OLD DSLR or New Bridge Cam

[IATM]

HI All,

I know that most of the time if not all the time most people are going to say DSLR all the way over a bridge camera.
However the trouble I have is budget.

I want to spend up to 200 pounds.
I have seen an excellent condition Nikon 1300 for sale local to me for around 180 pounds including standard lens.

However I have seen some excellent bridge camera. I used to have a bridge and was very happy with the quality so please guide me.

What I am deciding between is a Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm VR Lens Kit

Or something like this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00JBCKQ0C/ref=...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00HXBROJY/ref=...

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/1...

[Janesy B]

If you don't need the zoom (I guess you don't if you're contemplating a 17-50 kit), you might as well just get the best Canon/Panasonic compact you can get for £200.

[Golaboots]

Go for the Nikon.
Even the worst Dslr is better than the best bridge camera in terms of speed, quality etc.

The nikkor 18-55mm is about as good as kit lenses get too.

[RobDickinson]

IMO old canons are better than old nikons, until nikon got to the D90 and on.

[Derek Smith]

What do you intend to use the camera for?

[IATM]

Hi,

Thanks for the replies guys.
To be honest I really like taking pictures and enjoy the results I get from them.
I started to look at a DSLR as I wanted to take product shots for business however I also need a camera for everyday pictures/family outings etc

I have realized lighting makes a HUGE difference. I have 3 digital cameras, (point and shoot) cameras. One is a panasonic, one a casio and the last a samsung. The Samsung I dont like so much. The Casio and Panasonic are great and overall are excellent.

I was taking product shots indoors in good light yesterday but I just was not happy with the results, I then went outside in excellent light and then next to a window indoors and its like night a day.

I am very happy with the pictures now if I am honest but I am wondering if a DSLR will take it to the next level.

Only thing that makes me reluctant is that like any took/instrument, it is only as good as its user and I know JACK **** about DLSR or its settings etc

[MysteryLemon]

Unless you're only looking to change camera because you want a huge zoom, then there is no reason to buy the bridge.

Bridge cameras have all the disadvantages of compact cameras and DSLRs combined, but none of the advantages of either.

DSLR every time.

[Mr Will]

IATM said:

Only thing that makes me reluctant is that like any took/instrument, it is only as good as its user and I know JACK **** about DLSR or its settings etc

DSLRs have all the same auto modes as a bridge/compact camera and are no harder to use. Then, once you are comfortable you can start taking more control and experimenting with the other features.

A bridge camera is just a compact camera in a DSLR style body - it won't give you any better results than you are getting now.

[GetCarter]

Bridge cameras are a way to get people to buy a compact that looks like a DSLR, so they think it's better than a compact. Buy a DSLR or a compact.

[Simpo Two]

There must be a market for stick-on fake pentaprism housings...

'Convert your compact into a DSLR for only £9.99!'
'Create your own unique brand name with the handy white Letraset included!'

[Derek Smith]

I've got a Panasonic FZ150 bridge camera.

I take photographs for personal use, family and stuff, and also to illustrate articles, books, blogs and websites. The quality is far greater that I need for my purposes, leaving me room to fiddle. A4 sized prints are faultless. I've not used a DSLR but came through three 35mm SLRs, towards the end one with five different lenses and two camera bodies.

I have to say that for my purposes, semi-pro I suppose, the bridge is superb. I bought my original bridge camera, a Nikon, as I could not afford the standard of DSLR I wanted and viewed it as a stop-gap.

I would like a DLSR but cannot justify it. The FZ150 does everything I need. I have a Panasonic compact and the similar controls are a bit of a boon when out taking pictures for my job.

The benefits for someone like me is that it is so compact. I now carry two cameras and no additional lenses. The gadget bag is full of lighting and other bits. On a long day's work the lightness is really noticeable. When I had my SLR I would, obviously, choose which lenses to take, but my favourite, an 80mm fixed focal length one, always came. The there would normally be one or two zooms. Very heavy. Often both bodies.

Downsides: action shots. I can get over this to an extent with multiple frames, but it is not so good. Perhaps a better photographer than me would be able to do better.

The cost of an equivalent system in DLSR would have been getting on for twice that of the FZ. For instance, I need a screen that turns through 90 degrees as I often go under cars and have to hold the camera at arms' height. Even on a monopod (10sec delay and then try and get it on target. Not easy.)

Don't go for a bridge on my say so. Just don't dismiss it out of hand. I remember going out for a day's shooting of a rally with my SLR. I was knackered at the end of the morning after carrying the equipment around. I was away from home and didn't want to leave any in the van.

I have Photoshop and I sod about with images so the lower quality of image is not vital. In any case, my images are mostly either on the net or a pdf. They are good enough for magazine whole pages.

So work out what you want a camera for. Work out if the desirable nature of a DSLR overcomes the weight and amount of paraphernalia. Work out what you can afford and then compare the bridge and DSLR (remembering lenses) offerings. Consider also whether you might, at a later date, upgrade your camera body. If so then DSLR becomes more desirable as you can put up with the lower quality/convenience as you'll buy different lenses. Then a quality DSLR body is no great cost when you've already got compatible lenses. In fact it makes a lot of sense.

Beware of second hand bodies of decent quality DSLRs. Ask yourself why they got rid of something so convenient. I had an SLR body from new. I bought a S/H one to carry different film stock (not a problem nowadays of course). Despite using it less frequently the s/h one didn't last a year yet it seemed perfect when I bought it. When I finished with 35mm I gave the nine year old camera body away, with lenses, to a charity (a PHer worked at). He posted on here about two years later that it was still going.

This is not advice on which type of camera to buy, but just a suggestion to consider if the bridge suits you better.

[Simpo Two]

Derek Smith said:

I often go under cars and have to hold the camera at arms' height.

How does that work?

[rottie102]

Derek Smith said:

Beware of second hand bodies of decent quality DSLRs. Ask yourself why they got rid of something so convenient.

Seriously??

[Mr Will]

Derek Smith said:

I've got a Panasonic FZ150 bridge camera.

... snip ...

This is not advice on which type of camera to buy, but just a suggestion to consider if the bridge suits you better.

I think you misunderstand the problem. It is not snobbery about DSLRs being better that is coming in to play here, we understand that there are compromises involved in carrying one around all day.

No, the big problem is that for the price of a bridge camera you can get a compact camera that is smaller, lighter, cheaper AND higher quality.

For example rather than your FZ150 you could have got a LX7 which would blow it out of the water for image quality, especially in low light. If you need the zoom or viewfinder then there is also the TZ60 which will still match or outshoot your bridge but will slip in a pocket when you are done. That's just limiting our choices to Panasonic and without getting on the the mirrorless options, which offer genuine DSLR quality in a more portable form.

[Derek Smith]

Mr Will said:

I think you misunderstand the problem. It is not snobbery about DSLRs being better that is coming in to play here, we understand that there are compromises involved in carrying one around all day.

No, the big problem is that for the price of a bridge camera you can get a compact camera that is smaller, lighter, cheaper AND higher quality.

For example rather than your FZ150 you could have got a LX7 which would blow it out of the water for image quality, especially in low light. If you need the zoom or viewfinder then there is also the TZ60 which will still match or outshoot your bridge but will slip in a pocket when you are done. That's just limiting our choices to Panasonic and without getting on the the mirrorless options, which offer genuine DSLR quality in a more portable form.

I accept the camera I have chosen is not the best for all circumstances. I didn't mean to suggest it was. I have a decent 'pocket' compact, a TZ, which goes everywhere. One of the reasons I chose the FZ was the similarity of the controls as I've used different cameras in the past and having to think about the controls is a distraction. For my job the compact is, in most circumstances, perfectly suitable. The only reason I don't use it so much is that normal I've already got the FZ out of the bag.

I prefer the FZ as I find the controls more handy.

I wasn't trying to suggest the FZ should be the camera of choice, and I'm sorry if it came over as this. What I meant to suggest was that the decision between a, or any, DSLR and a Bridge should, perhaps, depend on what suits your needs best for the price rather than an overall 'this is best'.

I take pictures for my job so there is less choice for me as the camera has to fulfill a function. There is no doubt that I would like a DSLR but it doesn't suit my needs. We've all carried heavy equipment about for a day.