Bridge Camera Users Unite

<p>I recently purchased the Lumix FZ200. It's one of those 'bridge' cameras that some seem to despise. Typically, it (and its brethren) are faulted for their tiny sensors and poor image quality. Since purchasing it, I've never had so much fun with photography. No more dragging big lenses or multiple lenses around, no more having the 'wrong' lens on the camera at the time, no more feeling like I'd just come from the gym after a few hours shooting with the 300mm on the DSLR. And I have absolutely no qualms about the quality of shots. The two I post below are hanging on my wall at home in 13x19 size, and I'd challenge anyone to be able to tell me what size sensor they were recorded on. After all, the human eye can only discern so much detail.</p>

<p>Right now, my trusty Lumix and I are getting ready to head to one of Pennsylvania's lovely state parks, where it will no doubt allow me to get any shot I want. I'm so thrilled with the thing, I'm probably going to sell off the DSLR equipment. I recently purchased a Raynox DCR-250 close-up lens to attach to it for macro, and now I have everything I want in a camera. The only thing I'm still working on is action, though I don't shoot it often.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm just wondering what experience others have had with bridge cameras, and why it has or has not become your tool of choice when heading out for a day's shoot. And for those who hate them, feel free to chime in as well.</p>

 

<p>I've always maintained that at base ISO there is no discernible difference between cameras in magazine or web photos.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>The only thing I'm still working on is action, though I don't shoot it often.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Many mirrorless cameras (but not apparently not ALL of them) introduce enough of an LCD/viewfinder lag and shutter lag as to make action photography quite difficult. The LCD/viewfinder lag problem can be made to go away if you frame with one eye through the viewfinder and shoot with the other eye for timing. Another solution might be to mount an optical viewfinder to the shoe (does yours have one?). I'm thinking of something like one of the old Leica Imaret viewfinders. I suspect manual settings will do much to address shutter lag.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm happy you found a camera you love! Loving one's gear is an essential part of the good karma experience, and good karma is essential for good photography. :-)</p>

<p>Bill - I got a used u4/3 Oly a year and a half ago mostly to see what these little things could do with legacy lenses. Like you, my enthusiasm for photography was renewed, and today I probably use it 70% of the time. There are circumstances when I know my DSLR or film bodies will achieve what I want a little better, so I haven't sold them off, and don't intend to. The only thing I noticed on the "iffy" side, however, is that I'm using my tripod much more often, as I'm getting a little shaky which is noticeable with the smaller sensor and at slower shutter speeds. But is has been a real blast, and from reading your comments, I'm not the only one enjoying it!</p>

<p>Hmm, not sure what happened to the shots I posted, so I'll try again. Sarah, didn't realize one could mount an optical viewfinder to the shoe. The FZ200 does have an electronic viewfinder, which I much prefer to the LCD screen, and shutter lag hasn't been an issue. Mostly, I'm still working on the best focusing method for birds in flight.</p><div></div>

<p>And the other shot I have hanging in 13x19 size.</p><div></div>

<p>I have an FZ 200 in the car with me almost all the time. It's perfect for catching odd vanity plates and the other strangenesses one finds in L.A. by accident without needing so much attention it causes an accident.</p>

<p>Like this, for example, from the car moving at about ten mph.</p><div></div>

<p>Bill, here's one for a Panasonic DMW-LX3:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMW-VF1-External-Optical-Viewfinder/dp/B001GNC7Q0%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q%26tag%3Dduckduckgo-d-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB001GNC7Q0 </p>

<p>I have no idea how this model of camera compares to yours, but this VF should still mount up to your FZ200. You might have to use your imagination for fields of view other than "24mm" (35mm equivalent). </p>

<p>The Imaret viewfinder I mentioned earlier doesn't zoom, but it lets you crop down the frame. It also has a wide angle attachment and a parallax adjustment. However, the viewfinder image is tiny, and it might not be well suited for action shots.</p>

<p>Hey, these little wonders didn't start with digital. I did a little history and some tests of some film bridge cameras, for anyone who is interested:<br>

http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00YvJm <strong>Yashica Samurai</strong><br /> http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00YqZO <strong>Chinon Genesis II (GS-8)</strong><br /> http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00Yk4S <strong>Ricoh Mirai</strong><br /><br /></p>

<div></div>

<p>Bill:</p>

<p>Before I purchased my first DSLR (Canon T1i), I had a bridge camera - the Panasonic Lumix FZ50. There were several features that I really liked and found advantageous, especially the 600mm equivalent zoom. Since the other end (35 mm) was unacceptable for wide angle purposes, I ended up buying a wide angle attachment. That was as bulgy and heavy as any lens I currently own. Moreover, even though the image quality was at least acceptable in sunlight and otherwise well lit circumstances, images produced in low light conditions were exceptionally noisy.</p>

<p>If you still have a DSLR, I'm sure you are aware that there are several "all-in-one lenses" you may find suitable for your purposes. This might alleviate the need to lug around all of your gear.</p>

<p>I have been a bridge camdera enthusiast since about a decade ago I couldn't quite afford a DSLR to replace my SLR and I happened upon the Nikon 5700 of I think 2002 vintage ... it is still performing well currently when I use it for things it does well or is the handiest camera to hand.... I have a stable of about four or five to choose from.</p>

<p>The biggest problem with the bridge is the small sensor and this meant with my older models I restricted myslf to 100 ISO so I agitated for a bigger sensor to permit a wider range of ISO to be acceptable. I was with the FZ50 at the time and I bought a second one as back-up when Panasonic went for tromboning long zooms.</p>

<p>So I waited and probably would also be an enthusiastic FZ200 with its constant f/2.8 lens, like my original Pany the FZ20 which displaced the Nikon 5700 to a point. But in the meantime I heard about MFT and the G3 which with the 14-140 lens gives me a similar range to the Nikon 28-280 v. 35-280.</p>

<p>I guess I am really a DSLR/SLR user at heart despite my distaste of the DSLR so I changed the G3 for the GH2 to have the external controls on my "larger sensored bridge camera"</p>

<p>So I remain faithful to the 'bridge' concept of a lightweight single zoom lens camera that was so wonderful for me early on, though of course with the ability to change lenses very occasionally .... bug-eye or extreme macro with bellows.</p>

<p>I retain my FZ50s with the Raynox 2020 tele-adaptor to give me 950mm reach. I also have an Olympus TCON x1.7 which with slight vignetting gives me about 500 reach with the 14-140 on the GH2.</p>

<p>All I need now is the energy to get out and use them more :-)</p>

<p>My Canon SX30 is my main camera most of the time. With its 24-840mm zoom, electronic viewfinder, swivel LCD, 14MP, video capability, hot shoe, and relatively small size it can do most of my casual photography. I do have a Canon DSLR and 6 or more lenses, but reserve it for special occasions when I need its capabilities. </p>

<p>I carry the SX30 in a small bag with several spare batteries, and if I need it, my Canon 430EX flash. Just last week I was able to capture an indigo bunting at our backyard bird feeder, which was about 65 feet from where I was. I know a similar shot with my DSLR and 75-300mm lens would probably be better quality, but I would have needed to be about 20 feet away to get one, assuming the bird wouldn't be scared away.</p>

<p>A friend also has a Canon DSLR and a Canon SX50, and he's told me several times the SX50 is his "go to" camera most of the time, as it can do most of what he wants to do.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would class the film cameras of JDM's as really P&S predecessors rather than bridge cameras with their limited zoom range where as the bridge camera for me was the x8 35-280mm of my Nikon replaced by the x12 of my FZ20 which displaced it 35-432mm.<br />When I bought a DSLR to utilise my extension tubes and bellows, never used for real as the simple addition of moderate close-up lens to the bridge camera met all my 'tight framing' needs, I bought a Canon SLR for its EOS 35-70 lens at a pawn shop :-)</p>

<p>Micheal L the FZ50 has a 432mm zoom not 600 which is where the FZ200 is along with earlier FZ100 and FZ150s :-)<br>

Able to often stitch the 'progress' to wider starting points has never appealed to me and I was happy with 'just' 35mm until I got the 28 of my current lens.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>I do have an 18-250 'travel' lens for my Pentax, but it doesn't give me nearly the reach of the FZ200 (25-600mm equivalent), and is a much heavier combo to tote around (not that I'm not man enough to handle it ;)). Unfortunately, I see Tamron is coming out with the 18-300, but not making it for Pentax, so my choices are limited, and that still doesn't give me the reach of the bridge camera.</p>

<p>I haven't done much low-light stuff with the Panasonic, so I'm not selling off the Pentax just yet. But if I haven't touched it much in the next 6 months, I might as well get what I can from it. </p>

<p>Of course, just to be clear, I'm strictly an amateur who takes pics solely for my own enjoyment, so what's good for me might not suite everyone else.</p>

<p>Oh, and just to clarify, by 'bridge camera,' I'm referring to a fixed-length digicam with a zoom in the range of at least that of the FZ200, which is 25-600. Perhaps it's not a term that is as universally known as I'd assumed.</p>

<p>Will, very cool shot.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would class the film cameras of JDM's as really P&S predecessors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the ones shown, and many others besides, were all <strong>SLRs</strong> in the first place, and the zoom range was fully comparable to the then-available interchangeable lens cameras.<br>

There were already cameras, too, that are clearly film P&S cameras, and were called that.</p>

<p>Finally, these cameras were actually called "bridge cameras" at the time, and passed that name on down to the present day.</p>

<p>Oh, and one more clarification just so all are on the same page. 'Bridge cameras' typically offer all of the same controls found in SLRs, including full manual operation, and many can shoot raw and have a hot shoe. Most have an electronic viewfinder as well as LCD. </p>

<p>Bill, the only difference I can see between your Lumix and mine is that yours has a greater zoom capability.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"there are several "all-in-one lenses" you may find suitable for your purposes. This might alleviate the need to lug around all of your gear."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, but, unless those have specs better than a 25-600mm equivalent lens with F2.8 across the zoom range, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to spend a bunch of extra money. Especially since the results with the current are deemed to be satisfactory. </p>

<p>I love the Leica rangefinders in many ways except that they are not SLRs. The main reason that I dont like the bridge cameras is that they are too small, too small in many ways and zoom too much, and too many pixels, too many buttons to press to access the menus. The MILC are not good because they change lenses which causes the need of focal plane shutter and dirty sensor.</p>

<p>John T.,</p>

<p>Have you tried a bridge camera? Just curious, given your judgment of them. I'm not trying to convince you to use one, but the FZ200, for example (and since that's the one I have experience with), is a very nice size as far as how it feels to hold (but I do have small hands), has an excellent zoom range that allows you to get most any shot you'd like, and has not gone pixel-crazy for its small sensor. Also, the menu is no more complex than my DSLR, and there are options for accessing the most-frequently-changed settings rather quickly. And the results so far are all I can ask from any camera.</p>

<p>And one more clarification, I mis-typed earlier that these are 'fixed-length' cameras. What I meant was 'fixed-lens.'</p>

<p>Bill</p>

 

<p>I have the Panasonic FZ1 and FZ20 they are two of very few cameras I bought new and they are still in "new" condition. I also have Nikon cp8800 but I like most the Sony F828. It was fun to use the F828 (I also have the Samurai Genesis) and I guess it would also be fun to use the Olympus C8080. However, I prefer a low-end DSLR like a Canon 30D mainly because of the viewfinder and the controls</p>

<p>Consider the Lytro Illum, light field, camera. I would call it a bridge camera. It has a 30-250 f2.0 zoom (yes...a constant f2.0 zoom). Plenty of control and not too expensive (about $1500.00).</p>

<p>It also has some special attributes that could spark new directions in creativity. A good carry-everywhere camera.</p>

<p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John T., amazing to see how specs have changed over the years, but that goes for all technology of course. Electronic viewfinder definitely is not on par with optical, but you get used to it.</p>

<p>Jay, interesting camera indeed. Not quite the versatility of the longer-range zooms, but has some unique capabalities. And ' 30-250' would be suitable for many, though I personally wouldn't want to pay that much for a camera with any range.</p>

<p>After years of using the 'optical' viewfinder I must have quickly learnt to use and like the EVF and today a decade later I wouldn't look at anything else unless it was an MF or LF camera. Not to say I do not completely enjoy working with a large LCD simulating the ground glass of LF on a tripod.</p>