Now i know the merits of using a DSLR, but can you get exceptional results from a 'bridge' camera? Are they worth the money ,or would it be better to invest more in a DSLR?
I currently use a DSLR, but have only done so for just over a year. Prior to that I used a Panasonic DMC FX30 which was a faithful tool for 5 years. My album "2009 Australia by Land" is comprised of shots taken by that camera - see what you think.
I found that I was slightly limited by its low light abilities, but not much else. The lens is excellent.
Am I happy that I upgraded. Yes, but I haven't found it to be a massive improvement, I think I have to work harder for good shots with the DSLR, but that's part of the fun. Also given enough cash I could improve my lens collection and then the differences would become more apparent.
the lens matters more than the camera, so I would say the DSLR is better purely because you can invest in a top-notch lens. I wouldn't like to restricted by the unchangeable lens. But, ultimately what matters most are your eyes.
yes but a bring does it at a fraction of the cost...
ie I have a few slr and a few dslr and some lens... all told about $10,000+. Really could do much the same with a $500 bridge... just make sure the sensor is a larger one and after that it is all relative... sure a $10k mark 1 with $20k worth of lens is better than a $500 camera... but it had better be... kinda load car vs base model...
@daz you could always go for a compact with changeable lenses. the two best are the Sony NEX and Panasonic Lumix GF2. they have the best of both worlds; they can take SLR lenses and have SLR sensors but can also be fitted with a small pancake lens to match the compact body
I had a bridge camera which I upgraded for a DSLR. Iloved it. It was a panasonic Lumix FS7. The pictures were amazing. I got it because I couldn't afford a DSLR. Ok there are limitations on what you can do with it but it's great for learning basics and the manual mode wasn't bad either. I must say though having upgraded to a DSLR I wouldn't look back. I love it and I'm glad I made the jump, there's more versatility. In saying that there are new bridge cameras that I know nothing about and some I'm sure have changeable lenses now. I would have a shot of each and go with what you think of them first before making your mind up.
@daz yes even with the micro 3:4ths cameras like the NEX and such... they have a smaller camera sensor than most 1.5 crop (the cheaper affordable DSLR cameras) cameras. So unless you want changeable lens you are not getting a lot more between a bridge and a DSLR...
my next camera will be likely the X100 or similar... compact like P&S but great lens and sensor is as big as most DSLR cameras... so it will give you that smooth creamy DOF that you can only get with a larger sensor...
All I am saying is have a good reason why you want the bigger camera and go for it...
also consider a great used 35mm camera... you can get a 2001 professional 35mm SLR camera with lens for a case of beer. The other $800 will develop a lot of film... and likely (99%) the film produces nicer photos than an entry level DSLR camera... (because the film is larger than the sensor)
All my photos are using a bridging camera... though as I take more and more photos (and learn more) I do find myself slightly wanting more options and flexibility. That said, I love my camera and I was slightly overwhelmed by the DLSRs when I was looking at them. I also wanted a camera that I could point and shoot at the kids quickly etc. etc. But if you can afford it, go for the DLSR.
I like the simplicity ,as you say, of the bridge camera.What is the most important part of the camera for quality?Is it the sensor ,as Jordan says ?Or is there something paramount to a camera?
I love my Canon Power Shot and can slip it in my purse and carry it all day and take photos that I think are excellent. I dislike my dslr because it is heavy, bulky and requires its own large handbag, but I do love the results of the photos. I find that I have to consider my destination before I would take it on a long trip. But every so often I will be taking a photo with my bridge and, I stop and wish I had my dslr to switch lenses or too really stop and test different options for taking the photo.
The biggest thing I hate about the new bridge cameras are that they have given into this concept that a view finder is no longer necessary and you can just use an lcd screen. I find that in order to see the screen I can not be out in the bright sun or have to hold it a bit away from my body/ Both of these have negative impacts on the quality of the photo since it is harder to hold the camera still.
If you are fortunate enough to have enough money, I would recommend buying a new entry level dslr with lens kit and also buying a used bridge camera. This way you can have the best of both worlds.
I have both a bridge camera (Olympus Pen E-PL1) and a DSLR (Pentax K-7). I got the Olympus first and after a couple of years with it, felt I needed to stretch myself a bit more and wanted to get to change more settings for myself. So I got the Pentax K-7. I liked the feel of it in the shop (seemed lighter than most) and the menu was quite intuitive to use. Now I end up using my Olympus when out and about everyday (because it's nice and light and still has the option of interchangable lenses) and the Pentax for more planned excusions and portrait shots. I don't like the fact the Olympus doesn't have a viewfinder and having used the Pentax, can't imagine buying a camera without one now. But neither do I like the weight (in comparison to the Olympus even though it's fairly light compared with other DSLR's) of the Pentax and the fact it has to have its own bag. Ideally, I would like one camera than combines the two. In a couple of months, there is a new Olympus bridge coming out (OM-D) and maybe that will be worth taking a look at ( http://olympusomd.com/en-GB/omd/e-m5/overview/features/)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I found that I was slightly limited by its low light abilities, but not much else. The lens is excellent.
Am I happy that I upgraded. Yes, but I haven't found it to be a massive improvement, I think I have to work harder for good shots with the DSLR, but that's part of the fun. Also given enough cash I could improve my lens collection and then the differences would become more apparent.
Really there is no debate, anything a bridge can do a DSLR can do. A bridge can't do all that a DSLR can do.
ie I have a few slr and a few dslr and some lens... all told about $10,000+. Really could do much the same with a $500 bridge... just make sure the sensor is a larger one and after that it is all relative... sure a $10k mark 1 with $20k worth of lens is better than a $500 camera... but it had better be... kinda load car vs base model...
My head is sore with scratching it for a decision.
my next camera will be likely the X100 or similar... compact like P&S but great lens and sensor is as big as most DSLR cameras... so it will give you that smooth creamy DOF that you can only get with a larger sensor...
All I am saying is have a good reason why you want the bigger camera and go for it...
also consider a great used 35mm camera... you can get a 2001 professional 35mm SLR camera with lens for a case of beer. The other $800 will develop a lot of film... and likely (99%) the film produces nicer photos than an entry level DSLR camera... (because the film is larger than the sensor)
The biggest thing I hate about the new bridge cameras are that they have given into this concept that a view finder is no longer necessary and you can just use an lcd screen. I find that in order to see the screen I can not be out in the bright sun or have to hold it a bit away from my body/ Both of these have negative impacts on the quality of the photo since it is harder to hold the camera still.
If you are fortunate enough to have enough money, I would recommend buying a new entry level dslr with lens kit and also buying a used bridge camera. This way you can have the best of both worlds.