Point and Shoot, bridge or DSLR

[megapixels83]

I want to buy a camera that will be used 99% of the time to take photos of my nephew and my child when he/she comes along.

I already have a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and a 70-200mmf2.8 left over from my photography business days (so I know how to use a camera) but I have been out of the scene for so long I am wondering what is best to do as bridge cameras seem like a good option now and point and shoot are convenient as you can always have one on you but do I need this seeing as my phone takes good snaps in these circumstances.

Do I sell the lenses and buy a point and shoot / bridge and pocket the change or buy the low end Canon DSLR body such as the 1100d for £175 and use the good lenses I already have.

Not going to be doing anything fancy like low light, high speed or off camera lighting or even shooting RAW.

What would you do?

[Simpo Two]

If you're used to the flexibility and control of an SLR then simply add the 'D' and crack on as before. If you 'downsize' you may regret it.

[Turn7]

DSLR all the way. Bridge and p&s ahve such awfull shutter lag and lack of control its unreal.

[conkerman]

Agree with above, kids move fast so good auto focus and lack of shutter lag are essential.

[GetCarter]

As above. Avoid bridge cameras. P&S not good for what you need.

[rolex]

Please ignore the comments regards to bridge cameras. This forum is extremely biased against them. There are some excellent bridge's out there these days. I can highly recommend this one

http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compact...

[MartinP]

The reason for the bias against bridge cameras is that they're a compact camera with a big lens stuck on the front and then dressed to look like an SLR. The sensors in them are tiny, so unless shooting macro you have very little DOF control.

Given that the OP is familiar with SLR cameras and already owns some fast zooms, the SLR route seems a no brainer to me unless the size of one would mean he just wouldn't have it with him when he might need it. In that case I'd be looking at one of the mirrorless system cameras with a four thirds or APS-C sized sensor to get a better compromise between camera size and image quality.

[Simpo Two]

rolex said:

Please ignore the comments regards to bridge cameras. This forum is extremely biased against them. There are some excellent bridge's out there these days.

If you want to shoot a fly's eyebows off at 400 yards at an affordable price, they have a place. But that wasn't in the brief.

[GetCarter]

rolex said:

Please ignore the comments regards to bridge cameras. This forum is extremely biased against them. There are some excellent bridge's out there these days. I can highly recommend this one

http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compact...

Sensor size in this camera is smaller than some compacts. Size of sensor is important. Very important. It may well be a good camera but has a tiny sensor. Resulting images will suffer.

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-ca...