'Bridge' Cameras

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Hi All,

I've been using a Nikon D5100 for a while, and it's great.

However I am considering a new camera, and having had a play with a few bridge cameras; they seem to be the way forward?

For £300-400 I can have a lightweight camera, with all the manual settings of a dslr. The lenses seem pretty decent, some coming with Leica lenses. The optical zoom is at 30x or more on most. Which given the size is really good. And of course HD filming etc. which is important for the work I do.

What am I missing here? For semi-pro work, I'd say it's a great option. But I still like the idea of having a proper dslr.

any thoughts are appreciated.

[GetCarter]

Image quality not so good, sensor smaller (MUCH smaller than a full frame sensor), low light abilities not as good, more noise, slower focussing, electronic - not optical viewfinder, no selection of large amount of lenses. This is why people don't use a bridge camera over a DSLR.

They don't fit in a trouser/shirt pocket. This is why people don't use a bridge camera over a compact.

[Mr Will]

They are called bridge cameras because that's what they should be thrown off. They combine all downsides of a compact camera with all the downsides or a DSLR and somehow manage to avoid including any of the good points of either. But everyone picks one up in the shop, holds down the zoom control and goes "oooh, doesn't it zoom in a long way" and then hands the sales man far too much money for something that doesn't actually suit any of their needs.

/rant

[mike80]

I think they're OK for certain things, I had one years ago which I used for all sorts of things, including cars on track. If you don't want to carry around a load of stuff and are aware of the limitations then they are worth a go.

[LongQ]

It rather depends on what people need from a camera.

If the end result is to appear on a social media site with a lot of "filters" applied pretty much anything will do and I don't mean that in a negative way.

Moving up from there there are points at which the general limitations of each camera type will become more evident more of the time. However there are no hard rules about that ifwhat you want is what you can get from the camera.

[The_Jackal]

What do you feel is missing from the D5100.
That is a half decent camera capable of taking some great photos.
Don't be fooled by massive zoom numbers.

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I quite liked the idea of having one item to carry. Rather than a few lenses etc. I was worried about the small sensor size though.

Nothing wrong with the Nikkon as such. It's an older model however and is lacking a few features that more up to date cameras have. I also didn't want to buy a massive zoom lense.
From what you're all saying, it's apparant that they are perhaps geared more towards the hobbyist. The marketing guys got me with that zoom though

I might have a rethink then. Glad I asked

[Mr Will]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I quite liked the idea of having one item to carry. Rather than a few lenses etc. I was worried about the small sensor size though.

Nothing wrong with the Nikkon as such. It's an older model however and is lacking a few features that more up to date cameras have. I also didn't want to buy a massive zoom lense.
From what you're all saying, it's apparant that they are perhaps geared more towards the hobbyist. The marketing guys got me with that zoom though

I might have a rethink then. Glad I asked

Nothing wrong with wanting something more portable. The problem with bridge cameras isn't really the existence of DSLRs, it is that you can but a compact like this: http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras/digital-camer... (Lumix TZ60). It will do literally everything the bridge camera would do, including the 30x zoom, and it will fit in your pocket.

You can sacrifice some zoom to get better quality (especially in low light) with something like an RX100 which is also pocket sized, or you can take the step up to a mirrorless system which will give genuinely DSLR quality in a smaller body. Bridge cameras might have been a hobbyist option a long time ago but they really aren't any more. Their niche in the market has been thoroughly filled by other, better, cameras.

[DibblyDobbler]

Mr Will said:

They are called bridge cameras because that's what they should be thrown off.

nice one

[RobDickinson]

Mr Will said:

They are called bridge cameras because that's what they should be thrown off. They combine all downsides of a compact camera with all the downsides or a DSLR and somehow manage to avoid including any of the good points of either. But everyone picks one up in the shop, holds down the zoom control and goes "oooh, doesn't it zoom in a long way" and then hands the sales man far too much money for something that doesn't actually suit any of their needs.

/rant

Nailed it

[lonny]

How about micro 4/3rds or something like Sony a6000? I went for a D300 to the latter a few months ago and think it is best of both worlds for me - a decent sized sensor, interchangeable lenses and very small.

[Peanut Gallery]

I have a Fujifilm FinePix HS20EXR, bridge with a 30X optical zoom.

I really like one lens = macro to max. idiot setting for shutters etc, if I want to I can play with lots of settings, fairly robust, video option.

I don't like time taken to focus, nearly all low-light pics are grainy, heavy battery consumption, oh and time taken to focus. Have I mentioned time taken to focus? - I admit, good light focusing is much better.

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Mr Will said:

Nothing wrong with wanting something more portable. The problem with bridge cameras isn't really the existence of DSLRs, it is that you can but a compact like this: http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras/digital-camer... (Lumix TZ60). It will do literally everything the bridge camera would do, including the 30x zoom, and it will fit in your pocket.

You can sacrifice some zoom to get better quality (especially in low light) with something like an RX100 which is also pocket sized, or you can take the step up to a mirrorless system which will give genuinely DSLR quality in a smaller body. Bridge cameras might have been a hobbyist option a long time ago but they really aren't any more. Their niche in the market has been thoroughly filled by other, better, cameras.

Fair point. I didn't even consider a compact. I didn't think they'd be up to the job. Having looked at your suggestion, and some others, they seem pretty good for the money. I think this would certainly be the best choice when looking at bridge or compact cameras.

I'll have a look around more, I'd be happy to sacrifice zoom for quality. The RX100 looks nice, but I've never been a Sony fan.

[GetCarter]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

I didn't think they'd be up to the job.

Taken with an RX100 last night at 11.30



ETA more than half of these with the RX100 http://www.stevecarter.com/latest/latesttorridon15...

Edited by GetCarter on Monday 15th June 13:13

[stu1984]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

Fair point. I didn't even consider a compact. I didn't think they'd be up to the job. Having looked at your suggestion, and some others, they seem pretty good for the money. I think this would certainly be the best choice when looking at bridge or compact cameras.

I'll have a look around more, I'd be happy to sacrifice zoom for quality. The RX100 looks nice, but I've never been a Sony fan.

I have an RX100 (MK I) and love it. The sensor is a fair bit larger than almost every other compact and you can certainly see this reflected in the quality of the image. I am seriously impressed with the image quality and don't find that I miss the lack of zoom. As an aside I was also very impressed with the video quality and ease of use too of the Sony. It fits nicely in a jacket pocket too which means there is no excuse not to have it when out and about on a walk etc.