trapper1 Loc: Southside Virginia

I was in the process of deciding which Nikon 300 mm or greater lens to buy and learn how to use prior to the upcoming north-bound migration of birds staging on our local river. I saw an ad on UHH for a bridge camera that offered reach far in excess of even 500mm. The question came to me as to why I, as a newbie, was considering a heavy DSLR tele lens when there are a slew of bridge cameras with vastly superior range at much less weight and much less cost than any similar DSLR lens. I understand a DSLR gives far greater flexibility for creative talents than any bridge camera can provide but for a newbie such as I, it appears that the bridge cameras could easily handle most of the shots I take on my DSLR. The bridge cameras now seem to have most of the capabilities formerly available only on DSLR camera with appropriate lens with the exception of macro. Would appreciate considered opinions on this issue. Trolls need not respond, save your put-downs for other websites.

Quixdraw Loc: x

They are what they are - you might be delighted with them. Coming from many decades of using nearly everything film, then to DSLR since '04, I bought a P 900. Dark / small finder, slow AF. Photos not sharp. Used it heavily and kept it for a week then returned it. There are excellent photographers here who swear by them. It is all about getting results YOU like. Best of luck on your purchase.

jdtonkinson Loc: Red Wing, MN

I'm not an expert. As Quickdraw says it depends on what kind of photography you do and you budget.

I purchased a Nikon P950 bridge camera in June. Primarily I do bird photography, and wanted the long zoom range.
I have enjoyed the camera. I have been able to take photos that please me. It has a bird scene mode that works well. If you skip auto or bird scene mode you can utilize raw.

I have been able to capture birds that I can barely see with my eye.
Down-sides
Small sensor size limits low-light captures.
The viewfinder is better than the p900, plus the lcd rotates nicely.

Currently my camera is at Nikon being repaired after failing.

Good luck with your choice

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The equivalent focal length of a smaller sensor camera is achieved by cropping the image in the camera. Smaller lighter optics with shorter focal lengths that only need to cover tiny 1" and smaller sensors give the illusion of longer focal length. It's really not that different than cropping in post processing from a compositional point of view.

However, the number of pixels in a bridge camera, now at 20 mp give or take - presents a challenge when making a print - a tiny sensor needs to be magnified considerably more than a full frame or even a crop sensor camera, to make a print, and in doing so image quality can suffer - noisy, pixelated images can result.

At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a free lunch. An image taken with a camera with a 1" sensor and a 220 mm lens will give you the angle of view of a 600mm lens on a full frame camera, but make no mistake about it - the full frame will provide a vastly superior image on all counts. They are, and probably never will, be equivalent.

I use a D810 and a range of lenses up to 600mm, and a Sony RX10M4 which has a lens that has equivalent angle of view of 24-600mm.

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

As a senior, this was my experience. Watch out for the "shakes" with the high-mag bridge, just sayin'...

Al Freeedman

Trapper,

As a professional photographer for several years, I've owned cameras of every description.
Now that I'm 86 years old I couldn't think about not owning a camera.
I purchased a Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 bridge camera. Has more features then I will ever use.
Has a very sharp Leica lens with a range of 24MM to 720 MM. And if I'm not mistaken, B & H Photo
had them on sale during the holidays for $299.00. A great buy for a great camera.

Captain Al

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I usually do not shoot bridge camera's. (long story) But I have owned and used the Sony HX400V bridge camera, it comes with a Carl Zeiss 24-1200 mm lens and is capable of shooting very sharp images. At about $450.00, it will not put you out much.
Another Sony bridge camera worth noting is the Sony RX10, a carl zeiss 24-600 mm camera and comes in at a about $1700.00.
A bridge is not an ideal camera for birds in flight. They would be fine for landscape and birds sitting.
I would not make a major investment in any bridge camera as technology is rapidly changing and all digital camera's are getting better and better as time goes on.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
The shot below was taken with a very compact Sony HX99, has a carl zeiss 24-750 mm lens and comes in at a price of about $475.00. It is not a bridge but a compact and has a viewfinder.

gessman Loc: Colorado

It is as everyone here has said, if you want to print small you might like the results. Moving targets can be a challenge as avoiding shake at long distances can be which can also be true with long dslr lens but you can also pop a bridge onto a tri- or mono-pod and use a remote trigger to add the stability you lose otherwise. If you just want to view your images on a computer, you may be happy with what you get from a bridge camera depending on which one you use. Probably the top bridge right now is the Sony RX10iv with its 1" sensor 24-600mm equiv lens, 20 megapixel and Sony's patented Clear Image Zoom, a form of artificial intelligence that lets you double the long end of the zoom to 1200mm effective range at the cost of not being able to shoot raw which you may not be interested in anyway. The RX also does 4k video if that interests you.

I did a comparison of a Canon 20 megapixel full frame vs. a Canon bridge SX50hs with a much smaller sensor than the RX10 and only 12 megapixels to see how they compared in uhh. The thread is at: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-263145-1.html

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

They do work, some much better than others, bigger sensor is better, for me, anything above 25-30X "really needs tripod" or some firm placement, even with vibration compensation, and above 50X is "crap shoot" territory (may/may not be successful). If you're not printing or viewing anything large, you may be happy. My suggestion is try before you buy, or buy where you can return if not happy.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Great example set......should give the OP something to think about!

WarpedWeaver

After a long vacation from photography (besides what I would call "snaps") working long hours and raising a family, I got into digital with a Nikon bridge camera. It offered quite a few nice features and did give me some creative control, but I outgrew its capabilities within 2 years and purchased a Fujifilm XT-2. This was several years ago and I am sure bridge cameras have improved. I am not sorry that I had the bridge camera as it was a good learning experience and gave me a good idea of what I would want in a DSLR or mirrorless camera.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Something else to consider to have coverage without the extreme expense of a dslr and an ultra long lens is to have a dslr and a moderate long lens and a bridge with you and when the dslr won't reach, use the bridge for those lessor quality but must get shots. My longest dslr lens is 400mm while the sx50hs reaches out to 1200mm effective and being retired, a hobbyist not overloaded with throwaway cash, I'm good with this setup. I keep the sx50hs in the car with me at all times and take it with my dslr when a wildlife opportunity presents.

gessman Loc: Colorado

You can pick up a full frame Canon 5dM2 or a crop sensor 7dM1 or M2 for around $500, a 400mm f/5.6 lens for $600 which will give you coverage for a lot of wildlife shots and a sx50, 60, or 70 used for around $200 for the longer shots and have pretty good coverage for a hobbyist.

alexol

A slightly different view for the OP, who clearly states "newbie" status.

A full-blown full frame DSLR with say 200-500 zoom or fixed focal length lenses will definitely yield better results, providing you know what you are doing. They will also cost serious money - a friend has more money in three lenses and two camera bodies than I have in my BMW car.

As a "newbie" are you sure that this is the way you want to go? Absolutely SURE you are going to enjoy the results enough to justify the expense? Ready to spend the time learning? What happens if you spend serious money and decide this really isn't for you, for whatever reason?

A major advantage of a bridge, at least to start with, is that you will gain experience and learn a lot for VERY much lower cost.

If you fall in love with "long distance photography", BIF etc., them buy the fancy gear.

If you were to buy say the RX10 and resell it after a few months, you'd only lose $200-400. Doing the same with a DSLR would be much more expensive.

Personally, I cheat: for those rare occasions when I want a long lens I have an RX10, and it happens to work remarkably for other occasions too. An RX100 for wide angles and pocketability, and an 850 which I really ought to sell as I almost never use it - but then I'm definitely not any form of serious photographer.

Of course, YMMV...

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Two thoughts: Do you have a back up camera? If not, buying a Bridge camera would give you that important feature. Plus the great reach of its lens is there for when you really need it.

Thought #2: Why not order a good bridge camera from a realiable source and try it for 30 days?! If you find it not to your liking, simply return it. That is enough of a time limit so that you should be able to make a final decision on a Bridge camera.

Getting a new camera, or lens, is fun. Have fun making your choice. And then use it is good heath.