Hi, AndreiTake a look at the introduction to my "Back to The Bridge Camera" link below..
If you are experienced in 35mm photography then you may be very happy with a bridge camera. Those who have bought the sales hype that only by buying a DSLR can they take good image quality photos, will probably be disappointed with a bridge camera irrespective of whether or not it actually takes nice photos. They will always have in the back of their mind: "it would have been so much better if shot on a DSLR".
In real life you need to be able cope with the inconvenience of the old-fashioned design of a DSLR and it's various heavy lenses, no live preview in an electronic viewfinder as on a bridge camera, no flip out LCD (unless and Olympus) etc..
If you like to shoot in low light and photograph fast moving subjects then a DSLR is needed, if not then you can gain the advantages that come with a bridge camera.John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..
Makes sense...Your introduction also opens up some thought paths..
I would probably need a comparative review of some "bridge cameras" to get me further though. Do you know some out there? (Esp. for somewhat older models that would cost less now?)Thanks for your help!Andrei..
If your're looking for older bridge cameras then you can look on Ebay for used..
Konica Minolta A2 - a real gem and I think best of the lot with an EVF at nearly 1 megapixel! 28-200 lens, great macro.Canon Pro 1 - great lens 'L' designation.Sony 717/828 - excellent..
But you can buy the Fujis new right now at a great price while they are clearing the decks for the new aniticipated models.Read through the various camera reviews here on DPReview..
John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..
If you are looking for a bridge camera you have a choice between Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji..
Canon S3 was one of the most acclaimed camera and now is about $300 if you can find it. You can see some examples in my galleries. Other good option would be Sony H2/H5 but they are harder and harder to find now. Apart from some issues (ranging from PF to less effective IS) their IQ is at par with Canon S3. Panasonic FZ50 has the bulk of a dSLR and the IQ is somehow inferior to the Canon and Sony I presented before. Fujifilm has S6000 and S9100.
It is very difficult to get a camera that suits all. I have three cameras: Canon A610 for convenience and high IQ, Canon S3 for long zoom (36-432 mm equivalent) and very good image stabilization, Fujifilm S6000 for wide angle and macro photos (better manual focus)..
For an all around camera I would recommend Canon S3. It is quite small and has good and fast lens..
Also Fujifilm S6000 is at a price now that is very tempting (that was one reason to buy it). The downsides of it are the bulk, lack of picture stabilization and Fuji color (shooting RAW I observed that they treat daylight as 4800 K instead of 6500 K). When applying that WB the result were much better.VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..
Interesting... Actually that test shot from s6000 you did when we discussed it's "real" ISO, and other outdoor shots I've found, almost sold it to me. I don't care if Fuji colors are off or not objectively, I personaly like them. (and yes, they're off approximately as you described, - looks like lower temperature for daylight than usual, but that retains more of the blue original output had, whicjh may give rather good skies... Standardly balanced ones usually feel somehow "clipped" to me. ).
Maybe I have bad taste, after all. (And if more realistic colors are needed, of course, there's RAW capability.).
And as you said, it's the only affordable wideangle currently available anyway.....
If it were my one and only camera I wouldn't buy it. But for high ISO and wide angle I think it's the most affordable in the market.To help you look at the same subject photographed with several cameras:Fuji S6500.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Http://picasaweb.google.com/...edByDifferentCameras/photo#5090158864317483970Sony P100.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Http://picasaweb.google.com/...edByDifferentCameras/photo#5090158868612451282Canon A610.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Http://picasaweb.google.com/...edByDifferentCameras/photo#5090158872907418594Canon S3.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Http://picasaweb.google.com/...edByDifferentCameras/photo#5090159877929765874VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..
These images are very helpful, but I won't talk about my camera choice in depth here, to avoid thread hijacking..
But in general I see why you feel that way about Fuji.....
The thing is that I never really saw the use for these 'almost DSLR like' cameras like the fz30/50..
You have a camera with the size and weight of your average entry level DSLR, removing already one main advantage of P&S cameras..
It usually has a good lens + zoom, but on a tiny sensor, which basically evens out that advantage as well...
What a surprise to see pictures from my own home town posted here!LOL, didn't realise where you're from Victor....
Amazing difference between the posted pictures (really no postprocessing?..)Why do the colours in the last pictures look so smudged & dirty?..
Because I underexposed a little. I prefer to PP them. These are not processed.VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..
Here are the last two pictures processed:.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
And.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..
Thanks everyone for the input. Guess I'll have to think again about the main pros and cons of DSLR vs. SLR-like cameras. Please correct me where I'm wrong..
DSLR:+ bigger sensor size - that means better signal-to-noise ratio (right?)+ optical viewfinder- dust issues (because of lens changing)- high cost (need for several lenses).
Bridge camera:- smaller sensor size.
- electronic viewfinder (for me it's a minus since you can't see all the details of the scene)+ just one long range zoom lens (could be a "-" for, say, sports photography)+ no dust issues, easier servicing+ cheaper on the whole since you don't need to buy expensive glassware.
The question is, which ones do really matter? Should the smaller sensor size really bother me if I'm not going to do huge prints of group photographs? What about sensitivity to dim light and signal-to-noise ratio at higher ISO speeds?Any other drawbacks I should be aware of?..
Xisquare wrote:.
Bridge camera:- smaller sensor size- electronic viewfinder (for me it's a minus since you can't see allthe details of the scene)+ just one long range zoom lens (could be a "-" for, say, sportsphotography)+ no dust issues, easier servicing+ cheaper on the whole since you don't need to buy expensive glassware.
There are some dust problems also with bridge cameras. dSLR have easier cleaning than bridge cameras (you have to dissemble the lens assembly in order to get to the sensor).VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..
Thank you all for the valuable input I received. I then went to a store just to get a "feel" of some DSLRs and DSLR-like cameras, and one look through an EVF made me realise I need a DSLR So, lacking big bucks, I got a used 10D off ebay which I'm positively delighted about. I got it yesterday - here are some pics I shot with it last night - my first steps into the Digital Realm, so to speak:.
Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=24329866.
I'm glad I got a DSLR, I don't think I could get the focus right in low light through an EVF and also I can use other lenses, like the 50mm/1.8 that was a bargain too..
But now I have another question: why is it that the RAW images I capture are at only 3 MP versus the JPEGs which are all (when using the "BIG" setting) at 6 MP? Are the JPEGs internally interpolated from 3 MP raw data? I'm beginning to realise the advantages of shooting RAW but would like to get the full advertised resolution of 6 MP .
Also, can anyone recommend a "killer" freeware RAW processing app? On the pics above I used RAW Shooter Essentials 2006 (freeware version) for some simple adjustments and FastStone Viewer for bits of post-postprocessing at TIFF level. But as I said, I've only played with the camera for a few hours so far and wouldn't know a pigeon from a porcupine. Any info would thus be greatly appreciated!.
TIA,Andrei..