High end Bridge camera or entry level DSLR?

[Slyjoe]

As above - had my hands on one of these yesterday and was quite impressed especially with the zoom and image stabilisation.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-PowerShot-SX40-Digit...

however that kind of money will get me an entry level DSLR.

It mainly used for family snaps, but I do like my lansdcapes and portraits/street photography, with some manual control.

Thoughts?

[rottie102]

I find bridge camera the worst of both, with disadvantages on compacts and slrs in one body. Too big to be pocketable, small sensor, no lenses to choose from etc. I'd rather buy a cheaper/2nd hand SLR AND a compact.

[jimmy156]

hello slyjoe,

for the type of photography you say you will be doing, i think you're better off going down the SLR route. As rottie says there are some inherent disadvantages to bridge camera's, the main one being that they have a small sensore and therefore lesser image quality.

Where they do have a distinct advantage is they have huge zoom capability (a factor only possible because of the small sensor) so if you wanted to get into wildlife photography or something they can be a very cost effective way to get started. I think some of them have zoom lenses up to 840mm or something, you would have to spend thousands to achieve that with an SLR.

[Slyjoe]

Thanks for the comments. It was the huge zoom on the bridge that made me think again. An equivalent for a DSLR would be mighty expensive.
The Micro 4/3rds cameras felt too tiny in my big hands.
Guess the DSLR is really the way to go.
Any reccomendations at entry level please?

Edited by Slyjoe on Monday 30th January 10:23

[jimmy156]

Either the Canon (1100d) or Nikon (d5100?) would be a good bet. also consider the sony and pentax offerings. Tbh i would go and pick up a few and get the one that feels most natural / intuitive to you.

[nickfrog]

Slyjoe said:

It was the huge zoom on the bridge that made me think again.

A huge zoom feeding a tiny sensor doesn't make any sense.

[baz7175]

The only bridge camera I've ever given the time of day is the Sony R1, which I still use to this day due to the clarity and colour that it's sensor and zeiss optics produce.

(I've actually got 3x of them)

[RobDickinson]

SLR's are a bottomless pit of expense, but they do deliver the goods.

have a think about a m43rds system, they are cheapish and have a ton of small and easy to carry lenses.

Small sensor and mega zoom = huge compromise.

[S47]

Dslr everytime

[james_tigerwoods]

A D3100 will set you back about £430 which, for what that bridge camera costs, would be where my money would go - A D5100 is well out of the price range there.

[Starfighter]

Slyjoe said:

It was the huge zoom on the bridge that made me think again. An equivalent for a DSLR would be mighty expensive.

The lens will be a compromise throughout its range. The bigger the magnification ratio, the greater the compormise and you will see it as soft edges, colour casts and CA in high contrst conditions.Most also cross the 50mm mark from wide to telephoto and this is where it gets realy noticable.

Most SLR lenses are lower levels of zoom nad so less of a compromise is design. They also have a much larger surface light are and this means they can catch more light and have to do less work with the sensor sensitivity.