Entry DSLR or bridge camera?
Discussion
I'm looking at buying a decent camera and am currently borrowing a cannon eos 60d over the festive period to get a better feel for a DSLR.
Out of the DSLRs I've looked at I think I prefer the eos 450d or 1000d. I don't need anything oober fancy and don't want a massive camera but I do like the nice range of lenses available. However, after speaking to some other people, I've been told to have a look at bridge cameras. On paper it looks good, especially not having to carry around extra lenses, but is the quality comparable to an SLR or not?
Out of the DSLRs I've looked at I think I prefer the eos 450d or 1000d. I don't need anything oober fancy and don't want a massive camera but I do like the nice range of lenses available. However, after speaking to some other people, I've been told to have a look at bridge cameras. On paper it looks good, especially not having to carry around extra lenses, but is the quality comparable to an SLR or not?
Edited by Lois on Thursday 17th December 16:57
Depends what you want.
Bridge cameras suffer by having smaller sensors than dSLRs, even the cropped ones. For the very highest quality results, you need as big a sensor ( but not packed so densely that the photosites are too small.)
dSLRs allow interchangeability - but if you only ever intend to use the "kit" lens, you have some disadvantages.
Interchangeable lenses mean dust to deal with - no matter how efficient the latest in-camera systems are. And I've just seen a clip of the new Olympus Pen where the reviewer takes the lens off and shows the sensor to the camera filming him! Doh - covered in grime now!
And Bridge cameras aren't THAT small - although small enough to be fiddly in my book: fiddly controls, not big enough to hold solidly, I mean.
dSLRs offer a whole lot more, though, if you're truly serious about expanding your abilities and kit into the foreseable future. So an investment in Canon or Nikon system over a longer term can be just as cost effective as keeping up with the latest Bridge or compact every so many years/months.
As soon as you get a yearning for: macro/close up, ultra wide, fast moving subjects, lighting portraits properly, landscapes with full control over settings, low light et cetera; you'll miss not having gone dSLR route!
Bridge cameras suffer by having smaller sensors than dSLRs, even the cropped ones. For the very highest quality results, you need as big a sensor ( but not packed so densely that the photosites are too small.)
dSLRs allow interchangeability - but if you only ever intend to use the "kit" lens, you have some disadvantages.
Interchangeable lenses mean dust to deal with - no matter how efficient the latest in-camera systems are. And I've just seen a clip of the new Olympus Pen where the reviewer takes the lens off and shows the sensor to the camera filming him! Doh - covered in grime now!
And Bridge cameras aren't THAT small - although small enough to be fiddly in my book: fiddly controls, not big enough to hold solidly, I mean.
dSLRs offer a whole lot more, though, if you're truly serious about expanding your abilities and kit into the foreseable future. So an investment in Canon or Nikon system over a longer term can be just as cost effective as keeping up with the latest Bridge or compact every so many years/months.
As soon as you get a yearning for: macro/close up, ultra wide, fast moving subjects, lighting portraits properly, landscapes with full control over settings, low light et cetera; you'll miss not having gone dSLR route!
Personally, I can't see the attraction of a 'bridge' camera. They seem to offer the drawbacks of both formats, small sensors with poor low light performance, noise etc, but still too big to fit in your pocket.
There are a pretty good bunch of high end compacts around these days from Ricoh, Panasonic, Sigma (as well as the usual canon and nikon suspects) that offer full manual controls, shoot in RAW and have pretty impressive results. I recently picked up a second hand Ricoh GX100 to stick in my pocket when I can't be arsed to lug around the SLR, and it's a great little camera.
I can't see any advantage of having a bridge camera over one of these.
If you want something a little more versatile but not as big as an slr, a micro 4/3rds camera like Panasonic's GF-1 is a great option.
There are a pretty good bunch of high end compacts around these days from Ricoh, Panasonic, Sigma (as well as the usual canon and nikon suspects) that offer full manual controls, shoot in RAW and have pretty impressive results. I recently picked up a second hand Ricoh GX100 to stick in my pocket when I can't be arsed to lug around the SLR, and it's a great little camera.
I can't see any advantage of having a bridge camera over one of these.
If you want something a little more versatile but not as big as an slr, a micro 4/3rds camera like Panasonic's GF-1 is a great option.
I have a Canon G10 and a couple of Canon SLR's so key points for me.
Gary.
- Whatever anyone says, there's a massive size difference between the likes of the G10 and SLR's and if you need to put a G10 in your trouser pocket you can. The difference is significant enough that I carry my G10 around in my rucksack pretty much every day to/from work. I only carry an SLR if I intend (in advance) to take pictures.
- The main negatives of the bridge camera are slow operation (<1fps against 3-6fps for consumer and prosumer SLR's) and pretty s
tty high ISO performance (I don't generally like flash)
Gary.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff