[Closed] Another camera thread, bridge vs DSLR

You can learn all the basics on a bridge camera. They are far better value for money, esp considering the lenses you get. And they're smaller and lighter. There is absolutely NOTHING to prevent you getting great pictures on a bridge camera. After all it's 98% about you, not the camera.

A DSLR is going to be a fair bit quicker to take photos with, it's easier to get the background blurred out on portraits and stuff, and there'll be advantages in image quality in most areas but that you probably won't notice unless you are really looking for them.

You CAN get loads more widgets for them that help in certain situations, but that starts getting jolly expensive.

I'm not going to make a hobby out of photography

Probably don't bother with a DSLR then. Also, for £300 you're not going to get one that does video.

The main advantages of a DSLR over a bridge camera:

Range of lenses available (only useful if you are happy spending a lot more money tbh)
Performance in low light (bigger sensor lets in more light)
Shallow depth of field with wide aperture lenses ('arty' blurred out backgrounds)
Auto focus speed/little shutter lag

Larger sensor on DSLR => better image quality especially at low light levels.

Have been seriously considering the HS10 too, seems to be the only bridge camera that has a manual zoom and focus on the lens like a DSLR (although I think a newer model is about to come out). I had a play on one in a Curry's and it felt pretty substantial.

Sample pics if you look on flickr by camera type are pretty good too.

Larger sensor on DSLR => better image quality especially at low light levels

Which you probably won't notice...

FWIW my Olympus C-5060Z had manual focus. And so, it seems, does this (and you may click)

[url= http://www.photographyblog.com/images/sized/images/uploads/olympus_sp_590uz-275x224.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.photographyblog.com/images/sized/images/uploads/olympus_sp_590uz-275x224.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Which you probably won't notice...

I bet you would.

When printed at 8x6 on a home printer and hung on a wall?

I used to have an F70EXR and even at 6x4 the prints from my K10D were noticeably better. And that's comparing one of the better compact sensors at high ISO with probably one of the worst APS-C ones.

Don't forget you will also be able to pick up a 20 quid lens for many SLRs which will be two or three stops faster than a bridge lens.

FWIW my Olympus C-5060Z had manual focus

in most cases I would never want to use that

Barnes, twas in response to the above comment about HS10 being the only bridge camera around with manual focus. Although, reading back now, he did say zoom on the lens too. Sorry, as you were 🙂 Although I should add the only times I used it were situations where I wanted to pre-focus on thin air in anticipation of something coming into the shot. It had a calibrated scale, which was handy.

Bez - I've got pics on my wall from the C5060's 2.1Mp predecessor. And they look great.

Also, that Oly I posted up (just as an example of bridge cameras in general) is equivalent to a 26-676mm f2.8-f5.0 in 35mm terms which is quite frankly staggering and would cost you many many hundreds of pounds (and quite a few lbs) to better.

DSLRs are better in image quality terms and technical terms - no argument there. But the question is whether or not that's worth the extra expense, weight and faff to the OP. Doesn't sound like it.

When printed at 8x6 on a home printer and hung on a wall?

Bridges are great if you really need a superzoom and you don't care about depth of field or focusing speed or dynamic range. To me they're the worst of all worlds but that's not to say they're bad for everyone.

If we're talking high ISO print differences then to my mind much of the difference is in the processing and noise reduction algorithms. A lot of modern compact cameras are smeary and horrible in their output. If you can get raw out of it that's fine, but there are a handful of old cameras from Ricoh, Olympus and Panasonic which produced great images in JPEG before the market started valuing smooth watercolour smears over good noisy images.

Not wishing to bang on about it (although I am taking a shine to that camera) but the one I posted has the same JPEG processor as my DSLR.

I've found ladies of a certain age really appreciate brutal noise reduction.

Yes, I'm saying that your Olympus has a decent processor. As do most SLRs.

Most compacts don't. My Fuji was hideous. Their bridge cameras have similar processors and sensors. Not that I can speak for other bridges.

My Ricoh GX8 and GR put out better JPEGs at high ISO than my SLR did. But more recent Ricohs have tended to up the NR in their JPEGs. Such is the expectation these days.

Not wishing to bang on about it (although I am taking a shine to that camera) but the one I posted has the same JPEG processor as my DSLR.

Maybe, but there is a big improvement to be had from a larger sensor that processing just won't reproduce. Just the same as the improvement when you go from a DX size DSLR sensor up to a FX size, eg Nikon D300 to Nikon D700. Different world in terms of usable high ISO performance.

In terms of entry level dslr's, canon 1000D? Seems fairly good value, my mate has the 500 I think.

still just as confused as I was before to be honest!

Yes, I'm saying that your Olympus has a decent processor. As do most SLRs.

Most compacts don't

I think you mis-read.. the compact I posted above has the same engine as my slr.

EDIT: Tell a lie, that compact is Trupic III and my SLR is Trupic III+

TFM - you will be confused listening to [s]this[/s] us lot. Bottom line = DSLRs are better but more expensive to begin with AND you need extra kit to make it as versatile as a compact. And they are bigger and heavier.

All you need to know.

Bridge cameras are by definition always going to be a compromise.

However, when you consider that a [i]budget[/i] dSLR is going to be twice the price new (£300 for a 400D, £470 for a 1000D) before you've factored in additional lenses (£250 will net you both a nice 50mm prime and a 250mm zoom) you've got to realistically consider that a compromise might well be the sensible choice.

That said, with a dSLR you're keeping your options open; you don't *have* to keep buying for it. With a bridge camera you're always stuck with that configuration - if you decide later on that you've outgrown it, you're then looking at a whole new camera.

I bought a dSLR a couple of weeks ago (a second hand 450D with a 18-55mm lens and a few other bits) which fell inside your budget, so it's definitely affordable. The stock lens that it comes with isn't the crazy zoom range that you get with (say) the HS10, but what it should have over the bridge camera is a high quality image across the full range of the lens.

There's an interesting (albeit biased and slightly ranty) comparison [url= http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2010/04/hs10-vs-cropped-dslr-megazoom-how-close.html ]here[/url] as to what happens when you compare a 720mm (effective) bridge camera like the HS10 against a dSLR shot cropped down to match it.

The bridge camera is a step up from a compact, but ultimately you get what you pay for. The dSLR gives you more flexibility (and a through-the-lens view of what you're shooting which, let's not forget, is the raison d'etre of an SLR), but at a premium price.

Bridge cameras have "through-the-lens view of what you're shooting" too.

Back onto quality, depending on what you're shooting a bridge camera can be a match for $40,000 medium format camera ([url= http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml ]here...[/url])

When bez said "they're the worst of all worlds" I found myself nodding in agreement.
Personally I think they're only useful if your photography can't manage without a long telephoto option.

[b]I'd go for a Canon S90/95/G11/12 or Panasonic LX3/5 instead.[/b]

I'm a little confused by the original statement of "I want to learn photography" but "not going to make a hobby out of photography".

Can you explain further? Can you dedicate some time to it? Do you think you will enjoy the process of learning?
I find every new step in photography fascinating, but also a fairly hefty drain on my time and mental ability.

If so you fancy it, then I think a non-video capable SLR from a few years ago makes a lot of sense. Something like a Canon 40D of Nikon D80 or one of the many cheap Sony Alpha bundles.

But, there will be some investment involved further down the line. It's definitely much dearer than compacts and bridge. And you will have to dedicate some time to processing, practising, ebay hunting, etc. A 'nifty fifty' lens would be my first purchase to go with a general 'walkabout' zoom.

I'm probably at the £900 range for investment in photography so far, but I have pretty much everything I want apart from video.

If your friends have got Canon, then it might be best to go with that and they you can share tips, lenses, flashes, etc.

Good luck!

There's reasonable second-hand dSLR deals to be had it seems. For instance,

450D with a 250mm zoom - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EOS-450D-EFS-18-55-EFS-55-250-kit-/230616892252 - currently ~£300.

400D with a bunch of extras - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-400D-DSLR-Kit-300AFD-Off-Camera-Speedlite-/150598404349 - currently ~£200.

(Dunno what they'll close at, though.)

If you don't know if you want an SLR then you probably don't IMO.

Bridge cameras have "through-the-lens view of what you're shooting" too.

Fair enough, add 'optical' to my sentence back there.

If you don't know if you want an SLR then you probably don't IMO.

You may well be right there. Though, what you want now and what you might want in six months might be different. I didn't know if I wanted a dSLR or not till I borrowed one for a couple of weeks. Without that experience I'd probably have bought a bridge (or even a high-end compact), in hindsight I'm glad I didn't.

Not that I'm advocating one or the other particularly; if there was a 'correct' answer then we'd all be using the same thing.

Borrowing is a fine idea actually.

Worth a read,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera

You need to know what you want to acheive with the camera. The best photographs come from when the kit is being used for what it is designed for. This includes portability, dSLRs are not great if you want to take photos while doing something other than taking photos!

But they do give you massive potential for customisation, if you want macro, you can have it. If you want telephoto, you can get it. Other than the photographer, the lens is the most important part, so if you get a budget dSLR you can always upgrade if it takes your fancy. If you get a bridge with a cack lens, ya scuppered!

if you want macro, you can have it. If you want telephoto, you can get it

At extra expense. And faff, when you end up carrying the things with you and stopping to change them... Whereas many bridge cameras can do it all from the same lens...

Whereas many bridge cameras can do it all from the same lens...

At a compromise of image quality. There's always a trade off. SLRs will give you the best at everything with the right lens attached, but their compromise is size, weight and cost. Like I said, depends on what your goal is. I doubt you could sell a 2.5 metre print taken with a bridge, but chances are that wasn't your goal anyway, and you're certainly likely to carry the bridge around with you more often...

You could buy the Olympus f2.8 pancake and have all the portability and an slr of course.... 😉 😀

My first digital camera was a 'bridge' type superzoom; a KonicaMinolta DiMageZ3.

I wanted something fairly compact, with a wide zoom range, optical stabilisation & the ability to have some creative input into taking pictures, rather than something that only ran in 'auto' mode.

I learnt an awful lot using that camera. As I became more experienced and gained a better understanding of what I wanted to achieve I started to understand the limits of the camera. I would say that I got couple of years out of the the camera, before I wanted to move onto an SLR, although I think at the time they were still too expensive (or I was too skint) to buy one.
Yes, a superzoom is a compromise, but a bridge camera could also be a great learning tool. The zoom range can be very useful when you want a fairly compact camera that you can take on holiday but still capture things from a distance.

I had a 20x16" enlargement done as an experiment to see how a 4Mp image would fare & to be honest, it wasn't half bad. Sure you can get your magnifying glass out & look disapprovingly at the over-zealous noise reduction and the flare/chromatic aberration introduced by the lens....or you can use it for a couple of years to see how you get on, see if you enjoy taking pics, learn from it & then upgrade once you 'outgrow' it.

Sure you can get your magnifying glass out & look disapprovingly at the over-zealous noise reduction and the flare/chromatic aberration introduced by the lens

Yep.

The only issues I had with my compacts were chromatic aberration and lack of zoom range. CA on my first compact was pretty bad if shooting against the sky, and there but much reduced in my second one. Still much worse than my SLR tho. But you know what, it didn't matter that much.

The zoom thing was harder to get around. I had my heart in my mouth seeing eagles and otters on one trip to the Great Lakes. I came away with a few fuzzy blobs on my memory card.. 🙁

Yeah I doubt you'd get a photo like this with a bridge camera, you may lose a couple of limbs!! lol

But I think Stumpy has a point about learning, if you get a bridge and learn photography with it and enjoy it to a point where you want an SLR then thats good, you can always sell the bridge on STW!

If you get an SLR and dont really like it you're less inclined to carry it about and you'll lose a lot more money on it.

[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2668/3819083884_05db3c8727_m.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2668/3819083884_05db3c8727_m.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/drudodd/3819083884/ ]Jaguar[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/drudodd/ ]Dru Dodd[/url], on Flickr

That's lovely.. where were you? I can't see the exif data on your flickr page tho...

It's a lovely pic, agreed. Looks more like a leopard to me, though (though that might just be the angle / crop / age). Where was it taken?

Thats odd, you should be able too...
Camera Olympus E-520
Exposure 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture f/5.4
Focal Length 239 mm
ISO Speed 800

Taken at Edinburgh Zoo! If you go to Zoos always take a scarf, regardless of how hot it is. You can push your lens up against the glass and wrap the scarf around the end of the lens so that no light bounces off the glass and into the lens. That way, as long as the glass is fairly clean it should appear as if it isnt even there!

Top tip! 😀

Mol - click on the camera name top-right to get the EXIF data.

Re-hashing a similar thread, but what about adding the M 4/3'rds into the equation? Not wanting to bang on about it again but it is a bit of an in between of the DSLR / Bridge camera.

Can be argued that it lessens the negatives of both camps (physical size / image quality).

Also has the potential to be the starting point of an investment kit should you decide the past time does take your interest. With this in mind I'd recommend looking at the M 4/3 rather than the 4/3 standard as does offer more flexible with lens selection should you feel the need to get creative.

My main "gripe" about the majority of bridge cameras is there is very little benefit in the form factor regards size etc, but there is a considerable trade off in image quality (in certain circumstances).

Quick look at e-bay and there are several Panasonic G1's with the 14-45's or Sony NEX within the budget.

Thanks all, off to spend an evening on ebay

I used to have a Fuji S9500, which did sterling service for many thousands of photos until it died last autumn. I've spent the last six months in DSLR confusion, culminating in getting a posh compact instead, an Olympus XZ-1. Very impressive! May get a DSLR in the future when I have the time/money/inclination to dedicate to getting more adept at photography.

If you don't need lots of zoom (superzoom bridge or DSLR/micro 4/3 and big lens) or very quick responses (DLSR or micro 4/3), then the XZ-1 seems a good and compact compromise. Not cheap but nice. Can get quite SLR-like with depth of field thanks to the big aperture throughout the zoom range.

My main "gripe" about the majority of bridge cameras is there is very little benefit in the form factor regards size etc

You know, I am not sure I agree there. I checked out a Nikon one in a shop the other day and whilst it looked fairly SLR ish it was pretty compact really. Very nice to handle, and very quick too. Focused very well in the shop.

This might be a bit less bridgey than you are talking about though - what do we define as 'bridge' ?

Olympus - top tip, thanks. I was wondering if that pic was on a safari or at a zoo 🙂

Yeah - for through the glass shots at the zoo I find a black jacket shoved over my head like a cape & against the glass really helps kill the reflections.

I was wondering if that pic was on a safari or at a zoo

I think by people asking I acheived what I was after! 😀

...and notice it's at ISO800, and people say Olympus' are crap at higher ISOs... 😳

Yeah I was a bit concerned (see thread from a few weeks ago about fast primes) but then I realised I had auto gradation on all the time which seems to fill high ISO pics with loads more noise than is needed.

I'm also trying to get DXO to work with my E600 by hacking the RAW files, not having much luck so far tho.

found the HS10 for £225 inc 8GB card, card reader, mini tripod, bag and cleaning kit.

Effective lens 24-720mm, records video at 1080p, cmos sensor, shoots RAW, super slow-mo, panorama, motion remove, best shot etc etc etc

for what I need, it seems like a no brainer really, especially at that price

Blimey! Be sure to post some pics 🙂