Bridge Camera Recomendations?

Bradmax57

Bradmax57

Bradmax57

Soldato
Joined
13 Dec 2002
Posts
7,946
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
So my wife said she wanted a new camera for Christmas, she said she wanted a DSLR but tbh I don't think she's even thought about the size and bulk of carrying it around with different lenses etc so I'm thinking a bridge camera will probably better suit her needs.

Budget from say £200-£300 I've seen a few

Sony DSCHX400V which is at the higher end

Canon SX540 HS Poweshot at high end price

Panasonic Lumix FZ200 which is only slightly cheaper but has a smaller zoom, just wondering if anyone can recommend anything else out there? As its for a chrimbo pressy it needs to be new really :)
 
What does your wife primarily want to take picture of?

You won't get any love in here for bridge camera's fella, they are box of all tricks but master of none. Teeny tiny sensors, housed behind very narrow aperture lenses that close to even narrower apertures very quickly, at which point diffraction kills image quality very quickly and if not ISO performance does in everything but the very best of light.

I'm not suggesting that good images cannot be got from them but they are often no less bulky than a DSLR, are far slower and you have to consider if you really need a 1million times zoom?
 
Gotta agree with Peter Falk on this

If you think she hasnt thought about the bulk, therefore a DSLR / Lens combo will be too big, then so will a bridge camera

With bridges, you got the worst of both worlds .. bulk and poor tech ...well at least compared to a DSLR / Lens. Tiny sensors , poor in bad light and usually noisy when using anything above base ISO in good light

Some bridges can do a fairly decent job, it depends on what sort of photography the missus is into.

If bulk is the issue, then you really need to be looking at compacts, but you will still get small sensors, though some are bigger than normal...i think some of the Fuji range might be upto 1" ( in the top end Fuji compacts ) but for the better end of the Fuji range compacts, your budget is under par.
 
Why on earth do people think about buying a bridge camera, maybe think you're getting the best of both worlds but in reality youre getting the worst.
 
Jase said:
Why on earth do people think about buying a bridge camera, maybe think you're getting the best of both worlds but in reality youre getting the worst.
Click to expand...

Because they are marketed as being as good as a DSLR in a smaller packer without the fuss of changing lenses because you have this amazing 10000000x zoom while the kit lens on a DSLR has a paltry 3.0x zoom so clearly a bridge is like 10000000x better.





As with compact there are some slightly better bridge cameras out there now with 1" sensors and wider aperture lenses but these things are bigger than many DSLRs and more expensive, is it still not really they have any purposes what so ever. The Sony RX10 has 1" sensor and a 24-600mm f2/.8 to f/4.0 lens. so that is quite tempting, but then it s 1100g and costs $1600.
 
Jase said:
Why on earth do people think about buying a bridge camera, maybe think you're getting the best of both worlds but in reality youre getting the worst.
Click to expand...

Because they want something with proper optical zoom but don't have the budget for a DSLR and a "good" telephoto lens?

Whilst they may be mediocre at everything, at least they have a purpose in life - unlike the <£150 compact cameras that are no better than phone cameras these days.
 
Just for a bit of context, here's a couple of comparison shots. The first one is with a Canon 50D DSLR The second from a Panasonic FZ1000 bridge camera. Photos are 3 years apart but taken in the same conditions at the same time of day, about 8:45pm. Both taken through a wire fence at exactly the same spot. Both unedited as far as I can remember.

IhMgiKXl.jpg

ADLlDMrl.jpg

I don't think the Imgur resizing has done either photo's any favours, they both look better at original size.

I have better photos with both cameras but these are as close a comparison as I can get with conditions and camera settings.
For motorsport (my main photography interest) I genuinely find the Panny better, but then I can't afford any decent lenses for the 50D. I realise I'm comparing an old DSLR to a modern bridge but I do find the FZ1000 to be very capable.
The 50D with a 150-500 sigma which I used for wildlife performed better than the Panny, I find the Panny's 400mm lens quite limiting.
The Panny is better with low light compared to the 50D with a 75-300EF lens.
Portraits the 50D wins with a 50mm F1.8.
Overall the Panny suits me better, largely because it's less stuff to lug around. I wouldn't mind the Sony RX10 III for the longer reach, but that's silly money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plus the FZ1000 is not exactly a bridge camera in the common sense adn certainly not available for the budget that was stated.
For one its far more expensive due to its large sensor and fast processor but also worth it imo and if the op had mentioned an FZ1000 I would have said go for it.
 
By tech design, its a bridge camera. Price is not the reason to state its not a bridge camera, not its sensor size.

It may well be one of the best bridge cameras going, but its still a bridge
 
Energize said:
Those conditions aren't the same though, 2nd image is far brighter and comparing resized images like that is a meaningless comparison.
Click to expand...

I was going to put the full size images up, but I wasn't sure of the forum etiquette for that.

Full size images can be seen here
http://imgur.com/a/NY8bq

Both taken at the same time in the evening with light cloud in the sky. 3 years separates them, so my technique has likely changed.
Both at ISO 800, 50D at F7.1 1/320 FZ1000 at F3.9 1/200. I don't know how the F numbers translate between sensor sizes.
The FZ1000 seems much better than the 50D when light is fading / low. Both taken as JPEG, I don't know how either camera chooses to processes them.

I've also got a Canon SX50 bridge. It makes a nice telescope.
 
pitkin said:
I was going to put the full size images up, but I wasn't sure of the forum etiquette for that.

Full size images can be seen here
http://imgur.com/a/NY8bq

Both taken at the same time in the evening with light cloud in the sky. 3 years separates them, so my technique has likely changed.
Both at ISO 800, 50D at F7.1 1/320 FZ1000 at F3.9 1/200. I don't know how the F numbers translate between sensor sizes.
The FZ1000 seems much better than the 50D when light is fading / low. Both taken as JPEG, I don't know how either camera chooses to processes them.

I've also got a Canon SX50 bridge. It makes a nice telescope.
Click to expand...

So the 2nd image has a much higher exposure because you've used a slower shutter speed and larger aperture, of course that's going to increase image quality!
 
Energize said:
So the 2nd image has a much higher exposure because you've used a slower shutter speed and larger aperture, of course that's going to increase image quality!
Click to expand...

The poorly made point I was trying to get across was that a bridge camera isn't always as useless as people tend to think. I paid £450 for the FZ1000 and over £2000 for my 50D with lenses. The only time I'd take the 50D with me now is if I'm photographing wildlife and need the reach of the 150-500.
 
They're certainly not useless. The top range Pana bridges are excellent. They have their place , depending on the person using them. I've had a few myself, mostly FZ's

They do suffer from DOF ( too much of ) in comparison to DSLR's due to the sensor size and they tend to be noisier even at low ISO compared to DSLR's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom