Photography question / Camera comparison?

Hi, we currently have a Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ90 with 30x optical zoom (35mm camera equivalent: 24-720mm) and we have been offered a Canon EOS 550D with a 75-300mm lens, my question is as a bird / wildlife photographer would the Canon be a better camera for getting better zoom and photos say of a Kingfisher or a Buzzard? Are we going to gain better photos? The Lumix currently takes quite good photos, but we feel we could be missing out by not having a longer lense even though ours has a good focus length. 

Update:

The lumix is 20.3mp and the Canon is 18mp

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago

    Not with that lens, it can be too soft at the long end. The 55-250, even with a teleconverter, is better. To emulate the 720mm equivalent you are going to need to crop, so you won't be getting the full benefits of the larger APS-C sensor. Contrast, dynamic range, colour and edge definition would probably be a little better than what you currently have. You could put a Sigma 150-600mm lens, or slightly more affordable 100-400mm, on the Canon camera to get a more useful birding length that fills the sensor. BUT, because long telephotos are dark, in less than good light you will need to use a sturdy tripod or maybe a Gorilla pod to hold the camera steady enough. Then you still have the issue of potential subject movement necessitating a fast shutter speed and, unfortunately, a much higher ISO than would be ideal.

  • keerok
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    You're already satisfied with your current camera. Why replace it? 

    That Canon lens would only be 120-480mm (35mm  equiv.). It has no wide angle capability and on the other end, it has a "shorter reach" than your Lumix. It is almost half the pulling power of your Lumix in terms of making far objects seem near. I'm sure you're already thinking, "No, I won't go closer!" because that's what you'll be forced to do with the Canon.

    Megapixels only tell the size of the picture. It has nothing to do with image quality. As far as image quality is concerned however, the dSLR will only be better if you know exactly what to do with it. Even if it has a better sensor and a gargantuan amount of settings available to you, they won't matter if you don't know how to set the camera properly. Having a dSLR in your hands does not guarantee you will get great photos all the time. It is your skill as a photographer that matters most.

    Barring you don't have that much, you already have found a camera that satisfies you and that's the Lumix. Given all that, I say pass. Let someone else who knows better have the dSLR. The cash you save could be spent on a sturdy tripod, a ridiculously elaborate bird feeder or a luscious meal instead!

  • Lance
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    The canon should offer better more natural pictures using a tripod...First off it has a larger sensor...A larger sensor will gather more light  as there is more surface area to gather light.. also the lens is larger which will also gather more light...this gives you the advantage of using a faster f stop or faster shutter speed so any action shots should be sharper as less time is needed to gather the same amount of light, but you would have to use a tripod as the Canon ESO 55D does not have image stabilization...Its a much older camera and does not have the advanced features that the TZ90 has...The viewfinder will not be as bright, Image stabilization is more advanced on the TZ90 Also processing is more advanced so shots can be manipulated more in camera ...these features can be used to increase color contrast sharpness etc...but at the disadvantage of looking more digitally manipulated...So I guess a lot has to do with personal preference.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.