Discussion
Hi guys,
So i've been old that for my upcoming 30th Birthday that family are chipping together to get me a new camera. I've always liked photography, but never really persued it.
I've got a digital camera which is about 8 years old.
I've been told that there's quite a bit of money in the kitty, so to choose something pretty tasty.
Having spent some of the weekend in shops and looking on the internet i've come to a cross roads.
DSLR or Top of the range Bridge Camera.
I'm looking at 2 DLSR's. The new Nikon D3200 and the Canon 1100D. The bridge camera is the new Panazonic FZ200.
So the Pro's and Cons.
SLR is going to be a better picture, more features, more Megapixels (the Nikon) a better camera for longer term photography.
On the down side, the extra lenses, carrying them, more money.
Now I know the guy in the Panasonic shop is obviously going to try to sell me a Panasonic camera, but why would he try selling me the Bridge camera being better than an SLR. he was trying to sell me the bridge even over the more Expensive Panasonic SLR (The G5) in the shop!
Is the bridge, really that good?
I've always throught the SLR's were the best of the best, and the Nikon and Canon are what i'm looking at, Nikon is edging it.
Any thoughts recommendations for the Pistonheads community would be greatly appreciated. I'm a novice photographer, but would really like to do courses and take it up a lot more. Car shows, motor racing and nature would be my area's of interest.
Thanks all!
So i've been old that for my upcoming 30th Birthday that family are chipping together to get me a new camera. I've always liked photography, but never really persued it.
I've got a digital camera which is about 8 years old.
I've been told that there's quite a bit of money in the kitty, so to choose something pretty tasty.
Having spent some of the weekend in shops and looking on the internet i've come to a cross roads.
DSLR or Top of the range Bridge Camera.
I'm looking at 2 DLSR's. The new Nikon D3200 and the Canon 1100D. The bridge camera is the new Panazonic FZ200.
So the Pro's and Cons.
SLR is going to be a better picture, more features, more Megapixels (the Nikon) a better camera for longer term photography.
On the down side, the extra lenses, carrying them, more money.
Now I know the guy in the Panasonic shop is obviously going to try to sell me a Panasonic camera, but why would he try selling me the Bridge camera being better than an SLR. he was trying to sell me the bridge even over the more Expensive Panasonic SLR (The G5) in the shop!
Is the bridge, really that good?
I've always throught the SLR's were the best of the best, and the Nikon and Canon are what i'm looking at, Nikon is edging it.
Any thoughts recommendations for the Pistonheads community would be greatly appreciated. I'm a novice photographer, but would really like to do courses and take it up a lot more. Car shows, motor racing and nature would be my area's of interest.
Thanks all!
A DSLR, if you take to it, is an amazing way of spending money.
There's always a lens or a filter or a gadget or a tripod or a bag that you definitely, absolutely, positively need.
The bridge camera will obviate a reasonable amount of that.
However, for what you want - static car photography (wide lens & tripod), motorsport (big zoom & monopod needed, fast FPS), nature (assuming you mean animals: bigger zoom, faster FPS, tripod to suit the extra weight; assuming you mean landscapes - wide lens, tripod & filters) you might find that the bridge camera doesn't do any of those things really well whilst also not being hopeless, either.
If you're only buying one camera then a DSLR will be considerably more flexible than the bridge camera, simply because you can swap the glass on the front. It'll take technically better pictures, too. I stress "technically", because my Mrs regularly takes shots with her camera phone (which has a goosed autofocus and is all-around awful) that are better composed than my artyfarty shots taken with my "proper" DSLR.
There's always a lens or a filter or a gadget or a tripod or a bag that you definitely, absolutely, positively need.
The bridge camera will obviate a reasonable amount of that.
However, for what you want - static car photography (wide lens & tripod), motorsport (big zoom & monopod needed, fast FPS), nature (assuming you mean animals: bigger zoom, faster FPS, tripod to suit the extra weight; assuming you mean landscapes - wide lens, tripod & filters) you might find that the bridge camera doesn't do any of those things really well whilst also not being hopeless, either.
If you're only buying one camera then a DSLR will be considerably more flexible than the bridge camera, simply because you can swap the glass on the front. It'll take technically better pictures, too. I stress "technically", because my Mrs regularly takes shots with her camera phone (which has a goosed autofocus and is all-around awful) that are better composed than my artyfarty shots taken with my "proper" DSLR.
I often hear folk who have a mega-Nikon DSLR say theyve also got a bridge camera as they are lighter and come with 90% of what they ever need
im not sure exactly how to compare zooms though as my Finepix HS30EXR has "24-750" on the lens but i think that includes the digital zoom...
im not sure exactly how to compare zooms though as my Finepix HS30EXR has "24-750" on the lens but i think that includes the digital zoom...
Edited by Upatdawn on Monday 8th October 13:35
My first DSLR was a Canon 20d. One of the best for its time, and still holds its own now. Great camera to learn with, truly. Only downside is the smaller preview screen, but you shouldn't be looking anyway! 
If you need something modern with live view, I went from the 20d to a 600d/t3i, and it is excellent, though in hindsight I would have gone for the 60d for the improved fps as I shoot some sports. I only bought it for the HD video aspect though, otherwise was chuffed with my 20d, and i'm now looking for a decent example to use as a back up.
If you need something modern with live view, I went from the 20d to a 600d/t3i, and it is excellent, though in hindsight I would have gone for the 60d for the improved fps as I shoot some sports. I only bought it for the HD video aspect though, otherwise was chuffed with my 20d, and i'm now looking for a decent example to use as a back up.
Wills82 said:
.
I'm looking at 2 DLSR's. The new Nikon D3200 and the Canon 1100D. The bridge camera is the new Panazonic FZ200.
Out of interest why have you narrowed it to those two only? They aren't really comparable in terms of spec or price and there are others in both the Nikon and Canon ranges that would be worthy of consideration alongside or even over those. If you're looking at the real entry level, the equivalent Nikon to the 1100d is the D3100 selling at a similar price in the £350 type range although from what I recall when looking, the 3100 was the better specced of the two. I'm looking at 2 DLSR's. The new Nikon D3200 and the Canon 1100D. The bridge camera is the new Panazonic FZ200.
If you want to go a bit more mid range around the £450-600 range, the 3200 is a good option but so is the D5100, it's got the same sensor as the higher end D7000 and although its got a few more features than the 3200, is actually cheaper because the 3200 is brand new so still selling near RRP. The Canon equivalents of those are the 550d, 600d and 650d, the 600d was last years replacement for the 550d and the 650d has recently replaced the 600d. All three have basically the same sensor so will take similar quality images, whether the later models are worth the extra depends on if you'll use the odd additional feature, such as flip out screen on the later two and better video support etc.
Edited by LocoBlade on Monday 8th October 21:09
The FZ200 has a constant F2.8 zoom lens. Yes I did really say that, its pretty killer for a superzoom to have a lens like that.
Now what this means is 2 stops gain over a Panasonic m4/3 body with one of their longer range zooms mounted. The kicker is that if one needs to use higher iso on the m4/3 body then the potential performance of the FZ200 starts to look seriously tempting. If one goes onto dxomark for example and compares the Fz200 to the G5 on almost every measure the FZ200 sensor is as good as the m4/3 sensor if one compares say 200 ISO on one to 800 ISO on the other etc. The test results so far also indicate that the FZ200 lens is really rather good whereas the consumer grade Panasonic m4/3 zooms are rather ordinary. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see overall IQ performance that turns out to be competitive with Panasonic m4/3 at long focal lengths.
The FZ200 could be a landmark camera, its odd in some respects that Panasonic have produced something which competes most directly with their very own interchangeable lens camera system.
OTOH it isn't much more cash at the moment for a twin lens Nikon d5100 kit.
Now what this means is 2 stops gain over a Panasonic m4/3 body with one of their longer range zooms mounted. The kicker is that if one needs to use higher iso on the m4/3 body then the potential performance of the FZ200 starts to look seriously tempting. If one goes onto dxomark for example and compares the Fz200 to the G5 on almost every measure the FZ200 sensor is as good as the m4/3 sensor if one compares say 200 ISO on one to 800 ISO on the other etc. The test results so far also indicate that the FZ200 lens is really rather good whereas the consumer grade Panasonic m4/3 zooms are rather ordinary. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see overall IQ performance that turns out to be competitive with Panasonic m4/3 at long focal lengths.
The FZ200 could be a landmark camera, its odd in some respects that Panasonic have produced something which competes most directly with their very own interchangeable lens camera system.
OTOH it isn't much more cash at the moment for a twin lens Nikon d5100 kit.
NJH said:
The FZ200 has a constant F2.8 zoom lens. Yes I did really say that, its pretty killer for a superzoom to have a lens like that.
I had the FZ20 years ago and that had a constant f2.8 too (but not quite as massive zoom as the FZ200) - loved that camera. I wore it out after about 3 years of heavy use/misuse though and when they go the whole thing is scrap which seems a waste (take care with that motorized extending zoom would be my advice).Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 9th October 13:17
I guess it depends whether you'd rather pursue photography as a technical hobby, or a creative one. Are you happy to take a bulkier DSLR out with you with the purpose of taking pictures, or rather something more discreet and portable to snap those interesting moments. A DSLR will grow and develop with you, whilst a bridge would give more short term satisfaction.
I went for a Nikon 5100 recently, the results are so good it is really inspiring. I'd say a DSLR and maybe an evening class or following some online tutorials to learn how to get the best out of it.
I went for a Nikon 5100 recently, the results are so good it is really inspiring. I'd say a DSLR and maybe an evening class or following some online tutorials to learn how to get the best out of it.
I had this dilemma a while ago. Was looking at either a DSLR or a bridge camera.
In fact I ended up with something different to both. I bought an Olympus Pen Compact System Camera. It is small enough to be unobtrusive, but has the option of interchangeable lenses.
I find it more compact than my old bridge camera and the quality of the sensor means it takes great photos.
Might be worth a look. Sorry to add to your confusion.
In fact I ended up with something different to both. I bought an Olympus Pen Compact System Camera. It is small enough to be unobtrusive, but has the option of interchangeable lenses.
I find it more compact than my old bridge camera and the quality of the sensor means it takes great photos.
Might be worth a look. Sorry to add to your confusion.
I went through 2 £250+ bridge cameras before getting my DSLR (Canon 450D), looking back I should have just bought a DSLR straight away and saved my self £500. The super-zoom cameras look amazing on paper but in practice I always found the x20 zoom almost impossible to use in anger, the AF was always slow (manual focus was almost impossible to use), and I found electronic viewfinders hard to use.
Don't be afraid to go down the 2nd hand/used market for DSLR you can get alot for your money, my entire DSLR gear is now 2nd gear, my 70-300mmIS lens is now 5 years old and I'm the third owner. A good quality lens infact rarely drops much in value and will last years, where as even the best bridge camera will be superseded by a newer/better model on a 12 monthly basis...
I took the photos below at the Singapore GP this year with a 550D and 70-300mm lens, total cost of the equipment £550 (both were 2nd hand), as good as bridge cameras are they cannot match the versatility and image quality offered by a DSLR, and if your really want to get into photography...go down the DSLR route you wouldn't regret it!!
Don't be afraid to go down the 2nd hand/used market for DSLR you can get alot for your money, my entire DSLR gear is now 2nd gear, my 70-300mmIS lens is now 5 years old and I'm the third owner. A good quality lens infact rarely drops much in value and will last years, where as even the best bridge camera will be superseded by a newer/better model on a 12 monthly basis...
I took the photos below at the Singapore GP this year with a 550D and 70-300mm lens, total cost of the equipment £550 (both were 2nd hand), as good as bridge cameras are they cannot match the versatility and image quality offered by a DSLR, and if your really want to get into photography...go down the DSLR route you wouldn't regret it!!
Edited by gangzoom on Tuesday 9th October 20:05
I've got a couple of Nikon DSLRs which I love, and a bunch of lenses. Honestly, I can never, ever be bothered to haul them around. Which means they're basically only ever used for taking product photos no matter how many times I vow to get all my gear out and get back into taking some proper shots. They're also wallet emptying financial parasites.
I recently picked up a Sony NEX5N to fill the gap, while it's not a patch on my Nikon in terms of what you can achieve and how versatile it is, it's a much smaller, doesn't disappoint like a compact, and above all else it's a nice middle ground that I hope will rekindle my love for landscape shots when I move over the pond. It also means I don't look like paparazzi when I'm mooching around on holidays.
Ordinarily I'd be loathed to recommend anything made by Sony, but give it a look, it's pretty decent.
I recently picked up a Sony NEX5N to fill the gap, while it's not a patch on my Nikon in terms of what you can achieve and how versatile it is, it's a much smaller, doesn't disappoint like a compact, and above all else it's a nice middle ground that I hope will rekindle my love for landscape shots when I move over the pond. It also means I don't look like paparazzi when I'm mooching around on holidays.
Ordinarily I'd be loathed to recommend anything made by Sony, but give it a look, it's pretty decent.
It really depends what you want from a camera 
As somebody once said - "the best camera is the one you have with you"
If your idea of photography is having a compact camera in your pocket for opportunistic shots when hill walking, then great! If you aren't the sort of person who wants to carry a bag full of gear then clearly you're going to get better photos from the camera you don't leave behind in the wardrobe
Many superb photographer on here don't just have one camera, even someone with a £15k of gear doesn't always want to carry it when they're taking the dog for a walk
My question over bridge cameras has always been my feeling that they seem to be a half-step from a P&S to a DSLR but seemingly lacking many of their respective benefits - too big to fling in your jacket, not customisable and adaptable enough.
As somebody once said - "the best camera is the one you have with you"
If your idea of photography is having a compact camera in your pocket for opportunistic shots when hill walking, then great! If you aren't the sort of person who wants to carry a bag full of gear then clearly you're going to get better photos from the camera you don't leave behind in the wardrobe
Many superb photographer on here don't just have one camera, even someone with a £15k of gear doesn't always want to carry it when they're taking the dog for a walk
My question over bridge cameras has always been my feeling that they seem to be a half-step from a P&S to a DSLR but seemingly lacking many of their respective benefits - too big to fling in your jacket, not customisable and adaptable enough.
RosscoPCole said:
I had this dilemma a while ago. Was looking at either a DSLR or a bridge camera.
In fact I ended up with something different to both. I bought an Olympus Pen Compact System Camera. It is small enough to be unobtrusive, but has the option of interchangeable lenses.
I find it more compact than my old bridge camera and the quality of the sensor means it takes great photos.
Might be worth a look. Sorry to add to your confusion.
This is what I use - the Olympus PEN, in E-PL2 flavour. It's pretty good, but:In fact I ended up with something different to both. I bought an Olympus Pen Compact System Camera. It is small enough to be unobtrusive, but has the option of interchangeable lenses.
I find it more compact than my old bridge camera and the quality of the sensor means it takes great photos.
Might be worth a look. Sorry to add to your confusion.
- only 12.3 Mp, so cropping is an issue
- viewfinder is a (very expensive) optional extra: so I end up just using the screen, which isn't ideal
- the spare lenses are expensive (but I guess this is true of a DSLR)
- standard kit lens will simply not do shallow depth of field well (although it really isn't that bad at other things)
Other than that, for a novice, this camera's capabilities far exceed my own, and it is cheaper to own than a big DSLR, and a lot easier to carry around = the latter is important, as it pretty much goes everywhere with me, except when I know I'll be drinking (and hence lose it somewhere)
I think though, that by the time you've added the viewfinder, another lens, and various bits and pieces, you're in second hand DSLR territory for sure. And I know that I will want a DSLR in a couple of years.
Personally I think the 4/3 route one is a good one: it means that you will take your camera with you when you go places, and even with the compact kit lens, the PEN takes great photos. But it definitely has limitations - and a bridge camera has even more limitations.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Wednesday 10th October 09:45
Harry Flashman said:
This is what I use - the Olympus PEN, in E-PL2 flavour. It's pretty good, but:
- only 12.3 Mp, so cropping is an issue
- viewfinder is a (very expensive) optional extra: so I end up just using the screen, which isn't ideal
- the spare lenses are expensive (but I guess this is true of a DSLR)
- standard kit lens will simply not do shallow depth of field well (although it really isn't that bad at other things)
Other than that, for a novice, this camera's capabilities far exceed my own, and it is cheaper to own than a big DSLR, and a lot easier to carry around = the latter is important, as it pretty much goes everywhere with me, except when I know I'll be drinking (and hence lose it somewhere)
I think though, that by the time you've added the viewfinder, another lens, and various bits and pieces, you're in second hand DSLR territory for sure. And I know that I will want a DSLR in a couple of years.
Personally I think the 4/3 route one is a good one: it means that you will take your camera with you when you go places, and even with the compact kit lens, the PEN takes great photos. But it definitely has limitations - and a bridge camera has even more limitations.
How do you find the focus speed of the PEN? I've been tempted by the size of these cameras but in all the reviews is sounds like the AF system hasn't really been perfected. Even the new Canon 4/3 camera has a rubbish AF system. - only 12.3 Mp, so cropping is an issue
- viewfinder is a (very expensive) optional extra: so I end up just using the screen, which isn't ideal
- the spare lenses are expensive (but I guess this is true of a DSLR)
- standard kit lens will simply not do shallow depth of field well (although it really isn't that bad at other things)
Other than that, for a novice, this camera's capabilities far exceed my own, and it is cheaper to own than a big DSLR, and a lot easier to carry around = the latter is important, as it pretty much goes everywhere with me, except when I know I'll be drinking (and hence lose it somewhere)
I think though, that by the time you've added the viewfinder, another lens, and various bits and pieces, you're in second hand DSLR territory for sure. And I know that I will want a DSLR in a couple of years.
Personally I think the 4/3 route one is a good one: it means that you will take your camera with you when you go places, and even with the compact kit lens, the PEN takes great photos. But it definitely has limitations - and a bridge camera has even more limitations.
When i was trying to get shots of the GP cars a 0.5 sec delay in the focusing department meant missing the shot. Even the AF in my 550D struggled with the getting a quick lock on the cars because of the safety fence. I ended up using manual focus quite a bit, which was only possible because of the optical-view finder (trying to use MF using the LCD screen on a car doing 70 mph only a meters away was impossible). However when the AF did lock on it was pretty much instantaneous (0.5 - 1 sec between unfocused car, me pressing the shutter button, camera focusing, and camera taking the photo at 300mm zoom) and 99% accurate, not really sure how something like the PEN would coped in the same situation?
Thanks a lot for all of your replies. I'm going to go through all of the above information and do more internet research.
There's some other model recommendations in there to so i'll look into these and go from there.
Those motor-racing are very good! if i could get some pics like that i'd be very happy!
Thanks again all!
Ross
There's some other model recommendations in there to so i'll look into these and go from there.
Those motor-racing are very good! if i could get some pics like that i'd be very happy!
Thanks again all!
Ross
I graduated from a Panasonic bridge to a Canon DSLR (a couple of years ago now). The Panasonic was probably sharper than the Canon and kit lens and produced great photos, particularly for outdoor walk-about stuff, the zoom range was also fantastic. Only problems were high iso noise issues and worse image stabilisation, so in low light it struggled to produce as good a picture, and it obviously isn't as quick/responsive as a DSLR for multiple shooting. Aperture control wasn't as pronounced either (depth of field effects etc). They may have improved quite a lot now though, since mine would be 4-5 years old.
gangzoom said:
How do you find the focus speed of the PEN? I've been tempted by the size of these cameras but in all the reviews is sounds like the AF system hasn't really been perfected. Even the new Canon 4/3 camera has a rubbish AF system.
When i was trying to get shots of the GP cars a 0.5 sec delay in the focusing department meant missing the shot. Even the AF in my 550D struggled with the getting a quick lock on the cars because of the safety fence. I ended up using manual focus quite a bit, which was only possible because of the optical-view finder (trying to use MF using the LCD screen on a car doing 70 mph only a meters away was impossible). However when the AF did lock on it was pretty much instantaneous (0.5 - 1 sec between unfocused car, me pressing the shutter button, camera focusing, and camera taking the photo at 300mm zoom) and 99% accurate, not really sure how something like the PEN would coped in the same situation?
MIne's very good at focus speed: but I think it's something they specifically addressed for the PEN EPL2, after criticism of the EPL1. In any case, to be fair, when shooting fast moving things (which I very rarely do) I tend to focus lock a location and shoot them there. But motorsport/aircraft photography with my standard 42mm kit lens is pretty worthless anyway; need a proper telephoto for that, generally. I hear the Olympus telephotos are actually very good and pretty fast, but horribly expensive (150-300mm £600, for example)When i was trying to get shots of the GP cars a 0.5 sec delay in the focusing department meant missing the shot. Even the AF in my 550D struggled with the getting a quick lock on the cars because of the safety fence. I ended up using manual focus quite a bit, which was only possible because of the optical-view finder (trying to use MF using the LCD screen on a car doing 70 mph only a meters away was impossible). However when the AF did lock on it was pretty much instantaneous (0.5 - 1 sec between unfocused car, me pressing the shutter button, camera focusing, and camera taking the photo at 300mm zoom) and 99% accurate, not really sure how something like the PEN would coped in the same situation?
PEN also does not have as good a multishot as a DSLR - I think only 3 frames a second or something. DSLRs will do 10 or so, is that right?
PEN bracketing mode also not as good, I think.
In conclusion, by the time you've specced a PEN up with viewfinder and lenses, you're well into DSLR territory, so it has to depend on your needs. I will take the PEN places I simply won't take the DSLR, so am OK with compromising on ultimate features...
Its at the very long end where the bridge cameras make a lot of sense, assuming of course you really need it and can make it work for you. Getting to 600mm or 700mm equivalent focal length with a DSLR will probably cost far more money if bought new.
I still feel however that if one really needs to cover a wide range of focal lengths the current Nikon d5100 twin lens kit looks like pretty killer VFM
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=Niko...
Very tempted to jump on that myself before they pull the d5100 in favour of a new model. I really miss having a DSLR.
I still feel however that if one really needs to cover a wide range of focal lengths the current Nikon d5100 twin lens kit looks like pretty killer VFM
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=Niko...
Very tempted to jump on that myself before they pull the d5100 in favour of a new model. I really miss having a DSLR.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff