snubbr.com

Returning to photography - Bridge or DSLR?
After an absence of about 15 years (reasons vague, but in any case, not really relevant here), I feel the urge to rekindle my interest in photography, which had been a keen hobby for the previous 10 years. I would have described myself as a keen and reasonably capable (I'd like to think) amateur/hobbyist..

Kit included a Nikon FE2, a camera I absolutely loved and thoroughly enjoyed using. Sadly, it was stolen, and subsequently replaced with a Nikon 6006 (plus selection of lenses), which I never had quite the same relationship with. In addition I had a compact, for pure opportunity..

Coming back to photography, obviously, everything has changed!! Just to clarify, I don't, and never have owned a digital camera of any sort! I have used a few (always the P&S variety) simply because they get thrust into my hands whenever there's a family occasion ("you take the photos - you do a better job than us!") and each time occasion resulted in me observing more reasons why I didn't want a digital camera, and that I should wait for things to get better! Well, that later statement might well start an argument in a monastery!!.

Anyway, right here right now, I *am* going to buy a digital camera (probably two) and just get on with taking photographs again. And hopefully enjoy it once more..

I have read lots (camera reviews and forums discussions) and am now both wiser and more confused at the same time!.

Conclusions I have reached so far:.

I will almost certainly end up with two cameras once more. No single camera will do everything I want it to do. I expected this and it is no different from my film equipment. At the bottom end, I want something very pocketable, yet retains some usability. I have more or less decided on a Ricoh R7 (currently priced around 130, I think that is very reasonable) but *may* stretch to a Panasonic TZ5 (a bit heavier/bulkier for the trouser pocket) depending on the choice of my 'main' camera. And this is where the dilemma really exists, and where I would value some opinion..

Currently, I am looking at what seems loosely to be referred to as a 'bridge' camera. I have considered the following:.

Fuji S9600Panasonic FZ18Panasonic FZ50Olympus SP-560UZCanon G9 (I know, not really a bridge!).

Although my head is telling me that it's now a 'dated' camera and, even when new, it was only a minor revision to an even older camera, strangely, I am being drawn towards the Fuji S9600! This despite the fact that it doesn't have IS, is larger and heavier than the rest, and has a RAW mode implementation which is somewhat impractical to make decent use of, as a result of the file size and write time. Of course, the S100fs addresses these issues, but it is quite a bit more expensive. Not prohibitively so, but there is a value for money aspect. And also, at that price, notwithstanding concerns below) I really feel that a DSLR would be a more suitable option..

I've discounted the G9 and the FZ50 because I want a wider lens..

The FZ18 looks really interesting, but reports (plenty within the DP Review forum) of heavy blue banding on the FX18 really concern me..

That leaves the Olympus to contend the Fuji..

Instinctively, I am trying to avoid a DSLR, in fact, I haven't even begun looking at them. Why? Well, not so much because I don't want a large camera (after all, the S9600 is just that) but because I don't feel enthusiastic about having a large camera *system*. From past experience I know that, after buying an SLR, you buy another lens, then a decent size bag. The extra lens you bought doesn't quite reach, so you buy another, and slowly fill up the space in the bag. You now need a bigger bag. You plan a day out and think about taking the camera, but don't because you cant be bothered lugging it all about!!!.

HOWEVER, I know full well that I may be viewing bridge cameras through rose tinted specs, simply because of the above scenario. What I really need to establish, is the point at which a bridge camera is going to run out of steam for me, and this is where my inexperience of digital cameras comes in, particularly as their ultimate capability may well be mis-matched with my expectations..

My key criteria (from a longer list):.

Decent ISO performance, much more so than a P&S..

Decent sensor size (Though I appreciate these first two requests alone may point towards a DSLR)Sensible MP rating, suitably matched to sensor sizeManual control, or at the very least, A and S modes28mm (or wider) zoom lenseReasonably quick lenseAE and AF lockPrefer manual zoom and manual focus optionsAA batteries preferredI want to be able to achieve shallow DOF..

Usage will primarily be landscape and portraits. Occasionally, some macro and even more occasionally, some motorsport...

Comments (46)

I have pretty much used them all and each has advantages and disadvantages. Bridge cameras are cost effective and getting better but you will end up going to a DSLR if you want to get into photography again seriously as a hobby..

With digital you learn faster because results are seen straight away. As a result the learning curve can be quick and the weaknesses of the bridge soon realised..

The biggest hassle is always shutter lag and noise on bridge cameras. Try to capture a small grand child playing and you will see what I mean. You can shoot a flower or still life with anything but action requires a DSLR..

I have a Fuji F30 compact for parties and travel, a Canon 450D for light weight,action and low light and a pro Olympus system for studio work..

The newest Canon is very good and I am happy with results- in fact haven't used the others much at all since getting it. The kit lenses are good too...

Comment #1

Welcome back to photography!.

I agree with the previous poster about bridge cameras. They can be very good indeed, but don't really compete with DSLRs in terms of speed, noise or flexibility. OTOH I can sympathise with your reservations about SLR/DSLR systems getting too big, to thepoint where you just can't be bothered carrying all the gear around "just in case". I got into the same situation with film..

I'd probably go with one of the smaller DSLRs with a zoom in the 18 - 200 range, and a compact or P & S for the time being. The zoom won't give you the best IQ, but it will be pretty good/versatile, and you'll retain the option of buying better lenses if you want to..

I have a 30D and an A640, and I'm toying with the idea that I "need" a pocket camera (the A640 doesn't quite qualify, although it's great). My wife doesn't entirely agree with this!..

Comment #2

Zirynx wrote:.

I will almost certainly end up with two cameras once more. No singlecamera will do everything I want it to do. I expected this and it isno different from my film equipment. At the bottom end, I wantsomething very pocketable, yet retains some usability. I have more orless decided on a Ricoh R7 (currently priced around 130, I thinkthat is very reasonable) but *may* stretch to a Panasonic TZ5 (a bitheavier/bulkier for the trouser pocket) depending on the choice of my'main' camera. And this is where the dilemma really exists, and whereI would value some opinion..

Check the red-eye aspect of compact cameras. The flash is near the lens and the flash is not very bright..

Also a compact camera may be handled quite differently from a large camera - they are som nifty and quick that sometimes, one does not really want to spend less than 2 seconds to click. Which means manual options on compacts, even if they are there, may not be used 80% of the time..

Instinctively, I am trying to avoid a DSLR, in fact, I haven't evenbegun looking at them. Why? Well, not so much because I don't want alarge camera (after all, the S9600 is just that) but because I don'tfeel enthusiastic about having a large camera *system*. From pastexperience I know that, after buying an SLR, you buy another lens,then a decent size bag. The extra lens you bought doesn't quitereach, so you buy another, and slowly fill up the space in the bag.You now need a bigger bag. You plan a day out and think about takingthe camera, but don't because you cant be bothered lugging it allabout!!!.

I feel for you. I was like that until early this year. Then I gave in and bought a DSLR as my 4th digital camera..

Decent ISO performance, much more so than a P&S..

No, unlikely you are going to get better high ISO performance between a compact and a bridge. The sensor size is purposely not bigger AFAIK.

Decent sensor size (Though I appreciate these first two requestsalone may point towards a DSLR).

Sensor sizes vary in non DSLR. Except for a few niche cameras, there is not a real difference - yes, some are smaller and some are bigger..

Sensible MP rating, suitably matched to sensor size.

Sensible varies. The way non DSLR are designed, they don't match MP to sensor size. High MP means a newer camera. That's the main factor..

Manual control, or at the very least, A and S modes.

Most compacts don't have A and S. I hear the new Sony W300 does. Most bridge cameras do have A and S..

28mm (or wider) zoom lense.

28mm used to be hard to find in non DSLR. There are more now. There are even 24mm. If you get a 24mm, it is likely the max tele will be 100mm plus minus a bit..

Reasonably quick lense.

Actually, not too bad here. Because the sensor is small, it is not too hard to make a lens that is f/2.8.

AE and AF lock.

AF lock is pretty common for non DSLR..

Prefer manual zoom and manual focus options.

Ah. That is a problem. Only large non DSLR have mechanical zoom controlled by a ring. Smaller non DSLR usually have an electrical switching..

Manual focus is a problem usually with EVF. They are getting better but my non DSLR cameras have poor resolution in the EVF and LCD - often the focussing is not by a ring on the lens but by electrical switching. The amount of control is uncomfortable. Next, the display has an enlarged magnified square to help focus. And there is no distance scale to speak of. You might get somewhere with a tripod but hand held, worse than fiddly..

AA batteries preferred.

AA batteries are disappearing slowly. The best is to use NiMh AA rechargeables and switch to AA Alkalines on long tours away from base. I liked that idea. Except more and more cameras use rechargeable, proprietary LiOn because of the energy density and maybe $$$.

I want to be able to achieve shallow DOF..

You can't generally achieve shallow DOF in non macro much with non DSLR. It is both an advantage and a curse..

Anandahttp://anandasim.spaces.live.com/http://olympuse510.wikispaces.com/http://picasaweb.google.com/AnandaSim/http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/..

Comment #3

I got a Canon G9 in September and an XSi two months ago. I am pretty enthusiastic about photography and between my wife and I, we have spent countless days and taken probably 15k photos in the past 6 months. Perhaps some of my experiences will help. I love the G9. My wife usually has this camera with her at all times. It takes great pictures in good light.

The DOF is much better with the G9. This is really helpful for closeup/macro pictures. It is more difficult to achieve a blurry background, but that can be done with photoshop. The G9 does not do well when a high ISO is required due to dim light. On the other hand the XSi cannot be used to take pictures indoors without a flash.

Both cameras have hot shoes and will take an external bounce flash. The G9 cannot compete with the speed of the XSi. There is always a longer lag and delay in focusing and taking the shot. The "burst" rate is much lower. The Xsi can also achieve better image quality.

If you buy a DSLR and are really interested in IQ, you can expect to spend some big bucks on lenses. We will find the IQ short of the cameras potential and not much better than the P&S camera unless you are will to buy top quality lenses. You also need to consider postprocessing for raw images with the DSLR. You will find that makes an additional improvement in IQ. (Incidentally, the G9 can also take raw, but I found no improvement.).

Best of luck with you choices...

Comment #4

If you want a compact pocket camera to use outdoors in all kinds of lighting conditions then make certain it also has a viewfinder. No matter how good the specifications, if you cannot see the LCD in bright light it will be just as bad as a mobile phone for framing purposes..

The Fuji 9600 (9100) as a viable bridge camera? Certainly unbeatable price-wise if you can still find one, but you would almost certainly benefit more from getting a Sony Alpha 350 and mounting an 18-250 lens on it. (Size and weight being very similar.) You don't actually have to re-acquire a bag full of lenses. (See my 'back to the bridge camera' link below for a blog-style analysis of the 9600 in use)..

Probably the best bridge camera at the moment is the Fuji S100FS, however some users say they find working with CA/PF to be a worry, whilst others are posting excellent photos taken on it regardless..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..

Comment #5

Miked58 wrote:.

With digital you learn faster because results are seen straight away.As a result the learning curve can be quick and the weaknesses of thebridge soon realised..

This is a very good point, something that I hadn't fully considered..

The biggest hassle is always shutter lag and noise on bridge cameras..

Indeed, shutter lag is one of the primary reasons for having held off buying a digital camera thus far..

I have a Fuji F30 compact for parties and travel.

Essentially, this is all I want a pocketable for. I've identified the now inexpensive Ricoh R7 for this task, although I wonder whether the flash is up to the job. If only I could find an F30/F31d...!!.

Thanks for your help...

Comment #6

Martynk wrote:.

Welcome back to photography!.

Thank you .

I'd probably go with one of the smaller DSLRs with a zoom in the 18 -200 range, and a compact or P & S for the time being..

Yes, I think this is the way it's heading..

I have a 30D and an A640, and I'm toying with the idea that I "need"a pocket camera (the A640 doesn't quite qualify, although it'sgreat). My wife doesn't entirely agree with this!.

Good luck with that one!!..

Comment #7

DSLRs are probably out for you, from what you say, but it's at least worth looking briefly at the Olympus E420 as for the money it's a pretty decent piece of kit with super lenses - and it's very small and light...

Comment #8

AnandaSim wrote:.

Zirynx wrote:.

Decent ISO performance, much more so than a P&S..

No, unlikely you are going to get better high ISO performance betweena compact and a bridge. The sensor size is purposely not bigger AFAIK.

Decent sensor size (Though I appreciate these first two requestsalone may point towards a DSLR).

Sensor sizes vary in non DSLR. Except for a few niche cameras, thereis not a real difference - yes, some are smaller and some are bigger..

I think this is where I was being drawn to the S9600, as it does appear to have a larger than typical (for compact/bridge) sensor..

Sensible MP rating, suitably matched to sensor size.

Sensible varies. The way non DSLR are designed, they don't match MPto sensor size. High MP means a newer camera. That's the main factor..

Yep, I think we're on the same page here, but I didn't express myself very well. I guess what I was saying is that I'm interested in IQ, as a consequence of combined MP and sensor size (not forgetting the lens, of course!) rather than being naively blinded by a high MP number..

Prefer manual zoom and manual focus options.

Ah. That is a problem. Only large non DSLR have mechanical zoomcontrolled by a ring. Smaller non DSLR usually have an electricalswitching..

Yep, again another reason I was attracted to the S9600, with it's manual zoom ring!.

Manual focus is a problem usually with EVF..

But then, I hadn't fully considered the combination of manual focus, with an EVF. Thanks for pointing that out!.

AA batteries preferred.

AA batteries are disappearing slowly. The best is to use NiMh AArechargeables and switch to AA Alkalines on long tours away frombase. I liked that idea. Except more and more cameras userechargeable, proprietary LiOn because of the energy density andmaybe $$$.

Sorry, poor expression on my part again. NiMh AA was implicit (at least, in my head!) but not expressed clearly in my post. I suppose I meant AA as a generic form factor, rather than proprietary LiOn..

I want to be able to achieve shallow DOF..

You can't generally achieve shallow DOF in non macro much with nonDSLR. It is both an advantage and a curse..

Agreed. I want both ends of the candlestick! I suspect this is one key area that I might quickly become dissatisfied with a non-DSLR. And I haven't even mentioned DOF preview yet!.

Thanks for all your help...

Comment #9

John farrar wrote:.

The Fuji 9600 (9100) as a viable bridge camera? Certainly unbeatableprice-wise if you can still find one,.

Yep, readily available, at around GB 200.

But you would almost certainlybenefit more from getting a Sony Alpha 350 and mounting an 18-250lens on it. (Size and weight being very similar.) You don't actuallyhave to re-acquire a bag full of lenses. (See my 'back to the bridgecamera' link below for a blog-style analysis of the 9600 in use)..

Thanks John, I will read that article with great interest..

Thanks also to jrkliny for sharing observations on the G9; that helped put that unit to one side...

Comment #10

If you're looking at bridge cameras, first of all you need to realize there is separation of bridge cameras and superzooms. For example, the FZ18 is a superzoom, whereas the FZ50 is a bridge camera. In my opinion/experience, superzooms are nice cameras, but if you're flip-flopping on getting a DSLR, I think a superzoom will eventually frustrate you. A true bridge camera might not..

I actually "downgraded" from a DSLR to a bridge camera (the FZ50), and I couldn't be happier. A caution to you about DSLRs if you're going with an entry level DSLR and will be using entry level or kit lenses, you will likely be better off going with a bridge camera. DSLRs are known for the lower light/higher ISO performance over point-n-shoot cameras (even bridge cameras), but my experience with my Olympus E-500 DSLR (an entry level DSLR) and the Panasonic FZ50 is that the low light/high ISO performance is SCARILY similar. My ISO 800 shots are almost identically worthless with both cameras. Admittedly, some of that is due to the Olympus E-500 not having any type of image stabilization, but the fact that a bridge camera and DSLR are so similar with this type of shooting conditions is a concern, especially when the DSLR system can cost x2, x3, even x6 the current price of FZ50..

I'm admittedly biased toward Panasonic, but it's for well researched reasons, as I was not always (nor am I now) a blind Panasonic zealot. Out of your list of bridge cameras, I would choose the FZ50 and then buy the Panasonic LW-55 wideangle adapter (which is what I did). This gives you a 24.5-420mm range, and if you buy an $80 Olympus TCON-17 1.7x teleconverter as well, you get a range of 24.5-704mm. Again, this is what I did. The FZ50 has a rigid lens barrel (the lens does not slide in and out for zooming or when turning the camera on/off), and the wideangle or teleconverter screws directly on the lens with no adapter needed. It's no different than installing a filter.

The FZ50 has focus/zoom rings on the lens barrel, where it belongs, and the zoom is virtually silent (no buzzing motor noise, which is why you can zoom during video recording, too). The FZ50 also has a TTL hotshoe that can take just about any generic flash as well as TTL Olympus/Panasonic flashes. The hotshoe alone makes the FZ50 a more desireable camera since the use of a more powerful flash allows for negating most of the complaints about low light/high ISO issues..

Why do I like the FZ50 over a DSLR? I quickly got tired of the whole DSLR game. To get decent DSLR system, you will have to open up the wallet pretty wide. To get the range of most bridge cameras/superzooms, you're going to have to open a couple of wallets really wide and have a stronger back than mine. To get what I want out of a DSLR right now (basically what I'm already getting out of my $700 FZ50 + LW55 + TCON17) I would have to spend at least $5,000. Then the DSLR annoyances would also come back (loud mirror slap, looking like the nerd shooting pro equipment at my children's events, lugging triple the weight around, no video mode, no true liveview so no tilt/swivel LCD, etc.)..

Eventually, I may go back to a DSLR, but at this point I'm not sure which that would be. The Panasonic L10 with 14-150mm lens (28-300mm equiv) is tempting, but costly, and I would miss some digicam features (like video mode and true framing on the LCD). I see myself eventually owning a two-camera solution, which worries my back more than just owning a DSLR!.

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #11

Effzeeone wrote:.

Looking like the nerd shooting pro equipment at my children's events,.

Hehee.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #12

I would also get two cameras: a Canon SD870IS (28mm IS subcompact) and a Nikon D80 or Canon XSi with the kit lens and a 50/1.8 (shallow DOF)..

You're not going to get shallow DOF with any P&S, nor with any consumer-priced zoom lens...

Comment #13

Effzeeone wrote:.

To get decent DSLR system, you will have to open up thewallet pretty wide..

The Nikon D60 with two VR lenses is less than $900. You do give up movie mode and small size. That's why I'd get a DSLR and a quality pocketable P&S...

Comment #14

BA baracus wrote:.

Effzeeone wrote:.

Looking like the nerd shooting pro equipment at my children's events,.

Hehee.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Sorry I hope I didn't insult too many people..

I used to get WAY too much attention when shooting with my DSLR kit. Surprisingly, even though the FZ50 is a rather large, SLR-ish looking camera, I don't get as much attention, probably because it is slightly smaller, especially in the lens..

The last straw was when my oldest son's wrestling team won a tournament, so they decided to pose with the trophy. I was up in the stands, packing up my gear (which included a beefy tripod since my DSLR had no IS or OIS), and I look over to see where my son was and the group of them are all posing around the trophy with no one...literally no one...taking a picture. One of the assistant coaches was actually somewhat annoyed with me that I wasn't Johnny-on-the-spot-team-photographer. Lesson learned now I don't have pro looking gear and I'm able to be a little more sly when shooting with a smaller camera..

I also started getting annoyed with parents putting in special requests for shots of their kids, when I'm at this event to watch and get shots of my own kids not a dozens other special request subjects. I don't get that as much with my FZ50, even though I still could probably get the better shot..

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #15

Greg Nut wrote:.

The Nikon D60 with two VR lenses is less than $900. You do give upmovie mode and small size. That's why I'd get a DSLR and a qualitypocketable P&S..

The Nikon D60 is an entry level DSLR and I suspect those two VR lenses would also be entry level quality and would not offer much beyond 30-300mm range, and again no liveview, no tilt/swivel LCD, no movie mode, loud shutter noise, etc., all for almost twice the price of the FZ50 which does offer all those features..

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #16

Greg Nut wrote:.

The Nikon D60 with two VR lenses is less than $900. You do give upmovie mode and small size. That's why I'd get a DSLR and a qualitypocketable P&S..

The Nikon D60 is an entry level DSLR and I suspect those two VR lenses would also be entry level quality and would not offer much beyond 30-300mm range, and again no liveview,.

No tilt/swivel LCD, no movie mode, loud shutter noise, etc., all for almost twice the price of the FZ50 which does offer all those features..

Well, the Olympus E420 would be a similar price and have much better lenses and give you live view, a bag full of extra features and be about the same weight (less with the two lenses together, I think)..

The nerd at the kids Sports Day comment made me laugh. I know exactly what you mean. I have a Canon Powershot A620 compact, which is pretty nifty (manual etc) as compact go...I don't know I'd want to take an SLR to a kids Sports Day due to the nerd factor. Maybe if I had a Canon G9. That's a nice camera and doesn't kllok too nerdy..

But for value for money with a DSLR at the price point concerned, the E420 is the one, I think...

Comment #17

I recently wrote about how I upgraded from a bridge camera (2005 vintage Fuji S9000) to a dSLR (http://forums.dpreview.com/...ums/readflat.asp?forum=1002&thread=28416111) and highly recommend that you go with an entry level slr. They can be had for nearly the same money as a large bridge/superzoom but the high iso and low light performance is much better..

The Fuji was great in bright light, but it totally fell apart trying to take pics indoors without the flash. Autofocus would hunt for a long time and images were noisy even at iso 400. I think it's a factor of phase-detect (dslrs) vs contrast-detect (compact camera and some slr live view) auto focus for the speed. Also, it was hard to achieve a shallow DOF with the fuji unless, as another poster noted, it was a macro photo. I don't see what the fuss about DOF preview is - just take the photo and see. it's digital!.

I recommend you check out the sony a300 - it is almost like a bridge camera coming from the other direction - an SLR with compact-camera-like live view with phase-detect auto focus. I bet it's cost is not that much more than current bridge cameras too. It has a lithium battery however. As for the quality of the lens and your desire to have a fast one (without a bag full of gear), I would either start with body only and upgraded lens OR just try out the kit lens for a while and splurge for a good lens only when you really need it. Then just sell or leave behind the kit lens..

Good luck!..

Comment #18

Snookerman wrote:.

Greg Nut wrote:.

The Nikon D60 with two VR lenses is less than $900. You do give upmovie mode and small size. That's why I'd get a DSLR and a qualitypocketable P&S..

The Nikon D60 is an entry level DSLR and I suspect those two VR lenses would also be entry level quality and would not offer much beyond 30-300mm range, and again no liveview,.

No tilt/swivel LCD, no movie mode, loud shutter noise, etc., all for almost twice the price of the FZ50 which does offer all those features..

Well, the Olympus E420 would be a similar price and have much betterlenses and give you live view, a bag full of extra features and beabout the same weight (less with the two lenses together, I think)..

The nerd at the kids Sports Day comment made me laugh. I knowexactly what you mean. I have a Canon Powershot A620 compact, whichis pretty nifty (manual etc) as compact go...I don't know I'd want totake an SLR to a kids Sports Day due to the nerd factor. Maybe if Ihad a Canon G9. That's a nice camera and doesn't kllok too nerdy..

But for value for money with a DSLR at the price point concerned, theE420 is the one, I think..

Image quality. The D60's is way beyond what the tiny sensor in the FZ50 can produce, and measurably superior even to the E420 in low light. The lenses are entry-level. That means small aperture, not low quality. But, the small aperture is fine because the D60 produces great results at ISO 800. I don't have the 18-55 VR, but I do have the 55-200 VR.



Live view is pretty dubious on a DSLR's right now. So, there are advantages to P&S. Also, to be fair, my Canon SD870 IS offers the same IQ in good light, as long as you avoid the extremes of focal length. It's still not as fast, or even close in low-light IQ..

One time I rented a 400/2.8 and took it to my son's baseball game. Nice, but not $7,000 nice. Heavy! A few funny looks, but no one said anything...

Comment #19

Effzeeone wrote:.

I actually "downgraded" from a DSLR to a bridge camera (the FZ50),and I couldn't be happier. A caution to you about DSLRs if you'regoing with an entry level DSLR and will be using entry level or kitlenses, you will likely be better off going with a bridge camera.DSLRs are known for the lower light/higher ISO performance overpoint-n-shoot cameras (even bridge cameras), but my experience withmy Olympus E-500 DSLR (an entry level DSLR) and the Panasonic FZ50 isthat the low light/high ISO performance is SCARILY similar. My ISO800 shots are almost identically worthless with both cameras.Admittedly, some of that is due to the Olympus E-500 not having anytype of image stabilization, but the fact that a bridge camera andDSLR are so similar with this type of shooting conditions is aconcern, especially when the DSLR system can cost x2, x3, even x6 thecurrent price of FZ50..

This is what my gut instincts suggested to me, although I do not personally *know* this to be the case. I felt that an entry level DSLR would be also include a number of fundamental compromises (albeit different ones) and that I would be paying a premium for simply going up a level in form factor, without necessarily achieving a great deal in overall IQ. This is what I must establish an answer to..

In the meantime, I will look again, more closely, at the FZ50 with lens attachments that you suggested..

Thanks for your help...

Comment #20

Snookerman wrote:.

Well, the Olympus E420 would be a similar price and have much betterlenses and give you live view, a bag full of extra features and beabout the same weight (less with the two lenses together, I think)..

But for value for money with a DSLR at the price point concerned, theE420 is the one, I think..

Thus far, I have been focussing (pardon the pun!) on bridge cameras, and not really looking closely at individual DSLR models, other than the basic concept of a DSLR as an option. My head simply can't hold all the comparative information for lots of items any more!.

But thanks for mentioning the E420 as something to look at...

Comment #21

Kip leong wrote:.

I recently wrote about how I upgraded from a bridge camera (2005vintage Fuji S9000) to a dSLR.

(http://forums.dpreview.com/...ums/readflat.asp?forum=1002&thread=28416111) and highly.

Recommend that you go with an entry level slr. They can be had for nearly the same money as a.

Large bridge/superzoom but the high iso and low light performance is much better..

I read your thread with great interest. Indeed, there is a lot of sound, common sense advice in there!.

The Fuji was great in bright light, but it totally fell apart tryingto take pics indoors without the flash. Autofocus would hunt for along time and images were noisy even at iso 400. I think it's afactor of phase-detect (dslrs) vs contrast-detect (compact camera andsome slr live view) auto focus for the speed. Also, it was hard toachieve a shallow DOF with the fuji unless, as another poster noted,it was a macro photo..

Shallow DOF is important to me, and this, I have found, is something that isn't really obvious to establish from reviews..

I don't see what the fuss about DOF preview is - just take the photo and see. it's digital!.

My DOF preview comment was entirely whimsical!!.

Thanks for your contribution...

Comment #22

Folks,.

This has been a really interesting and useful discussion. It's answered some questions and given me a few more to think about!.

What I would really like to do, is go to a store and spend some time handling and getting familiar with the different cameras. But in this modern age of internet selling (great for us, from a price perspective) the knowledgeable independent specialist store is something of a dying breed..

I have found a couple of likely stores (I'm not thinking about the generic/ubiquitous chains!) but they are some distance from me; and they don't carry all the brands that I would want to look at under one roof. Nevertheless, I think this is my next call. I've done far too much reading!!..

Comment #23

When directly comparing IQ between a DSLR and a bridge camera, the DSLR will virtually always win as long as the shooter remotely knows what they're doing. However, sometimes the IQ is close enough (especially in nicely lighted shots either with natural or flash light) that some of the inconveniences and lacking features associated with DSLRs make it not worth going for the DSLR. It completely depends on the type of photography you will most frequently do..

Since I recently did the DSLR shopping thing, here's some easy advice:.

1. Want small, lightweight, portability? Go for Olympus..

2. Want low light, high ISO, fast action focus? Go for Canon or Nikon (in that order).

3. No matter what ANYONE tells you, if you can get a body or lens system that has image stabilization, then get it. It's worth the extra money and you will regret not getting it. I'd advise in-body stabilization over optical/lens stabilization because in-body works with any lens you put on there..

4. Eventually you will want to upgrade from the kit lenses. You may want to keep that in mind when buying into a system and check how expensive the mid to high-range lenses will set you back when you're ready. Always remember that you're buying into a system, not just a single camera (or camera body), and most importantly remember that camera manufacturers don't typically make money off their bodies it's made off their typically overpriced lenses..

5. No matter what ANYONE tells you, there really isn't anything wrong with a one-lens solution on a DSLR. If you're happy with a 35-300mm lens on your DSLR all the time, then that's all that counts that you're happy..

6. A working dust-buster features IS important. If you'll be switching lenses a lot, especially in the field, you'll want to make sure that you won't have sensor dust problems. Olympus has the best dust-buster feature, hands down, and has for years. All you have to do is look at the Canon and Nikon forums for all the sensor cleaning threads to know that their dust-buster systems don't work. Cleaning the sensor is a pain...period.



I realize that I left out Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, etc. in my first two suggestions, but that's because (in my opinion) Sony doesn't have a true system offering yet (maybe in a couple years, even though they seem to rely heavily on Minolta takeover leftovers), Pentax just always seems to be in third or fourth place, although they do have some pretty good offerings at pretty good prices, and Panasonic seems to make their DSLRs just like Olympus but use 24k gold fittings or something because they are frequently double the price of their Fourthirds format brethren..

It's just easier to shop for bridge cameras, but don't be intimidated by DSLR shopping. Just realize that just like every bridge camera, every DSLR system has it's set of pros and cons. You have to be able to accept the cons of any camera you choose, whether DSLR or bridge. When shopping for a DSLR, you need to consider the body and the lenses it's like shopping for two different cameras in a way since the lens and body is separate. When you're just starting out, you can simply compare kits, but do keep in mind that you will likely outgrow the kit lens eventually, so shop for bodies and lenses and there won't be any surprises in your future..

My advice? Avoid the headache and buy a FZ50. Haha..

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #24

Good luck with your shopping. If you're in the USA, a bigger Wolf or Ritz camera store should have most of the DSLR brands (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony), as well as most of the bridge models. You might have better luck with the bridge models at a home electronics store (Circuit City, Best Buy, etc.).

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #25

This has been a great thread. I've been looking at long zooms but I need a camera that will do grandkids sports and indoor shots, both are weaknesses of super zooms. I really don't want to carry around a SLR. Somebody mentioned that bridge cameras and long zooms were different. Aside from the FZ50 ($650 in Canada) what other bridge cameras are there? I want either a OVF or EVF.Lawrie..

Comment #26

I have recently replaced a Ricoh R7 with the Panasonic TZ4.Its not quite as small as the Ricoh but is better built,has a better range and generally does everything better than the Ricoh IMO.The TZ4/5 is an extraordinarily capable camera that I can take everywhere with me (unlike my DSLR kit) and I am just staggered that something this small can be this good.Its also great fun..

With a camera like the TZ in your arsenal there is no reason why the second camera you buy shouldnt be a DSLR.Have you still got your old Nikon lenses?.

I shoot Canon and would have no hesitation recommending any of the current Nikon DSLR lineupWho knows you might rekindle your love for your old hobby.Good luck.PJT..

Comment #27

Lawrie Silverberg wrote:.

This has been a great thread. I've been looking at long zooms but Ineed a camera that will do grandkids sports and indoor shots, bothare weaknesses of super zooms. I really don't want to carry around aSLR. Somebody mentioned that bridge cameras and long zooms weredifferent. Aside from the FZ50 ($650 in Canada) what other bridgecameras are there? I want either a OVF or EVF.Lawrie.

In terms of true bridge camera, about the only one out there other than the FZ50 is the new Fuji S100FS. The rest really aren't bridge cameras and are more in the superzoom category. Not that there's anything wrong with superzooms, it's just that they're not all bridge cameras. For example, the FZ50 is a bridge camera, the FZ18 is a superzoom. The Fuji S100FS is a bridge camera, the S8100FD is a superzoom..

A DSLR will always perform better in lower light and fast action. That being said, I.

Own a FZ50 and have four very active children ranging from 5-16 years old. Am I able to take action shots of my younger children jumping into a swimming pool from a dive platform? You betcha! Can I get great shots of my oldest son at a nighttime track meet? No, but I can get very good video of the whole event, something I cannot do with a DSLR. I do get pictures of my daughter at various indoor games and competitive cheerleading competions. Do I have to time the shots to avoid motion blur? Yup. However, I can get really good shots with a powerful flash, but I do realize that flashes are not always allowed. I can get finish line shots of my son during a race using a flash..

You just have to realize that there are limitations with every camera choice you make. I have accepted the limitations of my FZ50, and as I get to know the camera more and more, I'm beginning to realize that most of these limitations can be overcome or worked around. Those that can't...well...bummer, but oh well. I had different but similar amount of frustrations with the DSLR system I owned prior to getting the FZ50..

For what it's worth, the new Fuji has been taking review hits for CA and fringing, but I've also seen a lot of owner reviews that claim they have not found this to be true in most of their real world shots. It's looks like a really good camera, and with no sign of a FZ60 coming from Panasonic (and the FZ50 just starting to become long in the tooth in camera years), the Fuji S100FS might just become the go-to bridge camera. I think a lot of this has to do with Fuji's apparent casual interest in the DSLR format. They do have the Fuji S5 Pro DSLR (with a Nikon mount), but more than most manufacturers, they seem to still have an interest in the superzoom/bridge camera market. I suspect the expected Panasonic FZ60 is actually the Panasonic L10 DSLR..

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #28

Thanks Chris. I just bought and will take back the TZ5. The screen is lousy in bright sunshine and the pics weren't as good as my old Sony V1 IMHO. I know that everyone loves this camera , but my wife and I want a VF. I've acutally been getting so frustrated that I'm thinking of just getting a Canon A720. It's nothing special but it takes good pics and is cheap now. I'll check out the Fuji that you mentioned first.Lawrie..

Comment #29

Hey Chris (Effzeeone),.

Thanks for all that input, which clearly takes time for you to contribute. I haven't quoted it all here (for ease of reading of the thread as a whole) but it contained a lot of interesting and useful points. In particular....

Effzeeone wrote:.

My advice? Avoid the headache and buy a FZ50. Haha..

I suspect I may go down this or a very similar route in the short term but what I have learnt from this thread, is that I will eventually end up with a DSLR!! I don't know how far into the future that will be, but I do now know it will happen. Just realising that now, means I won't, in the future, view my imminent purchase as a mistake, but instead, just a part of the journey..

This whole thread (and the valuable input from others) has helped me rationalise my thoughts and my current position. The answer, I suppose, is in the original thread title....

"returning to photography"; that is, I am 'returning', but have not yet 'returned'!.

That may seem like a pedantic point but, I have realised that spending considerably more on a DSLR system (even basic) compared to a bridge (or superzoom!) would not be wise, for me, in the short term. What I really need to do more than anything else is buy a camera, with a reasonable degree of manual control, and get out using it, instead of filling my head with facts, figures and appraisal from all the bloody reviews I'm reading!!.

There's always a chance that my rekindled interest will stall prematurely, and if that were to happen, I would hate to have spent a bunch of on kit that would either sit idle, or I would end up selling at an unpleasant loss. On the other hand, if my initial purchase cost considerably less, then I would have much less to lose, proportionally. If my interest takes off again, which I hope it will, then there is no reason why I shouldn't view whatever I buy now, as something that may well complement a future DSLR system. I know, that's very indulgent isn't it!!..

Comment #30

Effzeeone wrote:.

Good luck with your shopping. If you're in the USA, a bigger Wolf orRitz camera store should have most of the DSLR brands (Canon, Nikon,Olympus, Pentax, Sony), as well as most of the bridge models. Youmight have better luck with the bridge models at a home electronicsstore (Circuit City, Best Buy, etc.).

I'm in the UK, so the stores are all different; and of course, relatively speaking, the pricing is much less favourable!! ..

Comment #31

Lawrie Silverberg wrote:.

This has been a great thread..

I'm glad that it's been of some use to someone else. Certainly, it's been very helpful to me..

I've been looking at long zooms but Ineed a camera that will do grandkids sports and indoor shots, bothare weaknesses of super zooms. I really don't want to carry around aSLR. Somebody mentioned that bridge cameras and long zooms weredifferent..

Chris makes some interesting comments about a likely distinction between 'superzoom' and 'bridge' categories; and comparing, say, the FZ18 with the FZ50, I can see what he is saying..

Aside from the FZ50 ($650 in Canada) what other bridgecameras are there?.

Well, I am also (still!) looking at the Fuji S9600 (S9100 in North America, I believe) but of course, that has effectively been superseded (at least on paper, and in terms of manufacture) by the S1000fs. But it is rather heavier and, for the time being at least, twice the price!.

I want either a OVF or EVF..

As far as I am aware, EVF is the only option available on bridge/superzooms, with OVF being a feature of DSLRs. But I am prepared to be corrected!..

Comment #32

Wombat 52 wrote:.

I have recently replaced a Ricoh R7 with the Panasonic TZ4.Its notquite as small as the Ricoh but is better built,has a better rangeand generally does everything better than the Ricoh IMO.The TZ4/5 isan extraordinarily capable camera that I can take everywhere with me(unlike my DSLR kit) and I am just staggered that something thissmall can be this good.Its also great fun..

That is great to hear. Separately, I am also trying to research and recommend a camera to my sister and her husband, and I feel that the TZ5 fits the bill for their requirements entirely..

With a camera like the TZ in your arsenal there is no reason why thesecond camera you buy shouldnt be a DSLR..

Interestingly, I started out looking at the TZ5 for myself, as a way of initially getting back into photography as a hobby. Main reason for not choosing it (and avoiding this whole headache in the short term!) was the lack any form of manual control..

Have you still got your oldNikon lenses?.

Well, that is a really interesting question. I've just dug out and dusted off (literally!) my old camera bag to remind myself what I had and, in addition to the Nikon N6006 body (F601 in Europe, but I bought mine in the U.S.) I have the following:.

1) AF Nikkor 50mm F1.8 (the original Nikon prime)2) AF Nikkor 70-210 F4-5.6 (bought at the same time, circa Dec 1992)3) Sigma 28mm F1.8 (completely unused since purchase, circa Dec 1996!).

All the lenses are in excellent/mint condition! I even still have the original boxes in the attic..

Now, realising that you must have asked the question for good reason (that being that they may be usable) I have just done some googling and realised that they may well be usable with a DSLR. I had no idea!! Shows how little I know about modern DSLRs!! Surely though, there must be some caveats? I read a bit about having to multiply the focal length as a consequence of sensor size, which does make sense. But does all the exposure/focus stuff all work?! I would be (pleasantly) astonished if it did! Now, I'm getting quite excited .

I shoot Canon and would have no hesitation recommending any of thecurrent Nikon DSLR lineupWho knows you might rekindle yourlove for your old hobby.Good luck.PJT.

Thanks PJT (and everyone else) for the words of encouragement!..

Comment #33

Lawrie Silverberg wrote:I just bought and will take back the TZ5. The screen.

Is lousy in bright sunshine and the pics weren't as good as my oldSony V1 IMHO..

Oh that's disappointing to hear. I thought the TZ5 had one of the better (larger, brighter) LCD screens which, if so, doesn't bode too well for the rest of them!..

Comment #34

Wombat 52 wrote:.

With a camera like the TZ in your arsenal there is no reason why thesecond camera you buy shouldnt be a DSLR..

Just one further comment: this is also the reason I was looking at the Ricoh R7 as the low end partner to a bridge/superzoom (assuming I don't get a DSLR for the time being) as I felt the TZ5, with all it's capabilities, would be too close to provide a range of diversity. In other words, having decent zoom in the main camera, I would be happy sacrifice some in the compact, for a little more portability, hence the smaller/lighter R7..

That said, the Fuji F100fd has also caught my eye, for the role as 'junior sidekick' to the main item!..

Comment #35

Zirynx wrote:.

Lawrie Silverberg wrote:I just bought and will take back the TZ5. The screen.

Is lousy in bright sunshine and the pics weren't as good as my oldSony V1 IMHO..

Oh that's disappointing to hear. I thought the TZ5 had one of thebetter (larger, brighter) LCD screens which, if so, doesn't bode toowell for the rest of them!.

My wife and I are used to OVFs (we're old). We found it harder to use the LCD in bright sunlight. Everyone else loves this camera, so I assume it's just us. It's frustrating, so many cameras on the market and not one that fills the bill. OVF are great to use...

Comment #36

Bridge cameras are the same P&S cameras with superzoom lenses and manual modes. They have the same tiny sensors and the same poor image quality. Bridge cameras have all weaknesses of P&S and have none advantage of DSLRs. Instead they add the largest weakness of DSLRs - their size..

Edvinas..

Comment #37

What I really need to do more than anything else is buy acamera, with a reasonable degree of manual control, and get out usingit, instead of filling my head with facts, figures and appraisal fromall the bloody reviews I'm reading!!.

I had the same epiphany!..

Comment #38

In good light or indoors at close range you will get a good photograph with a compact, a bridge, or a dslr. Under less optimal conditions, say lower light or longer distances indoors where the flash doesn't reach a dslr is your better option..

It personally doesn't suit my needs but do at least consider the Olympus 420. IIRC it's the smallest dslr currently available and any dslr will handle better than a bridge or compact. You don't really have to buy tons of gear for a dslr if you think about your needs and buy a minimum kit to suit that style. As a companion a compact or Canon A6xx is nice if you desire. A slightly larger option to the Oly 420 is a Pentax K100 or K200. Both take AA's as well as the Canon A6xx's.



If you do get a camera that takes AA's skip the regular NIMH batteries. Sanyo Eneloop or other brand low self discharge batteries sound like they'll suit your style. Otherwise long life, one time use, lithium AA's...

Comment #39

Thanks for the kind comments.It seems to me that a DSLR is on the horizon.Nikon have some stunning product at the moment and yes your lenses should work.Now if that is the case then the reasons for wanting a smaller take anywhere camera alter slightly.This is the camera you take with you on a daily basisthis is not the whole kit and caboodleor is it ? .

I have owned a 900ti Ixusgreat quality,lousy range.A Ricoh R7- lousy everything except range. A panasonic TZ4/5-which as I have said blows me away.This is point and shoot heavenRange-decent build quality-acceptable IQ and portabiliry..

It is strictly point and shoot thoughset it up and off you gothere are few manual options.Personally I see this as a strength.I take it out of my pocket /belt carrier and it is ready to goI have got the shot with no mucking around.If close to DSLR quality is the optimum then the Canon G7/9 is worth looking at..

Frankly I think the trade off in quality is negligable and the convenience-size-and flexibility of the Panny are paramountbut this is personal stuff..

As a Canon man I say to you GO BUY THAT NIKON DSLRYou wont look back.Enjoy and welcome back to the fold.PJT..

Comment #40

Wombat 52 wrote:.

Thanks for the kind comments.It seems to me that a DSLR is on thehorizon.Nikon have some stunning product at the moment and yes yourlenses should work..

Entry level Nikon's dslr's are good for some styles. The downside is they are not as full featured as their competition. This is the marketing angle with respect to price point and features. Maybe they're better than the new low end Canon slr, don't know..

....

If close to DSLR quality is the optimum then the Canon G7/9 is worthlooking at..

IMHO the Canon A6xx or maybe A5xx series are almost as good as the G7 and 9 for less money..

As a Canon , Pentax, and Mamiya shooter, look at Olympus and Pentax for entry level slr's and Canon for smaller gear...

Comment #41

Lawrie Silverberg wrote:.

My wife and I are used to OVFs (we're old). We found it harder touse the LCD in bright sunlight. Everyone else loves this camera, soI assume it's just us. It's frustrating, so many cameras on themarket and not one that fills the bill. OVF are great to use..

I'm a viewfinder type of shooter myself, but I don't mind EVF or OVF. I have noticed that OVF's don't seem to be on superzooms, though. I noticed that a lot of the pocketable, waterproof cameras (with a 3x zoom) have OVF's and big LCD screens, too. But I would miss that zooooooooom!.

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #42

Zirynx wrote:.

As far as I am aware, EVF is the only option available onbridge/superzooms, with OVF being a feature of DSLRs. But I amprepared to be corrected!.

Nope, you're right. Since DSLR's have that mirror thing going on, it's easy to have an OVF that gives you the view right through the lens. However, with non-SLR superzooms, in order to give you an OVF they'd have to have a separate zooming viewfinder, which would likely make the viewfinder bulge pretty big, and likely inaccurate..

Some superzooms have really high resolution EVF's, which make things a little easier for OVF fans, but the lag is usually still there..

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #43

Edvinas wrote:.

Bridge cameras are the same P&S cameras with superzoom lenses andmanual modes. They have the same tiny sensors and the same poor imagequality. Bridge cameras have all weaknesses of P&S and have noneadvantage of DSLRs. Instead they add the largest weakness of DSLRs -their size..

That's only if you view every feature of a point-n-shoot as a weakness..

I seem to be seeing most DSLR manufacturers trying desperately to implement one very big "weakness" of P&S cameras: LiveView. And considering the rather poor implementations of that feature in DSLRs (almost like they're literally trying to shove in a feature that doesn't fit or belong with a DSLR), I'd have to say that it's now a weakness of DSLR's and still a benefit of P&S cameras. Seems like DSLR manufacturers don't view that feature as a weakness, especially when the most expensive Canon DSLR is the only Canon DSLR to have the LiveView feature..

Being able to shoot silently with no annoying mirror slap is not a weakness for some, it's a requirement..

Having a rigid lens barrel with manual focus and zoom rings on it like the FZ50 does is not a weakness (in fact, it's rather like a DSLR). The lens doesn't slide in and out when you zoom or focus either, unlike most DSLR lenses (unless they're 2-3 feet in length and cost about $10,000)..

Bridge cameras and superzooms are only as big as they need to be. It's not like the manufacturer is making them bigger than other P&S cameras just for the sake of doing so. The FZ50 is as big as it is because the lens has to be that physical size in order for the 35-420mm, F208-3.7 range with OIS to work with that size sensor. That's why a 400mm F2.8 lens on a DSLR is double or even triple the size of the FZ50's lens, because the DSLR has much bigger sensor and therefore requires a lens to be that big. It's also why the new Fuji S100FS is bigger than the FZ50 bigger sensor, bigger lens, bigger camera..

If you think all P&S cameras have poor image quality, then you really should take the time to "slum it" in some of the P&S forums. You might be surprised by the images posted there. Just because a camera is a DSLR doesn't automatically mean it takes better photos. I've now shot with both an Olympus E-500 DSLR at 300mm and the Panasonic FZ50 at 420mm in the same poorly lit highschool gymnasium at ISO 800 (action shots my daughter is a cheerleader), and the FZ50's images turned out better. Now, the Olympus Fourthirds system is not best known for it's low light/high ISO performance, but it's a DSLR so why isn't it better than the FZ50? Answer: The FZ50 has OIS and a faster lens. Could I have done better with a Canon DSLR (a camera known for low light, high ISO capabiliteis) with an OIS lens? Definitely, but at what price and at what overall loss of desired P&S features?.

I'll just keep my lousey P&S Bridge Camera, and suffer through my miserable photos Funny how at all my extended family events and most of my children's school events, I'm the go-to photographer who always ends up getting the best shot when all the photos are compared The school yearbooks are full of my FZ50 photos, as is the graduating class slide shows, as are most of the family photo albums and websites. And yes, some of them do own Canon, Nikon, and Olympus DSLRs. That either says one of two things:.

1. I'm a d@mn great photographer..

Or.

2. DSLRs aren't necessarily or automatically overall better than ever P&S..

By the way, I'm an amateur/hobbyist photographer, and trust me it's mostly in the camera and not my skill level..

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #44

Zirynx wrote:.

I'm in the UK, so the stores are all different; and of course,relatively speaking, the pricing is much less favourable!! .

You obviously haven't visited America in the past few fiscal years, have you? haha Tell your UK online retailers to start watching for the influx of American shoppers, because if our economy doesn't get better soon that's exactly what's going to start happening..

ChrisEffzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!(Gear in profile)..

Comment #45

Inexpensive DSLRs weren't really all that available then, so I bought the best P&S camera available at the time (Canon G3). I don't regret having it at all. It allowed me to switch from 'serious' to 'happy snapper' without problem and my wife had no problem using it since it was fully capable as a happy snap camera..

I still use it quite a bit. It's a great camera to toss into the saddlebags of my motorcycle without fear of damage or loss. Doing that with my DSLR might make me a bit crazy. (and 4 mp is really plenty - so don't let a high mp count turn your head from an otherwise perfect camera for you).

I don't know what's right for you. There are a lot of really good options out there right now. But I don't regret having what is now called a "bridge" camera.STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington.

And my non Photo blog:http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Qe0Iq3g2d6ML3IynXl.Q2i5CPe6UaA?cq=1..

Comment #46

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.