Can Bridge Camera Replace My SLR

L

larryslord

Suspended / Banned
Messages
159
Edit My Images
No
Have had a quick trawl through the threads looking for answers to my question but I am wondering what the drawbacks are with Bridge cameras as I am becoming disillusioned with the cost of photography as a hobby.

As a little background I have a D90 with the 2 kit lenses from my previous D60and mainly photograph horse racing as a hobby & wildlife whilst out on walks, especially butterflies, dragon flies (poorly) & birds.

For the birds my 55-200 lens just doesn't get me close enough but I just cannot afford to buy a longer lens at the current prices even 2nd hand. I am currently in the market for a macro lens for the butterfly/insect side of things but again the Nikon 105 is close to £500 2nd hand although the Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are cheaper.

Anyway I got an email the other day introducing the new Nikon P510 Bridge Camera which claims to be 24-1000 zoom. This has got me thinking that even if it is really only 800mm at the top end its miles more than I am getting now.

With this in mind I have a few questions please.

1, Will the bridge actually be better than my SLR for bird shots where I struggle to get close enough.
2, Will it be quick enough to freeze the action at the races
3, How good will it be in dodgy light.
4, Will it get me close enough to take the butterfly/insect type shots.

Sorry this is a long mail and at work all day tomorrow so won't get a chance to respond to replies until then but grateful for any thoughts/opinions

Many thanks in advance
 
You'd need very good light and don't count on anything over ISO 400 looking very good. Now my experience is with a mates Canon SX10 at 20x so it's possible sensor tech in such tiny sensor has improved but I still doubt much over ISO 400 would be realistic. You could pick up an old used Sigma 400/5.6 or Tamron 200-400/5.6 which would be cheaper than a bridge and frankly with the D90 better IQ.
 
For reasons of bulk and weight my sister ditched her DSLR for a Panny bridge and she's very happy with it, but she doesn't shoot horses or butterflies, just landscape, the kids and the dog (I suppose these are fast moving :D) general stuff and holidays.

The EVF seems to be good and the shots are a lot better than I'd have expected even at higher ISO's.

I suppose your best bet is to give one a go and see what you think.
 
Sorry but you are trying to reason a compact for the jobs where serious pro gear is specifically called for. I am afraid it just doesn't work the other way round. A so called 'bridge' is a dying breed and rightly so. Of course, you may be happy with blurry, noisy and out of focus snaps, but I presumed otherwise. As far as I can see a compact is for those pointless drunken shots, with a mere intention to show your friends on f'book how wasted somebody got last night.
 
daugirdas said:
Sorry but you are trying to reason a compact for the jobs where serious pro gear is specifically called for. I am afraid it just doesn't work the other way round. A so called 'bridge' is a dying breed and rightly so. Of course, you may be happy with blurry, noisy and out of focus snaps, but I presumed otherwise. As far as I can see a compact is for those pointless drunken shots, with a mere intention to show your friends on f'book how wasted somebody got last night.[/QUOTE]

That little lot wasn't even always true 8 years ago when I was using my first digital camera, a Fuji bridge. Whenever I think I'm being limited by kit I look at the results other people are getting... and then I realise that mostly the limitation is me :D
Click to expand...
 
I have a Lumix FZ150 and it's a quality little camera. My shots aren't blurry, noisy and out of focus. I have used SLRs and while there is indeed a difference, it depends on what you need to shoot. With my Lumix I've only ever really taken landscape shots, and more recently shots in a studio with lighting etc.

The more I use my SLR the more I realise how limited I am, no bulb mode, no super long exposures, no big range of aperture.

As some people have suggested, pop into a shop and have a play around with a bridge, they're not too bad... But... For somebody that's used an SLR, I'm sure this would be a stepdown, and you'll realise rather fast, that you are limited.
 
I have the Nikon P500 bridge, and i am extremely pleased with it, but, it does have its limitations and it fails me when i want to be creative. The image quality is not as good as a DSLR but can be tweaked by processing, its a big decision and i would say save your pennies for the lenses, i am looking to get a DSLR as soon as possible but i will not part with the P500 the zoom is awesome 36X (840mm). If you want to see some examples of the image quality, have a look at some of my threads, (sorry haven't uploaded to the gallery).
 
The nikon 70-300 VR is decent for crop sensor camera. Maybe give that a go on your D90
 
daugirdas said:
Sorry but you are trying to reason a compact for the jobs where serious pro gear is specifically called for. I am afraid it just doesn't work the other way round. A so called 'bridge' is a dying breed and rightly so. Of course, you may be happy with blurry, noisy and out of focus snaps, but I presumed otherwise. As far as I can see a compact is for those pointless drunken shots, with a mere intention to show your friends on f'book how wasted somebody got last night.
Click to expand...

Sorry this just isn't true, I had a fuji s7000 about 6 years ago, it produced great images that I am still happy with even now, plus I didn't have to carry a massive camera bag, we are going to get another bridge camera for the wife and kids and when we don't want to take all the camera gear.
 
larryslord said:
1, Will the bridge actually be better than my SLR for bird shots where I struggle to get close enough.
2, Will it be quick enough to freeze the action at the races
3, How good will it be in dodgy light.
4, Will it get me close enough to take the butterfly/insect type shots.
Click to expand...

1. Nope, hideously small sensor* size means that while a 100mm lens on a super-zoom might be 600-800mm equivalent, it will also be very very blurry at the extreme.

2. Quick enough in terms of shutter speed? Of course. Quick enough to actually capture the image you want? Doubtful, most bridges take ~2 seconds* to focus lock, and then add another half-second to full second to actually respond to the shutter button. Result is that they're terrible for capturing very specific moments.

3. Generally, bad. Most bridges have sensors that are too dense to have good ISO response*.

4. Actually, probably, yes, the 'super macro' mode on most bridges is pretty good for flowers and non-aggressive insects. It's one area where they do well.


* Of course, the most expensive bridges, where you're actually nudging up against the CSCs and EVILs can mitigate some of these issues, but by this point you're spending £500+ on a bridge that you could have just invested in good glass for your D90 with.
 
To put the sensor size into perspective, think of the one on your D90 as a five pound note, the one on a bridge camera would be akin to a pound coin when comparing sizes.
 
I think that in many cases when people can't get acceptable images it's because they either don't try to recognise the kits strengths and weakness and work with them or they simply choose the wrong kit.

With a bridge most of the capture problems are probably going to be related to speed of operation if the camera is relatively slow to meter and/or focus. You can possibly get around these issues by metering before you shoot or prefocusing or going manual. Higher ISO noise can be avoided to an extent by being careful with your settings or ETTR and knocking it back post capture. If you pixel peep you might see problems but whole images or even reasonable crops may be perfectly acceptable, depending of course on what your definition of what's acceptable is.
 
Outstanding response from everyone & I am really grateful for all the views.

Clearly picture quality is all important so it looks like sticking with the D90 is the way forward but i will have to look at the cheaper end of the zoom market.

i have noticed a Tokina 80-400 zoom in my price bracket which has reasonable if not outstanding reviews & maybe that with either the Tokina 100f2.8 macro or the Nikon 105 is the way forward.

Many thanks again to everyone who contributed
 
I'd go for a Sigma 120-400mm OS over the Tokina, which is apparently poor at the long end. The other lens I've found which is great value for money is the old Tamron 200-400/5.6 which can be had for peanuts at auction (around £100.00).

Not as sharp as a top end OEM lens, but good fun for the money! I tried one out last week and results are OK with a little sharpening:

1032__MG_2415_1.jpg


1032__MG_2423_1.jpg


1032__MG_2445_1.jpg
 
I had a Panasonic FZ38 before I got a dslr and it was a cracking camera. I used it for airshows and parties mainly, but it was a good allrounder. They do an FZ48 now which is a 25-600 equivalent and I've a friend who uses one and the photos from that are very passable. It is pretty sharp throughout the whole range and the EVF is pretty decent too. Not sure what the official shutter lag is, but it's fast enough not to miss most shots. I do prefer the variety of lenses with a dslr, but if it got to the point that I couldn't manage the weight, I'd certainly have a look at a bridge again, rather than go for the expense of a csc and lenses.
 
Thx again for the replies today, all the cooments are much appreciated.

Been having another thought about the longer lens & will likely settle for the Nikon 70-300 VR which has decent enough reviews.
 
larryslord said:
Thx again for the replies today, all the cooments are much appreciated.

Been having another thought about the longer lens & will likely settle for the Nikon 70-300 VR which has decent enough reviews.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you wont regret it, I use a D90 with the Nikon 70-300 VR and am very pleased with it. I too used a Panasonic bridge, FZ38 I think it was, and got a cracking macro shot of a stationary Dragonfly, but I know from experience with that camera if the dragonfly had been moving about I wouldn't have had a chance with the shutter lag, so soon went back to a DSLR. (saving up for a macro now)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top