Are bridge cameras still a thing?

[24lemons]

I replaced a bulky Canon DSLR kit with a Panasonic LUMIX FZ1000 several years ago. I’d assumed that it must have been superseded several times by now but it seems that very little has come along in the years ive had it.

I only use it for a spot of motorsport photography from time to time and I find it so much more convenient to carry than an SLR plus lenses. Is the Bridge camera a bit of a dead end these days of is there something of a compatible price and quality but with a larger zoom range?

[Derek Smith]

I used a number of bridge cameras before moving to Panasonic MFT after selling my 35mm SLR.

Bridge cameras did everything I needed and a bit more. A friend also used bridge cameras, his a Coolpix with a 900mm (35mm equiv.) which took great images of the Moon which he was only too ready to share.

There's an excellent Panasonic FZ100ii, but it's pricey at £900 or so. S/h is an option as not many people use theirs a great deal. There's the FZ200 for a bit more. There's a Nikon Coolpix with an 83X zoom. Whatever the 35mm equiv. of the full zoom is, it must be impressive.

I liked my bridge cameras. They should be more popular. The range for my Pan MFT is greater, but it means carrying a lot more gear and, given my 5 lenses, a lot more expensive.

[Simpo Two]

24lemons said:

Is the Bridge camera a bit of a dead end these days of is there something of a compatible price and quality but with a larger zoom range?

You won't find anything with a bigger zoom ratio than a bridge camera. It's one of their party tricks.

[24lemons]

Simpo Two said:

24lemons said:

Is the Bridge camera a bit of a dead end these days of is there something of a compatible price and quality but with a larger zoom range?

You won't find anything with a bigger zoom ratio than a bridge camera. It's one of their party tricks.

That’s why I like mine it’s about 28-400mm in a package no bigger than a dslr with a kit lens attached.

Compared to lugging a bunch of lenses around it’s quite liberating really so I’m keen to keep that versatility. I do find it’s lacking in reach particularly for airshows or modern racing circuits. The Nikon P900 is certainly impressive but also quite large. There is a Sony with a 600mm lens but the price is a bit to high. Both have been out for years though which leads me to think the bridge camera might be a blind alley.

[Tony1963]

24lemons said:

That’s why I like mine it’s about 28-400mm in a package no bigger than a dslr with a kit lens attached.

Compared to lugging a bunch of lenses around it’s quite liberating really so I’m keen to keep that versatility. I do find it’s lacking in reach particularly for airshows or modern racing circuits. The Nikon P900 is certainly impressive but also quite large. There is a Sony with a 600mm lens but the price is a bit to high. Both have been out for years though which leads me to think the bridge camera might be a blind alley.

Isn’t a bridge camera always a blind alley? I mean that in a good way, but you buy it, and that’s that, nothing more you can do. Need ultrawide? Forget it, unless you carry a nasty little adapter lens thing. Need more reach for birdlife? Nope, you’ll need to crop or try to get closer if possible.

And the sensors themselves a a great limitation.

[Derek Smith]

Tony1963 said:

Isn’t a bridge camera always a blind alley? I mean that in a good way, but you buy it, and that’s that, nothing more you can do. Need ultrawide? Forget it, unless you carry a nasty little adapter lens thing. Need more reach for birdlife? Nope, you’ll need to crop or try to get closer if possible.

And the sensors themselves a a great limitation.

I'm not sure how close you have to get for a Coolpix 950. It's got an equivalent 24 - 2000mm zoom. I think that must have been the camera a friend used for shots of the Moon. If so, it was value for money.

I take your point that ultrawide is impossible. 24mm is good enough for most wide angle shots. It's my widest one. When using a 35mm film DSLR I had an 'ultra-wide', just 18mm I think, and when I went digital, I didn't bother to buy one as I only used the 18mm twice, apart from practice. It's fair to say it was essential at the time, but the cost for two images was ridiculous.

Many photographers would not need the flexibility of DSLR or think the the tremendous zoom is worth the trade-off. Each to their own.

I take photos of flowers and fungi. I frequently wait until an inset is in shot and if a bird or animal comes near, by the time I changed lenses, the thing would have gone. In fact, I have two cameras, and take one for close work and have the 200-600 hanging around my neck, just in case. That's an expense I doubt most photographers would accept.

I found my bridge exactly what was needed for images in a monthly magazine. My current set-up is better for me now, but that doesn't make a bridge a poor buy if it suits your needs.

[Fusion777]

I would have thought anything over 300mm without image stabilisation is going to be useless unless you’re using a tripod, in which case why not just have a DSLR?

Jack of all trades, master of none, and all that.

[Silvanus]

I'm thinking of getting a used bridge camera for my 10 year old, she really wants to be able to take wildlife and landscape photos whilst we are out and about. Figured it would be a good start, but I know bugger all bout cameras.

[Tony1963]

Derek Smith said:

Iif it suits your needs.

Exactly. And we are lucky to have so much choice.

[Tony1963]

Fusion777 said:

I would have thought anything over 300mm without image stabilisation is going to be useless unless you’re using a tripod, in which case why not just have a DSLR?

Jack of all trades, master of none, and all that.

Only useless if you don’t have the skill. People were using longer lenses, hand held, long before image stab was around.

[Derek Smith]

TOP 5 bridge cameras

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZqAxanb0S8

[Simpo Two]

Tony1963 said:

Fusion777 said:

I would have thought anything over 300mm without image stabilisation is going to be useless unless you’re using a tripod, in which case why not just have a DSLR?

Jack of all trades, master of none, and all that.

Only useless if you don’t have the skill. People were using longer lenses, hand held, long before image stab was around.

Indeed; the saying being that you should use the reciprocal of the length, ie 300mm = 1/300sec. That's not hard to achieve with either more aperture or crank up the ISO. Fences, trees, pillar boxes etc all good places to rest/prop it on too.

[DibblyDobbler]

I shoot mostly with a Sony RX10iv these days (a high end bridge camera - '1 inch' sensor and 24-600mm equivalent at f4 all the way)

See below for what you can get


Plasterer Bee by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Stonechat Portrait by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Sgurr Dubh over Loch Clair by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Dipper with snack by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Oystercatcher by Mike Smith, on Flickr