Bridge cameras
Oct 28, 2023 12:36:43 #
Jeannie88 wrote:
Yesterday, saw someone with a Nikon Bridge camera. As I am getting older, that seems like a good way to go, especially if I travel. Any one using a Nikon Bridge camera, or an olympus(if there is one)? I have used DSLRS for years and wonder if I would really like a one does it all camera?Right Now I am an Olympus User, although I was a nikon User for many years. What about Sony? Many years ago , I did have a Sony 828, I think it was called, and the color , and macros were wonderful
Flagship smartphones are beginning to make bridge cameras obsolete...something to consider.
Oct 28, 2023 13:07:27 #
joer wrote:
Flagship smartphones are beginning to make bridge cameras obsolete...something to consider.
Smartphone would have a hardtime getting a zoom lens (not several fixed lens cameras or cropping)
Oct 28, 2023 13:10:32 #
Oct 28, 2023 13:15:37 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Smartphone would have a hardtime getting a zoom lens (not several fixed lens cameras or cropping)
Folks who buy phones don't care about zooms.
They get three good focal lengths at the touch of a finger...
I doubt zooms are a big ask from phone buyers.
Oct 28, 2023 13:20:59 #
I use a Nikon P1000 on all my vacations and travel. It's nice to have everything you need in one package. I was about to use it on a trip to Israel when the recent conflict broke out. The tour company cancelled the trip out of safety concerns. A great, but necessary, disappointment
Oct 28, 2023 14:49:56 #
ricardo00 wrote:
So does the Sony RX1 count as a bridge camera by y... (show quote)
Since to most a bridge camera has a zoom lens, usually a long zoom, to replace a bag full of lenses, the RX1 wouldn't make the cut.
Why do most think bridge has to have a long zoom? Because they don't or can't use "foot zoom".
Oct 28, 2023 14:54:54 #
Oct 28, 2023 14:56:40 #
robertjerl wrote:
Since to most a bridge camera has a zoom lens, usually a long zoom, to replace a bag full of lenses, the RX1 wouldn't make the cut.
Why do most think bridge has to have a long zoom? Because they don't or can't use "foot zoom".
Why do most think bridge has to have a long zoom? Because they don't or can't use "foot zoom".
I think that long zoom lens is great for capturing a small, distant subject, like a duck on a lake or a bird in a tree, but not much more. I had a P900 and rarely used the long zoom. Mostly it was only zoomed in slightly. I have the RX100 VII and 200mm (eq.) is plenty.
Oct 28, 2023 14:57:28 #
Desert Gecko wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can use any camera to shoot a bridge. Oh, wait--
My vote is for Sony's RX10-iv. Even though it's getting long in tooth, it's still the best bridge out there. I keep thinking there'll be an update soon but no word yet.
And aren't we all grateful that the former darling of this blog, the Canon SX50 bridge camera, is no longer mentioned in every other post? I never understood the fascination with that mediocre thing.
My vote is for Sony's RX10-iv. Even though it's getting long in tooth, it's still the best bridge out there. I keep thinking there'll be an update soon but no word yet.
And aren't we all grateful that the former darling of this blog, the Canon SX50 bridge camera, is no longer mentioned in every other post? I never understood the fascination with that mediocre thing.
Just the thought of an RX10 V makes my GAS go into high gear and my wallet burrow down into my pocket and wimper a bit.
Oct 28, 2023 15:00:01 #
Wingpilot wrote:
I think that long zoom lens is great for capturing a small, distant subject, like a duck on a lake or a bird in a tree, but not much more. I had a P900 and rarely used the long zoom. Mostly it was only zoomed in slightly. I have the RX100 VII and 200mm (eq.) is plenty.
Well, maybe "too long to carry". But then I now have a street legal, semi-all terrain electric mobility scooter that can carry 500 lbs. So, me = 280, therefore my camera(s) and lenses could weigh 220 and I would still be good to go. Maybe just put a hitch on the back of the scooter and get a little trailer.
Oct 28, 2023 15:20:09 #
robertjerl wrote:
Well, maybe "too long to carry". But then I now have a street legal, semi-all terrain electric mobility scooter that can carry 500 lbs. So, me = 280, therefore my camera(s) and lenses could weigh 220 and I would still be good to go. Maybe just put a hitch on the back of the scooter and get a little trailer.
That’s funny. 🤣 Great idea, though.
Oct 28, 2023 17:06:07 #
ricardo00 wrote:
Personally I do not consider a full-frame camera as a "bridge camera", even one which has a single lens (ie. a non-interchangeable lens). To me, a bridge camera has a smaller sensor and can zoom out. But maybe others do consider those as "bridge cameras" though the Sony RX10 is much heavier than the RX1.
The Sony RX10 IV has a 1″ sensor with dimensions of 13.2 x 8.8 mm and a sensor area of 116.16mm. This is smaller than a Four Thirds or APS-C size sensor but its larger size makes the image quality superior to the smaller 1/2/3" or 1/1.8" sensors of "true" bridge cameras.
Be well! Ed
Oct 28, 2023 17:16:42 #
Canisdirus wrote:
Depends on what you are looking to gain by switching.
Is it weight? If so...forget the Sony RX10 IV. Look elsewhere.
Is it best performance bridge camera? Now you get the Sony.
I don't own a bridge camera, but the attractiveness for me would be the simplicity...one body...all the lenses in one hand. Not so much about size or weight...just simplifying it all.
If that is the case...get the Sony.
Is it weight? If so...forget the Sony RX10 IV. Look elsewhere.
Is it best performance bridge camera? Now you get the Sony.
I don't own a bridge camera, but the attractiveness for me would be the simplicity...one body...all the lenses in one hand. Not so much about size or weight...just simplifying it all.
If that is the case...get the Sony.
Have you ever held an RX10-iv? It weighs about half of a typical DSLR mounted with an all-around lens, such as a 24-105mm or 28-200mm, and much lighter than any camera and the two or three lenses that would be needed to cover the range of the RX10-iv. Indeed, the first time I used an RX10-iv, I thought it felt cheap because it was so lightweight. But cheap it ain't.
The weight (just more than two pounds) comes mostly from the optically excellent Zeiss lens. It's mostly the lens and the large (for a bridge camera) 1" sensor that give the camera its reputation for excellence.
I saw a couple of Nikons mentioned. I rather like the P1000 and its little brothers, but the 1/2" sensor is a weak spot. Even the 1" sensor in the RX10-iv gives me pause, but either is fine for social media and smaller prints. Of course, now with Topaz GigPixel and even Adobe's similar upscaling (although feeble by comparison), sensor size matters a bit less -- especially with the right kind of shot.
Some consumers notice this sort of thing, which is why cellphone makers are starting to include larger sensors and better (longer and wider) camera optics, conceding that computational photography isn't always the answer.
Oct 28, 2023 17:24:49 #
elee950021 wrote:
The Sony RX10 IV has a 1″ sensor with dimensions of 13.2 x 8.8 mm and a sensor area of 116.16mm. This is smaller than a Four Thirds or APS-C size sensor but its larger size makes the image quality superior to the smaller 1/2/3" or 1/1.8" sensors of "true" bridge cameras.
Be well! Ed
Be well! Ed
Thanks Ed. Yes the Sony RX10 has a 1 inch sensor and is clearly a bridge camera. The person I was responding to was talking about the Sony RX1 which has a full frame sensor. My comment was that I didn't consider that a "bridge camera" even though it does not have interchangeable lenses. This is the camera we were talking about:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190330-REG/sony_dscrx1rm2_b_cyber_shot_dsc_rx1r_ii_digital.html
Oct 28, 2023 18:59:56 #
flathead27ford wrote:
I still have my Canon SX50 and love it. 😁
Me too.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.