Canon S3 to Sony A230?

[JeffMoh]

For bird/nature photography, I currently use a Canon S3 IS and I’m generally very happy with it. However, I would like a camera that starts up and autofocuses much faster. (Taking sharp photos of birds in flight with the Canon is, well, challenging!) Some increase in IQ would be nice, too, to allow more enlargement/cropping.

I’m thinking of switching to the Sony A230 DSLR. My budget will limit me to a not-too-expensive 70-300 mm lens.

Do you think this switch would be worthwhile?

You can see the sort of stuff I photograph at www.jeffincypress.blogspot.com

BTW, I would keep the Canon as my carry-everywhere-with-me camera and for video.

Jeff

[Hedgeland]

Why not get an A200 instead as they seem to be about £200 less over here. Guessing its just newer.

Then use the change to get a better lens instead? Probably a better idea to spend more wisely on the lens in my opinion.

[JeffMoh]

Thanks, Hedgeland. If I decide to switch, I'll go for the A200. I thought it was discontinued but I see it's still available. It wouldn't help a lot re a better lens, though, as the A200/A230 price difference in the USA is only about $100-$140.

Jeff

[Hedgeland]

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat22.html

Shame about price difference. I use the above in UK for price lists to find the cheapest which is £250 for Sony A200 and kit lens (£435 for A230). Might be similar site in US?

[RAH]

Some increase in IQ would be nice, too, to allow more enlargement/cropping.

I think that the ability to get better IQ is the primary reason to switch to a DSLR.

The faster focusing of a DSLR is nice, but in poor light the lenses still often have a problem, so the improvement isn't as dramatic as I think you might expect. And birds-in-flight shots are tough even with a DSLR, unless you spend big bucks for a pro model (and even then, they're still hard).

However, you will see an improvement in IQ. I think this is especially significant with BIRD photography, since feathers often seem to get blurry with super-zooms. I switched from a Canon S5 (the model that came after yours) to an Olympus DSLR, and the all-around IQ is much better and especially noticeable on feathers.

[Cristian Mihai]

I agree with RAH.
My first birding gear was also a Canon S3 IS - great camera for a superzoom. I also used an Olympus SP 560UZ - not as good as S3 for birds, but, IMHO, it works better then Canon in macro/supermacro mode. I switched to DSLR - Olympus E-520 - and the IQ is much better now...

[njlarsen]

If you are happy with the image quality you get, then don't overlook that newer superzooms are faster and better in all aspects of the game, including startup. I also realize that you probably can get better iq with a dSLR if you invest in a really good lens, but that does not come with the golf-cart that ought to be included weight taken into consideration ;)

Cheers
Niels

[Mike Jarvis]

I had a Canon S3 until I left in a taxi a year ago. Replaced it with the A200 twin lens kit and I'm very disappointed with the capabilities of the 75-300 lens compared with the results I was getting from the Canon. To get a similar zoom reach with the A200 I would have to go to something like a Sigma 50-500mm. These cost nearly $2000 AUD, compared with around $650 AUD for a Canon SX10.

[carlj]

Valid point Mike. A lot of compact/bridge users do get frustrated on moving to dslr, because of lens reach. I use the Tamron 200-500mm on both A200/A300 and (lens envy time!) still want more! Plus files tend to require a little more work than jpgs from compacts.

Jeff, I'd consider hunting down an A200 - hear Target are dumping them at stupid prices (about £150/$290) if there's one nearby. I've handled the A330 and don't find the grip as confidence inspiring, especially considering the lens length I generally use. Seems made for 18-250mm all in ones, or wider lenses (non-pro weight) for balance.

Carl

[RAH]

Valid point Mike. A lot of compact/bridge users do get frustrated on moving to dslr, because of lens reach.
This is one of the big reasons I chose an Olympus DSLR, with its 2x crop-factor. Their relatively small 70-300mm lens equates to a 600mm lens, which is adequate for bird photography. Add their excellent 1.4 teleconverter and you have 840mm in a fairly compact setup.

[pshute]

This is one of the big reasons I chose an Olympus DSLR, with its 2x crop-factor. Their relatively small 70-300mm lens equates to a 600mm lens, which is adequate for bird photography. Add their excellent 1.4 teleconverter and you have 840mm in a fairly compact setup.
I'm also in a similar situation. I have a Canon S3 and I'm finding it a bit restrictive. I added an Sony 1.7x teleconverter, which made a world of difference, to the point where I'd consider the IQ in good light to be ok.

But high ISO IQ isn't good enough, and manually focusing it is too slow. These two problems seem to affect about every second shot for me. I mostly shoot for id, so I'm always taking photos in poor light and though foliage.

I bought a second hand Panasonic FZ30 to see if it was better. Great controls, but the IQ is worse than the S3.

I'm thinking of a second hand E-510 and 70-300mm lens. Do you think the reach would match the S3 with the 1.7x TC (734mm equiv)? I'd hate to buy it only to find, like the FZ30 that I had a great camera that still couldn't beat the S3.

As well as using a lower equivalent focal length, I'd be shooting at f5.6 rather than f3.5, which would lose some of the high ISO noise advantage.

[RAH]

I'm thinking of a second hand E-510 and 70-300mm lens. Do you think the reach would match the S3 with the 1.7x TC (734mm equiv)?
The 70-300mm lens has an equivalence of 140-600 (just multiply by 2), so no, it wouldn't match your S3 + converter.

What a lot of folks do is buy the Oly EC-14 teleconverter, which boosts the lens 1.4x, giving the 70-300 a top of 840mm, which is really fine. Only trouble is that the EC-14 costs about as much or more than the 70-300 lens. However, it is extremely high quality, since it is in the Oly higher-grade lens lineup. And you suffer essentially no loss in image quality using it.

What about the Oly EC-20 teleconverter? Well, there you may suffer some IQ loss, especially with a standard grade lens like the 70-300.

Just want to make one point about ISO - I routinely shoot at 800 with my E520. It is considerably better, noise-wise, than my Canon S5IS superzoom at 400. So the noise performance is considerably better with a DSLR.

[JeffMoh]

In the end I've decided to stick with my S3 until I can afford a really decent DSLR. For the size of photos that I use, the general IQ of the S3 is adequate. The main advantages of switching to a DSLR would be better low light performance and, even more important, shorter shutter delay. The S3 has quite a long shutter delay and most other superzooms aren't significantly better.

In the meantime, I may add a teleconverter - or I may just keep working on improving my fieldcraft so that I can get closer to birds.

Jeff

[pshute]

In the end I've decided to stick with my S3 until I can afford a really decent DSLR. For the size of photos that I use, the general IQ of the S3 is adequate. The main advantages of switching to a DSLR would be better low light performance and, even more important, shorter shutter delay. The S3 has quite a long shutter delay and most other superzooms aren't significantly better.
If you want to see some test shots comparing my S3 with and without the Sony 1.7x teleconverter, have a look at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/pshute2/CanonPowershotS3ISAndSonyVCLDH175817xTelephotoConv ersionLensComparisons#
Note that the shots are in sets of three. Left to right they show fully zoomed in without TC to give an idea of the distance, then a crop of a similar shot with the TC, then a crop of a shot without it.

The difference in quality is enormous, and well worth the cost if you intend doing that sort of severe cropping. I shoot for id, so I'm doing it all the time.

Also note that this camera and TC combination doesn't appear to magnify the fringing, a big bonus.

I have to say I never found the shutter delay to be that much of a problem. I always half press to get the focus right, then when I do the full press it's as good as instantaneous as far as I'm concerned. If you're trying to capture precise poses then it might be that it does matter and it's just something I haven't noticed. I just set it to continuous shooting and blast away and hope for the best. A good camera, but a bugger to focus manually.

[pshute]

The 70-300mm lens has an equivalence of 140-600 (just multiply by 2), so no, it wouldn't match your S3 + converter.

Not in focal length, but I guess there are other factors like noise and lens quality that could even things up. I'd love to see some proper comparisons of the two, with the TC on the S3.
What a lot of folks do is buy the Oly EC-14 teleconverter, which boosts the lens 1.4x, giving the 70-300 a top of 840mm, which is really fine. Only trouble is that the EC-14 costs about as much or more than the 70-300 lens. However, it is extremely high quality, since it is in the Oly higher-grade lens lineup. And you suffer essentially no loss in image quality using it.
You lose one stop with the TC, don't you? Will it auto focus ok?
Just want to make one point about ISO - I routinely shoot at 800 with my E520. It is considerably better, noise-wise, than my Canon S5IS superzoom at 400. So the noise performance is considerably better with a DSLR.
How does it compare to the S5's ISO 200? I also wonder how the S3 and S5 compare to each other.

[RAH]

I forgot to mention that the S3 and S5 are 8MP cameras, whereas the Oly E-510 and 520 are 10MP cameras. So one of the very first tests I did when I got my E-520 was I took a picture from the same position with both the E-520 + 70-300 at max zoom and also a picture with the S5 at max zoom + TCON17 converter to see how the 70-300 BY ITSELF compared to the S5 + TCON-17, after taking the MP difference into consideration.

The results showed that after you cropped the 10MP E-520 image down to be the size of the 8MP S5 image, the focal lengths were essentially equal. So, when you factor in the MP difference, the plain 70-300 is similar to the S3/S5 plus 1.7 teleconverter.

Yes, you lose one stop with a 1.4 teleconverter on any DSLR. Yes, the Oly EC-14 converter works with autofocus.

I don't think I've ever compared ISO 200 on the S5 with E-520 800. I'd guess that 800 on the 520 would not be quite as good as 200 on the S3/S5, just speaking of noise.

[pshute]

I forgot to mention that the S3 and S5 are 8MP cameras, whereas the Oly E-510 and 520 are 10MP cameras. So one of the very first tests I did when I got my E-520 was I took a picture from the same position with both the E-520 + 70-300 at max zoom and also a picture with the S5 at max zoom + TCON17 converter to see how the 70-300 BY ITSELF compared to the S5 + TCON-17, after taking the MP difference into consideration.

The results showed that after you cropped the 10MP E-520 image down to be the size of the 8MP S5 image, the focal lengths were essentially equal. So, when you factor in the MP difference, the plain 70-300 is similar to the S3/S5 plus 1.7 teleconverter.
So the extra 25% of sensor resolution makes up for the lower effective focal length? That's good to know. The S3 is actually only 6MP, so I assume the E-520 & 70-300mm will be a little better than it with the converter.

Yes, you lose one stop with a 1.4 teleconverter on any DSLR.
And you can still autofocus ok?
I don't think I've ever compared ISO 200 on the S5 with E-520 800. I'd guess that 800 on the 520 would not be quite as good as 200 on the S3/S5, just speaking of noise.
That's a little disappointing. The E-520 sensor has a pixel density of 4MP/cm2 vs the S5's 32, so I thought the noise levels at similar ISO settings should be heaps less. But I know you can't make assumptions about noise by looking at pixels densities - my S3 (24MP/cm2) is better than my FZ30 (21MP/cm2).

[RAH]

So the extra 25% of sensor resolution makes up for the lower effective focal length? That's good to know.
...
And you can still autofocus ok?

I was surprised that the extra 2MP would make up the difference between 600mm equiv and 734, but the 600mm shot after cropping was actually a little more "magnification".

I modified my answer later and added the blurb that yes, the EC-14 retains the autofocus ability of the lens.

As far as noise, a lot depends on the shot, especially how many dark areas there are. I've taken some nice shots with my S5 at 400 and some really awful shots with the S5 at 400. Same is true with any camera. I do not hesitate to use 800 on the E-520, whereas I would only use 400 on the S5 when absolutely necessary, so there is quite a difference. But gee, any camera will give pretty good results at 200, so the S5 looks good at 200, so I don't think the E-520 at 800 would be better. I think you'd need a full-frame to get such performance.

[pshute]

I was surprised that the extra 2MP would make up the difference between 600mm equiv and 734, but the 600mm shot after cropping was actually a little more "magnification".
I guess 25% more resolution means you can crop to simulate 25% longer focal length, but only if the lens is sharp enough.
I do not hesitate to use 800 on the E-520, whereas I would only use 400 on the S5 when absolutely necessary, so there is quite a difference.
That sounds like you get about 1.5 stops more ISO. Yet you lose 1.5 stops of maximum aperture at full zoom (3.5 to 5.6 is 1.5 stops, I think). So in poor light when you're forced to use maximum aperture and high ISO, the cameras should have equivalent performance. Is that what you've found?

I guess the effectiveness of the IS comes into play here too. How do they compare?

I'm very interested to hear the opinions of other ex S3 and S5 owners now using E series cameras with the 70-300 lens. As I said, I don't want to buy yet another camera, only to find it's not much better than the last. That sounds impossible, given that I'd be going from a compact to an SLR, but the lens is relatively small in diameter and the loss of light might be a weak point in the package.

Sorry to bore everyone with this investigation. I've tried the camera and lens out, but tests in shops don't always tell you much.

[RAH]

So in poor light when you're forced to use maximum aperture and high ISO, the cameras should have equivalent performance. Is that what you've found?
...
I guess the effectiveness of the IS comes into play here too. How do they compare?
...
As I said, I don't want to buy yet another camera, only to find it's not much better than the last.
Well, in really lousy light, the S5 is worse -i.e. a noisy image at 800 from the E-520 is better than a very noisy image from the S5.

Also, are you sure that the S3/S5's aperture stays constant as you zoom to full zoom? You may lose F stops as you zoom just as with the 70-300.

I have not compared the effectiveness of IS with the 2 cameras. I seldom shoot with the 70-300 without a tripod unless the light is really good. Ditto with the S5.

Finally, the sharpness of images from the E-520 + 70-300 (+ EC-14) blows away the S5 (+ TCON17), big-time. This is especially noticeable with bird photography, where I always found that the feathers of birds appear smeared and indistinct with the S5.

[pshute]

Also, are you sure that the S3/S5's aperture stays constant as you zoom to full zoom? You may lose F stops as you zoom just as with the 70-300.
It starts at f2.8, fully zoomed out, and reduces to 3.5. Easy to achieve with a small sensor. An f3.5 300mm lens for the E-520 would be pretty big and heavy compare to the nice compact 70-300mm.

Sounds like I'll just have to try it and see how it compares. I almost got to do it today, but forgot my CF card. How come the E series use them instead of SD? Less and less shops are carrying them.

[RAH]

How come the E series use them instead of SD? Less and less shops are carrying them.
Yeah, I'd prefer SD too, but there are still a lot of new DSLR models that use the CF cards, for example high-end Canons (Canon EOS 5D Mark II) and even mid-range Canons (Canon EOS 50D).

What you really should have complained about is the XD card! There are frequent loud debates on Fourthirdsphoto Forum about this 2nd card slot using the Xd card. However, seeing as how many cameras don't give you the extra slot, it's hard to complain too loudly.