The Bridge to Boredom (Page 2): It tends to happen most in foliage shots, Ron ... but it could happen with other things, too ... roofs, clouds, pebbles, etc. When I noticed the same...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

SX2002 wrote:

Thanks Chris, as I said, never heard anyone even talking about it and certainly never had anything like that from any of my cameras...

Cheers, Ron.

It tends to happen most in foliage shots, Ron ... but it could happen with other things, too ... roofs, clouds, pebbles, etc.

When I noticed the same thing on shots made from DSLRs, as on shots made from bridges, it suddenly occurred to me I might have closed the door on the latter, prematurely ....

tdekany Loc: Oregon

ChrisT wrote:

Tom ... are you saying bridge cameras are NOT convenient?

They are so very light and compact ... and have extensive zoom ranges ...

Many of them are almost as light as I-Phones ....

Many can even be shoved into a waist-pak, or put in a purse ...

That's not convenient?

Remember that most people want to instantly post their lunch picture. Try doing that with a bridge camera.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

ChrisT wrote:

Are you telling me a Smartphone can produce a better picture than a bridge camera, RG?

I find that hard to believe ....

Some bridges can shoot wide to 20mm ... and then zoom out to 1200mm ... some go to 1440 ... one even goes to 2000mm

When can a Smartphone EVER accomplish this kind of range?

Within it's limitations the cellphone can produce an excellent photograph. The composition can not necessarily be good unless the person taking the picture takes the time to actually produce a composition. As far as the attempts to put two lenses, or even a zoom lense, on a cellphone would be and is very difficult. The cellphone is more of a social media tool of instant gratification - which is a lot of what the world is about these days. So why spend the money on a very expensive P&S or bridge camera? And why spend R&D producing that expensive P&S or bridge camera if no one will buy it? The camera manufactures do produce a clip on sensor, using WiFi and the cellphone as the viewfinder, that will take the DSLR lenses and therefore emulate bridge cameras. This requires less R&D since it uses existing technology. It is just the way the world is running right now.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

ChrisT wrote:

There's been no real advances in bridge cameras, n... (show quote)

The Nikon P900 is appealing. As for clumping, all I know about that is it describes a meal that didn't turn out right. : )

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

ChrisT wrote:

There's been no real advances in bridge cameras, n... (show quote)

Surely "Clumping" is to be expected occasionally (depending on type of photo) with long-range zooms - whether attached to a bridge camera or a DSLR.
Long range zooms first appeared on bridge cameras, simply because the lens was a permanent fixture. As their popularity increased, camera manufacturers started to produce longer - and longer - and longer range zoom lenses for DSLRs. The manufacturers were initially surprised that so many photogs would sacrifice IQ for the versitality of "one lens for everything"

jmvaugh Loc: Albuquerque

ChrisT wrote:

Tom ... are you saying bridge cameras are NOT convenient?

They are so very light and compact ... and have extensive zoom ranges ...

Many of them are almost as light as I-Phones ....

Many can even be shoved into a waist-pak, or put in a purse ...

That's not convenient?

Ok, true confessions time here. I have an iPhone 7 Plus in a holster on my hip from when I get up and dressed until I put it to recharge over night. I’m certainly not thrilled with its tiny sensor or tiny lenses, but it’s on my hip while I’m running, doing chores, riding, or driving (I absolutely don’t use my phone while driving). It’s there! When I’m walking or running in our neighborhood and I see a bird, a nest, a lizard sunning himself, a cactus bloom or whatever catches my eye, I’ll use my phone, while wishing I had my DSLR. Smartphone cameras have improved dramatically in the last few years so I just don’t feel the need for a bridge camera and I’m pretty sure I won’t ever. I’ll save my money for a crop or FF mirrorless as a travel camera in the future. But I think the market segment has disappeared for bridge cameras.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wdross wrote:

Within it's limitations the cellphone can produce ... (show quote)

Well, the world's mighty screwed up, then, in that case, WD - as even the most very basic bridge - will outperform a cellphone, any day!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

jmvaugh wrote:

Ok, true confessions time here. I have an iPhone 7... (show quote)

Well, if that's the case, JM ... that's a damn shame!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

jerryc41 wrote:

The Nikon P900 is appealing. As for clumping, all I know about that is it describes a meal that didn't turn out right. : )

You got THAT right, Jerry ...

Where else could you get a 2000mm focal length lens for just $600?

Clumping - is when the detail in things like foliage, clouds, roofs, pebbles - is lost, and all you see is a quagmire ....

It happens more often with tiny-sensor bridge cameras than it does with larger-sensor DSLRs ... but, it still can happen with them, too ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Delderby wrote:

Surely "Clumping" is to be expected occa... (show quote)

And so they should've been, Delderby ... most folks don't care about mural-size prints ... they just want a good focal length range, and buying a bridge - gives them that, AND the convenience of never having to switch lenses ... and if they want prints - 4x6 will cut it ... that's all it's about ... and now - it seems like the market has had the rug pulled out from under ... it's quite disappointing!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

ChrisT wrote:

And so they should've been, Delderby ... most folks don't care about mural-size prints ... they just want a good focal length range, and buying a bridge - gives them that, AND the convenience of never having to switch lenses ... and if they want prints - 4x6 will cut it ... that's all it's about ... and now - it seems like the market has had the rug pulled out from under ... it's quite disappointing!

Well - it seems that plenty of photogs with DSLRs no longer change their lenses. What those guys now have is what a bridge gives them EXCEPT that they can choose their camera / lens combination. About 18 months ago I went through a phase of shying away from any zoom with a bigger range than about 3x. As a result I have three lenses - 14-45, 35-100, 45-150 (2x crop). I bought the middle one last for it's tiny size (it is collapsible), and seems to do most of what I need. It guess it gives a better IQ than a super - zoom, but I realise those big zooms are getting better and better.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

BHC wrote:

No! How much does it weigh? AND br br Per https... (show quote)

The term I always used prior to "bridge camera" was "Long Zoom" - which separated the bridge which employs a "Long Zoom" fixed lens - from the "Superzoom" - which I always thought, applied to an ultra-long zoom lens for a DSLR. Now, I understand - all three terms are used almost interchangeably ... which somewhat adds to the confusion surrounding them ....

I think a better definition of a Bridge Camera - is one that is, in size, and look - every bit the same as a smaller DSLR - with the only differences being a) the ultra-small sensor - typically 1/2.3" and b) a fixed zoom lens - usually, in the 30x to 60x region. (Using 24mm as the average start-point, acknowledging some may be 20, 21, 22.5, 25, 27, or 30mm.)

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Delderby wrote:

Well - it seems that plenty of photogs with DSLRs ... (show quote)

Delderby ... "guess it gives a better IQ than a super - zoom" ... that's kinda vague, isn't it?

To which "superzoom" - does this comment pertain?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

ChrisT wrote:

Delderby ... "guess it gives a better IQ than a super - zoom" ... that's kinda vague, isn't it?

To which "superzoom" - does this comment pertain?

Well - perhaps I should have said any super-zoom? - but I did say "guess" - as I had only reviews to go by. Having said that - the reviews for my lumix 35-100 collapsible seemed better than those for super-zooms at the time I bought it.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Delderby wrote:

Well - perhaps I should have said any super-zoom? - but I did say "guess" - as I had only reviews to go by. Having said that - the reviews for my lumix 35-100 collapsible seemed better than those for super-zooms at the time I bought it.

See, now ... this underlines the need for a better definition of "superzoom" - which I understand, now - as being dual-purpose ...
meaning - it applies both to bridge cameras, and to longer-range zooms for DSLRs ... both of which - are represented by uncountable items, Delderby ....