Best bridge camera ?
Discussion
Friend of mine is looking to get a bridge camera. Maximum budget is £350.
Main use will be family shots and kids sports so some level of zoom to get decent shots of kids from a distance, plus good quality to take photos of art to transfer to web pages....so decent close up indoors.
Options and thoughts ?
It needs to be simple to use as they have no clue with regard to photography !
Thanks
Main use will be family shots and kids sports so some level of zoom to get decent shots of kids from a distance, plus good quality to take photos of art to transfer to web pages....so decent close up indoors.
Options and thoughts ?
It needs to be simple to use as they have no clue with regard to photography !
Thanks
You won't find much love for the bridge camera here. All the negatives of a compact camera and all of the negatives of a DSLR rolled in to one. Not a lot going for them really.
That said, you should be able to get a Sony rx10 used in that budget and they are definitely one of the better bridges with a larger 1" sensor and a cracking lens.
Panasonic made the fz1000 which you can pick up for similar money to the rx10. Again, a bigger 1" sensor in this one.
That said, you should be able to get a Sony rx10 used in that budget and they are definitely one of the better bridges with a larger 1" sensor and a cracking lens.
Panasonic made the fz1000 which you can pick up for similar money to the rx10. Again, a bigger 1" sensor in this one.
I'm not a great fan either ! But it's what they are saying they want. They are not "into" photography but want something that can deliver in terms of the requirements above.
They definitely won't be looking second hand so I think those 2 are out of reach with £350.
Any thoughts on the Canon Powershot sx60 ?
If not a bridge camera, given the uses required, what camera at £350 would be recommended
They definitely won't be looking second hand so I think those 2 are out of reach with £350.
Any thoughts on the Canon Powershot sx60 ?
If not a bridge camera, given the uses required, what camera at £350 would be recommended
Edited by Steve Campbell on Saturday 12th November 22:30
I've used bridge cameras for over 10 years. If you want a smallish camera, with a decent zoom, superior flexibility to a compact, and at a bargain price, then they are certainly a sensible option. There is a vast range and there is bound to be one that suits your tastes.
I've used 2 x Nikon and 2 x Panasonic. All four performed well for what I wanted. I was pleased with my choice and, in identical circumstances, would buy them again.
I've recently sold my last bridge and moved to a compact system camera, but there are specific reasons for that.
They are an excellent buy if they suit your needs.
I have a friend with a Nikon who takes (many thousands of) photographs of the Moon with his Nikon bridge, and they are of very good quality, and nicely detailed. I'm impressed.
So I'm a fan of bridge cameras although my current needs are best filled by different types. I have a compact and my CSC plus two video cameras with the ability to take decent enough stills.
I've used 2 x Nikon and 2 x Panasonic. All four performed well for what I wanted. I was pleased with my choice and, in identical circumstances, would buy them again.
I've recently sold my last bridge and moved to a compact system camera, but there are specific reasons for that.
They are an excellent buy if they suit your needs.
I have a friend with a Nikon who takes (many thousands of) photographs of the Moon with his Nikon bridge, and they are of very good quality, and nicely detailed. I'm impressed.
So I'm a fan of bridge cameras although my current needs are best filled by different types. I have a compact and my CSC plus two video cameras with the ability to take decent enough stills.
I got a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ72 a couple of months ago, I really like it after only using my phone or a compact before. I don't know hardly anything about photography but I have some fun trying to learn about it, zoom is amazing and I managed to get some good pictures at the Belgian GP with it. I think it's a slightly older model though, and part of me wishes I had just gone a step further and got an SLR.
Just to add: I had an SLR with six or seven lenses. I used to pick a lens or two that would probably fit any image I was after and then take an additional one. I had a large camera bag and it was an occasional visitor to my pictures. The main advantage of the bridge was that it was 'available', i.e. there was little chance of me missing a picture 'cause I had the wrong lens on it. I took both cameras with me on shoots and initially hung the bridge around my neck and put the SLR on a tripod. After a few months I normally left the SLR in the boot of the car. I used to spend a few hours with the camera looking for pictures and not having the weight of two or three lenses plus the camera body was a bonus. I sat down a lot less.
I've just been trying out my new CSC and there are astonishing software improvements. The taking of 4k images a second before the shutter is pressed seems like a gimmick until you use it at your grandkid's party. It is remarkable. It is a bit memory and battery heavy, but you can't have everything. The lens is superior to the one on my Panasonic FZ150 and the extra zoom of the latter is not quite matched by the extra detail in my new one. However, I assume the FZ1000, which also boasts 4k video, is a significant improvement on my old 150.
I use my camera to illustrate articles. When editing a magazine some of the images from the bridge were used across two A4 pages. Now it is mainly online images so the quality needed was comfortably exceeded by the FZ150. But I'm doing more video now and the G7 CSC was what I needed.
It is just what I need.
I've just been trying out my new CSC and there are astonishing software improvements. The taking of 4k images a second before the shutter is pressed seems like a gimmick until you use it at your grandkid's party. It is remarkable. It is a bit memory and battery heavy, but you can't have everything. The lens is superior to the one on my Panasonic FZ150 and the extra zoom of the latter is not quite matched by the extra detail in my new one. However, I assume the FZ1000, which also boasts 4k video, is a significant improvement on my old 150.
I use my camera to illustrate articles. When editing a magazine some of the images from the bridge were used across two A4 pages. Now it is mainly online images so the quality needed was comfortably exceeded by the FZ150. But I'm doing more video now and the G7 CSC was what I needed.
It is just what I need.
MysteryLemon said:
You won't find much love for the bridge camera here. All the negatives of a compact camera and all of the negatives of a DSLR rolled in to one. Not a lot going for them really.
That said, you should be able to get a Sony rx10 used in that budget and they are definitely one of the better bridges with a larger 1" sensor and a cracking lens.
Panasonic made the fz1000 which you can pick up for similar money to the rx10. Again, a bigger 1" sensor in this one.
Isn't DibblyDobbler currently using a Sony RX10, not sure which version he has but the photos he's been posting on here have been extremely good, massive zoom to boot.That said, you should be able to get a Sony rx10 used in that budget and they are definitely one of the better bridges with a larger 1" sensor and a cracking lens.
Panasonic made the fz1000 which you can pick up for similar money to the rx10. Again, a bigger 1" sensor in this one.
I have to say that Panasonic do make some extremely good cameras and if they had made a slightly smaller version to compete directly in size with the Sony RX100 compact camera I would have bought one without any hesitation whatsoever - Panasonic are you listening?
Personally, I like Sony cameras and have one of their (cheaper) bridge cameras, a HX100V which cost around £400 back in 2011. My bridge (and my RX100) travels with me when I'm on business as there is no room for a DSLR or CSC kit.I've got two 30"x20" prints on display in my house, one of some elephants and the other of a white tiger, which I simply could not have taken without the bridge camera. Both were taken at full zoom and the quality is excellent.
Bridge cameras get a slating on here, but I'm a great believer in the sentiment that the best camera you can have is the one you have with you, and if anything happened to my Sony Bridge I'd get another to replace it in an instant.
The latest version of mine is the HX400V:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compa...
It's now available for £299 and will do everything required by your friend.
Other excellent cameras have/will be recommended, and in truth for your friend's needs none of the offerings from Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, or Sony in that budget is likely to disappoint.
Perhaps the best advice is to get them into somewhere like Currys, so they can get hands on and find which ones feel best in their hands. A quick check of reviews after that and the decision should be easier.
Bridge cameras get a slating on here, but I'm a great believer in the sentiment that the best camera you can have is the one you have with you, and if anything happened to my Sony Bridge I'd get another to replace it in an instant.
The latest version of mine is the HX400V:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compa...
It's now available for £299 and will do everything required by your friend.
Other excellent cameras have/will be recommended, and in truth for your friend's needs none of the offerings from Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, or Sony in that budget is likely to disappoint.
Perhaps the best advice is to get them into somewhere like Currys, so they can get hands on and find which ones feel best in their hands. A quick check of reviews after that and the decision should be easier.
ambuletz said:
I really don't get why they still sell bridge cameras. Is it just to lul in the clueless people that are taken in by zoom?
It's like those 99p sandwiches you see in newsagents. Somebody must be buying them for it to still exist.
It is rather like asking why people are taken in by the 4x4 looks of the Nissan Qashqai. Is the cameras suits your needs . . . It's like those 99p sandwiches you see in newsagents. Somebody must be buying them for it to still exist.
What is your particular problem with bridge cameras? As can be seen by the op's original post, he wants decent shots of his kids from a distance. I'm not sure he could get a decent DSLR with big enough zoom to suit his needs.
When I had them they were perfect for what I needed them for: illustrating articles and magazines. There was nothing else that would have provided the flexibility at the price.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXUV1Bhq7FA
Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 16th November 21:20
Bridge cameras make no sense to me. But in their defence, I know a seasoned travel writer who isn't a photographer - but has achieved many perfectly publishable results with a Lumix bridge camera. Switch it on, zoom to taste, press the button. So yes, if you're an amateur or have a limited budget and do need a massive zoom, there is a niche for them.
ambuletz said:
I really don't get why they still sell bridge cameras. Is it just to lul in the clueless people that are taken in by zoom?
It's like those 99p sandwiches you see in newsagents. Somebody must be buying them for it to still exist.
I have Canon 1DX, 5D Mark IV plus several very good lenses but I've just ordered Sony RX10 Mk 3 as another travel camera. It's like those 99p sandwiches you see in newsagents. Somebody must be buying them for it to still exist.
I travel a lot, very often with hand luggage only, then I tend to skate/walk/hike. I just can't be bothered anymore to carry several kg worth of equipment for that extra 10% edge in quality. RX10 together with Sony RX1R, GoPro 5 and Mavic Pro will let me cover all my photography needs while travelling while staying small and light.
Few points:
a) sensor technology really moved on over last few years. I'm constantly surprised with the IQ from my GoPro photos and that's even smaller than the 1 inch in RX10
This is taken with a bridge camera:
On the wall 4 by Thomas Duerr, on FlickrKnowing what you're doing while shooting and post processing is much more important than the sensor size and even ultimate IQ IMO
b) most of the people seeing my photos do it on tiny screens, with s
tty brightness to save battery etc. There is really not that much difference between Instagram photo taken with a phone and a medium format camera. I haven't printed out a photo in a long time. Would I take a very good bridge camera to a paid photoshoot, having full frame alternatives? Probably not, for a long time. Will it cover 90% of my travel/casual photography needs for much less money and effort? I think so. c) crazy zoom IS FUN, I bought Nikon P900 recently to play with and seeing things at 2000mm can really surprise you. Photos are crap but video is surprisingly decent!
TBH the ones I don't really get the need for are M4/3 and APS-C cameras. They are very often just as expensive as FF, lenses are almost just as big. I either go for full pro and then I don't care about size or light/travel and then every gram/inch/bit of convenience counts (if GOOD ENOUGH results are provided of course).
Edited by rottie102 on Wednesday 16th November 22:24
Edited by rottie102 on Wednesday 16th November 22:31
You won't go wrong with pretty much any super-zoom or travel compact or bridge camera from the major manufacturers - Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Sony - and that's roughly the order I'd rank them even though there's not much between them (Sony only comes last because they tend to have over-aggressive sharpening and noise reduction with no user control to override it).
Bridge or compact.. not a lot between them, it depends whether portability is important and or whether you find a larger body easier to hold. In terms of image quality you won't see much difference.
But.. £350 is right on the edge of tipping over into a mirrorless compact system camera with kit lens, there are Panasonic/Olympus m43 models around that price point and they're definitely worth look.
Bridge or compact.. not a lot between them, it depends whether portability is important and or whether you find a larger body easier to hold. In terms of image quality you won't see much difference.
But.. £350 is right on the edge of tipping over into a mirrorless compact system camera with kit lens, there are Panasonic/Olympus m43 models around that price point and they're definitely worth look.
rottie102 said:
I bought Nikon P900 recently to play with and seeing things at 2000mm can really surprise you. Photos are crap but video is surprisingly decent!
TBH the ones I don't really get the need for are M4/3 and APS-C cameras. They are very often just as expensive as FF, lenses are almost just as big. I either go for full pro and then I don't care about size or light/travel and then every gram/inch/bit of convenience counts (if GOOD ENOUGH results are provided of course).
I've got a friend with one of these. He takes pictures of the Moon with it. I know my way around Mare Imbrium better than I do Brighton. I await his latest creations, following the recent perigee, with some anticipation.TBH the ones I don't really get the need for are M4/3 and APS-C cameras. They are very often just as expensive as FF, lenses are almost just as big. I either go for full pro and then I don't care about size or light/travel and then every gram/inch/bit of convenience counts (if GOOD ENOUGH results are provided of course).
I expect to see no more than a few hundred.
rottie102 said:
TBH the ones I don't really get the need for are M4/3 and APS-C cameras. They are very often just as expensive as FF, lenses are almost just as big.
How can you claim that comparative lens sizes between M4/3rds and FF are almost the same ???Look at any of the longer and faster lenses and there's an enormous difference in size and weight,and probably price too.
Hi folks, many thanks for your advice and pointers. They have finally not gone with a bridge camera after all...but a Panasonic Lumix compact at similar price point. In the end, the size of the camera and feel were just a step too far for someone who isn't used to anything bigger than a pocket camera.
Interesting getting feedback so thanks anyway.
Interesting getting feedback so thanks anyway.
bridge cameras reviews: http://thedigitalcamera.net/best-bridge-camera-rec...
bory said:
bridge cameras reviews: http://thedigitalcamera.net/best-bridge-camera-rec...
Not much of reviewing in terms of actual experience there... I have the RX10 MK3, latest Panasonic FZ2000 and Nikon p900. I wanted to play with all of them to decide which one to keep.
Untitled by Woof Snap, on FlickrI'm gonna stick with the Sony I think.
The only thing Nikon has going for it is the crazy zoom and IS. I can realistically take photos handheld at 2000mm
Image quality is crap, no RAW, slow write speed and AF. But it's surprisingly fun to shoot videos with it. Panasonic has the best AF, very quick WHEN WORKS but very often for some reason just cannot start focussing, it displays red marker and that's it. Then is OK.
It has the best EVF. Really really good OLED, a pleasure to use. Sony's is OK. I thought I will like the touchscreen but I don't really use it that much for focus selection etc. I like Sony's implementation of it - you start from center and then it tracks from there.
I was searching for a travel camera and one big thing for me lacking in Panasonic is in-camera USB charging, I really do not want to carry another charger with its own power cable.
Lens is also significantly faster at every length in Sony.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff