• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Anyone shooting RAW with a Bridge Camera? (1 Viewer)

HantaYo

HantaYo

Well-known member
Hi all,

I am finally in the market for a Bridge Camera. Currently I have a Olympus OMD Em5 with a effective zoom of 200MM to 600MM. So the Bridge Camera I am looking at needs to be in the >=1200 MM range. With the Olympus I always shoot RAW and post process in Lightroom, DXO, or Capture One.

I am wondering if anyone is shooting RAW with their bridge camera? Several website kinda hint at RAW and bridge cameras are not something to really look for?

Thanks,
Jeff
 
File size is the only reason I can think of to not shoot in RAW. Also, be sure to understand optical zoom vs. digital zoom before choosing your camera. As it's been explained to me, digital zoom is basically an in-camera-crop, and you can probably do a better crop job in post processing.
 
RudeRat said:
File size is the only reason I can think of to not shoot in RAW. Also, be sure to understand optical zoom vs. digital zoom before choosing your camera. As it's been explained to me, digital zoom is basically an in-camera-crop, and you can probably do a better crop job in post processing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the file size significantly reduces the fps which is making me wonder, for bird photography, is RAW worth it? With my Olympus, the buffer fills fairly quickly on RAW which is frustrating. But with Bridge cameras it appears on paper to be extremely frustrating.

I am not factoring in digital zoom. As you say, you can do this on the computer. I think it is more of a marketing hype.

Thanks!
 
I think what you plan to do with the photos is also something to consider. If taking a shot, or burst of shots and then going home to identify what you captured is your goal, RAW may be overkill. Particularly true if you don't plan to do anything with the photo after that. However, when you get that shot that makes everyone go "WOW!", you'll probably wish you had it in RAW.
 
RudeRat said:
I think what you plan to do with the photos is also something to consider. If taking a shot, or burst of shots and then going home to identify what you captured is your goal, RAW may be overkill. Particularly true if you don't plan to do anything with the photo after that. However, when you get that shot that makes everyone go "WOW!", you'll probably wish you had it in RAW.
Click to expand...

Looking more for nice pictures that I can not capture with my current mirror-less camera. Capturing a picture of an unknown bird is secondary.

Currently I am looking at the Canon SX60 (for the RAW only, otherwise not too impressed with it), the Nikon P610 (unfortunately no RAW), the Sony HX400V (no RAW), or the Fujifilm S1 (but it appears jpegs are over processed so you should shot RAW).

Thanks,
 
Found this interesting note on shooting RAW on small sensor cameras at photographyblog.com:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_coolpix_p610_review/image_quality/

If the P610 could shoot raw images, this would solve any problems with overzealous noise reduction. However, it’s easy to forget that even when ultrazoom bridge cameras can capture raw files, their small, pixel-packed sensors tend to generate a lot of grain and colour speckling at higher ISO settings. This noise alone is enough to obliterate most fine details, to a point that the raw file may yield little or no more detail than the equivalent, pre-processed JPEG image. Likewise, JPEG compression can noticeably restrict the dynamic range that larger sensors are capable of, but the differences are less pronounced when comparing images captured on the tiny 1/2.3” sensors used in most bridge cameras.
Click to expand...
 
We have a small compact, a Ricoh GR, that we mostly use for macro images and I always take Raw pictures with that. It's a great little camera though not for birds.
 
Well today I traveled 150 miles to go to a camera expo; unfortunately almost all the cameras from the various vendors were mirrorless or slr. So I headed over to the camera store and bought the Nikon P610. Decided to forgo the RAW format. I just do not think it gives you much with the smaller sensors.
 
Here are some of today's picks with the P610 (all on tripod)
 

Attachments

  • Sands Lake0472015May31.JPG
    Sands Lake0472015May31.JPG
    162.1 KB · Views: 225
  • Sands Lake1272015May31.JPG
    Sands Lake1272015May31.JPG
    181.2 KB · Views: 261
  • Sands Lake0942015May31.JPG
    Sands Lake0942015May31.JPG
    185.7 KB · Views: 167
  • Sands Lake1572015May31.JPG
    Sands Lake1572015May31.JPG
    160.9 KB · Views: 162
I guess not many people shoot raw with a bridge because if you are serious enough about image quality to bother editing raw files, you'll probably have a DSLR.
 
Amarillo said:
I guess not many people shoot raw with a bridge because if you are serious enough about image quality to bother editing raw files, you'll probably have a DSLR.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head. I'll likely keep my M43 camera but it will be more for landscape photography and shoot RAW with it.
 
I typically shoot raw but no longer have the strength to use long Canon 'L' lenses. I have two LUMIX FZ150 bodies, one which I use with an Olympus 1.7x converter. I also have a Canon SX 50 HS but I do not find it as good as these LUMIX models.

None of the bridge cameras, as far as I am aware, reliably avoid burnt highlights so shooting raw is a virtual necessity.

No LUMIX since the FZ150 betters its performance for shooting birds iIMHO.
 
You should consider the Panasonic FZ200! It has a constant f/2.8 Leica lens and it can shoot in RAW (although I haven't tried that with mine). The focal lenght is *only* 600mm though. You can find some pictures taken by that camera in my gallery.

HN
 
HighNorth said:
You should consider the Panasonic FZ200! It has a constant f/2.8 Leica lens and it can shoot in RAW (although I haven't tried that with mine). The focal lenght is *only* 600mm though. You can find some pictures taken by that camera in my gallery.

HN
Click to expand...

The Olympus I have gets me to 600mm. So I needed something with a little extra zoom.
 
Teleconvertors on bridge cameras do not normally reduce the effective light passing characteristics of the primary lens by any significant amount. As they go in front of the camera lens usually on a mount attached to the camera body at the base of the lens, they have to have large diameter lens groups to avoid vignetting which provides the necessary compensation. Depending on the manufacture or lens/camera combination you may have a loss of quality.

This may be interesting if a bit dated. The Nikon ED17 has been long discontinued and apparently hard to find secondhand

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3281815
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Danielbirdwatcher
Nikon Coolpix P-1000 Shoot raw or jpeg?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Gzoladz74
G
MelospizaMelodiaFan
Upgrading from Bridge Camera to M43
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Missy_MT_AK
M
T
Camera choice for birding around 3000 Euros with lens?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tsvetan
T
E
First serious birding camera advice (budget €2000 - 3000)
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
njlarsen
njlarsen
E
Best Birding Bridge Camera
Replies
18
Views
6K
glennmanc
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top