Which Bridge Camera

Clearly the voice of the pro photographer

Much lighter than a DSLR, and (with mine) 22mm to 1,000mm all usable hand held with the image stabilisation - see the cormorant above, taken on a dull, rainy day at 400ISO, no tripod.

Not sure I buy the slow lens argument either, its f3 at 22mm (my 28mm wide angle is f2.8) and f5.9 at 1000mm (my 400mm tele lens is f6.3).

The smaller sensors than DSLRs mean the demands on the optics are less but can be noisier (but the noise from modern sensors is pretty small). You also get more depth of field which can be an advantage (macro work) or a disadvantage (when you want shallow DoF).

The strong point for me is the ability to frame anything, quickly.

For me the two weak points are lack of long exposures and no RAW (although some new ones have RAW).

They are a bit like a swiss penknife approach to photography, although a top-notch Leatherman might be a more accurate comparison.

One other observation. Bridge cameras are less prone to dust as you're not swapping lenses so there's less chance of ingress.

I went semi pro DSLR route cos I like the challenge but there is a weight penalty. I find myself trying sons (far lighter) DSLR sometimes.

I know very little about digital cameras having only bought two compact cameras. The last was a Nikon S610 Coolpix, now about 8 years old and still giving good service. Simple question - don't some more expensive "compact" cameras now come with interchangeable lens? I know the DSLR is the professionals' choice but don't all digital cameras look through the lens (OK, some also have a separate view finder). So why the SLR bit?

JA

.

It gives an optical image, instead of looking at an electronic display; and is therefore perceived as more 'immediate'.

The electronic viewfinders are very good in some respects, but they are 'digital' in nature ... grainy, and can 'lag' when following a rapidly moving subject.

MichaelG.

They are called compact system cameras JA. Very similar to a DSLR in many way but no mirror. The sensor is used to provide an image into an electronic viewfinder. They are getting pretty popular with a lot of people.

They are available with several different sensor sizes. The Nikon 1 range uses the smallest. Then comes micro 4/3 and then there are some that use APS sized sensors as do many of the DSLR's. As far as I am aware no one does a full frame one yet as they do with the far more expensive DSLR's at the top of the price range.

Some models are more dslr like in terms of features than others. Some are largely aimed at the point and shoot market. Some will serve both that and more advanced use and then there are models in between. My E-M1 for instance will do everything an advanced dslr can do and some things a dslr can not do.

There are way more penalties in small sensor cameras such as the very wide range zoom bridge cameras than Neil mentioned. All sorts in fact in several areas not just noise.

Ian might like to go take a look at some of the better CSC camera. They weigh a hell of a lot less than many dslr's. I can if i choose to walk around with one lens on the camera that zooms for 14-150mm or 28 to 300mm as it would be stated on a compact or a bridge camera but I am well aware that there are optical penalties for having a zoom range that large which would limit what I could shoot with it. I couldn't do what I did with the last photo I posted for instance. More or less double the focal length by cropping pictures out of the shot near it's max zoom range. That shot was hand held as well. On the Olympus cameras the image stability is built into the camera. Panasonic do it in the lens itself which tends to make them a bit bulkier and heavier. Not much though.

Maybe I had better add that though the Nikon 1 range is extremely light serious use people might be wise to avoid it. It doesn't really take advantage of what CSC cameras can offer and they don't contain a terribly good sensor. They probably do match a decent compact and the lenses can be changed but that's about it really. I don't think that the current models even offer a veiwfinder other than as an add on which is probably expensive.

John

-

Edited By Ajohnw on 21/11/2016 00:01:47

MichaelG and John

Thanks for the explanation.

I suspect in five or so years time improvements in the electronic display could change the market.

JA

In more detail:

Reflex - a camera that allows the user to focus by projecting an image on a ground glass screen. A mirror is used to correct the image, hence 'reflex'.

SLR - single lens reflex - a mirror in the optical path allows the main lens to be used for focusing. As well as a couple of DSLRs I have Pentax Spotmatic a classic old film SLR and I also have a Yashicamat which is a medium format twin-lens reflex.

Neil

The problems with electronic viewfinders are a bit dependent on the camera Miichael. You shouldn't assume that they all show a noticeable lag. They don't. Initial E-PL1 didn't show any grainyness however it did show a lot of noise in dimmer living room conditions. Also had problems focusing at time. The E-P3 I bought later same sensor pixel count etc didn't have the problem. A Nikon V2 shows noise but will focus. Silly Nikon really because a number of Nikon fanatics bought from that range and were rather disappointed. The lenses are rather good - pity about the camera. Worse still the V2 was the middle priced one so they put a sensor in it with more pixels - it had more noise than the cheapest one. The sensor dynamic range is not too good either.

The biggest problem with decent electronic view finders is manual focusing. 1.4mp isn't enough to ensure that the image on an 18mp sensor is sharply in focus so various magnified view arrangements need to be used. For most applications this doesn't really matter and anyway the optical focusing screens in DSLR's aren't as good as the old film camera ones used to be but they do still have an advantage in this respect.

Some people are viewing 3x10bit colour on their pc screens already rather than sRGB 3x8bit. People can check to see if their cameras are capable of taking photo's with 10bit colour. It will have a setting for Adobe RGB. To have that it looks like the analogue to digital converter used to read the values of the sensor needs to be a 12bit one. not sure on that point but they usually have that or more but the number also influences the dynamic range a camera can have so it might just be a case that aRGB is only offered on better cameras. Compacts often have or did have 10bit a to d's. I suspect my sony dsc t?'s had more which is why I could brighten up shadowy areas significantly.

I look at 10bit colour every time I buy a monitor. Last time PC's couldn't provide the bandwidth that it needs into the size of monitor I use. A 27" but wish it was 30. The other thing was the monitors. The even rather expensive but affordable ones use 8+2 bit colour channels. They flash different colours to obtain the ones needed above what sRGB offers. Personal thing. It reminds me of the early days of PC colour but it's probably a lot better.

Photo's have other odd aspects when displayed on a PC screen. People who post shots on photo forums usually quickly find that they need to calibrate their monitor. As the manufacturers put them out extremely bright to give unrealistic dynamic ranges this always involve lowering the brightness. The colours also need tuning up but some are better than others. The net effect is that who ever took the shot has no idea how they will look to a lot of viewers. Take this for instance. I can just about detect all of the split squares other than the very brightest darkest ones.

John

-

> the optical focusing screens in DSLR's aren't as good as the old film camera ones used to be but they do still have an advantage in this respect.

I'd say the ones on my Canons are far better than the one in the Pentax, but none are as good as the split prism focusing on my old Zenit TTL which was always perfect!

Neil

Very useful - shows that I have my monitor set up well

Windows users can go to:

Display Settings --> advanced display settings --> colour calibration

To get the best out of their monitor if they can't see all the detail in John's image.

.

​I know ... and I didn't make that assumption.

I was explaining the benefit of an optical image.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. ... "noticeable" depends on who you are and what you're doing.

.

I agree.

Steph has recently bought a Fuji X-T10 that has an electronic viewfinder. They get rave reviews. - IMHO bloody awful thing.!

Sends my eyes and head fuzzy with delay and lack of clarity I certainly would not want to use the thing all day and for much more than a snapshot. In low light the viewfinder is abysmal bordering on unuseable.

But then I like to spend time lurking in the shadows.

Nick

My Oly viewfinders on most of them can see better in the dark than I can Nick - as I found out taking shots in caves in Turkey. There is a setting on the EM's and maybe some of the Pens called live view boost. It provides a constant level of lighting in the viewfinder. The real plus though is the ability to see white and black level clipping directly and with the boost off get a decent idea of the light levels that will show in the actual shot. I still have a dslr but using it is like a trip back to the dark ages - in many respects. 3 lenses and a camera don't weigh much more than the dslr with a 150mm macro lens on it. Only problem with Olympus is that they are hell bent on the pro users and the north american market. If it isn't heavy it isn't any good and also it causing them to produce some rather expensive lenses. I recently bought an inferior Panasonic lens due to that - price and weight of the Oly one. Fact though the cheaper plastic lenses they do are perfectly capable of making use of the format and the pixel count. Panasonic in most cases too but still more than adequate for real use for most people. They did try one duff lens initially but it wasn't well received so got updated.

The point I was making Michael is that the performance of the viewfinders vary - rather a lot actually.

The test shot I posted came from drycreek. A google for drycreek monitor will bring up a number but to be honest if some one wants to be serious about it buy a colorimeter. The ColorMonkey ones are pretty good and if really serious get one that measures ambient light levels too. A piece of software called DispCalGui makes a much much better job of calibration than the software that comes with them.

John

-

Edited By Ajohnw on 21/11/2016 13:21:11

.

Constant level lighting in the viewfinder is the very last thing 'I' want. - I need to see exactly where shadows are falling and the depth of them.

See **LINK** (this link is to an image NOT safe for work. i.e. has nudity in it) And was done a few weeks ago in my lounge while I was trying out a new 135mm lens with lighting from a window behind Stephanie.

When shooting people you need to work quickly and confidently. Not spending time looking at distractions such as clipping graphs and displays in the viewfinder. Experience will subconsciously tell you that information.

To be fair, different people work in different ways and with kit that suits them. But I for one am not an electronic viewfinder convert and see them as a backward step. This may of course change as the technology improves. But I don't see that light at the end of the tunnel. ............ Yet.!

Nick

Some old ones as well. My Fuji HS10 (five or six years old now) has a RAW option. A bit slow to save but very good for pulling detail out of shadows or highlights.

Russell

Nice sofa Nick_G........

I like the sofa too Nick. As I said if the boost is off it shows what you will get.

Sadly I don't have any sofa's like that around.

John

-

SillyOldDuffer,

Random hobby as it may be, your picture caught my attention due to the name on the drain.....

I picked these up a few years ago at a well known local "antiques" shop for £8 .....being produced in Bitton and these still having Brunel calibration stickers (Bristol) I would imagine they are one and the same.

KR,

Matty

Edited By Matty Bush on 22/11/2016 21:59:43

Edited By Matty Bush on 22/11/2016 22:00:06