bridge or dslr

jamesccp

ok im just starting out so ive about 600 to 700 to spend in a couple of months, i have read a lot of reviews so my questions are
should i get a bridge like the powershot sx50 or should i get an entry level dslr kit or should i go second hand, if the dslr route which should i get and were should i buy thanks

gsxr1

jamesccp wrote: »

ok im just starting out so ive about 600 to 700 to spend in a couple of months, i have read a lot of reviews so my questions are
should i get a bridge like the powershot sx50 or should i get an entry level dslr kit or should i go second hand, if the dslr route which should i get and were should i buy thanks

If 600/700 is all you have to spend and don't want to invest anymore, Then bridge IMO.

I gave up on DSLR as you need a small fortune to buy good glass and will develop back problems carrying it. Not to mention the paranoia involved from theft.
I got a new fugi film hs30. And its better by miles on everything apart from sensor size than my entry level canon dslr.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_1000D-vs-Fujifilm-HS30-EXR
link states the ff does not shoot raw.. It does.

Splinters

DSLR all the way.

700 euro could get you a great kit if you shop smart, adverts.ie etc.

http://www.adverts.ie/digital-cameras/canon-400d-boxed-5-lenses/1549389

Theres a 400D with a nice selection of lens which would cover any normal situation you might encounter.

Alternatively you could pick up a 550D with kit 18-55 lens, 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 70-300mm which would do an even better job.

I wouldnt even consider going for a bridge at this kind of budget. They're fine, they're capable of taking a decent shot but are severely limited. You'll outgrow it in no time and be stuck with no other option but to buy a completely new camera.

Ultimately the quality of the shot you take has a lot more to do with your knowledge of the camera and its settings then the camera itself (within reason). If you're planning on spending up to 700 Im assuming you're hoping to take it at least reasonably seriously so it doesnt make sense to spend it on an bridge camera.

Splinters

gsxr1 wrote: »

I got a new fugi film hs30. And its better by miles on everything apart from sensor size than my entry level canon dslr.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_1000D-vs-Fujifilm-HS30-EXR
link states the ff does not shoot raw.. It does.

Do you realise how important sensor size is? Theres a reason full frame cameras with full frame sensors cost thousands. Its probably the single biggest factor in the cameras ability to take a high quality image.

Im glad you're happy with your bridge camera, but theres no denying its a lesser spec camera. Less spec in ways that could actually factor into image quality. DSLRs might not have the bells and whistles like in camera panoramas and 3d photos but thats because they're considered more gimmick like features to attract consumer level buyers.

Bridge and point and shoot's do have their place. Not everybody buying a camera is interested in expanding their lens and learning all about proper camera settings, but its misleading to suggest that they're a "better camera".

jamesccp

cheers lads, thanks for the advice im edging to dslr are the hong kong sellers on ebay worth a look

gsxr1

Splinters wrote: »

Do you realise how important sensor size is? Theres a reason full frame cameras with full frame sensors cost thousands. Its probably the single biggest factor in the cameras ability to take a high quality image.

Im glad you're happy with your bridge camera, but theres no denying its a lesser spec camera. Less spec in ways that could actually factor into image quality. DSLRs might not have the bells and whistles like in camera panoramas and 3d photos but thats because they're considered more gimmick like features to attract consumer level buyers.

Bridge and point and shoot's do have their place. Not everybody buying a camera is interested in expanding their lens and learning all about proper camera settings, but its misleading to suggest that they're a "better camera".

I do realize how important sensor size it.
But on a limited budget it just makes more sense to use a bridge IMO.
The way I see it is you can have the a full frame sensor , but if you cant afford to the glass to frame your subject or scene correctly then its simply pointless.
I do understand that you are probably a professional, but I am not. Im simply an enthusiastic amateur. I tried a dslr for a few years , had great results but I simply did not have 1000s to spend on glass. And came up short even with my 200mm telephoto . And so much gear to carry.

The price of lens are over looked by many beginners on here I found. It can become a mega expensive hobby with dslr.

This hs30 is great fun and takes better lowlight pics than my 1000d ever did. Its point and shoot EXR function is also much better than my entry level canon had. I use the automatic mode around half the time.
I will probably never print bigger than a4 .
Its so handy to take out on family trips. I have an optical zoom range from 24mm f/2.8 to over 700mm f/5.6 . You have to admit . This ability is super handy to have. And this is probably the reason I choose a bridge over dslr.
Although I would like a wider apature .

Im going to gives this a year . But I think a decent bridge is right for me. I have had some fantastic results so far with it. And still have the versatility of manual settings when needed.

I would love to have both, but on my way out the door for a day out, the bridge would be coming along. Im sorry if I was misleading before. Im finding its a better camera for my requirements at the moment.

One thing I think that should also be considered it how a camera holds it value. The bridge does not hold it as well. It will be out of date in a year.
In fact I was able to buy it new from the sale of a broken canon 1000d. Even though the dslr was worn out and broken it still held half of it value when sold on ebay.

Edit. After cropping pics from both bridge and dslr. There is a difference. The Dslr has much better quality and does not have a grittyness the the bridge has. This is only noticeable on a 75% crop .
The only way I can describe it is like the difference when shooting at a higher ISO. Say from 200 to 400 on my canon.
I use film for shots I really want. 50% of the time. Film blows the both digital cams away . When I can get the old 37 year old zorki to work that is.

gsxr1

Sorry for double posting but I found this on youtube which sums up my argument .
For under 400 euro you can get results. And this is an older vid with a lesser cam than the hs30

I still would support my argument adding that if you want a good camera that you can take anywhere that does everything, then recent bridges are getting there fast. And may have overtaken entry level DSLR cams. Just look at the sony RX cams.

pros and cons on everything I guess.

Look at the vid. Its quite entertaining

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfnv9pRUJrU

jamesccp

thanks good vid it is a head wrecking amount of choice with compact system cameras also.

Daveysil15

It depends on what you want to photograph. I started off with a bridge camera but upgraded to a dslr after about 6 months. I mostly do portraits and the bridge is just too limited for what I do. Lack of accessories like lenses, flashguns, filters etc was holding me back. Plus the bridge camera was painfully slow in comparison to my Canon dslr.

Bridge cameras are good all round cameras if you just want to photograph a bit of everything. But if want to get more serious about photography a dslr is a better option as you can keep upgrading it.

16workout

DSLR, the possibilities are endless. Try keep some money for photoshop software on your PC you'll be hooked

Splinters

Im in no way suggesting bridge cameras dont have their use. But I replied to this specific thread, where the OP has stated he has a budget of up to 700 euro. The bridge camera you're recommending seems like a great camera thats ideally suited to your needs, sure thats all you can ask for.

However for the budget thats been mentioned here he could easily pick up something like a 550D with a nice range of lens that would run rings around that bridge camera. Its as simple as that really. If he'd said he wanted to spend around 300 and wont be in a position to buy any lens in future then your bridge camera would be a better idea.

It just comes down to what type of photography you're interested in. If you're looking for the best camera for that type of budget then theres no doubt its a DSLR, but then again depending on how you plan to use it maybe a bridge would be better suited.

Daveysil15

Just wondering out of curiosity while we're on the subject - do bridge cameras work with studio flash?

Splinters

It just depends on how you plan to trigger the studio flash. If it has a hotshoe then it would be no problem with radio triggers. I suppose technically even any old point and shoot, camera phone, anything with a built in flash could work with studio lights if the studio flash has an optical slave. The results might not be great but its technically possible alright.

tkd93

Id advise dslr. It wont restrict you as your skills develop and will give you far more creative room. Some great deals on dslrs.

dinneenp

+ 1 for bridge. below taken from my entry to Pentax competition 'Most influential camera or equipemnt'

I've always liked photography butnever really got hooked until about 8 years ago. I decided to sell my compact camera and bought a Panasonic FZ-28 bridge camera. It opened my eyes tophotography and got me hooked line and sinker.

Why did this camera make such abig impact? Simple- it's a jack-of-all-trades camera. It fits in a jacketpocket, has a viewfinder, a ridiculously long built in zoom, good macro/close-upcapabilities, good video recording.

It has 18x optical zoom, opticalimage stabilizer, decent LCD, full manual controls, good battery life amongst otherfeatures. Simple to use and with a 100% view electronic viewfinder.


When someone is getting started seriously with photography ease is the most important thing; having a camerathat you can bring most places with you, take multiple types of shots without havingto lug around a bag, change lenses, deciding what lenses you want & havingto buy them individually. This allowedme to keep it with me and snap it out whenever I spotted something to snap.
This allowed me to takes a massive amount of photographs, something I wouldn’thave managed if I had a ‘large’ Dslr camera with 1 lens on it. I took photos ofeverything- insets, floral, people, architecture, sport, cityscapes, candidphotos and many more.

It’s not a master camera, hasmultiple shortcomings compared to a Dslr but when you’re finding your feet anddeciding if you really love photography and less intimidating than a Dslr. Andit’s subtle enough to take into sports stadiums without being stopped, whereasa Dslr attracts attention from stewards.

After about a year I was really surethat I was sure that I loved photography so sold it and bought a Pentax K-X.Why? For better low light capabilities, quicker response shutter time, quickeraperture, more blurred background portrait photos and the other benefits that gowith a Dslr.

I still miss its versatility andmight get a 2nd hand one for Christmas, it’d be ideal to keep in mycar as my ‘always-on-hand’ camera. For anyone who is getting started I couldn’trecommend it highly enough