Canon SX50 HS vs. Nikon D3100 DSLR?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SteelBlueTJ, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. SteelBlueTJ macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    I have owned the Nikon D3100 for a couple years now and its a great camera. Picture quality is great and I am very happy with it. The only downside is zooming which I am limited to 200mm with the 55-200 lens. I recently got a good deal on the Canon SX50 HS which is a 50x zoom bridge camera. Now I am not really sure what to do. I don't need both cameras. I'm not a professional photographer or anything. I just want a good quality camera for trips, family stuff, etc. The image quality seems to be way better on the D3100, but the zoom is limited, even with the 200mm lens it's not all that much. The SX50 HS is easier to use, optical zoom is amazing, but once you go into digital zoom the picture quality is horrible. Looks like an old cell phone pic from 10 years ago. The overall image quality on the SX50 isn't quite as good as my Nikon DSLR, but it's almost there. All images seem to have a very slight cloudiness when compared to the crisp clear images of the D3100. I am leaning towards selling the SX50 and keeping the Nikon. The are both roughly the same size. I'm afraid if I keep both I will never use one or the other. The both have qualities that I like over the other. What would you do in my situation?
     
  2. Badrottie Suspended

    Badrottie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  3. twitch31 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    #3
    Here's 2 options for get more reach on your D3100

    1) crop - it's free and you will be able to crop a lot before the IQ is worse than the bridge camera.

    2) The Nikon 55-300 <$400, offset cost by selling your 55-200.
     
  4. Micky Do, Apr 29, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2013

    Micky Do macrumors 68000

    Micky Do

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Location:
    An island in the Andaman Sea.
    #4
    As twitch31 suggests, crop. You have plenty of megapixels to play around with. With better quality glass, and a larger sensor you will have better images to work from with the Nikon DSLR.

    Here is an example from my Fuji X10, which has only a 4x optical zoom, and 12 megapixels. The picture is the view from my desk:

    The original

    [​IMG]

    Cropped using iPhoto

    [​IMG]

    See also the first photo I took with the X10, attached below

    Alternatively, get a longer lens for the Nikon. Having had the quality of the image from the Nikon DSLR it is unlikely that you will be satisfied with what the Canon "bridge" can provide, however super its zoom.

    That being said, for general purposes, 200mm should provide any amount of zoom. I have used a Canon DSLR with a 70 - 200, which I found good for taking photos at sports events.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. ChrisA, Nov 28, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2016

    ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #5
    What are you shooting that you need more than a 200mm lens? Seriously, most people would never need a 200 lens on a crop frame SLR. Are your shoots baseball from the bleachers? Birds?

    You can or course crop the SLR images and while this kills image quality you still might be better off than using the small-sensor camera.

    With a little more money you can upgrade the lens to something longer. Look for a used lens.

    Is there a reason you can't simply walk up closer to your subject, perhaps there is a fence that prevents this. Again using a longer than 200m lens is unusual and means you are into some kind of specialized photography. Tell us what this is and we can tell you what people are using.

    You could sell the 200mm and the bridge camera to help fund a used 400mm lens but if there is any way to simply get closer that would be much better
     
  6. Hughmac macrumors demi-god

    Hughmac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #6
    Agreed, the 55-300mm is not a bad lens

    Cheers :)

    Hugh
    --- Post Merged, Nov 28, 2016 ---
    I've just realised how old this thread actually is :eek:
     
  7. Apple fanboy macrumors P6

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #7
    Let's hope the OP sorted his issues by now!

    For anyone else in a similar predicament the Nikon 70-300 is a much better lens than the 55-300.
    It's light and a used version will not set you back that much. Even though I have better glass, it still gets taken out when I want to pack a telephoto as well as a few other lenses.
     
  8. Hughmac macrumors demi-god

    Hughmac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #8
    Yes, you're right of course, the 70-300 would be better still

    Cheers :)

    Hugh
     
  9. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #9
    That's sort of what the superzooms promise.

    tiger.jpg

    That's taken at 300mm with an APS-C. It would have been impractical to zoom any further with ones feet.

    Birds are even more skittish.

    Trouble is, a superzoom gives only so-so results, while good long lenses are expensive.
     
  10. Apple fanboy macrumors P6

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #10
    Didn't want to get closer? No commitment! :D

    But yes I'm not sure what people think others are photographing when they say zoom with your feet. In all the places I'd use a super zoom, getting closer wouldn't work. Love your tiger btw. But then big cats are my favourite.
     

Share This Page