Not to pursue an empty argument, but .. ... rather, to furnish concrete proof that the 'large zoom' bridge cameras can compete mano a mano with DSLRs, and in some situations produce...

0627ramram32 Loc: Orange County, CA, USA

... rather, to furnish concrete proof that the 'large zoom' bridge cameras can compete mano a mano with DSLRs, and in some situations produce superior results. The attached photos were taken in the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, CA. They were, perforce, hand held because no tripods are allowed. (At the same time,they are much loved among local photo enthusiasts because they allow unlimited picture-taking, though only of items they own -- not the traveling exhibitions.) I wanted close-ups of their masks and carvings from the South Pacific and China, respectively; because some are exhibited in groups you can't get close to them (and many are housed in glass cases), not even the vaunted Sigma 500s could have done the job. So: my Sony Hx300 to the rescue. 19MPs; 1200 mm effective; quite the finest low-light capability I've ever experienced, great color rendition, and puh-lenty sharp, it produced just what I was after.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

A good idea when touting the quality of a camera would be to post high quality images. All three of these examples show terribly high digital noise on the download, and at least the second one is way off focus.

0627ramram32 Loc: Orange County, CA, USA

I see that, based on the images as uploaded, you are correct. I'm not ever again going to try to prove a position by showing pics on the internet.

Audwulf Loc: Golden State

Looked pretty good to me. When I hit download and +, they looked like paintings. Keep showing your pics.

0627ramram32 wrote:

I see that, based on the images as uploaded, you are correct. I'm not ever again going to try to prove a position by showing pics on the internet.

:thumbup:

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

MT Shooter wrote:

A good idea when touting the quality of a camera would be to post high quality images. All three of these examples show terribly high digital noise on the download, and at least the second one is way off focus.

And since we don't have comparison shots-- one could hardly cite these as "superior" to the results of a DSLR.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

0627ramram32 wrote:

I see that, based on the images as uploaded, you are correct. I'm not ever again going to try to prove a position by showing pics on the internet.

32, there are a lot of reasons to like a bridge, not of which the least of them is the price.
If you feel that a bridge can compete with a DSLR, then it is the camera for you. You don't have to justify it. Some have different needs than others, that's why so many cameras are designed and sold.
It's not always about pixels and resolving power. I have taken several award winning fotos with a point and shoot. It was not about resolution, it was completely about composition.
32, get what you need or what you can afford. All cameras do the same thing in the hands of a skilled photographer. The smallest part of photography is about burying your face in your computer and counting your pixels. That does NOT improve your composition.
All that said, there is a reason that there are a ton of $5000 lenses sold.
32, whatever camera you get, use it well. SS

PhotoMan1929 Loc: Virginia, USA

SharpShooter wrote:

32, there are a lot of reasons to like a bridge, n... (show quote)

Very good, Mr. SharpShooter. I am in complete agreement with you. WELL SAID.

Most camera owners would be better off trying to improve their compositional skills rather than pursuing a lot of esoteric technical photographic minutiae.

pixbyjnjphotos Loc: Apache Junction,AZ

MT Shooter wrote:

A good idea when touting the quality of a camera would be to post high quality images. All three of these examples show terribly high digital noise on the download, and at least the second one is way off focus.

I should have also quoted 0627ramram32's original post.

I downloaded the first picture. Took it into PSP X5 Ultimate. Resized to 20x16 at 300 pixels per inch. Did a quick unsharp mask and viewed full screen on my 22 inch monitor. OK, I can see a slight bit of noise if I get really close. If this picture were printed 20x16 at 300 pixels per inch and framed in a 24x20 frame with 2 inch matt and hung on the wall, you couldn't see any noise unless you had your nose on the glass.

We all don't have the array of equipment available that some of the shooters (super pros) have. We just have to make do with what we have and be proud of it.

I like all three pictures. If they are plenty good enough for you 0627ramram32, they are plenty good enough for me. Keep up the good work, have fun, keep posting, and have a GREAT DAY! By the way, I have a bridge camera of my own and I have taken some outstanding pictures with it. Many bridge cameras are much better than some people give them credit for.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

pixbyjnjphotos wrote:

I should have also quoted 0627ramram32's original ... (show quote)

All of what you say, may be true. However, you did not include this context from the OP: "... to furnish concrete proof that the 'large zoom' bridge cameras can compete mano a mano with DSLRs, and in some situations produce superior results...."

There were no DSLR results to compare. The proof was neither concrete nor "superior"....

0627ramram32 Loc: Orange County, CA, USA

There is an element of truth in every response, here. I thank you all for your thoughtfulness, and in most cases for your courteous approach to the discussion.

PhotoMan1929 Loc: Virginia, USA

0627ramram32 wrote:

There is an element of truth in every response, here. I thank you all for your thoughtfulness, and in most cases for your courteous approach to the discussion.

And THANK YOU for your courteous reply.

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

I think ( at least for me) the issue is a desire for a determination of better or best. I have never considered the tool as being more important than the artist. If we want to look at what tool is better suited to solve a technical challenge then that would be different. I think you presented this by showing that the longer reach of your camera solved the problem of photographing an item that was at a significant distance.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I'll still take my ol dslr or mirrorless over a super zoom bridge...they (super zoom bridges) just don't suit my shooting style...I'd rather have a bright lens (f/2 or less) on the wide end...you may have been better off not zooming in quite so much, and cropping in a bit during the PP to help eliminate some of the camera shake.

olcoach Loc: Oregon

There are more than a few examples of a fine photographer picking up a point and shoot and taking some excellent shots. If you take an expert and give him a tool that is not the best he is still going to do some fine work. As a wise man said,"It ain't the fiddle, it's the fiddler.", and that's still very true.

ncshutterbug

Of course, you don't normally look at a photo with your nose pressed up against it unless you are nearly blind, in which case you won't see the noise anyway. Some famous photographer (can't remember who), in lecturing about post processing, said NEVER look at your photos any larger than 1:1 ratio or you will always hate your work. Any larger is not natural and unless you are blowing it up for a billboard you don't need to see it any larger to produce a very good photo. I don't like looking at the download versions because it's too tempting to look ultra close. If you're not printing that large it serves no purpose. I don't expect to blow anything up any larger than my 21" computer screen.