DSLR vs Bridge

S

Set_Nights

Suspended / Banned
Messages
387
Edit My Images
Yes
So my friend has decided he would like to get into photography just decided to buy a bridge camera instead of an SLR. I imagine it must be a relatively high end bridge, a Fujifilm Finepix HS-10, and it has got me wondering about what is actually so special about SLRs. The Fuji has a very impressive zoom range, equivelant to 24mm - 720mm focal range, and a much larger maximum light sensitivity (6,400 ISO vs 1,600 ISO) and a decent enough aperture range (at the low end anyway) of F/2.8 - F/11.

So that sounds pretty epic if I'm honest and it's got me wondering if an SLR is actually better/worth it. Is the bridge idea too good to be true? I mean if I wanted to get close to 700mm if would cost a total bomb!!! How would the image quality of something like this compare to a SLR? I mean the 450D has a MUCH (11.5x) larger sensor size (APS-C 22.2x14.8mm) compared to the Fuji (1/2.5" 6.2x4.6mm) and more megapixels (12.2MP vs 9.8MP) but does that make a huge difference really and does it make up for the price difference and convenience of a single lens?
 
Putting it simply, a bridge has to be a jack of all trades but often is master of none.

Is an slr worth it? It depends, if you know what they can achieve and that is what you want, then of course they are. If you're coming from a camera phone or average P&S with the idea that DSLR photography is for "the pros" and not really that interested in investing time (not necessarily money) into a hobby, then you'll most likely not want for anything more than a bridge camera.

When I had my S3iS, I didn't think I'd want for anything more. I was more than happy with the quality of shots I got from it but I also didn't buy photography magazines or pay much attention to what a camera was actually capable of. I only took the plunge into a DSLR because I was offered a brand new 350D at an absolutely unmissable price, so even if I didn't take to it, I could've easily sold it on and even made money on it. As it stands, I kept the 350D and upgraded it to a 500D at the end of 2009, but i still have the S3 and I don't see myself getting rid of it as it still has its uses.
 
As someone who currently owns a bridge and DSLR (FZ35/38 and a 450D), I can tell you that the difference is worlds apart. At low ISOs (80-200), the bridge does fine. But go above ISO400, and noise starts creeping in very fast, and 1600 is virtually unusable.

On the flip side, the 450D's ISO1600 is comparable to that of the FZ35's ISO400 or 800 in terms of noise.

Bridge cameras generally tend to use the same size sensor you would find in a compact camera. It's not like an enthusiast compact (S95, G12, Panasonix LX5 etc.), and it's not like a micro 4/3. At the end of the day, it's still this tiny little sensor, so there's no point in having those high ISOs available, because they're just gonna be an absolute mess anyway. Megapixels mean nothing in terms of quality. It's all about the sensor size. If you print out a passage of a book onto a stamp-sized piece of paper, and then on an A5 sheet, which would be more readable?

Here's a quick comparison I did of my 2 cameras, 100% crops to give you an idea of the difference (450D was with the kit lens for the IS, I tried with my 50mm f1.8, but I couldn't get a steady hand held shot...)

One
Two
Three

If anyone wants to see the full size images, I'd be happy to upload them if anyone knows a good free image host that does high resolution images.
 
Last edited:
The image quality from compacts (same size sensors as bridge cameras) can be surprisingly good at low ISO and smaller output sizes. But at higher ISO and nice big prints is where DSLRs win hands down.

And the tiny sensors of all compact/bridge cameras dictate very short lenses, which invariably deliver deep depth of field, so there is almost no creative control of DoF with a compact/bridge.
 
I Have the Fuji HS10 and a Canon 20D. The Canon still is my favorite. The HS10 is a bit sluggish but has many good features for the money!
 
Like many, I started out with a bridge when I first elected to delve into photography (Fuji S9500). At the time, I was really pleased with the results from it and it had full manual functions which allowed me to learn an awful lot in a short space of time.

I did find though that over a period of about 12 months I started to learn more and more about the technical side, and thats when its limitations began to become apparent. In short, I outgrew it pretty fast.

As Pui said, jack of all trades and master of none. Whilst they are perfectly capable of delivering good quality images, its very easy to make them soft under certain circumstances, the metering I found leaves a lot to be desired, High ISO performance was frankly rubbish, and if you want to upgrade the glass youll need a hacksaw :thumbs:

I guess it depends what you want from it really. From a technical ability point of view a DSLR is always going to be better, but as a learning tool I really couldnt fault it.
 
Last edited:
Bridge cameras a re great for Learning on, get to grips with the manual /semi manual modes and learn. That's what I did. However when you want to get the best out of all situations you need to inverst in something with a bigger sensor and a lens to suit the conditions.

A DSLR is not a single piece of equipment like a bridge camera, it's made up of seperate peieces of equipment (Body, lens, flash etc ) that can be mixed and matched to provide the best solution to get the best out of a situation.
 
The truth is that everyone doesn't need an SLR, despite what a lot of magazines say !!

As already mentioned though the bridge/compacts start to show their limitations as ISO gets higher - if the images appear noise free at high-iso you'll find that much of the image detail has been lost due to the inbuilt noise reduction that some manufacturers use. Having said this if you mainly display your shots on the web or print at small sizes (6x4, 7x5) then you may not notice a difference - it can depend how "fussy" you are:shrug:

The thing about decent bridge cameras though is that they cost nearly the same (sometimes more) as an entry level DSLR and can be just as bulky, probably a reason why the market for them has shrunk quite a bit

Simon
 
BRidge technology is catching up with a DSLR, I do wonder why someone doesn't take the lens technology that the HS10 has and drop it onto a larger sensor? I know the relative size of the lens would be bigger, but hey...

If you are not trying to shoot at the limits of the technology of the Bridge, it will perform very well. It is the limits - low light, fast focussing, high FPS, etc. where the DSLR comes into its own.

But if you look at the press release for the next fuji bridge, the HS20, they have develpoed a new sensor which is supposedly a big improvement for low light.

Another benefit of the Fuji bridge range is the feature they put on the camera that generally only appear on the high spec DSLR -Live view, Hi Def video, back button focusing, a flip out screen etc. So you do get a lot of bang for your buck.

This is one of the reasons that I still have the bridge -I concentrate on taking picture rather than thinking "I could really do with that XX Lens" (though I do sometimes think "I could really do with a 7D")
 
I don't think bridge cameras are catching up at all. They are still stuck with tiny sensors and while technology raises the bar at that end, so it does the same with larger sensors.

The format that's make real headway is Micro 4/3rds - Panasonic and Olympus. Samsung and Sony are similar. Much larger than compact/bridge sensors, but smaller bodies thanks to getting rid of all the mirror/pentaprism gubbins. Thay are taking the middle ground, and eating into entry level DSLR sales too.
 
One of the things that got me was most bridges (when I was using them) and the compact pns didn't allow me to get hold of the raw file. Instead they applied incamera settings, which you couldn't tweak.

As a starting camera its brilliant, as they give good zoom range, are light and aren't too bulky.

My dad has one, and the only thing I really hated on it was the ultra slow AF.

But it does what he needs, doesn't cost an excessive amount.
 
The higher end Fuji's do RAW, as do the Canon G series, I beleive.

I agree with the sensor debate, however the improved technology means that a DSLR can shoot to further and further extremes, which many people will not use.

However, in a bridge it just increases the mid range ability of the sensor which improves the mass appeal.

I do think it is interesting that Fuj who do not make a DSLR or 4/3 who seem to be pushing the bridge technology further than others who do, so they are not taking away from their own DSLR sales.
 
me too i started with a bridge(Nikon p100) then moved on to a Nikon d5000. the bridge is a great camera and i learnt a lot from it. i still use the bridge,it is my always in car camera for those moments you wish you had a camera.
martin
 
If you can't afford a DSLR then get a bridge but you might be spending more money if you decide to make the jump to DSLR in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top