameras I can look at.

My budget is around £400 - which is probably the same in dollars now

I did have a Canon SX1 on order but have cancelled it for the time being as I need a push in the DSLR direction I reckon.

[- Paul -]

No thoughts anyone?

[rodi]

i'd recommend not buying into the DSLR market unless you can budget for real lenses instead of the cheap consumer kit lenses. they're worthless.
if you have a $1500+ budget, get a $500 DSLR (body only, not a kit) and some good glass.

[- Paul -]

Good glass being the stuff with low f numbers right?

[rodi]

correct. and zoom lenses that do not cover a large range (generally no more than 3x). for example, a 17-55 is about 3x because the tele end is no more than about 3x the wide end.

[- Paul -]

Originally Posted by rodi

correct. and zoom lenses that do not cover a large range (generally no more than 3x). for example, a 17-55 is about 3x because the tele end is no more than about 3x the wide end.

Many thanks for the response - think I'll stick to the superzoom's for now, If I don't , I just know the cost's will escalate way too quickly.

[asdflkijd]

dslr all the way, no other alternative, maybe a P&S with RAW capabilities and manual settings but even so, you are limited.

[- Paul -]

Originally Posted by asdflkijd

dslr all the way, no other alternative, maybe a P&S with RAW capabilities and manual settings but even so, you are limited.

All the good ultrazoom P&S have RAW and full manual control - the problem is the image quality just isn't the same as DSLR - you pay's your money - you takes your choice!

[rodi]

the cost will definitely escalate quickly when you get a taste of Lens Acquisition Syndrome.

[asdflkijd]

Originally Posted by rodi

the cost will definitely escalate quickly when you get a taste of Lens Acquisition Syndrome.

+1, definitely worth every penny though, given the fact that you get the right lens for your needs.

[asdflkijd]

Why don't you look on amazon, they have great prices on mint condition dslrs.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by - Paul -

Good glass being the stuff with low f numbers right?

Low f numbers don't define a good lens. Optical quality is the key. DxO has objective ratings of lens accuracy and image quality, if you get into that. Low f-stops mean bigger lenses and bigger costs, all other things being equal.

You need to balance f-stop vs. the planned usage, your budget and your DSLR's ISO noise rejection capacities. I use Canon's L-series lenses (their "best"), but opted for f4 vs. f2.8 because my 5D MkII has very low noise at ISO 3,200. If I shot a lot of indoor sports and/or had lower ISO camera performance, then I might have opted for the comparable f2.8. Going from f4 to f2.8 results in a MUCH larger, heavier lens.

My zooms are 24-105mm and 70-200mm IS (image stabilization) lens. The 24-105 is a little soft at 24 and wide open, but I can fix that with DxO Optics Pro software that applies corrections for my lenses at each specific focal length and aperture, so that IQ is right there with the best prime lenses.

So, a fast lens doesn't equal a high quality lens, per se.

Dave

[- Paul -]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Low f numbers don't define a good lens. Optical quality is the key. DxO has objective ratings of lens accuracy and image quality, if you get into that. Low f-stops mean bigger lenses and bigger costs, all other things being equal.

You need to balance f-stop vs. the planned usage, your budget and your DSLR's ISO noise rejection capacities. I use Canon's L-series lenses (their "best"), but opted for f4 vs. f2.8 because my 5D MkII has very low noise at ISO 3,200. If I shot a lot of indoor sports and/or had lower ISO camera performance, then I might have opted for the comparable f2.8. Going from f4 to f2.8 results in a MUCH larger, heavier lens.

My zooms are 24-105mm and 70-200mm IS (image stabilization) lens. The 24-105 is a little soft at 24 and wide open, but I can fix that with DxO Optics Pro software that applies corrections for my lenses at each specific focal length and aperture, so that IQ is right there with the best prime lenses.

So, a fast lens doesn't equal a high quality lens, per se.

Dave

Thanks for the info -