[séamuis]

all of these are good points, and I wonder why the OP hasn't chimed in on the discussion. but what I still do not understand is (and of course this is in question because we do not know what the OP's plans are for the bridge and any future upgrades) is that if an entry level SLR can be had for the same price and essentially do all of the things a bridge cam can do (arguably better in most respects) and the learning curve for such entry levels isnt that steep (again pointing to the K2000) why would one need the bridge if they planned on an SLR in the future? wouldnt they actually be limiting themselves in terms of growth with a bridge compared to an SLR, concerning price vs. features/specs? if the plans didnt include growth to the point of needing an SLR, then it would be easy to simply say 'no, Pentax does not make such a camera. but the Lumix is an axcellent choice.' the fact that we are discusing possible Pentax upgrade paths along with the OP's statement

I am looking for a camera a step up from a P&S but not quite a full DLSR yet.

leads me to believe an SLR is planned for the future. and from what I am understanding, the upgrade (interms of user growth isnt all that great from bridge to SLR, and since one could assumably learn in all the same ways with an SLR the way they can with a bridge, why get a bridge first? this is especially important given how much cheaper Pentax is than the 'big guys'.

[emalvick]

I want to support the line of thought grainbelt has. I went a similar route. When I started in digital photography in 2000, I was a college student with no budget, so while a dSLR would have been nice I went with a 2 MP P&S Fuji that I quickly outgrew (P&S then were no where near what is available now). In 2003 I shifted to a Panasonic FZ15 because I was still a college student and at $350 (what I paid then) the camera offered all the "features" of a dSLR that I wanted with the appeal of not having to buy extra lenses and accessories since it covered a field of view equivalent to 35mm - 420mm on a full frame camera.

I was extremely happy with that camera, and I learned a ton about digital photography using that camera to the point it made me want a dSLR. I always knew I wanted one, but it served the interim time before I could afford one and it took excellent photos for what I needed. If anything it pushed me to my dSLR, a k10d, faster than I had really wanted.

Now I see nothing wrong with recommended a person to try the k-m/k2000 as a potential replacement for a superzoom / bridge camera, but we all have the beauty of hindsight and experience to make it easy to say that, while we have no idea of the real motivation behind the original poster's question.

If the OP wants Pentax than the k2000 will be his only option. Perhaps a body with one of the afformentioned superzoom lenses to filt out a similar focal length than a bridge camera might get. If a person has never had a bridge camera, the slightly shorter focal length could still be adequate.

However, if money is truly an issue, a bridge camera might be fine. It might help the user refine what they want out of their photography and the features they may ultimately want in his or ultimate dSLR purchase. Afterall, there are cases where a Pentax dSLR may not even suffice for a users expectations and a bridge camera gives one a chance to develop those expectations.

I am more than happy I did that. 5 years ago I was asking the same question as the OP and looking at my future of a dSLR. As naive as I was at that point I had assumed that Canon would be my ultimate stopping point. Fortunately, through the Panasonic community I was a part of and the camera I had, I discovered my own photography desires (rather than the mainstream that gets preached to those who blindly jump into the C&N world), and I discovered Pentax because it fit my hobby let alone my budget.

[emalvick]

all of these are good points, and I wonder why the OP hasn't chimed in on the discussion. but what I still do not understand is (and of course this is in question because we do not know what the OP's plans are for the bridge and any future upgrades) is that if an entry level SLR can be had for the same price and essentially do all of the things a bridge cam can do (arguably better in most respects) and the learning curve for such entry levels isnt that steep (again pointing to the K2000) why would one need the bridge if they planned on an SLR in the future? wouldnt they actually be limiting themselves in terms of growth with a bridge compared to an SLR, concerning price vs. features/specs? if the plans didnt include growth to the point of needing an SLR, then it would be easy to simply say 'no, Pentax does not make such a camera. but the Lumix is an axcellent choice.' the fact that we are discusing possible Pentax upgrade paths along with the OP's statement leads me to believe an SLR is planned for the future. and from what I am understanding, the upgrade (interms of user growth isnt all that great from bridge to SLR, and since one could assumably learn in all the same ways with an SLR the way they can with a bridge, why get a bridge first? this is especially important given how much cheaper Pentax is than the 'big guys'.

You bring up a good point, especially regarding the comparable price. When I was in the similar position in 2003, the dSLR world was not affordable compared to the bridge world. The gap has narrowed, but there is still a question of exactly what this person wants and can afford at the moment.

How much would it cost for someone to get a k-m and a super-zoom type lens? I haven't really looked at this myself, but even if we are talking $500 (which I know is reasonable) it may not seem reasonable to a user whose budget is indeed at something more like $350. $150 extra doesn't seem like much, but that is roughly 40% more than the original cost. Looking at Amazon I see that the k2000d is even a little higher cost and I believe you have no choice but the kit lens, so an additional lens would be on top of that.

Economics can be important, especially in these times, so that could very well be a huge factor for the user. Pentax is looked at as an affordable brand, which is possibly why the user posted here. That was a big factor why I went from Panasonic to here when I jumped to dSLR. In that regard it is worth pointing out that for anyone choosing to go the k2000d route as an option to a bridge, the ability of the Pentax Cameras to accept all Pentax lenses including used ones dating back to the beginning of Pentax, is quite an asset. That has made it possible for myself in my own still limited economic status get a nice inventory of prime lenses that I otherwise would never have been able to afford in the new world.

[séamuis]

You bring up a good point, especially regarding the comparable price. When I was in the similar position in 2003, the dSLR world was not affordable compared to the bridge world. The gap has narrowed, but there is still a question of exactly what this person wants and can afford at the moment.

How much would it cost for someone to get a k-m and a super-zoom type lens? I haven't really looked at this myself, but even if we are talking $500 (which I know is reasonable) it may not seem reasonable to a user whose budget is indeed at something more like $350. $150 extra doesn't seem like much, but that is roughly 40% more than the original cost. Looking at Amazon I see that the k2000d is even a little higher cost and I believe you have no choice but the kit lens, so an additional lens would be on top of that.

Economics can be important, especially in these times, so that could very well be a huge factor for the user. Pentax is looked at as an affordable brand, which is possibly why the user posted here. That was a big factor why I went from Panasonic to here when I jumped to dSLR.

but looking at the big picture, if the OP gets a bridge and then realizes the he/she will outgrow it quicker than imagined, they will be out the cost of the bridge and the upgrade to the SLR. however the cost of say a k2000 and maybe a DA 18-250mm will be mostly offset by the money saved not getting a bridge first.

again, we cant really give any rock solid advice because we are all going on speculation due to lack of participation on the OP.

[Marc Sabatella]

An LX3 or G10 is not the same market/demographic as a bridge/superzoom.

I know, but that's kind of my point. An LX3 or G10 in certain ways seems like more direct step between generic P&S and DSLR, whereas a superzoom seems like a step sideways to me. If you have a generic P&S but are looking for a camera that improves the picture making experience in ways similar to but perhaps not as extreme as the improvements one can see from a DSLR, then the LX3 or G10 may make more sense than a superzoom. This is so *if* you thinking of IQ and photographic control as being the essential things you are looking to improve. If, on the other hand, you are thinking of zoom range as the one and only thing worth improving, then the superzoom is an improvement alright - but it's an improvement that is not then *further* improved by going to a DSLR, which is why it doesn't feel to me like step in that direction at all.

Said another way:

If your prime concern is control and IQ, then the most logical progression from would seem to go "generic to LX3/G10 to DSLR", and the main question would be whether there is any point in the LX3/G10 - why not go straight to DSLR? But if your prime concern is zoom range, then the logical progression goes "generic P&S to FZ28 to DSLR", but the main question would be, why bother with the DSLR at all - it's *not* a further step in that same direction. It's a step in a *different direction* - one that the LX3/G10 might have lead toward a little better, IMHO.

So my bottom line is that if I see someone thinking about a DSLR but says they aren't ready *yet* - implying they might be going that way at some point - the LX3/G10 might make more sense as a step in that direction. Whereas the FZ28 is the type of camera i might recommend to someone with no interest at all in a DSLR but who wants a large zoom range, period.

The sensor size is the same, but everything else is different.

Actually, the sensor is significantly larger on the LX3/G10 than on the FZ28, which is part of why I'm seeing it as a more direct intermediate step between generic P&S and DSLR.

The bridge/superzoom is for people who want one camera to do everything and don't want to mess with changing lenses, etc. And they do a passable job as long as you don't pixel peep.

Absolutely, which is why I'd be inclined to recommend one for someone who doesn't feel the need for the control/flexibility/potential-IQ of a DSLR.

I think where it gets more interesting for enthusiasts is when you either put larger sensors in smaller bodies (like the DP-1) or can change lenses on something smaller (like the G1). Neither of those are perfect, but they offer interesting alternatives.

I agree, and hope to see more developments along both these lines in the future.

[Marc Sabatella]

but looking at the big picture, if the OP gets a bridge and then realizes the he/she will outgrow it quicker than imagined, they will be out the cost of the bridge and the upgrade to the SLR. however the cost of say a k2000 and maybe a DA 18-250mm will be mostly offset by the money saved not getting a bridge first.

True, but the flip side is this: how many times do we hear of DSLR owners thinking about picking up a relatively inexpensive compact camera for when they don't feel like lugging the DSLR around? Answer: all the time. So that's another factor in favor of an LX3/G10 over a superzoom. unless the superzoom was also something compact, like the TZ5: the more compact the camera, the more useful it is as a second camera for situations when you don't want you DSLR.

again, we cant really give any rock solid advice because we are all going on speculation

Since when has that ever stopped anyone? :-)

BTW, headline in last week's "The Onion":

"Factual Error Found On Internet". OMG, stop the presses!

[nostatic]

I know, but that's kind of my point. An LX3 or G10 in certain ways seems like more direct step between generic P&S and DSLR, whereas a superzoom seems like a step sideways to me.

We violently agree. I didn't realize that the FZ28 sensor was significantly smaller than the LX3 though. I usually lump most of these together in the "small sensor" category. Here the issue becomes more about pixel density it seems.

[grainbelt]

but looking at the big picture, if the OP gets a bridge and then realizes the he/she will outgrow it quicker than imagined, they will be out the cost of the bridge and the upgrade to the SLR.

The resale market for the bridge/superzoom is quite strong. If you keep the original boxes, cables, and manuals they are easy to sell at a reasonable discount to new.

[grainbelt]

Regarding LX3/G10 - they sell at a large premium to FZ18/SX10IS, nearer to SLR money.

One option that hasn't been pointed out is the Canon Powershot A-series, which offer all the manual control of the bridge cameras at about $150. Much smaller EVF and fewer dedicated buttons, but likely enough control over exposure to be a worthwhile learning tool.

[GeneV]

True, but the flip side is this: how many times do we hear of DSLR owners thinking about picking up a relatively inexpensive compact camera for when they don't feel like lugging the DSLR around? Answer: all the time.

That's the best reason for the LX3. A K-M with a zoom is too big for a pocket or a waistpack. The huge selling point for these cameras like the LX3 or G10, but especially the LX3, is the compact size, reasonably good lenses and RAW formats.

[séamuis]

That's the best reason for the LX3. A K-M with a zoom is too big for a pocket or a waistpack. The huge selling point for these cameras like the LX3 or G10, but especially the LX3, is the compact size, reasonably good lenses and RAW formats.

but we don't know if small form factor is a concern for the OP.

and just for the record if you put a pancake on the K-m its more than small enough for a waistpack. even with a standard 50mm or even a small telephoto prime it can easily be stored in such a way. the K-m is much smaller than some people realize.

[NicholasN]

I would venture a guess that most small dSLR cameras never see a lens change

Wow, I am stunned you could make such a stupid remark as this.

What on earth makes you think that they'll never see a lens change?

Most small DSLR's are sold as bundles with a kit 18-55 and a 70-300.

And what new DSLR owner can resist the fun of swapping lenses and experimenting.

I have a friend who just bought the LX3. That was 4 weeks ago. Now she wants a DSLR. She wants a more capable camera as the LX3 didn't quite do enough for her. Why does she want a DSLR now? I put her onto this site and another site and she saw the quality and range of work you can do with a DSLR and doesn't think the LX3 will be quite good enough.

In my opinion using the excuse that you want a bridge camera to get used to owning a DSLR is just a load of bollocks. Man up and get the DSLR, do a good photography course to learn what your equipment can do for you and be done with the whole transition.

And the excuse that the DSLR option is more expensive then the bridge camera, well what did you expect? Spend the right money and get the product that really
offers the whole gamut, not something that will do half a job.

[nostatic]

Wow, I am stunned you could make such a stupid remark as this.

What on earth makes you think that they'll never see a lens change?

Most small DSLR's are sold as bundles with a kit 18-55 and a 70-300.

Really? Do you have numbers to back that up? I would venture a guess that most dSLRs (and that would be entry level, as they have the highest sales volume) sell with a single lens. And I'd be willing to bet money that a large percentage of them rarely, if ever, have a lens change. Even if they have 2 kit lenses. Maybe once or twice as a novelty.

As far as I can tell, many entry level dSLR purchasers are just looking for something to take snapshots with...and they think they need a dSLR to do that. So they buy one. And take a few shots. At that point, many of the cameras will never leave the closet shelf. Those that do continue to see use will never have the lens swapped, and I would be that some never even twist the zoom.

Enthusiasts make up a small portion of the dSLR user base.

And please note that I didn't argue for a bridge camera as a transition to dSLR. I merely pointed out that ultrazoom/bridge cameras have their own strengths and weaknesses...like any camera.

[nostatic]

I have a friend who just bought the LX3. That was 4 weeks ago. Now she wants a DSLR. She wants a more capable camera as the LX3 didn't quite do enough for her. Why does she want a DSLR now? I put her onto this site and another site and she saw the quality and range of work you can do with a DSLR and doesn't think the LX3 will be quite good enough.

What is she trying to do that the LX3 won't accomplish? Many of these photos were taken with a DLux3 (the equivalent to the LX2) and I have some printed at 24x36.

hk08 - Page 1

[NicholasN]

I'd say this requires a poll on the forum....

Something along the lines of "How many first time DSLR owners use multiple lenses"