Bridge versus true SLR'S

[highlandscenics]

Cameras, cameras, cameras....the tool of our trade...but what difference is there between fixed lens "bridge" camera's and their DSLR counterparts? Aside from the obvious difference being that DSLR's have interchangable lenses, does spending the extra money on a DSLR provide better end results?

I have been into photography for only a few years. When I first started out I wanted to start off gently, so I purchased a 9 mega pixel Fuji Finepix s9600....a good starter camera, but not a DSLR....it was a trusty workhorse and I got many a good shot with it. Infact I only parted company with it a few months ago. Because it was a fixed lens, I used screw in 58mm filters which done the job. I outgrew that camera, so you'd think the natural progression would be to a full fledged DSLR...but no, instead I bought a 12 mega pixel Fuji Finepix s200 EXR, Fuji's latest generation fixed lens bridge camera.

Why? I guess I fell for the simplicity and cost effective way of just screwing a filter into the end of my lens and for what its worth I cant see no difference between that and a DSLR with an expensive lens kit....

I can see the benefits of DSLR's but in the broad spectrum of photography do they really have that much of a foothold?

[Sue Allen]

Much of it comes down to what you mainly photograph. I've used lots of compact/bridge cameras - mainly before the 300D/D70 made DSLRs made DSLRs affordable for amateurs - and a fair few DSLRs. Both have their advantages but, if you take all the varying advantages, the DSLR is simply more flexible and much easier to use in many applications. If you're into travelling, landscapes, macro or mainly static subjects then there are some really good bridge/compact cameras out there which can give great results without the need to break the bank or cart a load of gear around. If you want to shoot action, have greater control of DOF, on the whole better high ISO perfomance, optical viewfinder, instant feel etc. then a DSLR is for you. Using a DSLR does'nt mean you're duty bound to buy half a dozen lenses and never go out without being weighed down by a huge camera bag, tripod and flashgun. Again it's a matter of choice - even if you stick to an all in one zoom you get the above advantages - and you can add a more specialist lens as you wish. Personally, I hate EVFs and find compacts really hard to use as they don't have the instant feel of a DSLR when shooting action - and I find small cameras hard to hold still. There's room for both.

[chris-p]

There are differences between bridge cameras and SLRs but the important thing is to know how to use the camera.

For completeness, the main advantages an entry level SLR will give over a bridge camera are:

• Larger sensor so less noise and less diffraction for the same pixel count
• Better quality optics - zoom lenses are compromises but an 18-55 kit lens is sharper, more contrasty etc. than a bridge's zoom lens in the same focal range
• Extra flexibility
• Optical viewfinder (for most people that is an advantage)

I was in Park Cameras yesterday with my girlfriend who wants in on the photography action and she was umming and ahhhing about bridge vs SLR vs hybrid. The big thing for her was the viewfinder. She is fed up of using tiny EVFs or tunnel systems. A "proper" viewfinder really can make the difference.

I suppose this sounds like I'm not a fan of bridge cameras. Thats a shame as it's how I started and I am a great fan. I always had one issue with my old Canon Powershot S3 IS which was manual focus but many newer models have a focus ring which would have solved my issues!).

Originally Posted by highlandscenics

...and for what its worth I cant see no difference between that and a DSLR with an expensive lens kit....

Then you're not looking. The difference is there.

Originally Posted by highlandscenics

I can see the benefits of DSLR's but in the broad spectrum of photography do they really have that much of a foothold?

Previously you would have said yes but yesterday I used a Panasonic GH1 hybrid and was actually really really impressed. At the moment the SLR still has a grip on the market but it might not always be that way. I've said before that it's a shame that no manufacturers have really pushed the boundaries. The basic SLR design hasn't changed for 50 years and then along comes the biggest revolution in photography since, well, ever, and we still have cameras that look like they did before.
Hybrids are a step down the road of new developments but, sadly, that is all they are.

[highlandscenics]

Thanks for both opinions. My camera has an EVF and not a true "through the lens" viewfinder. I know bridge/hybrids try to accomplish the have cake and eat it approach...but like Sue says I guess you choose the camera depending on what you shoot most. I find that my camera is perfect for waterfalls and rapids...which is a passion of mine. I'm not a big fan of landscapes....something a DSLR would really kick mine into touch...Having said that the Fuji s200 exr uses a pretty impressive sensor....the new generation EXR sensor aims to give that "human eye" reproduction and I must admit it is spot on in 95% of situations. Where it fails is when shooting in high contrast locations...even tho it has an EXR D-range mode which is meant to highlight shadows....it doesn't really do as well as a specialist lens would.

You are right in what you say Chris...I must admit...I have only compared results with other guys who use SLR's to shoot what I shoot.

I guess because in started out with a "bridge camera" and moved on to a more advanced version I have become comfortable with that format.......but I know from experience that I will outgrow this one and look for something that will match my expextations and creativity....I couldn't do half the stuff I do now with my old camera....haha Maybe I will get an SLR third time around....