wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

All good points but, dynamic range has been a continual issue with digital cameras. Moving from my very capable FZ28 to the D5100 will give me 3+ more stops of dynamic range. That's a difference that I can appreciate.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Not disagreeing with you, but how precise is your focusing control? My camera was a 2005 model, so things may have improved. The autofocus was good and fast, but it could get thrown off in certain situations (as can autofocus on a DSLR), and if I wanted precise control, it just wasn't there. Now, all I have to do is flick a switch on the lens barrel and I have complete control over focus, and the speed depends on how good I am.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

You had to push a switch on the lens barrel to Manual, then twist a ring. It popped an enlargement window, and you moved the ring until it was in focus. It was slow and just a painful process, and didn't work worth a darn.

dickhrm Loc: Spingfield, IL

I'm not interested in changing lenses, however I do want a camera with a viewfinder that sees thru the lens, i.e., so that what you see is what you get in the pic, no more, no less, like my old SLR film camera. Do the so called bridge cameras normally have this feature? Thanks.

cameranut Loc: North Carolina

The pros of my Canon 20x is that it is light, easy to carry & it's all in one without having to change lens. It also has a very good pp. software called Zoombrowzer. I can adjust brightness, saturation, contrast. I can also use the sharp/unsharp tool, adjust color, levels, etc. Shoot b&w, sepia, b&w with touch of color, etc. & too many other options to mention. It is easy to change iso, shutter speed, aperture, exposure comp. etc. The cons: It will never deliver the same image quality as a dslr with the larger sensor. Also, not good for birds in flight. If you are zoomed out to the full 20x optical, a large bird (Great Blue Heron) flying at 15 mph. or whatever speed they fly at, will look like a gnat flying at 190mph. through your veiwfinder. It all depends on what you are going to be shooting. Whatever you decide to do, buy from a reputable company such as B&H photo. You can always return an item if you don't like it. It's not as if you're signing a lifetime contract written in blood. If you do decide on a bridge camera, always use optical zoom, never digital, then crop for best image quality.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

I personally think there are many instances where a bridge camera is preferable to a DSLR. For one thing, the deep depth of field of bridge cameras might be advantageous for technical photography (product manuals, circuit boards, medical procedures, etc), where everything should be in focus, or in candid street photography, where one might not have time to focus exactly on the main subject. They are also cost effective and discreet tools for law enforcement/surveillance use or for papparazis shooting "spy" shots for supermarket tabloids. Needless to say, it hurts less in the wallet if Paris Hilton's body guard trashes a $400.00 bridge camera than a $4000.00 pro DSLR

Photo One Loc: Clearwater Florida

Hey Greggie, I don't care what camera or lens you buy, it's your money. The biggest mistake you will be making however, is buying it from RITZ CAMERA!!!!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

My goodness, you are so much more blunt than I am. Hooray. I agree with you totally!

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Just curious, why do you think that a bridge camera in autofocus mode focuses faster or more accurately than autofocus with a DSLR?

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Yes. That's one of the features that separates them from the Point & Shoot category.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Boy, I could not disagree more strongly!

Show me images taken with a bridge camera of a falcon in a high speed dive, or a bee in flight and not just hovering up against a flower... The list will be endless for fast moving opportunities that need an instant reaction.

How is this done? By practice, practice and even more practice, if we do not put our foot in the water it will never get wet. If there is a chance that someone wants to take these types of images, then why, why the hecky thump would ANYONE advise these folks to buy a bridge camera? Why not scrimp and save to buy a budget entry DSLR, why buy something that is possibly not suited to the role we specifically want it to perform? My only concern will be cameras that do not have a focussing motor for the lens. Is this a big issue?

If we want to take action snaps of wild creatures then surely the DSLR should be the camera of choice and the only way to master this skill is by jumping in and maybe making a complete fool of ourselves for the first few dozen attempts!

I am NOT anti bridge camera and if I were ever able to go away on holiday, then it would be probably my camera of choice as opposed to carrying around three tonne of DSLR equipment!! okay a slight exaggeration, perhaps only two tonne! :twisted:

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Apparently you didn't see that the author has already posted that the convenience of a bridge camera, no extra lens to buy, and the functions it is actually good at is what he's looking for. He wants to take landscapes, birds, and animals but he didn't say he wanted to catch them in action (not that landscapes can fly or run). My assessment that he is a beginner not really interested in freezing hummingbird wings was apparently correct.

I also stated in the same post (that you abbreviated) that bridge cameras are NOT the best choice for freezing action of any kind, so I'm aware of that - although I have seen shots of flying birds, sports games, and such on here that came from Canon SX30 and SX40 bridge units.

I recommended he get started with a bridge which as a beginner means he'll likely use auto for a while until he gets curious and start wondering and asking about manual functions. Then when he understands the theory of photography at least a little bit, and how to use manual, he can go ahead and buy an entry-level dSLR and keep the bridge as a backup. Meanwhile neither he or we know whether or not he will reach that point in his hobby and interest in photography.

I didn't think it was prudent to recommend that he MUST spend $800+ on a new dSLR and buy a second expensive lens on a limited budget when he can first experiment and learn on a $400 convenient small camera that can provide excellent results - except in the high speed action situations you mentioned. :shock:

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

RMM, I never implied that a bridge camera focused faster on auto than a DSLR, but rather that with the wide depth of field, you are more likely to get your main subject in focus if you don't have time to aim the camera properly or you make a mistake. this is especially true if you use the bridge camera on aperture priority and stop the lens down at least halfway, upping the iso to 400, if needed. You can argue this point from here to Yugoslavia, but you can't deny how cost-effective today's bridge cameras are. Even many DSLR/kit lens users choose to buy a bridge camera, rather than a bag of expensive, heavy lenses for their DSLR body

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Hi Marco,
I highlighted the main point I disagreed with and saw little point in copying the other wise words.

I think we all agree there is a place for the bridge camera but is it perhaps reckless to suggest it has a future? How does it compare with the very latest smaller digital cameras? I have NEVER taken a picture of a humming bird in my life but I have taken pictures of foxes, badgers, peregrines, buzzards and lots and lots of other creatures that have come into my garden. At this moment in time the DSLR is king in this regard and the bridge camera perhaps NOT very good at all. The DSLR will broaden the horizons and I just feel it is wrong to suggest the first rung on the learning curve should be the bridge camera. It does not offer that much and my wife and children will sometimes pick up my camera to take a quick picture, they have NO experience at all, yet they seem to manage.

Regarding any type of hobby I have done exactly the same thing as quite a few other folks and that is wasting my hard earned cash. I have tended to try and buy the cheapest available piece of kit in the hope it will perform as advertised, or as reviewed in numerous magazines. Unfortunately in my World this has never worked and I end up cursing myself for wasting 'x' amount of £'s and I then have to go out and buy the proper piece of kit having wasted all that money.

If the OP has no intention of taking images of these moving objects including possibly fast moving cars, or low flying aircraft then without doubt the bridge camera is worth looking at but how much better is it compared to the modern smaller and cheaper digital cameras? My son has the very latest all singing all dancing mobile phone and the pictures that thing takes are amazing (including HDR) I am NOT saying get a mobile phone camera, I am saying are bridge cameras that much better than the smaller offerings from the likes of Sony? Is the OP CERTAIN they will not want to take snaps of something that might suddenly appear in view but only for a few fleeting seconds??

I have no idea how much a budget DSLR would cost with a suitable lens but is second-hand kit an option? There will always be folks selling excellent budget type cameras at bargain prices.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Hello Greggie

I have read most of the posts but let make a suggestion on a camera that my work for you it’s a Canon GX1 it does cost a little more than a D-SLR check the site out below.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x