Is a bridge camera any good?

collinssimon38

Prominent
Oct 4, 2017
1
0
510
0
I'm looking for advice, my wife enjoys taking pictures and is good at it aswell (not being basis) but she only has her phone and a cheap digital camera at the moment but I want to get her a professional one, what I would like to know is should I get her a bridge camera first or just go head first into a high price professional one
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator
I have a bridge....Fuji HS-10.
When I bought it in 2010 for ~$350, it was great. Or so I thought.

Moving up to a Fuji X-T1 mirrorless was eye opening. Much better across all lighting regimes.
Of course more $$$, but well worth it.

A recent DSLR or mirrorless gives you the option of adding on. New lenses, etc.
A bridge camera is pretty much set as it is.

A bridge is pretty much a small point and shoot sensor, in the body the size of a DSLR, and with some manual features close to a DSLR.

The sensor size between a bridge and a DSLR/mirrorless is more than just "bigger". It can be 10 times bigger.

And a DSLR does not have to be uber expensive.
 

bjornl

Estimable
Mar 16, 2016
399
0
3,060
156
Bridge cameras can be ok. Sony and Panasonic make good ones. They aren't as good as a DSLR because their sensor size are smaller and their lens (while very flexible) is optically only "ok" because all-in-ones have to make compromises.

The thing about bridge cameras is they are for wide to long. If your wife enjoys that, then it might make sense. If she takes photos of landscapes, flowers and such then a camera with a long lens is just paying extra for a more compromised lens.

DSLRs remain the best at photos, but they can be off-putting to new users to their bulk, weight, cost and the need to change lenses to get the perfect shot. But they produce the best results once you master them. I am not very sensitive to weight and so I sometimes lug about 4-5 lenses (with a similar amount n the trunk, in case I change my mind about what I want to shoot), a camera body or two, and maybe a tripod or some lights. It adds up. Cost, weight, inconvenience, and so on.
If you want to split the difference, the m4/3 line up is not as good as a DSLR but better than any bridge camera. The cost won't be much less but they tend to weigh a little less and because the sensor is smaller, the bodies and lens are a little smaller. Quality optics are fewer to chose between. You can't get the same very thin depth of field a DSLR can. But they can do a very good job.
Alternately you can get a smaller pocket camera with a larger sensor which will then split the difference between m4/3 and the cellphone. The good ones are costly, but they make models which can fit in a purse.
Talk it over with her and I can give you some pointers on what to look at in the category she likes.
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator
I have a bridge....Fuji HS-10.
When I bought it in 2010 for ~$350, it was great. Or so I thought.

Moving up to a Fuji X-T1 mirrorless was eye opening. Much better across all lighting regimes.
Of course more $$$, but well worth it.

A recent DSLR or mirrorless gives you the option of adding on. New lenses, etc.
A bridge camera is pretty much set as it is.

A bridge is pretty much a small point and shoot sensor, in the body the size of a DSLR, and with some manual features close to a DSLR.

The sensor size between a bridge and a DSLR/mirrorless is more than just "bigger". It can be 10 times bigger.

And a DSLR does not have to be uber expensive.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 0
RobotLizard Digital Cameras 4
S Digital Cameras 2
O Digital Cameras 10
seancaptain Digital Cameras 4
J Digital Cameras 1
theturtles Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 4
G Digital Cameras 0
tomsguideUS Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 12
seancaptain Digital Cameras 3
N Digital Cameras 3
D Digital Cameras 1
M Digital Cameras 2
M Digital Cameras 1
R Digital Cameras 3
M Digital Cameras 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY