Anything "wrong" with bridge cameras compared to dlsr?

[topcat07]

Seen some very very good photos from bridge cameras on flicker and just wondering is there any major disadvantageous to them?

They seem to come with around 20 times optical zoom which would be very useful to me, cheap , dont think i would want to carry a lot of lens or even bother with changing them

for example the
Panasonic DMC-LZ20 at argos has some serious spec for £80

Product specification:

16.1 megapixels.
21x optical zoom.
48.5x digital zoom.
3in screen with LCD technology.
Focal length of 25-525mm.
Image stabilisation.
Optical anti-blur.
Up to 0 frames per second.
CCD sensor.

Lens information:

Lens type: wide angle fixed.

Features:

Maximum ISO rating 1600.
Built-in flash.
720p HD recording.
Video capture with sound.
PictBridge compatible.

just want to check if i am missing anything..

 

[just jon]

iwould like to findout very much as well

 

[wyx087]

Bridge cameras have tiny sensors.
Bridge cameras have slow (small aperture, large f/ number) lenses.

They jam the pixels into their tiny sensor, so tiny that the actual usage capability of it is very low. The zoom is useless as it's so long you'll need fast shutter speed, but the sensor's high ISO performance is non-existence. The low ISO performance is probably okay but then because the lens covers such a range, it's not sharp. Too much compromise has been made just for a bigger zoom number.

For example, I can get great usable and printable shots at 1/30s f2 ISO6400 on my x100, where there is just about enough light to see with human eye. You can't get that with a bridge camera, no where remotely close.

It's all about the sensor size and the lens. Compromise on other stuff like zoom range if you have to.

 

[AESamuel]

Bridge cameras have tiny sensors.
Bridge cameras have slow (small aperture, large f/ number) lenses.

They jam the pixels into their tiny sensor, so tiny that the actual usage capability of it is very low. The zoom is useless as it's so long you'll need fast shutter speed, but the sensor's high ISO performance is non-existence. The low ISO performance is probably okay but then because the lens covers such a range, it's not sharp. Too much compromise has been made just for a bigger zoom number.

For example, I can get great usable and printable shots at 1/30s f2 ISO6400 on my x100, where there is just about enough light to see with human eye. You can't get that with a bridge camera, no where remotely close.

It's all about the sensor size and the lens. Compromise on other stuff like zoom range if you have to.

This.

The camera OP mentioned has a 1/2.33 size CCD sensor which is the smallest sensor you get pretty much. Its also got an f3.1-5.8 lens which is fairly slow.
Then there's things such as focus performance, actual lens sharpness etc.

But then, you're trying to compare an £80 camera compared to DSLRs which are more expensive. You get what you pay for.

 

[MWHCVT]

They're perfectly acceptable cameras but they are very much limited mainly by the sensor that is the case of the camera given as an example is appox 6mm x 4.5mm sensor, that's a lot of pixels to cram into a tiny sensor which will mean its not going to be a great low light camera...it really does however also matter what you want out of a camera... for a large number of people a bridge camera is all the camera they need

 

[topcat07]

thanks i shall stop looking at them guess it just a numbers game with these types of cameras then

 

[Cagey75]

I started on bridge cameras, to get to grips with basic manual controls. Any I used back then were very limited though, and it wasn't long before I craved the extra power and control of a dslr. They are probably much better now, but the ones I had [all fuji] were limited to a max of f/8, 8 secs, 1/2000 - and were terrible with ISO above 400.

For your every day family shots in good weather, or using the flash [which is also not great on most of them] indoors, they're fine. Learn what you can using them, and then decide if you'd like to step up.

 

[Phil V]

They're in no way 'bad' but they are built with limitations.

If those features are really important to you, more important than the limitations, then a bridge camera could be perfect for you.

The limitations:
Sensor size, the small sensor means that you won't get the creamy shallow DoF shots that you'll get from a DSLR.

Focus performance, there's no comparison between even the best compacts and good DSLR performance re focus.

Zoom, that 21x optical zoom is built around so many optical compromises, it'll never be as good as a 3x zoom or a prime lens, either in sharpness or in distortion control.

Megapixels, cramming so many pixels into a small sensor means that you're picking up an awful lot of noise and that's why they're often capped at relatively low ISO values, and even at 1600 they're pretty ropey.

Flash, onboard flash is the work of the devil, it's just about useful as fill in on a sunny day, but is never good as a primary light source. Given that photography is 'all about the light' this is a deal breaker for me - control of lighting from the camera is very important.

The bottom line is, that I can take great photo's with my phone! But I can't take 'good' photo's with my phone whenever and wherever I like, which is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Furtim]

thanks i shall stop looking at them guess it just a numbers game with these types of cameras then

It really depends on what you want to do with it! They work just fine for a great many peoples needs, so don't rule them out just on the numbers - only if you need (or want - it's your money!) to work outside it's safe zone.

I get plenty of great shots with my iPhone camera, and that's pretty crappy in raw spec terms compared to my 5DIII, but unless I'm going out to shoot something specific, it's usually the only camera I have with me, so it's the one I use the most!

Weight / size / capability / availability is a perfectly valid trade-off.

 

[SpikeK6]

The wife has a bridge camera and to be honest I use it for work to take progress shots of the site I am on, it gives me great pics for what I need it for but the other week I decided to test its limitations, and to be honest it did not take me long to find them..

Compared to my 7D with a 17-55 or 100-400 on the front of it there is just no comparason the 7D out performs it in every way.
if you looking to just take snaps of your kids or the odd holiday pics a bridge will give you what you need, if you are looking to take some seriously sharp up close pics then a DSLR all the way.

 

[topcat07]

looking for some high quality sharp images. Image quality is my number 1 priority after having a compact for a couple of years im surprised it can even call itself a camera at times.

Ill just miss the easy portability factor

 

[ernesto]

All the disadvantages have been listed. But on the other hand, you can't even buy a lens for a DSLR for the £80 that the camera you have referred to costs.

If you are using it in good light and aware of the compromises if could do what you need.

 

[Nod]

16.1 megapixels. #Not massive compared to some DSLRs
21x optical zoom. #Lenses for (FF) DSLRs range from 8mm up to at least 1200 - that's 150x...
48.5x digital zoom. #Pointless - crop in PP
3in screen with LCD technology. #Fine for a quick peek but still not that good compared to a full sized monitor.
Focal length of 25-525mm. #See above
Image stabilisation. #Some DSLRs have IS built into the body and some lenses have IS.
Optical anti-blur. #Not sure what that is - sounds like another name for IS.
Up to 0 frames per second. #Fairly sure that's a typo - DSLRs vary in frame rate.
CCD sensor. #Plenty of DSLRs use CCDs, others use CMOS.

Lens information:

Lens type: wide angle fixed. #25mm isn't that wide.

Features:

Maximum ISO rating 1600. #25,600 is available on the D800 (3,200 is more than useable)
Built-in flash. #On many DSLRs
720p HD recording. #1080 on the D800.
Video capture with sound. #Available on many DSLRs.
PictBridge compatible. #Yup!


Having said that, a full DSLR kit is a bulky affair and not light! Unless I need the greater capabilities of the DSLR, I tend to use a bridge (Fuji HS-30) or a compact (Fuji XF-1 or X-20), all of which deliver files easily capable of being printed up to A3+ in a far smaller and more convenient package.
On a recent holiday I took the lighter option - did I miss the DSLR kit? No - but that could be because we went back to somewhere we've been many times so I have thousands of DSLR shots of all the landmarks and don't need any more. If we went somewhere new, I'd probably take a DSLR for at least the first visit, although weight restrictions on hand baggage might mean a vastly reduced focal length range in the bag!

 

[Tigger.ufo]

I moved from an FZ45 Lumix to a Nikon D40 and couldn't believe the improvement!

Stop messing about and just buy the D40, get out and USE it! (in the nicest possible way!)


Heather

 

[topcat07]

I moved from an FZ45 Lumix to a Nikon D40 and couldn't believe the improvement!

Stop messing about and just buy the D40, get out and USE it! (in the nicest possible way!)


Heather

im sure i will eventually

 

[just jon]

looking for some high quality sharp images. Image quality is my number 1 priority after having a compact for a couple of years im surprised it can even call itself a camera at times.

Ill just miss the easy portability factor

I was gonna move from a dslr to csc or bridge camera . But i found out your loosing to much so i will stay with dslr maybe a nikon what is the best dslr in the £550-£600 range

 

[Phil Young]

To sum it up from me...

If you haven't used a DSLR and are coming from a compact, you'll love a bridge. It will feel good, the manual controls will feel great and the IQ will be at least as good depending on the compact in question.

The manual zooming of the bridge will come in handy and the ergonomics will feel great compared.

All in all, a decent step up.

For the DSLR user (even the lower end ones from 4 years ago) stepping down to a bridge... it will perform like pants.

 

[u1bd2005]

To sum it up from me...

If you haven't used a DSLR and are coming from a compact, you'll love a bridge. It will feel good, the manual controls will feel great and the IQ will be at least as good depending on the compact in question.

The manual zooming of the bridge will come in handy and the ergonomics will feel great compared.

All in all, a decent step up.

For the DSLR user (even the lower end ones from 4 years ago) stepping down to a bridge... it will perform like pants.

Totally agree, I was with a compact for ages, moved to bridge recently and loving the step up, I actually bought the LZ20 the OP mentioned in his first post.

For the first step up from a compact the difference is amazing, I have used my compact a few times since and it just sucks compared to the LZ20.

Obviously a DSLR would be better if you can afford it, but for a basic bridge camera at £80 the LZ20 is great if it's your first step up.

Haven't used the flash yet, but the optical zoom is pretty good, and I'm enjoying playing with the manual exposure settings and stuff, I am a beginner to bridge camera's so it's all pretty new to me, but I'm picking it up pretty quick with the help and tips I'm reading on here.

 

[HMansfield]

You won't be able to push it's boundries as much as you can with a DSLR, but plenty people use bridge cameras and plenty people take great shots with them.

For £80 it's a no-brainer. Panasonic have a good reputation with cameras.

Your main limitations will be:
Not much scope for cropping, but with a 21x lens you shouldn't really need to.
Lots of noise at high ISOs, although it's not encouraging you to go stupidly high anyway. If you're going to be shooting when it's dark, invest in a lightweight tripod and set it to ISO 100.

A 3" screen is plenty and is similar to what's on plenty of DSLRs.

25mm (35mm eq.) is a smidge wider than the "standard" wide angle length of 28mm. Bridge cameras aren't designed for people that need extreme ultrawide lenses, and the optical limitations of going that wide would be pretty horrendous anyway.
Your "wide angle" effect will come more from how you use it.

 

[pingu666]

the low light, and focus speed, possible shutter lag, difference in depth of field.

that big dof helps with macro. In bright light they are good, but push the iso and urgh :-(

 

[TCR4x4]

A d40 will blow the socks off pretty much any bridge camera. A d40 and the kit lens is barely any bigger that a bridge camera too.. I know where my £80-100 would go.

 

[CJS]

I remember years ago . . . many years ago, I saw a program with David Baily, no 'Sir' in those days, what has stuck in my mind all these years, he said "its the person behind the camera, not the camera that makes the picture". Obviously there are limitations, its even a rather over generalisation, but work within the limitations and you can get a half decent picture and satisfaction.

I went the rout of SLR's, then DSLR's, fancy lenses etc. Recent years have found me struggling with the impracticalities of DSLR's and acquired kit Fancy, heavy kit, makes no difference to the basic picture, 'a snapshot is a snapshot' regardless of the cost, size or sophistication of the equipment used. I still have my Fathers 35mm slides taken in the 50's and early 60's with a very basic 'Kodak 35 snapshot' . . . some of them are amazing.

Life changes, recent years, one has moved to smaller cameras and a single lens philosophy. Getting the best from the least was a challenge and personally very satisfying, 'less is more'? I got down to the lowest common denominator of a Panasonic DMC-TZ30. Great for grab and go picture, no, I don't have a fancy mobile phone.

However, the satisfaction of seeing and framing a shot had gone . . . Nikon DSLR sat in cupboard unused for almost 3 years. Lumix G1 was my favourite camera, light, easy to use, animated screen that overcame my advancing years and reducing mobility, but still having a view finder for the bright sun light days . . . Limited by some peoples standards but I enjoyed taking pictures with. it.

I talk of the G1 in past tense. Yes, recent months has really been a downer, the fun had gone from my picture taking to the point where I have not been taking pictures other than the od snapshot.

So, I started reading TP threads again, the sap started rising. Looking, thinking, then out of the blue, LCE sent me a general courtesy email. I looked though, came across one or two items of interest?

I sorted all my kit out, a mixture of Nikon and Panasonic, some dross but some good stuff to. Bearing in mind, I refuse to 'pixel peep', a picture is viewed as a whole not as individual dots! Does one sell and get out altogether or revitalise ones interest . . .

I ended up trading in, for a Nikon P7100, decent x7 zoom, animated rear screen, viewfinder, total manual control via knobs and buttons, small, light, practical for everyday picture taking.

There was then the issue of the G1. Walk away from any form of lens exchanging system? . . . I came out with a G5 body, I already had a 14-45. Its a back stop . . . Single changeable lens thinking, I can go heritage or stay modern.

So I'm down to the lowest common denominator with flexibility. No I'm not going to impress anyone with the size, amount or type of my photographic kit, but I am satisfied in my own mind that I can take pictures for my own pleasure, now all I have to do is 'be the man behind the camera' . . . Oh yes, I also came out of the shop with a couple of hundred quid cash in my pocket as well.

CJS

 

[jm2]

In the right hands, a bridge camera is capable of excellent results, Canon SX50 - http://kenn3d.wordpress.com/

 

[Dave *]

I remember years ago . . . many years ago, I saw a program with David Baily, no 'Sir' in those days, what has stuck in my mind all these years, he said "its the person behind the camera, not the camera that makes the picture".

CJS

That was more true of the days that advert was made, no matter what type of 35mm camera, from a cheap compact to the most expensive SLR, all had the same "sensor" in the film you used.

Now, the difference between a bridge cameras 1/2.33" or 1/2.5" sensor and even an APS-C sensor is a lot more noticeable.

 

[CJS]

That was more true of the days that advert was made, no matter what type of 35mm camera, from a cheap compact to the most expensive SLR, all had the same "sensor" in the film you used.

Now, the difference between a bridge cameras 1/2.33" or 1/2.5" sensor and even an APS-C sensor is a lot more noticeable.

Point taken Dave, however, 'a black box filled with Magic Pixels' is still just that . . . For those of us who are happy with 'wysiwyget', we don't go pixel peeping, don't enlarge to silly sizes, have no interest in impressing others and enjoy the hobby, does it really matter?

I still hold with the view, 'he or she who is behind the camera make the picture', the camera is nothing but a tool, in the end, its down to the skill of the crafts man using the tool . . . I'd match Sir David Baily with a point and shoot against most 'ego boosted, mine is bigger than yours hobbyist'.

one has a long way to go me thinks, 'I know my place'

CJS

 

[Dave *]

Point taken Dave, however, 'a black box filled with Magic Pixels' is still just that . . . For those of us who are happy with 'wysiwyget', we don't go pixel peeping, don't enlarge to silly sizes, have no interest in impressing others and enjoy the hobby, does it really matter?

CJS

I would suppose if you only view your images on a laptop screen or print 6x4 or 5x7, and don't want to crop the image, no it probably doesn't matter.

But by the same argument, why not just use a camera phone then?

 

[CJS]

I would suppose if you only view your images on a laptop screen or print 6x4 or 5x7, and don't want to crop the image, no it probably doesn't matter.

But by the same argument, why not just use a camera phone then?

Mmm . . . 5x7 thats being harsh I think Dave, my pictures go happily full screen on my 24" monitor and that was with my 12mp G1. If I need to crop, I accept the size limitation, obviously one would not expect full screen. That's where the 'wysiwyg' comes in, don't push the boundaries, enjoy what you have. In any case, I've always been lead to think 'crop as little as possible'? 'Foot zoom' is always a good idea . . .

Camera phone, now you really are squeezing pixels onto a pin head!!! and the quality of the glass . . . sorry probably plastic? Another area I cant come to terms with, a 'phone is for phone calls and communication' . . . not a camera or a hifi system . . . ?

CJS

 

[dalegt4]

Totally agree, I was with a compact for ages, moved to bridge recently and loving the step up, I actually bought the LZ20 the OP mentioned in his first post.

For the first step up from a compact the difference is amazing, I have used my compact a few times since and it just sucks compared to the LZ20.
.

I agree here, some people just don't get on with DSLR's, our mother in law couldn't get used to her Nikon and sold it and got a Sony DSC-HX50 and I must say, its actually a superb camera for what it is, has a pretty damn good sensor, not a DSLR but its 20mp and by god its actually good and can capture some good detail even in her inexperienced hands.

£304 like but then as above, an SLR lens usually costs more than that!

Some compact / Bridge cameras work better for people than slr's do.

 

[jm2]

I would suppose if you only view your images on a laptop screen or print 6x4 or 5x7, and don't want to crop the image, no it probably doesn't matter.

But by the same argument, why not just use a camera phone then?

How did you come up with that conclusion?

 

[CJS]

I agree here, some people just don't get on with DSLR's, our mother in law couldn't get used to her Nikon and sold it and got a Sony DSC-HX50 and I must say, its actually a superb camera for what it is, has a pretty damn good sensor, not a DSLR but its 20mp and by god its actually good and can capture some good detail even in her inexperienced hands.

£304 like but then as above, an SLR lens usually costs more than that!

Some compact / Bridge cameras work better for people than slr's do.

In my case delegat4, it was not that I did not get on with SLR's or DSLR's, its simply my circumstances have changed over 25 years. I no longer need the paraphernalia associated with these devices, advancing years also dictates less weight. So I have looked and extracted the good points (for me) from my years using cameras, control is everything, simplicity is a great relief, so I use my cameras in auto, semi auto and manual, I don't find I need heavy glass for the subject matter I choose.

Watch others battling with the complexity of modern living, smile nicely, relax and enjoy . . .

CJS

 

[dalegt4]

good on you I say

I sometimes wonder why at the end of sometimes 12 hour days. haha

If I could justify £300 on a compact to the mrs I would get one in a shot, the panoramic section of the camera is truely fantastic and I mean that too, it creates a superb image and a fair bit easier than stitching images yourself!

I recommed that as a camera, far better image quality than my friends nikon bridge but that is older and only 16mp, the sony smashes it into last year from the pictures i have seen from both

 

[dalegt4]

and it's low light capabillities are fair too, they took many church shots in Tenerife last week and they look pretty good on the laptop, never viewed 100% but who cares, normal viewing it was great!

As I say, by no means the same as a larger sensor camera but for nomal use and pretty good detailed images?? Fine

 

[Dave *]

How did you come up with that conclusion?

Just personal experience of using compacts, bridges, CSC's and DSLRs and enlarging (or attempting to enlarge) up to poster print sizes.

Mmm . . . 5x7 thats being harsh I think Dave, my pictures go happily full screen on my 24" monitor and that was with my 12mp G1.

It's got nothing to do with megapixels, your G1 could have been 6MP and still do a better job than a 16MP bridge. The G1 has a sensor around 8 or 9 times the size of most bridge cameras.

Please don't fall for the "more megapixels equal better pictures myth", a low MP large sensor will always outperform a high MP tiny sensor.

Camera phone, now you really are squeezing pixels onto a pin head!!!

CJS

You do realise that there are phone cameras with similar size sensors to bridge cameras?

 

[jm2]

Just personal experience of using compacts, bridges, CSC's and DSLRs and enlarging (or attempting to enlarge) up to poster print sizes.

Did you look at the link I gave previously?

 

[CJS]

Just personal experience of using compacts, bridges, CSC's and DSLRs and enlarging (or attempting to enlarge) up to poster print sizes.



It's got nothing to do with megapixels, your G1 could have been 6MP and still do a better job than a 16MP bridge. The G1 has a sensor around 8 or 9 times the size of most bridge cameras.

Please don't fall for the "more megapixels equal better pictures myth", a low MP large sensor will always outperform a high MP tiny sensor.



You do realise that there are phone cameras with similar size sensors to bridge cameras?

I'll go for these, what I find frustrating is that people do go for MP's . . . its a selling tool as you know, the G5 is the most MP's I've ever had. As previously posted, less is more, simplicity and getting the best from it, floats my boat.

To often one sees, 'better, bigger?' kit = better pictures, we know that's not the case . . . more thought, which cost nothing = better pictures.

Mobile phone sensor size . . . amazing what they do, but they must still be squeezing a quart into a pint pot, the lens on any mobile has to be suspect?

The whole thing so often gets down to, 'mine is bigger than yours' . . . it was not taken with an 'ABC, Supper, whiz-bang whatsit' . . . so it cant be a good picture . . . very sad, I wont be dragged in.

CJS

 

[Dave *]

Did you look at the link I gave previously?

And?

He has a few reasonably decent 6x4 postcards? marvellous, now lets see that as a 30" poster.

No matter what you say or think, an SX50 or similar with a tiny sensor might be able to take decent images at smallish enlargement, but it is not going to be comparable to even APS-C at enlargements greater than 8x10, and definitely not at 30x40.

Mobile phone sensor size . . . amazing what they do, but they must still be squeezing a quart into a pint pot, the lens on any mobile has to be suspect?


CJS

Again, it all depends, some phones have decent glass, for example Nokia use Carl Zeiss lenses on their higher end phones. They have even put a backlit 2/3" sensor in the new Lumia phone, with IS and fast Zeiss optics.

 

[evo456]

Nothing wrong at all, at the end of the day if it doesn't detract you from enjoying taking photos whilst accepting trade offs 'image quality', Mega px size, print size etc. No one can really say it's wrong. Phone camera are great as you can take pics and post them on social media - enjoying and sharing moments with friends and family on the spot rather than, taking your photos back to a computer deal with raw, post processing.

If your enjoyment or requirements of photography is getting the best image quality, printing big sizes for people to enjoy, 100% sharp crops then yes a DSLR/larger format cameras with an array of good quality lenses, will inevitable be on the road map.

3 years back I sold my old bridge camera to an colleague who he bought for his daughter studying photography/digital media- a Fuji s6500fd, who didn't want to drop a comparatively small fortune on DSLRs.

Earlier this year one of her projects was displayed in a local art gallery as part of the local council 'Art Week' exhibition. It's quite humbling to see someone with the right vision, right techniques (it was a night shot with tri-pod etc) and creativity to get so much from a 7 year old bridge camera, which only has 6 mega pixels and small sensor.

 

[CJS]

3 years back I sold my old bridge camera to an colleague who he bought for his daughter studying photography/digital media- a Fuji s6500fd, who didn't want to drop a comparatively small fortune on DSLRs.

Earlier this year one of her projects was displayed in a local art gallery as part of the local council 'Art Week' exhibition. It's quite humbling to see someone with the right vision, right techniques (it was a night shot with tri-pod etc) and creativity to get so much from a 7 year old bridge camera, which only has 6 mega pixels and small sensor.

. . . very gratifying evo, makes the point so well, 'its the user getting the best from the tool'.

CJS