Couple of questions

andicole0 · 21 Jan 2013 at 14:38

Is there somewhere I can find out what the real and effective pixel counts are for various cameras.

If I don't believe I'm going to do any 'serious'/'professional' photography is there much to be gained by spending £500, plus a long lens, on a DSLR like the Pentax K30 or a used D7000 compared to one of the new bridge cameras like the Nikon P510 or Canon SX50?

I currently take a wide range of pictures from macro images to family snaps

Andi.

An Exception · 21 Jan 2013 at 14:44

Bridge camera's are basically point and shoots. If your not serious, something like a rx100 would be a great solution, and provide much better iq.

Ksanti · 21 Jan 2013 at 14:44

Real and effective?

Pixel counts are an absolute, a 16MP camera will produce 16 million pixels per file etc., that doesn't change. What changes is the sharpness of the lens and the size of the sensor. A bridge camera will generally have pretty pants image quality (low light will be poor due to a combination of a small sensor and a slow (dark) lens) compared to a DSLR, as well as an inability to blur backgrounds due to the small sensor size.

If it's family snaps you might not see a huge difference in the images as it's you're just using it as a recording device effectively, and macro is one of the few things that bridge cameras can do reasonably well.

If you want to have fun with photography rather than just having the camera fulfil the role of a camera phone just with a zoom, then I'd get a DSLR or a more serious compact like a Fuji X10/X100 or Canon S100. That said, it becomes an expensive hobby very quickly

James J · 21 Jan 2013 at 14:44

Yes if you want nice clean results in demanding conditions. Demanding doesn't necessarily mean thick snow and minus temperatures, it also includes low light indoor photography.

If you want the best of both worlds for taking "snaps", look at something like a sony RX100 or nikon J3 imo. I personally wouldn't touch a bridge camera as the quality of the zooms are poor, as is the ISO performance.

James J · 21 Jan 2013 at 14:45

Ksanti said:
Real and effective?

Pixel counts are an absolute, a 16MP camera will produce 16 million pixels per file etc., that doesn't change. What changes is the sharpness of the lens and the size of the sensor. A bridge camera will generally have pretty pants image quality (low light will be poor due to a combination of a small sensor and a slow (dark) lens) compared to a DSLR, as well as an inability to blur backgrounds due to the small sensor size.

If it's family snaps you might not see a huge difference in the images as it's you're just using it as a recording device effectively, and macro is one of the few things that bridge cameras can do reasonably well.

If you want to have fun with photography rather than just having the camera fulfil the role of a camera phone just with a zoom, then I'd get a DSLR. That said, it becomes an expensive hobby very quickly

Thats not strictly true either, as sensors have "real" and "effective" mp counts, both which are vastly different...

Ksanti · 21 Jan 2013 at 15:18

Well occasionally there are superfluous pixels on the sensor but never is it significant enough to actually warrant looking into as a decision making point.

AtticusFinch · 21 Jan 2013 at 15:22

It's all a bit moot really.

You may like images from al ower pixel count camer or a higher one and/or with various of the features (for example the algorithims used in-camera to produce images differ unit to unit).

If you're unsure what you might want - really the best thing is to look at some reviews, with a budget in mind.

Anything £250 plus is capable of producing fine images in most situations - for example I really like the Olympus XZ-2 as a carry-around camera - light, well made, good low light capability and high ISO with low noise (relatively speaking). You may hate it.

The pixel-count and placement on sensor will vary too - the biggest differences you will see will occur if you make large prints form the files - on screens and at 8x10 or below most modern non-changable lens cameras will produce 'similar' images (beyond really cheap point and shoot cameras of course).

Horses for courses really.

D.P. · 22 Jan 2013 at 00:11

Ksanti said:
Well occasionally there are superfluous pixels on the sensor but never is it significant enough to actually warrant looking into as a decision making point.

Sensors by Fuji and sigma often have different physical pixel counts compared to there up put file. E.g., sigma interpolates and provides 48Mp files due to the pixel geometry., but

Ksanti · 22 Jan 2013 at 08:06

Oh yes I know that, I doubt he's looking at Sigma's Foveon sensors or Fuji's S5 cameras

andicole0 · 22 Jan 2013 at 21:07

Ksanti said:
Oh yes I know that, I doubt he's looking at Sigma's Foveon sensors or Fuji's S5 cameras

I started looking at basic DSLR's around £300.00 then saw the K30, compared it to used D7000 and started thinking about what I do with my camera. So I looked at compacts and Bridge Cameras, the new bridge cameras look quite comprehensive and although may not be perfect do most of what I want. However I'm being drawn to the Canon SX50HS but the price is getting close again to basic DSLR's.

At the moment the K30 with two lenses up to 300mm is looking good at £700 but the SX50 at £350 may be all I need. I'm not going to be doing any fancy artistic imaging I generally take pictures of things to remember.

Andi.