• 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.

A Bridge Camera ~ "don't waste your money"! (1 Viewer)

I have a panasonic and whilst on the whole i'm happy the pictures don't compare with the big boys. As has been said.

The question is what do I want from my camera? The limitations of the bridge are mainly speed. Catching flying birds takes a lot of practice. I have missed some golden opportunities because of the lack of speed. The zoom and quality of picture is fine for what I wanted.

Also, as stated the weight and practicality and price compensate.

I think most people, if they had the money, would spend it but thze bridge is a great compromise.

Out of interest I bought the Panasonic because it was the fastest. Continuous shoot is still a waste of time though....
 
I'm curious .... does any member here regularly post photos in the Gallery, which were taken using a Bridge Camera?

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any way of searching the Gallery for camera specific shots.

Cheers,
Dick

I agree that would be useful, but I use Flickr for posting my photos by Subject/camera/lens.
Here is the set for the SX40HS http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/sets/72157627773655789/ and the Nikon P500 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/sets/72157626414882500/
I use the Canon more due to it's better Image Stabilising.
Neil
 
I agree that would be useful, but I use Flickr for posting my photos by Subject/camera/lens.
Here is the set for the SX40HS http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/sets/72157627773655789/ and the Nikon P500 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/sets/72157626414882500/
I use the Canon more due to it's better Image Stabilising.
Neil

Excellent pictures taken with bridge cameras are routinely posted in the forums of the review sited such as DPR.
These pictures however reflect expertise, both in the shooting as well as in the post processing of the images.
The unskilled user whose idea of image processing is red eye removal will not produce shots of similar quality with a bridge camera, whereas (s)he might with a big DSLR.
Nevertheless, for those realistic enough to recognize that their work is unlikely to attract National Geographic's editors, a bridge camera offers tremendous value.
 
I have been intrigued by bridge cameras ever since I bought the Canon S3 years ago. I learned a lot from that camera and eventually like all hobbies,...it become more than just a hobby (In this case just for a shot). I demanded more quality from my images and moved up several times in lens and camera. Now I have a 7D and a 400 prime..I am more than satisfied with that tandem.

But...the notion of traveling all the time with the 7D and 400lens, let alone another lens if I want other type of photography, begins to wear on one. Hence the Bridge comes back into play. I purchased the 10mp Canon SX10 a year ago which has ample zoom at 20 or so, and am satisfied but the improvements in tech and have made the SX40 be a standout.

So..buy one or not... ? it is 'just money' after all!...

I do know that if I really want a solid shot, I would always opt for the 7D + 400, but many times the light is poor, bad weather, distance etc...so why not opt for a bridge since under those conditions the 7d + 400 will do little too. I still haven't bought one but stop at the store all the time and play with em...jim
 
I have come from a 7D with a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens > 7D with Canon 400/5.6 lens > and now to the SX40. For me there is more to life than lugging around heavy DSLR stuff. I still have two DSLR's and three or four lenses but I may even get rid of those sometime and buy an additional good quality compact for the shorter focal lengths.
Attached is a few shots from the SX40 that I have only had for a few days.
Not up to DSLR standards but not bad for the money. I am amazed by the IQ from such a small sensor. All hand held at 840mm and shot at ISO 400
 

Attachments

  • sample1.jpg
    sample1.jpg
    181.4 KB · Views: 613
  • green2.jpg
    green2.jpg
    202.7 KB · Views: 665
  • robin1.jpg
    robin1.jpg
    170.8 KB · Views: 783
  • test1.jpg
    test1.jpg
    228.4 KB · Views: 583
Last edited:
I have come from a 7D with a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens > 7D with Canon 400/5.6 lens > and now to the SX40. For me there is more to life than lugging around DSLR stuff. I still have two DSLR's and three or four lenses but I may even get rid of those sometime and buy an additional good quality compact for shorter the focal lengths.
Attached is a few shots from the SX40 that I have only had for a few days.
Not up to DSLR standards but not bad for the money. I am amazed by the IQ from such a small sensor. All hand held at 840mm and shot at ISO 400

Roy,
Certainly most people would be very happy with those.
I"ve found that the sx40hs jpegs needs very little processing out of the camera if exposure is ok. I normally just reduce size and sharpen for the web.
Neil.
 
Not sure of the term bridge camera but certainly in the 4:3 the Lumix Gx1 can be both light and versatile with excellent image capture and sophisticated feature set.

With a 14 mm pancake lens on it fits in a shirt pocket - has superb AI and AF for casual photography.

The 200 mm stabilized zoom fits in the other pocket and it's proving a great combo for birding while on a motorcycle. Body and the 2 lenses were under $1,000. which was just about my limit.

Still learn the camera and this forum will be very useful but the 4:3 is a nice step up from the likes of the TZ25.

Next up is the matching EVF for it which will put me over the budget but needed to use it for birding.
 
Roy,
Certainly most people would be very happy with those.
I"ve found that the sx40hs jpegs needs very little processing out of the camera if exposure is ok. I normally just reduce size and sharpen for the web.
Neil.

For those of us whose processing experience is limited to using the red eye elimination on Picasa, please amplify 'sharpen for the web'. Is there a software that is reasonably intuitive to use that you would recommend?
 
For those of us whose processing experience is limited to using the red eye elimination on Picasa, please amplify 'sharpen for the web'. Is there a software that is reasonably intuitive to use that you would recommend?
Sharpening for the web just means that when you reduce the image size for posting on the web (usually around 800-1000 pixels on the longest side) the image requires a bit more sharpening to suit the smaller size. Any imaging software that has sharpening will do (for Canon users, DPP that comes free with the Camera has sharpening). The settings you use depends on the software you are using but for sharpening for the web 'what you see is what you get' so your eye should be the judge.
 
I recently bought a used Fujifilm finepix HS10 bridge camera ( 30x zoom ) I did alot of research and decided on this one. I use a Canon 7D as my primary camera but this was for travel, fun and if needed some half decent bird pictures if possible. I knew that the images wouldn't be as good so adjusted my expectations accordingly. The way I researched the cameras was I went onto flickr and put in the name of a bridge camera in the search box. That camera would come up in a group and then I would put the name of different birds that I had photographed before in the search box for that group and trawled through the images. ( I get alot of free time at work ) Immediately the bridge cameras popular among birders become obvious because there will be pages of images one can compare. I found lots of great images taken with the Fuji ( here is a lady who takes bird pics with her Fuji HS 10 http://www.flickr.com/photos/63348497@N00/sets/72157628680703275/ ) Her pictures were what made me in the end go for the Fuji. So far I have found it difficult getting good shots but an slowly improving. One needs to try all the settings and decide which works for them the best. I have also used the camera for general shots which it does very well. It also has fun features like panaromic and supports raw. Also has a manual zoom which is great for birds as it stays in position even when you switch the camera off. Recently me and the wife went to Tokyo and I ended up making a long video of the trip and the video performed brilliantly. So all in all I am very happy with the camera and am eager to keep trying to get those great images that others have got. This particular camera is quite old now and I have played with some of the newer ones at the shop and the IS seems to be brilliant on the new Canon and Sony. Yes the viewfinder is darker and smaller and for big prints there is no comparison. However for the very small amount of money I spent I am really happy and eager to improve. They are definitely not a waste of money that the guy in the quote says. Many people take marvellous bird pictures with these cameras...he should have done some research before he made a somewhat disparaging remark regarding all those that have spent their money on these cameras. Wow that was long.. Bye!
 
Sharpening for the web just means that when you reduce the image size for posting on the web (usually around 800-1000 pixels on the longest side) the image requires a bit more sharpening to suit the smaller size. Any imaging software that has sharpening will do (for Canon users, DPP that comes free with the Camera has sharpening). The settings you use depends on the software you are using but for sharpening for the web 'what you see is what you get' so your eye should be the judge.

Thank you, very helpful.
Had no idea Canon includes digital photo processing software with their cameras.
Guess it would be helpful to read the instructions more thoroughly. o:D
 
I have had my little Canon SX40 for just over a week and it has exceeded my expectations (although I still have all my DSLR gear inc the 7D and several L lenses).
The amount of detail that it gets from such a small sensor is amazing and noise levels at ISO 400 and even 800 are superb (better than a few DSLR I have had in the past).
EDIT: forgot to mention that I have now got the CHDK hack up and running which gives RAW and superfine jpegs - not had time to try it in these modes yet though.

Here is another snap I took least week again hand held at full zoom (840mm)
 

Attachments

  • greenfinch1.jpg
    greenfinch1.jpg
    169.3 KB · Views: 305
Last edited:
I have had my little Canon SX40 for just over a week and it has exceeded my expectations (although I still have all my DSLR gear inc the 7D and several L lenses).
The amount of detail that it gets from such a small sensor is amazing and noise levels at ISO 400 and even 800 are superb (better than a few DSLR I have had in the past).

Here is another snap I took least week again hand held at full zoom (840mm)

Great Roy, has that had much processing done on it?
 
Great Roy, has that had much processing done on it?
Not a lot, just cropped and sharpened - this one is at ISO 400 and there has been no noise reduction whatsoever in processing, From every comparison I have the seen the SX40 seems to come out on top for higher ISO noise levels which is very important for bird photography as we are often shooting in less that ideal light in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the fascinating replies so far, which certainly prove that the Bridge Camera is well worth considering.

Here's my contribution to the argument in favour of them, a few photos I took recently, as a newcomer to bird Photography, with my FZ150.

Cheers,
Dick
 

Attachments

  • P.150.tele.greenie.JPG
    P.150.tele.greenie.JPG
    270.7 KB · Views: 215
  • P.150.tele.2.JPG
    P.150.tele.2.JPG
    384 KB · Views: 256
  • P.150.tele.JPG
    P.150.tele.JPG
    270.7 KB · Views: 221
  • P.150.tele1.jpg
    P.150.tele1.jpg
    120.6 KB · Views: 228
  • P.150.tele2.JPG
    P.150.tele2.JPG
    275.1 KB · Views: 218
Have a look at the Sabine's Gull flight shot on Birdguides today; certainly shows how useful a bridge camera can be!
Russ
 
I've had some time with my first bridge camera now and I am thoroughly enjoying using it. The photographs it produces are consistently great as long as you hold a steady hand (or use a tripod). I'm looking forward to taking it to places where I can really put it to the test.

Here are some photos I took two days ago, they turned out pretty well after some light cropping and sharpening.
 

Attachments

  • Black Headed Gull 1.jpg
    Black Headed Gull 1.jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 123
  • House Sparrow 3.jpg
    House Sparrow 3.jpg
    112.6 KB · Views: 144
  • Moorhen 2.jpg
    Moorhen 2.jpg
    228.9 KB · Views: 137
  • Starling 3.jpg
    Starling 3.jpg
    177.3 KB · Views: 157
  • Wren 1.jpg
    Wren 1.jpg
    99.1 KB · Views: 126
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top