Pondering...

[bkrownd]

So I have about 6 months of photography (haha) under my belt with the cheapest, lightest, most compact high-zoom camera setup available (let's call it "the sweet spot") - a "superzoom" FZ7 and the NIkon TC-E17ED teleconverter, totalling about $850 with all the attachments. This works well because I trailblaze miles of extremely rugged terrain in unpredictable weather, and need to spend more money on mutual funds and car/bike parts than on fragile cameras. I can carry this camera and teleconverter easily with one hand, but usually have them mounted on top of a monopod trekking pole which comes in handy for restoring balance when a chunk of lava gets unexpectedly loose under my feet.

The "next step up" to a comparable dSLR system seems prohibitively expensive and bulky. Faster more accurate focus, better sensitivity and presumably better longevity would be very nice, but it seems like I'd be spending 2-4 times more for such a system which would be significantly more fragile and less portable? The most important function of the camera for me is quick pix for reference and ID, and typically I'm willing to run off a few hundred shots in burst mode to get the usual handful of keepers for the gallery. Occasionally the slow/flaky focus at maximum zoom is a bit of an annoyance because birds have a knack for moving along just when the autofocus locks on, and a manual focus ring would also be nice to have. The mostly overcast skies here tend to produce a lot of poor photos, too. (Dark bird against bright white background) Staring at slightly blurry photos does make me oddly queasy after a while, and sometimes I wonder if my success rate would be significantly better with a dSLR. However, the gulf between superzoom and dSLR still seems too wide to leap across.

So...I'm wondering if my impression and reluctance to "upgrade"seems reasonable to people here? I have no experience with how dSLR cameras handle and perform. Just wondering aloud...

[impotentspider]

Lets start by saying that you cant really compare using a "compact" to a DSLR, the two are worlds apart, do you think photo-journalists would tote round huge DSLRs and lenses if they could get the same results with a compact?
SLR or DSLR photography will expand what you allready know, it will allow you to be more creative and give you more options when it come to making/taking the image, but you would need to learn a little about "photography" as opposed to "snapshots" before expecting better results with a DSLR, I use "snapshots" as a loose term, I am not saying you cant take excelent pics with a compact)
Every DSLR system on the market has something to offer, its just a matter of looking at each one objectively and deciding which one is for you, OK, ask for advice but DO try and weed out the ones that are promoting a specific system as those reports will tens to be baised with "Brand Loyalty"

Your Options from the top four, but dont discount other brands ie Sigma, Sony (Minolta) etc etc:

IMHO;
Canon: good range of models and lenses, quick auto-focus, good image stabilisation in the lenses (at a price), but a bit lacking in new features and inovations in the camera bodies. Canons IS system can be used to track birds in flight. It is still unproven if the new Pentax system is up to the job.

Nikon: good range of camera bodies, excelent range of lenses, but beware the lack of compatability with certain lens/body combinations.

Olympus: their recent range of DSLRs, currently the smallest on the market may be just what your looking for for portability, if the optics are as good as the old Zuiko lenses then you cant go wrong for image quality.

Pentax: A bit slow with coming up with the goods in the DSLR market but their new K10D is a winner, feature packed and inovative, Pentax are renowned for superb optics but the current range of lenses is small compared with other brands, you would probably have to go third party for lenses unless you sought out some of the older Pentax lenses which are compatable .

Reading between the lines of your post you specify compactness and the ability to shoot off frame after frame. Olympus will give you the smallest DSLR system on the market, whereas the Pentax will let you continue shooting frame after frame constantly untill either the batteries run flat or your memory card is full, (assuming you shoot JPEGs) Canon will give you the best autofocus if your tracking birds in flight.

Hope this helps.

[Merg]

I can't really add very much to the above. I'm on my first dSLR, and looking at either a significant investment in glass that would lock me into this system (the Olympus 4/3) for the "long" term (as technology goes) or an investment in another system.

Unfortunately, I haven't had experience with the higher end glass with this camera, but, the controls are very intuitive (to me), and the camera fits very well in my hand, which counts for a lot, really.

[Words]

I've just gone from a superzoom (Canon S2) to a DSLR (Canon 400D). First and most obvious thing is the extra weight once you have a reasonable length lens on it. And there is certainly more to carry.

The big pluses for me are that I will get better shots, faster focusing (much faster) and improved image quality. Better control, less noise at high ISO etc. I've already managed photos that were impossible with the S2. But I've also missed shots that I would have easily got with the other camera (but this is probably part of the learning curve).

A DSLR does seem to be more work, so you are right to think about how you'll use it. I only carry a camera, so I generally have both hands free and no other gear to worry about. Best option would be to take a look at one with a 70-300 lens on it (which will slightly outreach the zoom on your FZ7) and see what you think. (Plus you'll end up carrying both cameras... the superzoom for genuine snapshots, and the DSLR for when you are in a settled location and can really go for some good shots.)

[gordon g]

I went through a similar process with cameras for climbing/adventure sports back in the days of film. I actually started out with old practika slr bodies, all mechanical, which were amazingly tough and tolerant of bad environmental conditions. However, I found them difficult to use in some situations, as you needed 2 hands to operate them.
So that led to a pentax waterproof compact, which I could use one-handed, and take up waterfalls, fall in streams with etc. But I wanted more flexibility than that camera could give, so back to slrs again. This time, a small light canon eos 300.
This was great for photography, but not very rugged, so one some trips, it stayed in the rucksac, which seemd a bit pointless really. Then, with a windfall of cash, I got a canon 1V - a pro spec, weatherised slr. A bit bulky, but tough enough to actually be used, and with all the flexibility of use you could wish for. In effect I had gone full-circle, just updated the technology.

If I were starting again, the most important consideration would be which camera will I actually USE in the field.

[bkrownd]

Any features to look for which are particularly useful/vital for taking photos of twitchy little critters hiding way up in the shady nether regions of trees?

Another thing - generally, 10mp detectors are considered excessive pixel-pumper marketing fluff in the "superzoom" class cameras. People are never satisfied with the detector sensitivity on the superzooms, and wish the camera companies would make more sensitive 6mp detectors instead of packing more pixels in to make 10mp detectors. Do people feel the same way about dSLR cameras, or are the considerations different?

[bkrownd]

Olympus: their recent range of DSLRs, currently the smallest on the market may be just what your looking for for portability, if the optics are as good as the old Zuiko lenses then you cant go wrong for image quality.

Pentax: A bit slow with coming up with the goods in the DSLR market but their new K10D is a winner, feature packed and inovative, Pentax are renowned for superb optics but the current range of lenses is small compared with other brands, you would probably have to go third party for lenses unless you sought out some of the older Pentax lenses which are compatable .


What would be good birding lenses for these - for handheld/monopod use, about "300mm" and some emphasis on the speed/accuracy of the autofocus. I'm not demanding miracles, but faster and better autofocus performance is one of the primary things that might convince me to spend $$$ on a dSLR. Really wish it was possible to test-drive this stuff. I'm a bad boy for even allowing myself to consider this... |8(|

Another motivation is that I recently started to realize that dust will eventually get into my FZ7 and degrade performance of the sensor, the motor, and the focus/zoom track, and humidity may cause problems as well. It won't last forever, and an overhaul probably isn't cost-effective with a superzoom model.

[bkrownd]

OK, soooo....this is FAR more complicated than I anticipated!

Apparently the 3rd party lens makers don't have any sort of image stabilization in their lenses??? I'm puzzled by that. That rules them out entirely unless I get a DSLR body with sensor IS.

Nikon and Canon lenses with IS are outrageously priced. It seems that I'd be betting the bank by going that route!

The K10D would bypass the IS and financial ruin worries, but I hear a lot of warnings about slow focus speed in lower light relative to the competition. I'm beginning to wonder if it would even focus noticeably faster than my FZ7 in the conditions I'm used to, which is my primary reason for looking into this. (Also, it doesn't look like Pentax plans to release a 400mm-500mm lens of their own with the "supersonic" focus.) :/

So far I don't see a slam dunk...or even a simple lay-up. This really makes me appreciate what my little FZ7 can do.

[citrinella]

This really makes me appreciate what my little FZ7 can do.

There isn't a perfect camera, nor, at the sort of money you spent, is there really a bad one. All are compromises. From the reviews, the FZ7 manages very well !

I bought a DSLR, because I was used to film SLR. I always intended to use it for birds but I moved through shorter focal lengths gradually. A TC took me to 400mm. Soon I upgraded my body for extra speed. Blow me, but I didn't want to part with the old body because birds know when you take the long lens off ... (or put it on).

Two bodies and lenses - what a weight !

So the super zoom has some real advantages.

However, the more you ask a lens to do, the less well it will perform on average - jack of all trades, master of none.

If you really want to do a particular thing well, you need the specialist kit _and_ the time and motivation to learn and do it properly. For birds that means a DSLR, a really expensive lens, probably a heavy tripod, and time, lots and lots of time. If you don't have time, a superzoom is a very good compromise on a budget.

Mike.

P.S. To cut the weight I considered buying a superzoom. On reflection it seemed silly to duplicate so much of what I already have, at poorer quality. I bought a really good compact with mid-zoom capability (my SLR walkaround lens ain't special) and will carry that, one body with a bird lens. And I cannot leave my 10-22 behind :-)

[impotentspider]

I am a little confused as to why you are worried of "reports" that the Pentax K10D is slow to focus in poor light?
If you want to shoot moving or even stationary birds in poor light your only option is a top end Canon with a really fast IS lens, your going to need something like an f2.8 lens which is going to cost four figures or more alone. even then the images will not be all that brilliant due to problems with contrast and colour with the light thats available.

Photographing birds requires long lenses, long lenses need a high shutter speed, and a high shutter speed needs PLENTY of light, going out on a dull day or into a dark area in woods with your average f5.6 zoom IMHO is a complete waste of time.

Pentax cameras are slow to focus longer lenses because of the lack of sonic motors, it has nothing to do with poor light. low light levels will affect ANY cameras ability to auto focus.

Quick Edit..... personally I wouldnt rely too much on Image Stabilisation or Shake Reduction, think of it as a failsafe as opposed to "Oh I can get another four stops of light out of this lens" there is no substitute for a high shutter speed or a rock steady tripod.

[bkrownd]

I am a little confused as to why you are worried of "reports" that the Pentax K10D is slow to focus in poor light?
The FZ7 is my entire camera experience (forgetting that Disc Camera I
had in 1982), so I'm just passing on what my novice "ears" collect on
the forums I'm reading. I've read that this is the one weakest feature of
Pentax DSLRs. That and JPG quality are actually the only significant
complaints I've heard, really.


If you want to shoot moving or even stationary birds in poor light your only option is a top end Canon with a really fast IS lens...
Don't overestimate my standards. :) I can do it with the FZ7. My problem is
that even in OK light it usually takes 2-3 seconds to acquire, focus, shoot with
the FZ7, even if I'm pointed at the right spot to begin with, and the birds I'm after
are usually only in one place for about 2 seconds . I delete many shots of empty
branches, lonely flowers, and the butt-ends of birds. That's why I'd like to try
something with better autofocus performance than the FZ7, and manual focus
capability would be a major bonus. A more sensitive camera would also
naturally help increase the average quality of all photos.

I'm not trying to make perfect photos. I'm just trying to increase my chances of
getting a few decent photos for ID and my web page. When I finally see an
'akepa, it'll be for about 10 seconds, moving around fast 100 feet up in a tree
under an overcast sky, and I want to be able to get a decent ID photo before the
opportunity is lost. The only hawaii creeper I've ever seen was very actively shooting
around me through dense undergrowth on a very dark day, and I struggled to get
two clear pix. (teleconverter was on) I got very lucky. If I spent big $$$ to visit
Maui or Kaua'i, I'd be lucky to see a Maui parrotbill or 'akikiki for 5 seconds in a
steady foggy drizzle, and don't want to come away with just blurry tailfeathers at
the far corner of the frame. When I ran into that nice pileated woodpecker 15 feet
up the trail from me in Wisconsin last fall...don't ask...I don't have any photos to show you. :C
(I do remember its nice crest in my viewfinder while I TRIED to get the photo)

I'm not a "photographer", I'm just trying to collect OK images of what I find.
I don't and won't use tripods, blinds, bait, flash, etc. I take all of my pictures
on the move while I'm out exploring the forests and lava fields, either handheld
or with a monopod. Since this is Hawaii the sky is usually overcast and it's often
foggy or drizzly - should be very familiar to those of you in the UK, I guess?

[RAH]

I'm not a "photographer", I'm just trying to collect OK images of what I find.
I don't and won't use tripods, blinds, bait, flash, etc. I take all of my pictures
on the move while I'm out exploring the forests and lava fields, either handheld
or with a monopod. Since this is Hawaii the sky is usually overcast and it's often
foggy or drizzly - should be very familiar to those of you in the UK, I guess?
Then it seems to me that with you definitely do NOT want to use a DSLR with a hyper-expensive (and hyper-large and heavy) lens. A super-zoom is ideal but unfortunately they aren't quite as good as we would like in several departments, especially focus speed. I think the best you can do is keep up with the state of the art in super-zooms and hope they improve (as they no doubt will).

[Neil]

I think you would find that anything less than a 300/2.8 lens with image stabilising would have the same trouble in the conditions you describe. Bird photography is difficult anyway and in low light almost impossible unless the bird stays still. Maybe there is a faster lens in a digicam out there that may be faster than your current model. If you get more megapixels you could dispense with the teleconverter and the lens would focus faster. Just a thought, Neil.

[bkrownd]

If you get more megapixels you could dispense with the teleconverter and the lens would focus faster.

Actually, I'd think the opposite would be true. More pixels would make the sensor
somewhat less sensitive, but it doesn't really increase resolution. Another function
of the teleconverter is that it reduces the size of the autofocus spot at the target,
which makes it more likely that I'm focusing on the bird instead of the adjacent
foreground and background foliage and branches. (Actually autofocus almost never
locks on the bird, but rather on the nearby foliage - especially branches - so I usually
focus on the bird's feet and the branch it's standing on.)

On the other hand, I was under the impression that DSLRs are much more sensitive in
low light than the superzooms, and give better resolution per equivalent optical specs.
It seems like the DSLR should be clearly better, right? I'm guessing that the better
sensitivity, metering, optics etc will help reduce the purple fringies, too - I have lots of
problems with those due to the bright overcast sky showing through gaps in the foliage.
I also crave the option of good manual focus and zoom. (though I'm not actually sure
how well manual focus would work at high zoom through a viewfinder)

Thanks for the input! :bounce:

I attached one I would have loved to have had better sensitivity on, and another that
was savagely attacked by the purple fringies. :(

[bkrownd]

Then it seems to me that with you definitely do NOT want to use a DSLR with a hyper-expensive (and hyper-large and heavy) lens. A super-zoom is ideal but unfortunately they aren't quite as good as we would like in several departments, especially focus speed. I think the best you can do is keep up with the state of the art in super-zooms and hope they improve (as they no doubt will).

The sensors will keep improving, and pretty soon those superzooms will out-perform
today's D200 etc with even smaller sensors. However, we'll always want MORE MORE MORE! :)
The 4/3 sensors are an interesting development. If they get enough momentum
they should perform pretty nicely in a couple years and provide a less bulky/expensive option.

I'm not ditching my FZ-7 at all - it'll remain my main companion. But there are some days when
I do more birdwatching than exploring, and on those days a larger camera wouldn't be a handicap.
Hopefully there's a non-hyper-expensive lens out there. ;)

[impotentspider]

bkrwnd;
have just posted links in the "Pentax K10D" topic to a pic taken with the K10D and the sigma 50-500,
It isnt 100% but bear in mind it was taken in strong winds and not so brilliant lighting conditions, it should give you an idea of what the K10D is capable of.

[bkrownd]

I am a little confused as to why you are worried of "reports" that the Pentax K10D is slow to focus in poor light?


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=21614604

Here's a specific example that states it clearly, but these kind of comments about
the Pentax autofocus are common on dpreview. If it wasn't for this nagging issue, I
may have already been sold.

Hmmm...I wonder if I can get around it with manual focus? I keep forgetting that
such a thing exists. ;) How difficult is it to manually focus little tweeters foraging
under the canopy at 50-100 feet with that 50-500mm, Mr. Spider?

[impotentspider]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=21614604

Here's a specific example that states it clearly, but these kind of comments about
the Pentax autofocus are common on dpreview. If it wasn't for this nagging issue, I
may have already been sold.

Hmmm...I wonder if I can get around it with manual focus? I keep forgetting that
such a thing exists. ;) How difficult is it to manually focus little tweeters foraging
under the canopy at 50-100 feet with that 50-500mm, Mr. Spider?


ROFL.......

I wonder sometimes who these people are that dream up these ridiculous tests, it would be like me saying "I tried the Canon 400D in a torrential downpour in a rain forest and it packed in an hour before the K10D did" or "I tried to spot meter with the Canon whatever and found it didnt have it"
Every Camera has its strengths and weaknesses, I am the first to admit that AF is what lets the Pentax down (compared to Canon) but to take this one step further and deliberately make the camera fail by using it in lighting conditions that would yell FLASH!....I am lost for words. I could also do similar tests using the Canon lens mentioned in the review alongside a cheap Pentax lens, then proceeded to slate the Canon lens for its lack of quality compared to the Pentax, its all swings and roundabouts.
As I have said in previous posts only you can decide which system is the best for your needs, by weighing up the pro's and cons of each, It seems that the AF is important to you so go for Canon, it is good gear.

Just broken off typing this to do a test, just got my K10D out with a cheap kit lens and tried it in the house with no lights on, the weather here is dark and overcast and there is very little light coming through the windows, with the aperture fully open at f4 I was getting shutter speeds of between 1/15th sec and 4sec as I pointed the camera around the house, so this should give you an idea of how low the lighting was. the only time the camera was slow or hunted for focus was when I tried to lock onto a black leather chair.

As for my own limited experience with the K10D and the Sigma (limited because the weather here has prevented me from using it) I have not used it that much in manual focus mode, finding the AF was responsive enough for my needs. furthermore I am the last person to ask because I have only just taken up bird photography myself, trying to catch the little varmits as they hop around is a pain in the @$$, but I suppose my technique will improve with experience. From what you say yourself it sounds like manual focus may be the way to go.

[bkrownd]

ROFL.......
to take this one step further and deliberately make the camera fail by using it in lighting conditions that would yell FLASH!....I am lost for words.


Of course, this being a birdwatching forum, you know our lighting conditions
are often bad and flash isn't an option. ;)

Anybody want to fly out to Hawaii and let me test their K10D in my cloudy
sub-optimal light? :D I called the one camera shop on the island and the tone
of voice from the salesman when I mentioned "pentax" was discouraging.
It would have been a 100 mile drive, anyway.

Another 3-day weekend is almost here, and the weather is finally supposed to
be perfect for long treks across the lava again. :bounce:

[impotentspider]

bk....you are NOT going to be able to photograph birds with ANY equipment under the conditions of that test.

Under the circumstances you mention, what exactly constitutes "cloudy sub-optimal light" can you give us a cameras typical meter reading as an idea of the actual level of light available? or at least state the shutter/aperture combination you (or your camera) normally shoots at.

Your "local" salesperson probably knows the conditions you want to shoot in and this is the reason he had discouraged you from Pentax, which means one of three things, 1)He knows your going to need really fast (f2.8) Canon IS lenses in order to maintain a suitable shutter speed. 2)He doesnt stock the Pentax or cant sell it to you at a reasonable price and stay competative. 3)He is biased against Pentax and likes to knock them at every opportunity, which sadly seems to be quite a common occourance.

Bottom line is:
Canon Equipment will always focus slightly quicker and sometime more accurately than Pentax, this is what you are paying for in Canon cameras and Lenses, hence the lack of other features compared to Pentax.

However, regardless of the equipment you buy you need a certain level of light to use it, and if that light drops too low you may as well pack up and go home, and the point at which that happens will be long before any problems (if any) arise with the Pentax AF system.
At the end of the day a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, whatever, lens of equivalent focal length and maximum aperture ALL have the same thirst for light and ALL need Exactly the same amount of light to be used effectively, true you may eek out a few extra stops with Canon IS or Pentax SR but still to the same level and this still means you have to pack in if the light drops too low (and this is still way before any problems with Pentax AF)

Put your mind at rest and go for Canon, however if you have set your heart on the K10D then go for that and ignore all the "hype" and "scaremongering" about it been inferior, OK so you might miss one or two more shots with it than you would with the Canon but look at the money you'll save and the extra features you'll get..

[iporali]

If it wasn't for this nagging issue, I
may have already been sold.

Hmmm...I wonder if I can get around it with manual focus? I keep forgetting that
such a thing exists. ;)

If you look at Canon forum there is a thread about focusing problems with the 350D & 5.6/400mm, which just shows that there is no completely reliable AF with any brand - especially in poor light and with affordable "slow" (small aperture) lenses. Even those with "pro" systems seem to complain about their AF-system's low success rates.

The Pentax K10D is the least expensive of the "serious hobbyist/semi-pro"-cameras (Nikon D80, Canon 30D) which have a good viewfinder for manual focusing. It is also the only one that has weatherproofed sealings and in-camera image stabilization - which both are very valuable features (IMHO).

If the K10D suits you otherwise, don't let the AF issue put you off. In poor conditions no AF works well (go to manual) and in good conditions all of them work well. By the time you have saved for those fancy USM-lenses, also Pentax should have some available (and probably Sigma too). Of course we don't know their real-world performance now, but I would be surprised if they were not competitive.

Best regards,

Ilkka


ps. OK, It took me so long to finish this post that MrSpider had basically said what I wanted, but here is my message anyway. :t:

[bkrownd]

Under the circumstances you mention, what exactly constitutes "cloudy sub-optimal light" can you give us a cameras typical meter reading as an idea of the actual level of light available? or at least state the shutter/aperture combination you (or your camera) normally shoots at.

I can't give you anything quantitative unless you can dig it out of EXIF in the
above image or my darker gallery images, but imagine the typical light under
the forest canopy on an overcast day. "Dark", but not twilight or dusk kind of dark.
I wouldn't expect to take pictures any darker than I do now, but I'd hope that the
ease of use and results would be quite a bit better.

I think I decided an adequate Nikon/Canon setup isn't within my financial means.
I didn't realize how much their IS lenses cost when I started thinking about this.

[bkrownd]

Bottom line is:
Canon Equipment will always focus slightly quicker and sometime more accurately than Pentax, this is what you are paying for in Canon cameras and Lenses, hence the lack of other features compared to Pentax.

Most likely what you're paying extra for is just the shiny plastic "Canon" badge on the front. ;)

[bkrownd]

ps. OK, It took me so long to finish this post that MrSpider had basically said what I wanted, but here is my message anyway. :t:

I appreciate it! :t:

[impotentspider]

OK bk.
just had a quick look at your exifs, it looks like most of your shots are between 1/50th and 1/125th sec with the lens wide open (f4), what got me was the ISO setting of 80? Now I'm not familiar with your camera so am I right in guessing its something like 3Megapixel? and am I right in thinking the images have been severely cropped because your lens wasn't long enough?

Anyway, a DSLR will easily let you shoot at ISO400 (if need be) and still retain quality in the image (the sample sparrow shots of mine were at ISO400)
This would whack your average shutter speed (at f4) up to about 1/350th, depending on how good you want your images you may even be able to push the ISO up to 800 and get an even faster shutter speed.

A reasonably priced Sigma or Tamron ??-300mm lens will set you back around 1/3 the cost of a K10D body, but the maximum aperture on these lenses will be around f6.3 (when shooting at the long end of the zoom) which means dropping your shutter speed, however the SR system in the K10D will compensate for that with ease.

At present Pentax dont have anything longer than 200mm (new lenses are due soon) but you could consider secondhand if you want Pentax but cant wait. Pentax will give you the edge optically if you want to nitpick, but for your needs there will be no discernable difference in any of the lenses from the major brands.

[bkrownd]

OK bk.
just had a quick look at your exifs, it looks like most of your shots are between 1/50th and 1/125th sec with the lens wide open (f4), what got me was the ISO setting of 80? Now I'm not familiar with your camera so am I right in guessing its something like 3Megapixel? and am I right in thinking the images have been severely cropped because your lens wasn't long enough?

I always have the ISO on auto, along with everything else. I never really check what
the settings were. It's about 6mp. I usually crop them down as much as I can to save
disk space on my web page and to get them in under the forums 200kb/800pixel limits.

[impotentspider]

I always have the ISO on auto, along with everything else. I never really check what
the settings were. It's about 6mp. I usually crop them down as much as I can to save
disk space on my web page and to get them in under the forums 200kb/800pixel limits.


OK, so a bit of quick advice, dig your camera manual out and find out how to change the ISO, take it up to 200 and see the difference it makes, you should get (depending on the cameras default program line) either a higher shutter speed or smaller aperture (bigger number), or a combination of both.
Higher shutter speeds will reduce the number of pics you have to delete due to camera shake, a smaller aperture will extend the depth of field (how much of an area in front and behind of the subject is in focus) thus giving you a better chance of getting the image sharp.
See how you go with that and if the images are acceptable (and they should be at 200) then try cranking the ISO up to 400 and compare the results, But depending on your cameras sensor it may be possible that it could be a little "noisey" at 400 and you dont find the result acceptable.

Who knows, you may not even need a new camera!

What are you using for cropping? Photoshop or what? there are ways to reduce the image file size without cropping (or affecting the quality for web display) Plus I sincerely hope that if you do get any cracking shots you dont reduce the original file, even if it does mean taking up space on the PC.

[bkrownd]

400 on the FZ7 is heady stuff. :) I may try it sometime when I don't think I'll see anything special.

I need to try sticking my housemate's 5 pound barbell into a 4"x14" PVC tube and see how I feel carrying it around. :)

[impotentspider]

400 on the FZ7 is heady stuff. :) I may try it sometime when I don't think I'll see anything special.

I need to try sticking my housemate's 5 pound barbell into a 4"x14" PVC tube and see how I feel carrying it around. :)

As I said, try it at ISO200 first, as for the weight lifting excercises, I have problems with arthritis and with my heart, but I can manage a Small Tamrac backpack with two camera bodies, a flashgun and 4 lenses, (it'll kill me eventually but I manage) though I dont go hiking over lava flows!
Good luck with whatever system you eventually decide on, if you go for the Pentax then please do come and join us on the Pentaxuser Forum, you will be more than welcome.

[bkrownd]

Well, once I call the bank to reset my password so I can get back into my big savings account...so I can max out my Roth IRA for the year...and if at that time my car or bike don't need $300 in parts...and I don't acquire a new hobby (bad habit of mine)...and after I start next month's credit card statement period...then maybe I'll be in a position to put my sweaty twitchy finger on the "buy" button.

I've been having the same experience with the K10D as I had with the FZ-7 - I gravitated towards it the first time I read the review. I dunno why, but there ya go. With the FZ-7 I was able to validate the choice head-to-head in the store, but this one would be more of a leap of faith. I want to believe...I want to believe... o:)

I forgot to mention...a remote/cable shutter release is another thing I'd like to have that isn't an option with the FZ-7. I'd also like to have a camera mounted on something like a gun shoulder stock with the AF/shutter button in the trigger place. People have spent centuries developing gun ergonomics so that people can ready-aim-fire as comfortably, steadily, and accurately as possible. Seems like it should work with a camera, as well.

[bkrownd]

I gave it a try today at fixed ISO 200. Here are 3 pictures taken in "median" conditions for me - under a low canopy of young trees filtering bright noon Sun. The first one looks OK, but there is a bit of odd NR going on and a little bit of colorful grain if you look closely. The second and third have some splotchy/grainy noise, but you can see they were the shady side of the bird so the metering system may have been confused by the light distribution. The third one isn't really too bad on my dark CRT monitor. These are the best, and the rest have lots of grainy colorful noise. I'm not sure if I'd want to use ISO 200 on the FZ-7 much, though a small number of the pix weren't terrible. The second one shows the shallow depth of focus that's always been a problem with the teleconverter on. I'd guess these birds were about 30-40 feet from me. Maybe the 'elepaio was a bit closer - it's about half the size of the 'akiapola'au in real life.

[bkrownd]

Here are some ISO 80 taken under similar conditions, except for the 'elepiao which was not at full zoom and was only under a very thin canopy. Not a great comparison, but something to look at nevertheless... These were in P mode. For the 'akiapola'au the ISO 200 picked f/5.0 and 1/125s while ISO 80 picked f/4.0 1/80s. Sometimes I use an EV +1/3 tweak under the canopy like this, but not this day.

[Neil]

Have a look at the Fuji http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/
which would enable you to shoot at iso800/1600 and get better results than you are getting now with it's great lens and sensor. Neil.

[impotentspider]

bk, I did some looking up your camera, sorry didnt realise it was the Panasonic, to be honest I would have thought the noise would be minimal even a 400 on that model, maybe you are cropping the images too much, is the noise still unnacceptable at 200 with the image uncropped?
Another reason is are you also using digital zoom? Digi-zoom has its limitations, it is no substitute for a good quality telephoto lens.

[bkrownd]

bk, I did some looking up your camera, sorry didnt realise it was the Panasonic, to be honest I would have thought the noise would be minimal even a 400 on that model, maybe you are cropping the images too much, is the noise still unnacceptable at 200 with the image uncropped?
Another reason is are you also using digital zoom? Digi-zoom has its limitations, it is no substitute for a good quality telephoto lens.

I'm not sure what you mean. The data in the individual pixels, including the noise
in them, isn't changed at all by cropping. Also, I don't use the digital zoom.
However, that wouldn't matter anyway because "digital zoom" is simply in-camera
cropping, so you get the same noise as you would without it.

[bkrownd]

Have a look at the Fuji http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/
which would enable you to shoot at iso800/1600 and get better results than you are getting now with it's great lens and sensor. Neil.

If I don't get a dslr, at some point I'd have to move to a new superzoom. Capabilities and
features are changing rapidly, and they aren't built to last forever. However, I don't really
want to make an incremental change between superzooms quite yet - I'd if I'm
going to spend some money I'd rather go all-out and make a big change.
Also, image stabilization is an absolute necessity. Thanks, though.

[Neil]

Image stabilisation is all very well but it probably won't work with a tele-extender on and what is more important is the achieved Shutter Speed. For a Super-zoom like the Panasonics you need at least 1/400 second and if you are taking photographs while climbing/riding then more would be better.
The Panasonics can do good work if used within their limitiations. Unfortunately we haven't seen a low noise sensor from them yet.The attached photo was taken with the 4 meg Lumix DMC-FZ10 at full zoom in poor light. Neil
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/25616/sort/1/cat/all/page/2

[bkrownd]

Image stabilisation is all very well but it probably won't work with a tele-extender on

I always have the teleconverter on the camera. No problems with it.

I just bought my superzoom 6 months ago - I'm going to wait at least a generation
before I think of getting another superzoom.

[normjackson]

As I'm sure you're aware, the bigger Panasonic models have a slightly bigger sensor, better manual controls plus quicker startup (no extending lens). These differences might make a difference in your shooting conditions, but as you say, perhaps not enough. Was wondering whether, whatever camera used, a powerful flash with fresnel screen could improve the result where you and your camera managed an accurate capture :
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml
Also the Kirk Flash X-Tender or this home-made version :
http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/flashfocuser.html
If you wanted to try this out with your FZ7, guess you'd need a slave flash setup, or an all-in-one like the Vivitar DF200.

[bkrownd]

A flash would certainly improve the image quality, though not autofocus performance, but I can't (won't) use a flash anyway. My subjects are all endangered species clinging to their last years of existance in (tiny) endangered habitats. Besides, I like to watch the birds doing their natural bird things, not scare them away. :)

The FZ-30 would have been a better choice for what I'm doing, but when I was shopping I wanted a simple, light, cheap camera. This is my first camera since I had a Disc Camera in the 1980's. If I go for another superzoom I'll hold out a few more months hoping that there will be something significantly better by the end of the year.

[normjackson]

My subjects are all endangered species clinging to their last years of existance in (tiny) endangered habitats.
Blimey, put like that you should have been using a DSLR since yesterday :t:

[bkrownd]

That's the spirit! :D

[bkrownd]

Here's something I keep forgetting to ask. Right now I use a superzoom with a digital viewfinder, which can zoom the image and also compensate for the light level. That's quite handy for spying a poorly lit small distant critter. Would I actually be able to SEE the birds I'm trying to photograph well enough to check focus and monitor their movements using a DSLR with a big lens? That's a different kind of viewfinder than I'm used to.

An interesting use for my FZ-7 recently has been looking into caves. Pits and holes in the ground, really. They're all over the place here. I can see everything inside clearly through the FZ-7 viewfinder when my eyes aren't dark adjusted enough to see anything other than blackness. :)

I just discovered that Sigma does make a stabilized 400mm telephoto for Nikon and Canon. Oh my, that complicates the decision making. :/

[bkrownd]

I got to see someone's D50 today. Good lord, the body alone is FREAK'N HUGE! (yes, that's a technical term) It was like holding a lunchbox to my face. :/ Unfortunately, looking at various camera reviews I see that all DSLR's are similarly huge and clunky. Yow. I was prepared for big lenses, but I hadn't envisioned the bodies being so incredibly large! My FZ-7 is such a nice size, in comparison.

In fact, the build quality of my FZ-7 was obviously far better, as well.

[impotentspider]

bk

dont you remember me saying you would probably be best suited to the Olympus system.

Also Pentax have smaller models, my istD is tiny compared to the K10D, but sadly no shake reduction, the K100D is slightly smaller than its big brother but only 6mp (does have shake reduction though) and is quite affordable but nowhere near the spec of the K10D.

[bkrownd]

Actually, Olympus and Panasonic L1 bodies are about the same size and weight as other DSLRs, though some of the lenses do seem to be smaller. (I'm not too worried about an extra pound or two) I'd like to see 4/3 succeed, giving people a wider range of options. Time will tell... However, for my specific wants and needs I don't think they offer much. I don't think the smaller Pentaxes have the goodies the K10D does, and they really aren't smaller enough or cheaper enough to make that a selling point for me....if I ever do let go of my money.

[bkrownd]

I got to handle the K10D and D80 a bit over the last few days. In the end I had a lot more success with the D80's AF in the darker corners of the room. (They never have suitable things to take test photos of in the brightly lit camera store) I had the 80-400 VR and the ??-200 2.8 VR plus 2x teleconverter on the D80 and felt fine hand-holding it. Working the buttons on that oversized body while maintaining a firm grip was a challenge, though. And ugh, those price tags...!

[bkrownd]

Wow - now I know why DSLR are so expensive: deliberate scarcity. The only place I can find a D80 in stock is the big-box stores. Everywhere else you have to get on a wait list for them. The guy at the camera store said he didn't even know if it was realistic to get on the wait list for some of the popular lenses, they were so many months backordered. He said some lenses have been on perpetual backorder for years.

Well, at least I have been released from any moral obligation to buy from the brick-and-mortar chain store where I tried them out, since I won't be here long enough for them to find me one anyway.

[bkrownd]

OMFG...the resolution...I may faint...so many pixels...all resolved... eee