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?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon SX50 HS vs. Nikon D3100 DSLR?
- Thread starter SteelBlueTJ
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
Cropped using iPhoto
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.
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
Cropped using iPhoto
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.
Attachments
Last edited:
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
Last edited:
Agreed, the 55-300mm is not a bad lens
Cheers
Hugh
[doublepost=1480405737][/doublepost]I've just realised how old this thread actually is
Let's hope the OP sorted his issues by now!Agreed, the 55-300mm is not a bad lens
Cheers
Hugh
[doublepost=1480405737][/doublepost]I've just realised how old this thread actually is
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.
That's sort of what the superzooms promise.
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.
Didn't want to get closer? No commitment!
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.