Recommend me some superzoom bridge cameras...

valve90210 · 26 Jan 2012 at 15:12

Hi All

I'm looking at getting myself a new camera and am after some suggestions...

Firstly to let you know where I'm coming from and what I want from a camera.

Currently I am using a Panasonic FZ20 which I have had for the past few years and have thoroughly enjoyed using, however the time has come for me to upgrade as I'd like something which has more of the newer features such as decent video recording, larger sensor etc etc.

I had thought about making the move to dlsr but to be honest I think I would rather stick with a superzoom bridge camera like the FZ20 as I like the fact I don't have to lug multiple lenses around with me, especially when I am already carrying flash guns, tripod, and several filters...

My criteria (in no particular order - and off the top of my head...I may add more when I think of them...):

Full manual control of shutter, ISO, aperture, white balance etc etc
Manual focus (ideally a focus ring...)
Good optical Zoom (my current camera is 12x optical - so must be equal or better than this)
Better than may existing 5 megapixel...I'd like nice larger photos but clarity more important than hugeness.
Good image stablising
Hot shoe for flash guns
Nice sized screen (ideally one that can flip out and rotate for viewing at different angles etc)
Ability to attach polarising filters, macros lens, (ideally the ones I already own..which are 62mm (iirc)) etc etc
ideally SD card for storage as I have several already

I've been looking at the Panasonic FZ100 which seems to tick all the boxes but wondered if there were any other options I should look at before biting the bullet???

Any thoughts or suggestions welcomed.

Valve

Demon · 26 Jan 2012 at 16:02

With that wishlist, you sound quite serious.

I'd seriously reconsider a DSLR (Nikon/Canon/Sony) or Mirrorless system (Sony NEX/Nilon ONE etc etc)

The FZ100 might seem to tick all the boxes, but having used one, it's just very much compromised in a lot of areas, speed, sensor size, inability to add your own lens' (cheap second hand stuff)..

Check out www.dpreview.com for some good reviews etc, the Nikon D3100 and Sony A35 are good entry level DSLR's, the NEX C3 I think reviewed very well, but there are many others etc..

Razor-BladE · 26 Jan 2012 at 16:45

If you went for dSLR, you wouldn't HAVE to lug around multiple lenses. You could, with the compromise of image quality and speed, have attached a 18-200mm or something similar. Granted it's a little more than the FZ100 after taking into account a video capable dSLR body but it'll be worth it imo.

valve90210 · 26 Jan 2012 at 16:55

I'm fairly serious, though more just enjoy taking pics.

I would quite like a dslr but I would still want the zoom range I have now (or better) but really don't want to have to lug around several expensive lenses to do so. I use a dslr at work and when I'm doing something simple like taking shots of a piece of dram for example I'm having to change between the wide angle lens for shots of the whole stage and the zoom lens for close up stuff which is infuriating when you're used to being able to just zoom back and forth in one unit.

valve90210 · 26 Jan 2012 at 17:00

Razor-BladE said:
If you went for dSLR, you wouldn't HAVE to lug around multiple lenses. You could, with the compromise of image quality and speed, have attached a 18-200mm or something similar. Granted it's a little more than the FZ100 after taking into account a video capable dSLR body but it'll be worth it imo.

I realise there is a big difference in the quality of most bridge cameras compared to a dslr but if I was to do as you said, with a compromise lens, I'd be missing a huge chunk of zoom capability which in the past I have found to be really useful and something I want in a camera...

The 200mm I use at work I find to be really limited when compared to the zoom on FZ20 which is a 12x optical zoom!

Ksanti · 26 Jan 2012 at 17:05

^^ an 18-250mm lens is a 13.9x optical zoom in compact camera terms, just fyi, an 18-200 is 11.1x.

DSLRs can't offer the sort of 30x optical zoom you see now in superzooms but frankly the quality is so dire on those cameras there's no point in them, and you're used to 12x on the FZ20 which is around normal DSLR superzoom range.

Razor-BladE · 26 Jan 2012 at 17:26

Just by going on how many times the zoom is isn't going to be a fair comparison, because for example a 100-400mm lens is 'only' 4x zoom but will offer much more length than the '12x' on the FZ20.

Quick google, and the FZ20 has an effective focal range of 36-432mm.

If you went for the 18-200mm, you'll have an effective FL range of 28.8-320mm.
An 18-250mm lens would give you a range of 28.8-400mm.

This is assuming you're going with a Canon crop body. I think Nikon has 1.5x crop factor?

What are you going to be shooting?

ShakenNstirred · 26 Jan 2012 at 17:57

what about the fz150?

Demon · 26 Jan 2012 at 19:31

valve90210 said:
I realise there is a big difference in the quality of most bridge cameras compared to a dslr but if I was to do as you said, with a compromise lens, I'd be missing a huge chunk of zoom capability which in the past I have found to be really useful and something I want in a camera...

The 200mm I use at work I find to be really limited when compared to the zoom on FZ20 which is a 12x optical zoom!

In addition to those already mentioned, the Tamron 18-270 gives 15x and a 35mm equivalent of 27-405mm, it's a lens you could just stick on a DSLR and never take off.. It even has image stabilisation in the lens (assuming you didn't want to go Sony which has in-body IS).

I know we are trying to convince you against your really strong preference for a bridge camera, but with the entry level DSLR's and these superzoom lenses give you a way of encompassing all the 'bridge' qualities with a whole new level of performance.

The main areas the DSLR + superzoom lense really shine are
1. General speed/lag is massively improved
2. Focussing (phase on a DSLR in normal use) is massively quicker
3. The sensor is much larger, the difference in high ISO performance is staggering

It also used to be that bridge camera's had all the creative features + video capabilities, but with camera's like the Sony A35, you get full HD video, in-camera panorama's and a mass of other 'creative' modes etc.. it's like a Bridge camera on steroids.

Just for example, at ISO1600, Sony A35, FZ100, FZ150

Don't get me wrong, at ISO100 and ignoring speed of use/focussing etc, most P&S camera's can produce good results, I just think you sound like you enjoy taking photo's and I have lots of friends who've gone through bridge camera's to DSLR's and unanimously agree they should have gone straight to DSLR..

But obviously if you want a bridge camera, then of course go for what you feel is right..

valve90210 · 26 Jan 2012 at 20:43

Hmmm, think i'll check out some of these dslr suggestions, if i could get myself a setup which gives me similar capabilities but better quality than a bridge camera.

How much would I be looking to spend for something like the sony with a lense like the tamron mentioned? If it's not hugely more and gives me the sort of features/capabilities i want then it'd make sense. (Oh and would i still be able to use my existing filters and macro lense?

TheAlex · 26 Jan 2012 at 21:37

I use a Canon Powershot S5 IS, which is about five years old now I think? The image quality could be better but people often think I use a DSLR (even a couple of photographers): http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsg/ (the castle was taken with a £20 wide angle lens so will look poor).

I'd imagine the quality of photos from newer versions of that Canon would be much better, but from what I've read I wouldn't go for the cameras at the longest zoom range. I'm not sure about good optical zoom on these either.

If you don't want a DSLR don't be convinced into buying one if you think it'll be an inconvenience. I love the convenience of having a camera I can stick in my pocket. I advised a friend to buy a bridge camera as I knew a DSLR would be too much effort for him to take out. He bought a DSLR and guess what - over a year later I was right!

It's not a bad idea to use the advanced search here: http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras

Also, it doesn't have a massive zoom range, but the new Canon G1X looks good and fits most of your other wants.

Demon · 26 Jan 2012 at 21:48

valve90210 said:
Hmmm, think i'll check out some of these dslr suggestions, if i could get myself a setup which gives me similar capabilities but better quality than a bridge camera.

How much would I be looking to spend for something like the sony with a lense like the tamron mentioned? If it's not hugely more and gives me the sort of features/capabilities i want then it'd make sense. (Oh and would i still be able to use my existing filters and macro lense?

The actual camera's aren't too bad per-se, you can get an A35 which is class leading (along with the Nikon D3100 right behind it) for £380 (body only) which is around budget.. However it's the lens.. you could just throw a cheap kit 18-55 to get you going for £70 new

The cheapest value superzoom new is the Tamron 18-200 for £160

Other then that, an 18-270 Tamron new is £400ish, secondhand mint examples go for £250 this has VC (image stabilisation) on Nikon/Canon fit (isn't needed on the Sony, it has in-body IS).

I personally have found some great secondhand bargains, especially camera's.. I picked up a Canon EOS450D for £210 that looked like it had never been used, and a Sigma 18-250 lens for £96, My sister bought them off me and absolutely loves them (She's another that has migrated from a bridge camera)..

Demon · 26 Jan 2012 at 21:52

TheAlex said:
I use a Canon Powershot S5 IS, which is about five years old now I think? The image quality could be better but people often think I use a DSLR (even a couple of photographers): http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsg/ (the castle was taken with a £20 wide angle lens so will look poor).

I'd imagine the quality of photos from newer versions of that Canon would be much better, but from what I've read I wouldn't go for the cameras at the longest zoom range. I'm not sure about good optical zoom on these either.

If you don't want a DSLR don't be convinced into buying one if you think it'll be an inconvenience. I love the convenience of having a camera I can stick in my pocket. I advised a friend to buy a bridge camera as I knew a DSLR would be too much effort for him to take out. He bought a DSLR and guess what - over a year later I was right!

It's not a bad idea to use the advanced search here: http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras

Also, it doesn't have a massive zoom range, but the new Canon G1X looks good and fits most of your other wants.

I actually agree with a lot of that, however, the OP is on about large bridge cameras like the FZ100/FZ150 with huge zooms, those I think warrant skipping to a DSLR as they are already in the 'inconvenient' band..

But, I have a Canon S95 and Sony HX9V in the house, both in good light etc take fantastic photo's, and people are amazed at the quality, and I love them being so pocketable.. so know where you are coming from..

Getting a good photo is more about the user rather then the equipment, but from the OP's list it's clear large zoom bridge or DSLR are the only things to fit that bill..

valve90210 · 27 Jan 2012 at 10:13

TheAlex said:
I use a Canon Powershot S5 IS, which is about five years old now I think? The image quality could be better but people often think I use a DSLR (even a couple of photographers): http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsg/ (the castle was taken with a £20 wide angle lens so will look poor).

I'd imagine the quality of photos from newer versions of that Canon would be much better, but from what I've read I wouldn't go for the cameras at the longest zoom range. I'm not sure about good optical zoom on these either.

If you don't want a DSLR don't be convinced into buying one if you think it'll be an inconvenience. I love the convenience of having a camera I can stick in my pocket. I advised a friend to buy a bridge camera as I knew a DSLR would be too much effort for him to take out. He bought a DSLR and guess what - over a year later I was right!

It's not a bad idea to use the advanced search here: http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras

Also, it doesn't have a massive zoom range, but the new Canon G1X looks good and fits most of your other wants.

You see the FZ20 I currently use looks to be a similar sort of camera to the S5, a pretty compact all in one device and as you say really handy for taking with me where as a dslr is likely to be more cumbersome...

Demon said:
The actual camera's aren't too bad per-se, you can get an A35 which is class leading (along with the Nikon D3100 right behind it) for £380 (body only) which is around budget.. However it's the lens.. you could just throw a cheap kit 18-55 to get you going for £70 new

The cheapest value superzoom new is the Tamron 18-200 for £160

Other then that, an 18-270 Tamron new is £400ish, secondhand mint examples go for £250 this has VC (image stabilisation) on Nikon/Canon fit (isn't needed on the Sony, it has in-body IS).

I personally have found some great secondhand bargains, especially camera's.. I picked up a Canon EOS450D for £210 that looked like it had never been used, and a Sigma 18-250 lens for £96, My sister bought them off me and absolutely loves them (She's another that has migrated from a bridge camera)..

Now that does make it rather more expensive than I'm currently looking at but of couirse I realise the extra money does buy more quality but as per above would it be more cumbersome and would it make me less likely to take it with me...

elrasho · 27 Jan 2012 at 13:36

FujiFinePix HS20 - Canon Powershot SX30 IS - Lumix FZ100