"bridge cameras"?

This forum is for the discussion of photographic equipment used to photograph fish, tackle and flies. Please share with us what you use to do this.

Moderators: fishnbanjo, Ken M 44

Post Reply
richardawalker
Sport
Posts: 92
Joined: 06/03/16 20:21

"bridge cameras"?

#1

Post by richardawalker »

Hi All,
anyone have any experience with the bridge type digital cameras? These are between the point and shoot cameras and the DSLR's. The idea of a 50 or 60X zoom is intriguing.
Richard

User avatar
BrownBear
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/23/14 09:50

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#2

Post by BrownBear »

I've been around them, but never owned one. From what I've seen all those X's are achieved with considerable lens extension and the lenses are especially prone to damage from knocks while extended. My wife's cousin has one (don't recall the brand or model) that she's particularly fond of, but has had to repair/replace 3 times due to damage. Image quality was great, though AF seemed slow in my single experience using it.

PYochim
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5813
Joined: 12/23/07 19:00
Location: Currently Bozeman MT

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#3

Post by PYochim »

Generally speaking, the bridge cameras do a lot of things, but not any one thing exceptionally well. The range of focal lengths is pretty wide but that is accomplished by digital rather than optical zoom in most cases.

The Sony RX-10 series are excellent bridge cameras.

User avatar
Eric Peper
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2413
Joined: 08/06/07 18:00
Location: Island Park, ID & Austin, TX

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#4

Post by Eric Peper »

I've owned a Nikon CoolPix P500 (36X optical zoom, and I NEVER use the digital zoom) for several years and several thousand exposures. I think the quality of the pictures is excellent, and the ease of use is similarly excellent. The principal benefit after ease of use is it's fast to bring into action versus a DSLR for example. I don't think the quality it produces is as good as my NIkon DSLR, but it sure ain't bad.

Eric
A mountain is a fact -- a trout is a moment of beauty known only to men who seek them
Al McClane in his Introduction to The Practical Fly Fisherman . . . often erroneously attributed to Arnold Gingrich

richardawalker
Sport
Posts: 92
Joined: 06/03/16 20:21

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#5

Post by richardawalker »

Wow! I had forgotten about this thread.
I ended up getting a Panasonic FZ-80, which has a 1200mm optical zoom and can digitally double that.
As was stated above, if I use the digital zoom, the image degrades some, but overall the image quality is great. I even had a couple of 20 X 30 prints made from non-digitally zoomed images and the sharpness is very good.
I got it for taking pictures of birds so I could ID them when I got home. So there are many times when I am using all the zoom I can get. A tripod really helps get everything out of it.
I think I've taken about 3500 pictures in the 8 or 9 months I've had it. Sure couldn't do that back in the film days!

User avatar
DrLogik
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2880
Joined: 12/20/04 19:00
Location: The Piedmont region in NC
Contact:

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#6

Post by DrLogik »

I have a 7 or 8 year old Nikon DSLR as well as an Olympus Tough Stylus. I got the Olympus for backcountry fishing and backpacking because, well, it's tough and waterproof. The photo quality is exceptional and rivals my Nikon.

I used to backpack and fly fish with my old Nikormat EL 35mm film camera and lenses. After that I got a used Mamiya RB67 120 medium format camera. I took it on two trips and stuck it on a shelf. It hasn't moved since.

What these new generation of portable digital cameras can do is impressive and I absolutely love my Olympus. Unless you're willing to spend in to the $2,000+ dollar range for a DSLR, the photo quality from a medium level digital "bridge" camera will be very close in quality. Plus, none of the DSLRs are waterproof that I know of.

And agree with richardawalker about not needing film. I carry a couple extra memory drive chips and an extra set of lithium batteries and all of that still weighs a lot less than my DSLR.

I will admit though, I do miss those days back in the 1970's and 80's when I took 5 or 6 rolls of film when backpacking across the Smokies....and the anticipation of how the black & white photos would turn out in my home darkroom.

richardawalker
Sport
Posts: 92
Joined: 06/03/16 20:21

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#7

Post by richardawalker »

Dr Logik!
I remember the film days with such fond memories.
When Comet Hale-Bopp was in the sky, I would shoot a rool of film each clear night/very early morning, then drop it off for processing on the way into work and pick it up after, opening the envelope as I walked to the cashier!
You just never knew which one was going to be "the shot".
In my job at a planetarium, I had 70 Kodak slide projectors in my dome, and when I produced a new show, it typically took 20 rolls of slide film.
Now, all they do is plug in a hard drive and press play.
We had a 120 film camera, but I could never did try it out.

Outdoor144
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 03/12/21 13:41

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#8

Post by Outdoor144 »

I realize this post was from last June but I needed to comment. I have never had a "bridge" camera and the closest I have had is my iPhone. I have Nikons, an F4 film camera and two DSLRs. My DSLR's are from 2005 and at the time the D200 was considered a semi pro camera. Magnesium frame fully gasketed to keep sand and debris out. The D200 can be had for $100 with a lens. It will perform side by Side with any DSLR or Bridge type cameras. Reason for this post is you don't need a $2000 camera to shoot great pictures but you may need more exposure control than a Bridge camera offers.

GerardH
Master Guide
Posts: 471
Joined: 06/20/19 08:45
Location: Wyoming, MN

Re: "bridge cameras"?

#9

Post by GerardH »

Outdoor144 wrote:
03/12/21 17:48
I realize this post was from last June but I needed to comment. I have never had a "bridge" camera and the closest I have had is my iPhone. I have Nikons, an F4 film camera and two DSLRs. My DSLR's are from 2005 and at the time the D200 was considered a semi pro camera. Magnesium frame fully gasketed to keep sand and debris out. The D200 can be had for $100 with a lens. It will perform side by Side with any DSLR or Bridge type cameras. Reason for this post is you don't need a $2000 camera to shoot great pictures but you may need more exposure control than a Bridge camera offers.
I bought an old beat-up D200 from a friend for my daughter about 5 years ago and I have to say, I was extremely impressed with the images it produced. It also has a focus motor, so it brought a lot of legacy AF Nikkor glass back to life. So I agree with much of the above...however (you knew that was coming), the LCD screen is small and only capable of a couple levels of enlargement, plus the ISO is rather limited. A used D7000 with low shutter actuations replaced it a couple of Christmases ago, but to your point -- I don't think the D7K's performance is leaps & bounds better all things equal. The D200 still outshoots a camera phone by a huge margin and with its larger sensor and quality glass availability, it's still capable of producing better images than bridge cameras. I also shoot a 9 y/o D7000 & a D5100, I really don't believe these cameras will become obsolete except some of the newer AF-P Nikkor lenses aren't fully compatible with these older models.

Post Reply

Return to “Photography”