BRIDGE CAMERAS, What Do You Have?

I had a Sony CyberShot DSC series before upgrading to a SLR. It was a few years ago, so I don't have any photos that I can show you. But, it worked so well! I think more people should get them before taking the plunge into the SLR world.

Anyway, in terms of use, they are as easy or as complicated to use as you need it to be. (lol). It's a really a great learning camera. It can be put in full manual mode and (my camera had) aperture and shutter priority mode. My old sony also had different scene selections (like a normal point and shoot).

Advantages:
Usually smaller than a SLR
Wider range of "zoom" all in one (compared to an SLR)
Longer range (than p&s)
Has video (most SLRs don't unless you pay looaads)
User friendly
Cheaper (than SLRs)

Disadvantages:
Larger than p&s
More expensive (than p&s)
"Lower" quality (than SLRs)
Fewer funtions (than SLRs)

I'm not sure if that's what you were expecting or not, but I hope I helped a bit. If I can dig up some old photos, I will post them.

 

My first camera was a Kodak Z740, at the time I didn't realize that it was considered a bridge camera. I just liked that it looked like a "camera" but was still pretty small and lightweight, and fit in my hand nicely. I've had the camera for 7 years now, and really like the setup and controls, and if Kodak made DSLR's then I would have bought one from them. I ended up going canon for my DSLR. My biggest problem with Kodak is that the in camera software tends to process the pictures quite a bit so the pictures come out a tad bit soft and blurry. I'm not sure if they have the same problem with their newer camera's though.

 

I have a Nikon Coolpix p500 and I adore it. It goes with me everywhere ^^ I can adjust the light rather well, the shutter speed, all kinds of fun stuff. We shall get along wonderfully. ^^

 

I had a Panasonic Lumix FZ50 and while the photos it took were a bit nicer than my smaller P&S (Lumix DMC-TZ5) I ended up never using it as it was so bulky and nearly as large as a small DSLR, it also had a lot of noise at higher ISOs and suffered from shutter lag like a P&S so I ended up giving it to a friend of mine who had lost her camera and needed one

If you are looking for something more compact than a DSLR but much higher image quality than a P&S I'd recommend the newer micro four thirds format.

I recently got a Lumix GF2 and the is only slightly larger than my P&S (tho the zoom lens is much larger, you can get a pancake lens for it that is more compact). It takes interchangable lenses (Panasonic makes some and I have heard that some Leica lenses will also fit it) and came with a 14-42mm zoom and I purchased a 42-200mm zoom as well. The image sensor is much larger than a P&S (tho still smaller than a DSLR) and produces much finer grain and lower noise. It also doesn't have the maddening shutter lag of a P&S. It can shoot HD video as well though I haven't played much with that format. I am really happy with the photo quality, it is small enough to keep with me in my purse so I won't miss a shot - I love my DSLR (Nikon D700) but it is so huge and heavy that I don't want to take it with me all the time. Only potential downside is that it costs almost as much as an entry level DSLR.

more info -
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/

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

 

I've got this bad boy in red:
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_...em+Cameras/DMC-G2/Overview/3595681/index.html

It's the G2, also from the Panasonic Lumix four thirds range - I get the impression that four thirds have pretty much taken the place of bridge cameras? But anyway it's absolutely spot on for my needs, I got it for my 21st birthday after plenty of research and ultimately deciding that it would be a better bet than a full SLR at this point. At the time it cost a bit more than an equivalent entry-level SLR but had a lot more bells and whistles (shoots HD video, live view, and the touch screen is actually super handy for what seems like a mere gimmick, amongst other things) I think it's slightly less bulky than an SLR as well, it seems to be pretty popular with the pro crowd who want something smaller "off duty" yet still measures up reasonably well.

But yeah I love it, I only have the 14-42mm kit lens right now which I think I've stretched to its absolute limit, I'd like a smaller f lens for doll photography (this would be lovely thanks), maybe a stronger zoom as well. I do still mess around with my photos in photoshop a lot, I was taught very basic manual camera usage a few years ago (aperture/shutter speeds) and am just having fun with it really, picking things up as I go along. I may well invest in a more expensive SLR someday if it seems worth my while, the best thing about the G2 is that you can have a lot of fun with it and take it as far as you want.

I'm not being paid for this I swear lol, me + G2 = bff

 

I'm looking for pretty much the same thing! I feel ready to graduate up from my point and shoot, but not quite ready to tackle a DSLR. Reviews of and doll pics taken with bridge cameras would really help me out .

 

I'm honestly not sold on this camera segment. Not with today's technology. In the past, a bridge camera was the only way one could get extreme zoom ranges, but this is not quite true anymore.

Today, you can have a 1" thick camera with 10x zoom from a variety of brands. You can also get similar 10-15x zoom lenses for SLRs as well. These didn't necessarily even exist 5 years ago. And this range will cover most needs just fine.

Bridges still rule the zoom roost, now hitting 15-30x, but I think that they are at the point of diminishing returns, since most probably won't shoot at the extreme telephoto range very often. But as a practical matter, the more telephoto the lens gets, the more difficult it is to use, and bridge cameras are still handicapped with small sensors and small aperture lenses (compared to SLR).

Is the added zoom range nice? Of course it is.
Is it worth giving up compactness or SLR handling+sensors? I'm much less sure.

Mirrorless is honestly a nice option (that I watch like a hawk). But because lenses are an added expense, I think it is more accurate to group them with SLRs than with bridge cameras.

 

Er no, they are separate categories. Bridge cameras are SLR-like: they look like mini-SLRs in size and generally cost more than most compacts. But unlike SLRs, they cannot change lenses and usually use small sensors like other compact cameras.

SLR means "Single Lens Reflex" and just refers to the fact that composition and exposure are through the same lens and that a mirror (the "reflex") is involved.

My comment was just saying that I do not currently believe there is a strong reason to pick a bridge camera:

• If you want zoom, a smaller and cheaper camera can zoom well enough for most people (10x). This is the difference between a camera bag and a purse/pocket. The best camera is the one you have with you.
• If you want advanced features, an entry level SLR only is a few dollars away and not much larger. But it is more capable and responsive and the best way to photograph targets that move.

Bridge cameras do have their merits (and fans), so I'm not saying that they are worthless, just less attractive as a group than in previous years, being "squeezed" both from above and below.

If going this route, anything entry level will work, depending on your budget. SLR/mirrorless cameras are mature, so any model you buy will be competent. Examples of the current generation entry level: Canon T3, Nikon D3100, Sony NEX 3, Olympus PEN E-PL2, Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2, all cost ~$500 with a kit lens.

The main problem with SLRs is the extra expense of lenses. Starter kits only include a 3x zoom. If you want a larger range zoom lens (5x-15x), that's an extra $300-$600. But if you can afford the initial costs, this is the better long term investment, $-wise and for your skills.

 

That being the case, it makes the question of how the mirrorless cameras should be categorised tricky, and why I believe many today want to group them into the "bridge" category: not SLR (no reflex), but not P&S either, but something in between.

With the old bridge camera category eroding away into more capable DSLR's and P&S's, perhaps it is not unreasonable to assume that the "bridge camera" designation may find a new definition with the mirrorless cameras.

 

The terminology is tricky - this is true. I'm perfectly happy calling mirrorless "mirrorless" though, and just leaving it at that. Less linguistic baggage that way.

Determining the "proper" nomenclature is ultimately above my pay grade.