Howdy, that's a tough question. I'm a newbie to SLR as well, I got the XT last summer. Probably the better question is do you feel you need more camera than what you have? For instance, I personally would take the XT and the kit lens and no other lens over a P&S. The quality is much better. But then again, I did buy other lenses and will probably continue buying more as I need them..
Now if you are asking how many lenses you will need to replicate the focal lengths covered with your camera, it depends. The "effective" focal length of that camera is 26-520mm b/c of the crop factor, but the lenses is really 4.6mm-92mm. Looking at the crop factor, the kit lens "crop" focal length is 28.8mm - 88mm. To get the telephoto side, you'll need a lens up to 320mm. There are lenses out there that cover 18-200mm, and Canon makes a lens that cover 70-300 (definitely more options, just thinking at the top of my head). So really, with the kit and the 70-300, you'd have the "crop" equivalents covered with a small gap b/w 55-70mm..
I guess it depends what you mean by have the equivalent. The better way to go about it would be to see what you actually need. Don't need to buy everything all at once. Are you adamently against buying more lenses down the road? To me, even if I just was going to stick with one lens, I'd still chose an SLR over a P&S for me. The advantages for me outweigh any reason to go the other way. I hope that made sense and didn't confuse you more.
Just has to do with smaller sensor sizes and how there is a crop due to that. The crop factor makes a given focal length seem to have "more" reach than a full frame sensor, but it's really just cropping out the picture..
EDIT: I don't know much about the camera you currently have. I'm comparing against the standard P&S I used to use. I have no idea about the IQ of your bridge camera or other qualities. I did google it to see what the focal length was on the lens on your current camera..
Just trying to learn.
Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/..
You can easily get by with a single 18-250mm lens on a SLR which will give you all the versatility you could ever hope for with a super zoom P&S..
If you are more interested in maximum image quality however, your better off with more specialized lenses...
Seems P&S is for you... don't want to spend more, don't want to learn dslr, want ease of use. you answered your own question. keep the extra $300 in your pocket as it sounds like a dslr would stay in the bag more often than not for you..
Good luck, either will take pictures, one takes more than a little bit of work to get the best out of it and it will take an additional $300 to subject yourself to that work...
If you stick with Olympus, you can go two routes:.
1) One lense strategy: 14-150mm (expensive)2) Two lense strategy: 14-42mm + 40-150mm9-18mm + 18-180mmAnd many variations within.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma GandhiE3/E-1/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/EC-14/C8080http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..
If you stick with Olympus, you can go two routes:.
1) One lense strategy: 14-150mm (expensive)2) Two lense strategy: 14-42mm + 40-150mm9-18mm + 18-180mmAnd many variations within.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma GandhiE3/E-1/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/EC-14/C8080http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/.
Just to add to the above post, the focal length 18-200 (or 14-150 if you go Olympus) can be covered relatively cheaply in 1 or 2 lens combinations - Oly 2 lens kits seem to be competitively priced here in the UK). Outside of those focal lengths lenses get rather expensive rather quickly..
Shay son of Che..
A friend just bought a Canon S5 IS, and when I look at this, I think how easy it is to take great pictures, compared to lugging around a digital single lens reflex..
My opinion would be that given the weight of a Oly 570 and the price I'd look at an E-410 and twin lens kit. That's as versatile a camera setup as you could need. In total weight it's a little more, but it's more versatile and ( if you learn to use it ) will give better images..
If you want P&S convenience get a P&S. The DSLR is not for people who want to hit a button and go. You can operate them on auto, but it's a waste of money to do just this when a little learning to use ti gives you far more..
The flash on a DSLR is much better than a flash on a P&S. Image stabilization is not needed - remember the DSLR can raise ISO to 800 and still get as little noise as the P&S at 100, so it can easily compensate for lack of IS. It has a real view-finder ( even a small optical viewfinder is better than no optical viewfinder )..
Not to knock the super-zoom, it has a versatile range of feature, some of which the DSLR cannot match ( no movies, no very fast-but tiny picture mode ). If you want an all-in-one and no fuss, or need those features ( "gimmicks ?" ) then the P&S..
Fuji S3 ProPentax K100DFuji S9600Fuji E900PCLinuxOS..
Nic C wrote:.
I have been looking at the new Olympus SP570UZ which costs around$680 australian dollars. But for another $300 I can get an EOS 400Dwith a 18-55mm lens. If I don't want to spend much more than thisshould I stick with a point and shoot. I also want ease of use..
The whole point of a DSLR is it's ability to adapt to specific situations better because of the flexibility of the camera's controls, and the ability to change lenses to get the ideal combination for each circumstance..
If you don't want that and aren't willing to pay for it, it is just silly to get a DSLR..
Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...