radiojohn

In looking at some posts, it seems some of you do not know what a bridge camera is. A person asking about "the best" bridge camera ia offered advice on DSLRs, mirrorless cameras, etc. A bridge camera does not mean a camera to buy before you can buy an expensive one, kind of like a starter home!

Bridge cameras have been around for years in film cameras. They offered SLR style and similar function, but did not have a removable lens. They offered a longer zoom range than point and shoot cameras and frequently a better viewing system. Some say that the lenses were not as good as removable ones, and that may be true of some or even most. But for the target audience, they were sufficient.

The digital versions often looked a lot more like DSLRs with many of the same modes. They were mirrorless and many had an electronic eyepiece viewfinder (not as good as the best ones today, but helpful in strong light). A few on the very low end omitted the eyepiece finder, which IMHO were to be avoided.

Bridge cameras have always been looked down upon by the SLR/DSLR crowd, but that is a matter of opinion. Latest models have insanely long lenses and keep improving. Perhaps one day we will look back at the bridge camera debate as we now do with the debate over fixed focal length lenses versus zooms in the 1970's. Years later I doubt if more than a handfull of you carry 6 lenses in your bag.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I prefer fixed focal length lenses for super sharpness. Different strokes for different folks. Don't mind carrying 6 lenses in my bag.

radiojohn

I loved my 105mm 2.5 Nikkor.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

My first (and only) bridge camera was the Olympus IS-1 from the '90s. It was a damned good camera. I only replaced it when I lucked into an OM-2 with motor drive and lens at an auction for $30. The battery was dead and I was the only one in the room who knew that the camera would actually work (with a new battery). I built an entire OM system on that camera and an additional OM 10 before I went back to Nikon for SLR and digital for everyday.

BebuLamar

The type of camera you describe is the worst type I would want. They have way too many functions and they are so complex. The zoom is very long and yet slow coupled with small sensor that doesn't perform well with high ISO make the long zoom not really usable.
I don't know if you can call it bridge camera but something like one with fixed lens. Moderate but fast zoom or even fixed lens. Relatively large sensor. Good controls for essential parameters but no too much to make it too complex to use. That's the type I think worthwhile to have.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Wow 10mm to 400mm primes would wear me out.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

BebuLamar

If I could afford it I would use only primes.

Haydon

I'm not a snob with bridge cameras whatsoever. I use 1D/5D series and an SX50. I use inexpensive glass to a 500F4. There are shortcomings to everything and benefits using others. Sometimes shooting at an equivalent of 1000 mm can be had with a bridge almost instantly but setting up a long lens ends up missing the shot.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If bridge cameras are looked down upon, it's probably because they are less capable and less expensive. Actually, it's just another option for photographers, like a DSLR, mirrorless, or small compact. I'm tempted by the Nikon P900.

kgcrafts

The Nikon P900 is a nice camera - takes some wonderful pictures, but you should be aware of some shortcomings of this camera:
.
1) It does not take pictures in RAW format.
2) It does not have a "hot shoe" for an external flash.
3) It is not weather sealed.
4) The screw hole for the tripod is off-center and causes a weight imbalance on the tripod. The camera can break off the tripod, causing permanent damage to the camera.
.
I own one of these cameras and wish I'd known of these shortcomings prior to purchase because I would have looked elsewhere - like maybe the Nikon B700.

pixelmaven Loc: Reno, NV

As a long time bridge camera user, may I weigh in on this topic. I've gone through a series of Fujifilm Finepix from the 3800 to my current HS 50EXR. In nearly all cases, the results have been extraordinary and virtually trouble free. I've had the HS 50EXR for nearly five years however, and have not been inclined to replace it. It shoots RAW/JPG, has a good viewfinder, articulated LCD screen and hot shoe. Burst mode is reasonably fast on loading and the focal length quite wonderful at 1000mm. The fujinon lens is plenty sharp in most instances but there is a trade off in low light shooting, i.e. night scenes and astrophotography.

That saying: the best camera is the one you have with you still applies. Snob appeal doesn't get the shot!

Bill_de Loc: US

They don't really have insanely long lenses. What they have is insanely small sensors. IMHO

--

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I have my own definition of a "bridge" camera and it includes (at least) a 1" or larger sensor, RAW capability, a viewfinder, high quality optics, and full manual controls (when needed) while not having interchangeable lenses. One or more of these requirements usually sets it apart from what I consider a point and shoot camera. I'm not a professional photographer and I only use bridge cameras. As a hobbyist the good ones (As or more expensive than entry level SLR systems) render photos that satisfy my needs while not having to carry around 30 lbs of equipment.

Bill_de Loc: US

The camera didn't break by just sitting on the tripod. Either it was cracked previously and unnoticed, or somebody was heavy handed. IMHO

--