Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bridge Vs. Dslr  
User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3450 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

What is the bridge (DSLR-like) camera that you would compare to a mighty DSLR in terms of performances, use...

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

I'll have to be honest and use just one word.... none.

Some of the new micro 4/3 bodies come close though. Quite whether you can describe them as 'bridge' cameras though I don't know.

Karl


User currently offlinedrew1997 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2012, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

I guess your trying to get the versatility of the DSLR in a smaller body ect, a bridge?
Well dont! Invest in a DSLR its much much better than a bridge in long term even a older one!

Right now nothing comes close with the size of the sensors way way to grainy!


User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

With bridge cameras it is all about the limitations. If you want to shoot stationary or slow-moving subjects in good light then I expect that the latest high end bridge cameras will give you results similar to at least a lower end DSLR. For low light or faster-moving subjects, though, I think they will fall short.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1):
Some of the new micro 4/3 bodies come close though. Quite whether you can describe them as 'bridge' cameras though I don't know.

I would say that micro 4/3 is much closer to DSLR than a bridge camera (as I understand the definition) both in terms of performance and utility.

Marty


User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3450 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

I confirm that bridges and ultrazooms give grains all the ways and that is very annoying and disappointing. It is also by chance that you succeed in taking a fast moving subject... then i don't know why providing a 1100mm zoom when it will end in a poor quality as of 300mm ! Very commercial though...

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

A micro 4/3 camera would be a good option but for the price you pay for a decent one (many come without optical viewfinders, meaning the user has to rely on the preview screen - very annoying!) you may be better getting an entry-level DSLR.

I had a budget micro 4/3 (Olympus E-PL1, about GB£250 or US$350) and while it was much better than any bridge it couldn't offer DSLR quality. There's also some shutter lag but it's nowhere near as bad as with compacts. Some of the more expensive micro 4/3 do a much better job apparently but they don't come cheap.

Karl


User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3450 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4203 times:

Any advice for a kind of amateur DSLR with a mighty lens !

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days ago) and read 4197 times:

Any amateur DSLR will get good results, even with pretty basic lenses (as long as you use your equipment within and up to its limits). The lens will of course depend on what type of shooting you do, and only you know that.

Karl


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
Some of the more expensive micro 4/3 do a much better job apparently but they don't come cheap.

I agree with this to a point - my OM-D was almost exactly the same price as a 7D when I bought it. I'd say they are comparable value ... the 7D is better in some respects, the OM-D in others.

BUT this leaves lenses out of the equation. A number of the m4/3 lenses are offering quality matching top end DSLR lenses - esp. in the short tele to wide category - at a much lower price. A weak point with the m43 is lack of super telephoto - although with adaptors it is possible to mount nearly any lens ever made on an m43.

So in terms of cost, I think you need to look at total cost of ownership to make a fair comparison.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
First Camera; Cycle; Digital VS Dslr posted Wed Oct 1 2003 04:47:16 by Futterman
Slide Scanner Vs Dslr posted Thu Aug 14 2003 11:45:27 by UTA_flyinghigh
Dslr Vs 2mp Sony Mavica... posted Wed Oct 20 2004 10:59:21 by Kaddyuk
Used DSLR, Pro's Vs. Con's posted Sun Aug 8 2004 02:21:14 by Gmonney
Composite Vs Photoshopped posted Mon Mar 18 2013 10:07:44 by will747
EF 100-400L Vs EF 70-300L posted Wed Mar 6 2013 10:27:01 by Itay747
5D Mk III Vs. 6D - Personal Experiences? posted Fri Feb 1 2013 01:54:06 by INNflight
Super-zoom Bridge Camera Advice. posted Sun Dec 9 2012 22:43:04 by bsu747
Canon Vs. Nikon posted Tue Oct 30 2012 17:06:55 by deltaA330
Kodak Paper Vs. Fujicolor Paper posted Tue Oct 23 2012 11:19:25 by nickh