Beginner Looking For "bridge" Camera

B

bumfluff

Suspended / Banned
Messages
252
Name
Mikey
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

It is my birthday in a couple of weeks and I think its time I got a digital camera. I have an old Minolta non-digital camera which I used to use quite a bit, but now I never use at as I don't bother getting my shots developed, and I really enjoyed taking photographs with it. I'm not a particularly skilled photographer but I want to learn.

My main uses for my camera would be to take some macro shots indoors, but when I go out and about it would be great to be able to take some good photos of landscapes and maybe wildlife.

I'm not really in the market for a DSLR as I think they're probably a little beyond the budget and I would also like the option of taking videos (is that a sacreligious thing to say on a photography forum?). I would however like a camera with plenty of features as playing around with aperture sizes and ISOs and shutter delay etc. appeals to me quite a bit. I was thinking maybe the Panasonic Lumix FZ18 (maybe the FZ8?), as this seems to get good reviews and is kind of at the top end of non-DSLRs. What can you guys suggest as I know you know a lot more about cameras and photography than I do?

Thanks

Forgot to say night photography aswell, so I think variable shutter delay is qute important for that, I think the FZ18 can go up to 60s, is that good?
 
Hey Fluff,

I have a little panasonic that I use when I can't be bothered with all the faff that kit entails. It has all the features of the bigger models but not the zoom range.

I just love it and find that if you're not expecting it to be as fast, good, adaptable as a full DSLR then it's a great creative tool.

The only area to watch out for with these little cameras is that they all have too many pixels for the chip size. This means that they are all noisy above 100/200 ISO but you can't have it all. :)
 
Does anyone here use the FZ18, or a camera like it?

I just love it and find that if you're not expecting it to be as fast, good, adaptable as a full DSLR then it's a great creative tool.
Click to expand...

I'm definately not expecting the same picture quality as a DSLR, but would it be reasonable to presume that one of these cameras would allow me to enter "picture of the month" style competitions on various forums without me looking like the "fool without the DSLR". I thought that DSLRs were only super adaptable if you've got a variety of lenses for it, maybe I need a bit of an explanation as to what a DSLR is.
 
one of these cameras would allow me to enter "picture of the month" style competitions on various forums without me looking like the "fool without the DSLR".
Click to expand...

Absolutely! but then I've always put artistic content way before the pixel count and cost.

Seriously, the FZ18 will shoot just about everything a DSLR can and one two things it couldn't.
 
Have a look at the Fuji 6500fd, It has all the usual camera features plus manual zoom (10x) and a very good video mode.
 
The problem is it doesn't have image stabilisation, which might well be quite important for me.

The problem I'm finding is that there are different cameras that do different things better, which I suppose I expected, and so it is difficult to choose between them, the FZ18 just seems to be in the middle.
 
Is it wise to go straight into the world of the SLR? What I was thinking was get a good, feature rich "bridge" camera and learn my trade on that first because if I went for a low-end SLR I would get all the features and much better quality, but would I not be a bit restricted by the lens?

I'm not sure if I have the right idea about all of this though. The otehr advantage of the FZ18 is that it is quite a bit more portable.
 
As always best to get hands on before you buy, Jessops etc will let you "try out" several camera types. " Restricted by the lens" have your legs stopped working? When you look at the FZ's range 28-504 then yes the Pentax may seem restricted at 18-55. Nothing wrong with the FZ just showing that a reasonable DSLR was not expensive and there are heaps of af lens available. The real downside of the FZ has to be no raw image that gives you greater control.
 
I thought it could do them. What exactly is RAW anyway?
 
Bumfluff

My Sister inlaw has just purchased a FZ8 and yes it is a nice little camera if you just want a point and shoot, but I would think you would out grow it very quickly, one major dis-advantage will be the shutter lag amongst other things.

Yes it has nice zoom range x12 and if you drop the pc quality to 5mp you get x18 but I think you will find a DSLR better as you will be able to grow with it.

Lens can be bought on a as and when basis and the standard lens that comes with most cameras will do you proud whilst learning.

I started off with a Nikon D50 and it is a blinding little camera that can be used as point and shoot or full manual as I said you can grow with a DSLR.

I am sure you could find a very good deal on this model still and it has a cracking lens 17- 55 if I remember correctly. You would be able to pick up a 70 - 300 g lens for 60 to 70 pounds to compliment the standard lens.

Have a look at this gallery... I think I had only had the D50 for about a month or two when these were taken, and all these shots were with out image stabilisation.

http://www.pbase.com/nwheal/animals&page=all

Regards

Nigel.
 
God this is a toughy, I do see the point now of getting a DSLR. Which would be better...Nikon D40 or Pentax K100D? They both have the same kit lens of 18-55mm.
 
Its still maybe a little pricey to me, as I don't really know yet how much to spend.
 
it is a nice little camera if you just want a point and shoot
Click to expand...

I really can't agree with that. I find these cameras to be hugely powerful creative tools. They will never be in the same league as a DSLR in terms of high ISO performance or shutter response time but other than that, it's an astonishing bit of kit. I've got shots with my baby panasonic that would not be possible with anything else short of a large format view camera.

Plus there are all the shots wouldn't get with an SLR just because you didn't bother taking it out.:)

In an ideal world, you'd have both to cover all the options of course.... so perhaps all you really need to worry about here is which to get first. ;)
 
HMMM, now I am considering the Fujifilm S9600d. It seems do be a very good camera and is maybe the best compromise. There are just too many cameras.
 
AVOID that camera, it is nothing but a compromise...

Either grab a compact (Fuji F50fd) and save the cash, or go dSLR (and I'd recommend the latter...)

Cheers,
James
 
I thought the idea of a compromise would be a good thing.
 
Have to disagree with avoiding that camera, Fuji 9600, smashing camera with some very fine results...also won "Practical Photographys" best compact of the year 2007 (compact it's not though!!).......so not all that bad.
 
Well trustedreviews give it 10/10 for everything, but I don't know how trusted they are for camera reviews.
 
bumfluff said:
HMMM, now I am considering the Fujifilm S9600d. It seems do be a very good camera and is maybe the best compromise. There are just too many cameras.
Click to expand...

I have the one before that one, the s9500. It's good enough for me, does everything that I want at the moment without the expense. I may ugrade later down the line if I need to do more.
Have a look in my Gallery, there's not much in it but they are all with the s9500.
 
Sorry, maybe I should expand on my previous post as it does sound a touch dramatic on re-reading.

My point is that it IS a compromise, which you say is a good thing. Personally, I think it isn't.

The Fuji has all the bulk of a dSLR, but without the flexibility of an interchangeable lens solution.

Manual focus is 'by wire' (as far as I remember?) so not as quick or accurate as completely manual focus.

High ISO noise is pretty horrendous, certainly any entry level dSLR could easily shame it.

Yet, its price makes it tempting, but I really would suggest spending less and getting a compact or a shade more and grabbing an entry-level dSLR.

Hopefully this helps - I realise that my own preferences may be different to own, but figure it might help to hear all opinions...!

Cheers,
James
 
Moos3h can you explain "by wire"? then I'll tell you if you remember correctly.

This was taken manually and was quite quick to do;

8LivingCreatures.jpg
 
£100 is quite a tad to go to an entry level DSLR. Although not completely unfeasable.

What I want to know is...how versatile will I find a DSLR with just a 18-55mm lens and what would this allow me to do?
 
By wire means that there is no direct link between the focus ring, and the lens - instead you're telling a motor to make the adjustment.

I guess the easiest way to tell would be, does the focus ring spin forever? If so, it's focus by wire...if it stops then I guess I'm remembering wrong!

Cheers
James
 
Does anyone have an answer about this "by wire" business, and anyone else have an opinion of the S9600? Again, I'm still open to other options.
 
Bumfluff

I used a Fuji S7000 quite some time ago before I purchased my own DSLR, at that time I was in the position you are in, not knowing which to get...

I tried the Fuji in many ways however one of the main issues I had was the huge shutter lag and write speed, I know the s7000 is an older model however this was Focus by wire and I think most of their models are, At the time I was attending quite a few air shows and I found it very frustrating that I could not capture the images I had in my mind.

The air craft would always be out of the frame by the time the shutter released, you do learn to think ahead however it is pretty hit and miss.

But as you say it comes down to what you want and what you will be capturing... With the stock lens of many cameras you will be able to do portraits and landscapes and many other things and as previously stated you can always acquire additional lenses along the way, I did not find it restricting with only one lens.

Hope this helps..

Nigel.
 
Conclusion - Pros

* Excellent resolution & sharpness
* Very good results up to ISO 400, ISO 800 perfectly usable
* Class-leading high ISO performance; might not be fantastic, but it's the best you'll get
* Very low shutter lag
* Comprehensive photographic controls
* Excellent battery life
* Highly versatile 28-300mm zoom range
* Low distortion lens with excellent edge-to-edge performance
* Good flash performance
* Decent movie mode, can zoom whilst filming
* CCD-raw mode and decent raw conversion utility
* Fairly fast focus (especially towards the wide end of the zoom range)
* AF illuminator
* Fast, effective face detection system (bit of a novelty for the serious user)
* Large clear screen
* Threaded lens for optional wide / tele convertors
* Good value for money

Conclusion - Cons

* Really needs optical image stabilization
* High contrast tone curve tends to clip shadows or highlights
* 3-shot limit in continuous mode
* Electronic viewfinder not great - low resolution and quite dim
* Noise reduction and JPEG artefacts (when viewed at 100%) at all settings from ISO 200
* ISO 1600 / 3200 JPEGS not as good as F30 (can be solved by shooting raw)
* JPEGs slightly over-sharpened, can look a little 'over-processed'
* Battery compartment doesn't lock - can pop open (well, mine did)
* Plastic tripod mount
* Control system for manual exposure modes a bit fiddly - needs a command dial
* White balance, metering, raw mode and other options hidden in menus
* xD-picture card not as popular or capacious as SD or CompactFlash

Overall conclusion

The demise of Konica Minolta's camera division has left Fuji as the only option for the buyer wanting a fully-featured big-zoom 'bridge' camera with a true wideangle lens. For this reason alone the S6000fd will be on many shortlists; throw in the fact that it shares the universally acclaimed 6.3MP Super CCD sensor found in the F30 and you have a very compelling proposition indeed.

And in many ways the S6000fd doesn't disappoint; the resolution is excellent, and at lower ISO settings it puts many of the more popular 'super zoom' models to shame. At ISO 400 and 800 it is quite literally in a class of its own. The high ISO output might not worry the SLR manufacturers (the sheer scale of the difference in sensor sizes puts paid to that), but it is better than most competitors by a fairly wide margin. It's also actually a very nice camera to use, and comes about as near to SLR-handling as any fixed-lens camera ever has - though the user interface could do with a little more work.

On the downside the JPEG output shows fairly strong noise reduction artefacts at anything over ISO 200, something you will see if you try to stretch the 6 megapixels to larger (say 8x10 inch) prints, and the processing is - for my tastes - too harsh, too contrasty and too sharpened. The saving grace is the inclusion of a perfectly usable raw mode (if you can wait the four seconds or so between shots) - with a little practice you can tease some truly stunning results out of these files. I was surprised to see that the high ISO output isn't as good as the F30 unless you shoot raw - this must be the fault of the new Real Photo Processor II.

Although prices are so variable that it's impossible to make a definitive statement, the S6000fd is also fairly inexpensive - certainly compared to even the cheapest DLSR with a lens/lenses to cover the same 28-300mm range. At lower ISO settings it can also produce output that for many people won't produce prints significantly different to a DLSR with a kit lens - and you get the added benefit of live preview and movie mode.

Ultimately the S6000fd's biggest problem is that - almost without exception - its competitors offer optical image stabilization, something that transforms the usability of the long end of the zoom. I found that too many of my shots - in daylight - came out with camera shake because I didn't want to shoot at ISO 800.

Put simply, whether the S6000fd is a better choice than, say the Canon, Sony or Panasonic super zoom models depends on the type of photography you do and the conditions you shoot in. If you tend to stick to the wide end of the zoom, do a lot of hand-held low-light work in situations where image stabilization doesn't help (basically if the subject you're shooting is moving) and don't need a really long zoom, the Fuji is ideal. If you want to do a lot of long telephoto work - especially in good light - I'd go for one of the alternatives. Do not, however, be seduced into thinking that the 6.3MP pixel count puts the S6000fd at a disadvantage compared to its 7,8 or 10MP competitors; the resolution is one of the best of any 'super zoom' camera, and at ISO 200-800 the S6000fd retains far more detail.

I must admit I didn't really know what to expect from the S6000fd (having used some of its predecessors), and I was pleasantly surprised to find it was a well designed, well executed and surprisingly versatile photographic tool. It's probably not the best 'point and shoot' model in its class (you'll get better results if you know what you're doing), but the combination of features, output and unusually able high ISO performance means that - whilst far from perfect - it can easily hold its own against some of it's more 'high profile' competitors.
Detail Rating (out of 10)
Build quality 8.0
Ergonomics & handling 7.5
Features 8.0
Image quality 8.0
Optics 8.5
Performance (speed) 8.0
Value 8.0

Highly Recommended (with some reservations)
 
Does anyone else offer anything similar to the S6500? At the moment it is between the S6500 and the more expensive S9600, what is the benifits of either?
 
Hi - I have the Panasonic FZ18. I've only had it for a few weeks so am still getting used to it - it seems to have a lot of functionality and i've not had a camera like this before. In fact I'm going on a course soon to learn some of the basics about ISO's and exposures and all the rest.

So far I really like the camera but as I say I'm still getting used to it. Eventually I guess I'll go the whole hog and get a DSLR but for the moment this is more than enough for me to handle
 
Bumfluff most of my gallery was taken with either a Minolta D7 or a Fuji s7000. Although I have 2 dslrs the bridge cameras are always to hand for their convenience and relative ease of use. I also have medium format and 35mm film, these require more thought and disciplined approach. I only suggested the K100ds because its price was close to the pani.
As I suggested earlier get down the shop and get them in your hands.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
 
S6500 - fewer pixels - less resolution doesn't matter. Better high iso peformance than 9600 which is good. Cheaper than 9600.

9600 has a few extra features over the 6500, ie hot shoe/flash sync, swivel lcd (but smaller), slightly better evf, maybe a control wheel.

Both have manual zooms (same lens) which has a nice feel and works well and the lens is a good range (28-300). As said the manual focus is by wire and not that great. However, I have heard of people using it successfully for some things like macro. One thing the manual focus mode is good for is setting focus. The camera has a button that will autofocus in manual mode and then the focus is set and will not autofocus when pressing the shutter. You can use this to get rough focus and then adjust manually or to set it at a certain to predict action and reduce shot time. With manually set exposure your shot time can be negligible.

Both are great cameras and capable of great results. They aren't as good as a dSLR in many ways but are cheaper. Every camera is a compromise. If you can't afford a dSLR + lenses then buy a fuji and get out taking photos. Every camera has limitations and you need to learn those and how to get the best out of it whether a compact or top pro slr. If you do that well with one of the fujis and have talent then you will produce better photos than 95% of dSLR owners who are really gear collectors and use them to produce p&s level snapshots.

Obviously if you can afford a dSLR then go for it but don't think that you need one to produce good shots, enjoy photography or learn and gain experience.

The panasonic fz50 is similar and very good but has some differences and is more expensive.
 
I don't think I really want to stretch to a DSLR just yet. I would prefer to get into Photography and then really go for it as at the moment I don't know very much. Well I think what I am looking for is:

A camera that gives me good control over aperture and shutter speed, has manual focus, a good zoom, reasonable quality at higher ISO settings and a good macro function (1cm = very useful, I think). Image Stabilisation and RAW photos would be preferable.

I think I may have just described the S6500fd minus the image stabilisation. The only other worry about it is that it only takes xD cards.
 
bumfluff said:
Does anyone else offer anything similar to the S6500? At the moment it is between the S6500 and the more expensive S9600, what is the benifits of either?
Click to expand...

I have a KonicaMinolta A2 (8 megapixel, 28-200mm), am thoroughly content with it, and have been wondering what to get for a logical upgrade since there will never be an A3.
And I think I have found the "new A3"! It's the last week announced 12 megapixel, 28-400mm, 10,000 iso Fujifilm FinePix S100FS.

Worth waiting for, imo.
 
It does look like a brilliant camera. How much is it expected to cost?
 
I think it is $699 in the US which if true probably is too much, you could buy a dslr + ultra zoom for that.

IS is a major negative for the current fujis. XD cards aren't as good as sd but it isn't really a deal breaker. The pany fz50 has the better spec but the high iso is very poor.
 
I think I am going to go for the S6500, do people agree with choice before I do go and make the plunge.

Can anyone recommend something for me to keep it in, some sort of shoulder bag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top