• 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.

Bridge Cameras out performing DSLRs? (1 Viewer)

I use both. But I have to say when I have the bridge camera - which is now only when I'm carrying a scope and tripod as well, and even then I often still take the SLR - I'm almost hoping I don't see anything that I really want to photograph, because I know that I'd wish I had my SLR.

Having said that bridge cameras are fantastic value for money and so convenient.
 
I've been thinking about this for an trip. I have 35x superzoom. In good light, I am happy with pictures taken at the 30x mark and occasionally even at full zoom. If I switch to DSLR, what type of lens would I need to have the same reach? For example, would a SLR 300mm cropped show a larger image than the superzoom at 35x? Would I be able to use an SLR to get to 35x and beyond without a tripod? What if I have a big lens attached and something scurries past at only a few feet away? I'm trying to determine if carrying a DSLR is wise for a person who is birding but still wants some nice pictures or if I should go with a 50x superzoom which would perhaps give me better pics if I back it off to only 35x than what I am getting now at full extension?
 
Last edited:
To get to the 35x or 50x of a superzoom with a DSLR you will need a very big and very expensive lens to the equivalent of 600mm or more. The exact figure depends on the camera as the 35x is total range including the wide angle range of the superzoom. The resulting picture from the DSLR has the potential to be much better than the superzoom but only you can know if the expense and size increase are worth it.

The best of the long DSLR lenes are fixed length so you won't be able to get the close up shot with the same lens, you can get zooms but to get up to superzoom reach you need to add teleconvertors to them which boosts the minimum zoom as well.

It is a trade off, if you favour portabilty or price then a superzoom is your friend. If you want image quality and have deep pockets then DSLR all the way.
 
Mono said:
It is a trade off, if you favour portabilty or price then a superzoom is your friend. If you want image quality and have deep pockets then DSLR all the way.
Click to expand...

Everything in life is a tradeoff and you will find yourself going back and forth on this topic but in general as you stated, if you want image quality, go for the DSLR. Even when using a superzoom at full or close to full length, if you 'crop' using the DSLR you will not only end up with the same 'size' of image but also a better quality. ...and forget cropping with a super zoom....

Super zooms are fine when you don't want to pack a lot of gear...but also as stated, how many times do you carry one and find a perfect photo op and are just stuck with the superzoom!
 
As always, it's horses for courses: it always has been and always will be.

Bigger is better in every way, other than portability - or it would be if cost were no object. So many factors come into play, but in the end, the DSLR is the best compromise for most of the photos we are taking. A 10x 8 plate camera would give ultimate quality as long as the bird promised not to fly away. Anyone for stuffing? Bridge cameras are okay, but often the shutter is slow firing (when the button is pressed) and there is too much depth of field. It's difficult to make the subject stand out from the background.

Bokeh is another thing. I believe the term should be used solely for out of focus highlights and not for general blur in a picture. Bokeh is not just a function of the focal length and depth of field but is, and probably more so, the way the lens is constructed, particularly in terms of the aperture blades. In general the more blades the better the bokeh.
 
Some of the guys on the Canon SX50 thread who have both DSLRs and the Canon SX50 report that for some shots in some conditions - like very big zoom - the Canon outperforms the DSLR.

Do people use DSLRs to make identifications of birds outside binocular range? Superzoom users do.

The main way in which the Bridge is better, though, is that it is basically a go anywhere camera, and the Canon is usable hand held at full optical zoom and beyond due to its superb IS.

Most DSLRs have nothing like the reach, and those that have are too unwieldy to be a go anywhere camera.

Another advantage - the ability to take pictures of insects or reptiles on large zooms at short range so they don't move, and to take distant bird shots at extreme range without having to either carry or change lenses.

For all walks I take my binoculars and my SX50. If I'm going somewhere that doesn't involve a lot of walking I take scope and tripod too, and if I have a windfall I would also get a DSLR with a long lens as well for days out like that.

For everyday, though, binoculars and bridge do it for me.

Doubters should check out the images posted on the SX50 thread.

David
 
One critical factor in my deciding on which to use is the weather, if I know that the camera are going to get drowned a long way from home, a superzoom is a non-starter and it has to be a sealed slr and lens combo.

On the other hand trecking across the countryside with the likelihood that you are unlikely to see anything much different from the last dozen times you covered the ground its bins and a superzoom. A superzoom is far more likely to get an ID than my feeble memory or useless sketches.
In addition on a tricky slope the superzoom can be slung over your back and/or clipped to your belt leaving it fairly accessible whereas an slr and heavy lens will generally be in a backpack for my safety.

If life were all about pixels and pre-raphaelite detail there would be one clear winner, but with my feet sinking ankle deep in mud and relying on walking poles to stay upright, whatever gets the ID without getting in the way is the likely solution - providing it doesn't drown. So for me the next major step for superzooms in catching up with slrs is not image quality its better weatherproofing!
 
Hi,
I have over 40 years experience of photography, having various film slr cameras and now digital. I currently have a Nikon D5000, a Fujifilm HS50EXR and a Lumix FS40 compact. I tend to disagree with some of the comments on this topic. I have always used SLR cameras,but I recently purchased the Fuji HS50exr,I have taken some very good bird photos with the HS50exr. Usually I do take the Nikon and the HS50 with me anyway. People need to look at the specs for the HS50exr.
Martin
 
dcweather said:
Bridge cameras are brilliant! But think of them as an alternative to a DSLR not instead of or better. They can't get the same BOKEH (sweet blurred backgrounds) and resolution of a modern DSLR. What they can do well is produce decent images from macro through to super telephoto in a small and lightweight package and I believe are better for a nature watcher who likes nice photos whereas DSLR is better for a photographer who likes watching nature!
Click to expand...

I think this is the best summary, I have seen, of the current situation.

I can get shots, with my bridge camera, that I would never get with my DSLR. I can carry it everwhere. It is very convenient but, when it comes to taking "THE" photograph, DSLR wins.

So why is my DSLR sitting doing nothing while my (actually my wife's) little Canon is used every day?
 
Don't get me wrong, as I also have a DSLR, but I do think that the Fujifilm HS50exr is serious competition for a dslr. I have taken a number of shots with the HS50, and they are just as good as photos I take with my Nikon DSLR.
Martin
 
martinfbrown said:
...........they are just as good as photos I take with my Nikon DSLR.
Martin
Click to expand...

Two major differences will certainly be the chip size and the low light performance. So pictures come out fine with the compacts, as long as one stays within photo objects that get enough light and that don't need fine details shown when blown up considerably.

Another problem with the compacts is the reaction and focus time. Trying to take good shots of a quick passing bird or jet fighter will be much more of a hit or fail thing than with a dslr.
 
Last edited:
Pros to a Bridge from a DSLR. More Features for the price. Better Video Autofocus. Lighter and easier to be the one camera you have on you at all times. Insane optical zoom and insane wide open. It is something i think everyone with a DSLR in the field should have with them along with their DSLR. A great Camera to learn what Aperture, shutter, and iso modes due.

Cons to a bridge vs DSLR. DSLR is easier to get a shot than a Bridge because it will have faster focus. Bridges have very little to no Buffer after a burst of fps meaning you will sit and wait till the camera processes before you can shoot again. You can not crop a bridge picture later at all, but you do have the ability to zoom in close enough. Problem with going into close is you can not track the birds so you play the lower the camera and find the bird again game losing shots you would of got with a DSLR. Life span of a bridge is 2 maybe three years tops if you really stretch it but on a DSLR body you can get 5+ years of life. With the EVF the battery life is crap compared to a DSLR. Again the main disadvantage is is it harder to get a picture with a bridge than a DSLR.

If you learn on a Bridge for years and then move up to a decent DSLR you will be a a fast action shooter because you learned how to take a picture with a much slower and harder device.

The best part of both is the compliment each other perfectly in the field! Like I said every DSLR shooter should have a Bridge on them also.
 
Aloof1 said:
Pros to a Bridge from a DSLR. More Features for the price. Better Video Autofocus. Lighter and easier to be the one camera you have on you at all times. Insane optical zoom and insane wide open. It is something i think everyone with a DSLR in the field should have with them along with their DSLR. A great Camera to learn what Aperture, shutter, and iso modes due.

Cons to a bridge vs DSLR. DSLR is easier to get a shot than a Bridge because it will have faster focus. Bridges have very little to no Buffer after a burst of fps meaning you will sit and wait till the camera processes before you can shoot again. You can not crop a bridge picture later at all, but you do have the ability to zoom in close enough. Problem with going into close is you can not track the birds so you play the lower the camera and find the bird again game losing shots you would of got with a DSLR. Life span of a bridge is 2 maybe three years tops if you really stretch it but on a DSLR body you can get 5+ years of life. With the EVF the battery life is crap compared to a DSLR. Again the main disadvantage is is it harder to get a picture with a bridge than a DSLR.

If you learn on a Bridge for years and then move up to a decent DSLR you will be a a fast action shooter because you learned how to take a picture with a much slower and harder device.

The best part of both is the compliment each other perfectly in the field! Like I said every DSLR shooter should have a Bridge on them also.
Click to expand...

I use the SX50 and crop virtually all my shots. Surely all cropping will have an adverse effect on overall final image quality no matter what camera you originally used to get the shot. I am certainly happy with cropping images out of a bridge camera.
 
I used to crop my old 3MP Olympus bridge camera before the term 'bridge camera' was invented! I do agree that SLRs are much easier to use though.
 
I recently rejoined the SLR ranks ( previous the days of film ) to me the choice is clear. If birds are what you want and pretty much only birds then the Bridge is the choice. Beating it with a DSLR is easy if you want to throw enough money at it and carry that much weight. That being said if you have a general interest in things other than birds then you can't beat a decent DSLR wit a bridge other than the zoom feature. The image capture of the Nikon DX's with the 24 mega pixel sensors will capture much better detail and allow more cropping.
The obvious answer is get both You will probably wind up going that way anyhow. Start with the bridge and if the interest grows then get the DSLR. If no spark occurs then your only out a few hundred. Its like binoculars and other optics, no matter how sensibly you begin if you enjoy it your bank account is doomed.
Best advice is don't start or start practicing hiding expenses and gear from the wife.
My two cents and overpriced at that.
Steve
 
One consideration not greatly mentioned here is video performance. The lack of quality is less obvious in moving images and Bridge's like the Panny DMC FZ200 can autofocus quite well and do a reasonable slo mo at a higher frame rate. Some advantages as well with extreme macro, more DOF and can get very close without needing macro lens and with Raynox can get brilliant results.
(But as a DSLR fan also see my earlier post)
Dave
 
For me my Canon SX50 does not really out perform my DSLR. It is just another tool in the bag. Where the compact is really handy for me though is for travel. Much easier to lug around. I get more record shots with the compact which I wouldn't have got near with the DSLR. Even with my 100-400. And some of the shots are good. But with faster adjustments of settings, easier manual focusing in situations where you need it, faster AF, better viewfinder and of course birds in flight I get far more keepers with the DSLR. If a bird is in your view for only a few seconds the DSLR will pick it up. The compact needs time. Having said all this, I do use the compact a lot. Perhaps just getting lazy! I think both have thier uses but at the moment they are not out performing ... yet.
 
It depends on what you want from the camera and what suits you.

I commented on the first page of this thread that I switched my Panasonic FZ35 for a Canon 7d/400mm. Well now, I've switched back to a Fuji HS50. Clearly the 7D/400mm is better than any bridge camera in terms of image quality, but it simply wasn't working for me as I don't have the time for specific bird photography trips so a bridge that I can take with me on family outings is more suited to my needs.

I think everyone just has to find the right balance for them.
 
I have a novice question for this thread. As I think someone mentioned, with an image from a large DSLR sensor, compared to a tiny bridge camera sensor, one can presumably crop much more readily to bring out details (a distant bird, for example). To what extent does the ability to crop more with the DSLR image compensate for the much longer zoom reach of the bridge camera--say, if one is using a 300mm or 400mm lens on an APS-C DSLR? Something I've been wondering about...
 
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

S
Yet another bridge camera thread...
Replies
4
Views
429
seawatcher
S
M
Used Bridge Camera Options
Replies
8
Views
3K
PaulCountyDurham
P
M
35mm film vs digital
Replies
14
Views
858
Ignatius
Ignatius
Oregon John
What I think would be the perfect birding (rather than bird photography) camera
Replies
10
Views
2K
robinlanark
R
E
First serious birding camera advice (budget €2000 - 3000)
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
njlarsen
njlarsen

Users who are viewing this thread

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