Bridge Cameras out performing DSLRs? (1 Viewer)

BirdPics · Feb 5, 2013

Ok so I've been thinking about this for a while. A number of people have told me that they use a bridge camera instead of a dslr. The one that keeps popping up is the Nikon Coolpix P510. On paper this has 16.1mp, a 42x optical zoom which is apparently equivalent to 1000mm and shoots at 7fps. Just for under £300. For someone who wants a DSLR, you'd have to spend thousands of pounds just for a lens that doesn't even go that far. There must be a reason why DSLRs are better but on paper I can't find any obvious reason. Maybe it's the sensors or the way it focuses, I don't know. Personally I think DSLRs are better because they just have a better "feel" and sturdiness to them. Plus every professional uses a DSLR, right? but why?

Mono · Feb 5, 2013

It is mainly down to the sensor, a bridge camera has a sensor the size of the nail on your little finger, a DSLR had a sensor 15 times bigger or more. Packing that many pixels onto a sensor that small means that that each pixel gets hit by fewer photons. The signal they generate needs to be boosted electronically so to does any electronic noise floating about, this results in a much nosier final image especially with higher ISO levels. (ISO in a digital camera is just a reflection of how much the pixel signal is boosted).

The way for a bridge camera to match an SLR would be to decrease the pixel count and thus increase the pixel size. A camera with the optics of the P150 but with only 2 MP on the same senor would produce images of similar quality to a DSLR.

Hor Kee · Feb 5, 2013

Don't forget that the focal length is equivalent in 35mm terms. Meaning your little Coolpix P510's focal length is equal to a 1000mm lens on a full-frame sensor. The reality is that the tiny sensor's crop factor is about 5.5x, so the lens mounted on the camera is actually only about 200mm or so. Further, from what I've observed, the lens is actually shorter than the focal length advertised only for far-away subjects. For nearer subjects, an APS-C DSLR setup's (1.6x crop factor and 400mm lens = 640mm equivalent) pics exhibit a much larger image.

Amarillo · Feb 5, 2013

Bridge cameras don't outperform DSLRs.

They are cheaper and more flexible as they are smaller and have the full range of focal lengths without changing lenses. If thats what you want, fine.

But in every other way, DSLR's are superior. As already mentioned, the sensor size is a big factor, but its also the lack of shutter lag and the ability in low light.

I switched to a DSLR from a Panasonic FZ38 last year and as good as the Panasonic is, the difference is HUGE.

O.Reville1989 · Feb 5, 2013

Amarillo said:
I switched to a DSLR from a Panasonic FZ38 last year and as good as the Panasonic is, the difference is HUGE.

Agreed! My switch was from a Fuji HS30 to DSLR but same principle applies. If weight and size are a real concern then a bridge camera is a good option but if not then DSLR all the way now. Thats not to say the bridge cameras are rubbish, just that DSLRS are superior for reasons already mentioned.

lmans66 · Feb 5, 2013

Amarillo said:
Bridge cameras don't outperform DSLRs.

They are cheaper and more flexible as they are smaller and have the full range of focal lengths without changing lenses. If thats what you want, fine.

But in every other way, DSLR's are superior. As already mentioned, the sensor size is a big factor, but its also the lack of shutter lag and the ability in low light.

I switched to a DSLR from a Panasonic FZ38 last year and as good as the Panasonic is, the difference is HUGE.

I agree..... DSLR are supreme as it is tantalizing, perhaps too much so...to expect a camera which costs a fraction of a DSLR plus a fraction in terms of weight (with large lens attached to DSLR) to outperform the DSLR. Doesn't work...
now...you can get some good pics if the bird is fairly close to you or...if you are looking at 'not cropping' or...you are looking to merely post to the web. Even then in the latter case, you can often tell the difference.....

A superzoom has qualities which are well needed many times when one is just walking around, enjoying nature etc...but clearly is not up to photo quality of any DSLR (for nature photography).. jim

BillN · Feb 5, 2013

IMHO, Bridge Cameras waste of time for bird shots, maybe OK for wildlife, but most of our feathered friends are just too small (and) quick for the bridge images to be anything reasonable with any consistency

Johnny1 · Feb 5, 2013

I can see a time when bridge cameras will equal DSLRs in every way, not yet though!

dbradnum · Feb 5, 2013

Johnny1 said:
I can see a time when bridge cameras will equal DSLRs in every way, not yet though!

No way. There are reasons why a pro quality DSLR body and a top quality 400+ mm lens are that big and heavy!

But feel free to come back and tell me "I told you so" when it happens.

dcweather · Feb 5, 2013

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!

BirdPics · Feb 5, 2013

Thanks guys, makes total sense. Nice to know I've made the write choice as a photographer lol

Johnny1 · Feb 6, 2013

dbradnum said:
No way. There are reasons why a pro quality DSLR body and a top quality 400+ mm lens are that big and heavy!

But feel free to come back and tell me "I told you so" when it happens.

I can remember when digital cameras first came out how crap they were, If you'd have told me then that we'd have digitals with 50X zoom I'd of thought you were mad....time will tell.

gergrd · Feb 6, 2013

In addition to the image quality issues mentioned in previous posts, DSLRs focus much faster than (current) bridge cameras. Tracking birds in flight with bridge cameras will not yield many good shots. Most important to me is the view through a bridge camera electronic viewfinder doesn't match the view through a DSLR optical viewfinder. It can be exasperating to find, then focus on quick moving little birds (or other wildlife) in any case, but it is much more difficult with a bridge camera.

Tim Taylor · Feb 7, 2013

I have a 1D4 and 600mm f4 setup - excellent but huge and heavy. I've got a long holiday coming up and have bought the Canon SX50 HS. I've attached a full frame shot taken handheld at max zoom at a distance of 15 feet. No processing. Used auto settings on the camera. Just shrunk for the web. Superficially it looks really nice. I then tried cropping it/pixel peeping etc as I might with shots from my DSLR and that's when you start seeing the lack of detail/contrast etc in this image. For the money (less than £300), it's absolutely superb and it will make a fantastic travel and casual camera for walks. For a birder who wants nice record shots for a blog, it's spot on. I think each sort of camera has its own role.

BillN · Feb 7, 2013

Tim Taylor said:
I have a 1D4 and 600mm f4 setup - excellent but huge and heavy. I've got a long holiday coming up and have bought the Canon SX50 HS. I've attached a full frame shot taken handheld at max zoom at a distance of 15 feet. No processing. Used auto settings on the camera. Just shrunk for the web. Superficially it looks really nice. I then tried cropping it/pixel peeping etc as I might with shots from my DSLR and that's when you start seeing the lack of detail/contrast etc in this image. For the money (less than £300), it's absolutely superb and it will make a fantastic travel and casual camera for walks. For a birder who wants nice record shots for a blog, it's spot on. I think each sort of camera has its own role.

I've gone thru this - did not work for me and I was very disappointed, (and extremely glad I took my D300 and 300m f4 along with me).
I bought the Fuji HS30EXR and the V1 - I thought that they would by OK for our holiday in S Africa. I always knew that I should take my D300 and 300mm f4 and 70 200mm f2.8 plus plus. In the end I DID take the DSLR, (thank God!), and the Nikon 300mm f4 ..... my son used the Fuji HS30 on a "day safari" I used it a little - he thought the images were OK, for me they were no good - the V1 with Nikon AF-S glass was much better, but only really good when on a tripod - I used the V1 with the Nikon 300mm f4 and it was not comfortable for me to hand hold - now I am back I have tried it with the Nikon 70 300mm f4.5/5.6 VR and it is much better.
The images I got with the D300 and 300mm f4 (and TC x 1.4), are very pleasing and boy am I happy that I took it along. I DID NOT take the 70 200mm f2.8 AF-S, but next time I will.
The bridge cams are just not for me when taking images of Birds and Nature - a DSLR every time.

An alternative to a "Bridge" could be a Nikon D3200 and a Nikon 70 300mm f4.5/5.6 .... I reckon that when it's broken down, lens in one pocket, camera around your neck, it is not much different from the HS30 or similar.

Bridge Cameras are not for me
(PS - the HS30 stopped working after 4 days - "lens control error" - so it's back to Fuji for the second time!)

Tim Taylor · Feb 7, 2013

If I was going on a safari or bird photography holiday, I'd take my DSLR stuff for sure. For a sightseeing holiday with family, the bridge camera wins.

BillN · Feb 7, 2013

Tim Taylor said:
If I was going on a safari or bird photography holiday, I'd take my DSLR stuff for sure. For a sightseeing holiday with family, the bridge camera wins.

The title of the thread is "Bridge Cameras out performing DSLR's"

Biancone · Feb 7, 2013

BillN said:
The title of the thread is "Bridge Cameras out performing DSLR's"

OK, back to the original title:- YES, they out-perform DSLR & extender & tele lens as another bit of gubbins to carry when out birding/walking/climbing; NO, they lose to DSLR etc as a tool capable of producing deep, sharp, feather-perfect technically good images (in the right hands). Simples.

Mind you, there are some very acceptable images over on the SX40 and SX50 threads in particular (and a few excellent ones), and in good light with enough fieldcraft to get relatively close, some superzooms can produce pleasing images. I use one, mainly for my own records and to illustrate my blog, because I don't want to carry a DSLR & kit, and can't afford it either. Perhaps 1% of my images have pleasing clarity and sharpness, but if I had a DSLR I'd probably simply raise my expectations and still only be happy with 1%!

Tim Taylor · Feb 9, 2013

My DSLR can't do this... 24mm equivalent to 1200mm in a couple of seconds letting me play spot the snipe from my local bird hide.

iveljay · Feb 9, 2013

If you want ultimate quality images you use a Hasselblad, Leica S2 or cut film.

If you need to compromise image quality to use something more affordable with fast focussing and long lenses you buy an slr.

If you need to compromise image quality to use something even more affordable that still has long lenses and you are more likely to have with you when that shot of a lifetime happens you buy a bridge.

Convenienceand 'ease of bringng home the bacon' has driven press photography through Speed Graphic, Rollei, Leica, Nikon, DSLR phases of popularity and at each transition there has been a drop of image quality or other sacrifice. Where that sacrifice has proven a step too far photographers have stayed with the older technology - you can still buy plate cameras.

So the answer is that bridge cameras may never totally surpass the dslr for high quality bird photography, but over time fewer will care as photography relentlessly evolves and the question might become 'can the quality of i-phone images surpass that of bridge cameras'?

At the end of the day you get the best that fits in with your interests and your pocket and if anyone out there has a spare £20k they wish to donate I have a display case for a Leica S2 body - the quality is phenominal I am told.

Bridge Cameras out performing DSLRs? (1 Viewer)

Essex birder living in Ireland

Hi!

Penang birder

Well-known member

I started off with nothing and I've still got some

Out Birding....

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Essex birder living in Ireland

Well-known member

GREG

work in progress

Attachments

Well-known member

work in progress

Well-known member

to err is human

work in progress

Attachments

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread