DSLR vs Bridge Camera for my needs

[Machale.luke]

Hello, I am trying to get into photography but I cannot seem to decide which (a dslr or a bridge camera) is righr for both my uses and my needs. Here they are:

-night photography (mostly landscapes with stars)
-night exposures
-landscapes
-macro
-occasional animal shot or moon shot

-need a viewfinder
-only going to post on social media and print smalls occasionally
-under 500 for camera and a lens of dslr

I know a tripod is a must for the night photography, so discount that factor.
Based on my needs and uses which style of camera would you recommend?
Thanks in advance!!

 

[jaomul]

Dslr, simply because in your price range you won't get a bridge camera that would do any way as well in night scenes as a similar priced dslr.

Printing small does take a little pressure off the quality needed. I suggest you look at a Nikon d3200 possibly body only and something like a sigma or tamron 17-50 f2.8

 

[TCampbell]

When you use a bridge camera, the lens is a built-in feature of the camera. When you use a DSLR, the lens is removable.

For night photography, you're going to want to take very long exposures and you'll need a camera with "bulb" mode. You also need a camera and lens that can be manually focused because the auto-focus system will not be helpful when attempting to focus stars. You will probably want a steady tripod. The camera should support being controlled via a remote shutter release (many cameras can use an IR wireless release but I've noticed that this often isn't possible in "bulb" mode. But it is possible when using a "wired" remote release. It may also be possible to link the camera to a computer to perform "tethered" shooting (usually via a USB cable.)

Unrelated to the camera ... if you want to take long exposures of the night sky, keep in mind that the sky is constantly moving (well... more accurately the Earth is constantly moving.) This creates a challenge for very long night sky images. Stars will begin to elongate and form a "tail" as the Earth rotates. The amount of time you can exposure before this happens depends on the focal length of the camera lens and the size of the camera's imaging sensor (even with a large sensor camera and a very wide angle lens you are usually limited to less than 45 seconds. With smaller sensors and longer lenses it may just be a few seconds.) To get around this, the camera can be piggy-backed on a tracking telescope (telescope must be mounted to an equatorial mount or a "wedge") -or- you can use a "tracking" head attached to a regular camera tripod (iOptron SkyTracker, Vixen Polarie, AstroTrac, or Losmandy StarLapse). The iOptron and Vixen trackers are in the sub-$500 category. The AstronTrac and Losmandy StarLapse are in the above-$500 category. The most stunning night-sky photographs typically involve at least two exposures... one (or more) long exposures for the landscape on a non-tracking shot -- and one or more long-exposures of the sky with camera attached to a tracking mount.

For landscapes, either camera would work fine.

Macro is a tricky one because it depends on what you have in mind when you think of "macro". Most bridge cameras can do some "close up" photography -- to some degree. But what a manufacturer will label as "macro" might be 1:3 scale or even 1:4 scale. You can get a "true" macro lens with for a DSLR which can provide 1:1 scale (1:1 scale means the size of the object projected internally onto the camera's imaging sensor is as large as the object is in real-life. If we use a US penny as an example, it has a diameter of 19mm. The sensor on a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor is about 15mm x 22mm). This means a penny photographed at true 1:1 scale "macro" will not quite fit on the sensor in the vertical (short) direction and will only just barley fit in the horizontal (wide) direction with just a tiny bit of space to spare.

You can add a "close-up diopter" to the end of most any camera lens IF that lens has threads on the front. All DSLR lenses do have threads. But not all bridge cameras do (I have a camera that has a bayonet type mount on the front of it and they sell an adapter that attaches and then provides filter threads so I can attach filters such as a close-up diopter or a polarizer, etc.) Most close-up diopters have a degradation in image quality as you get farther from the center of the image.

You can also use something called "extension tubes" with a DSLR. You cannot get extension tubes for a bridge camera because it requires a removable lens to use it. The extension tubes mount between the camera body and lens and serve to position the entire lens farther away from the camera. This shifts the entire focusing range closer to the camera body and also enlarges the object being projected onto the sensor. There is no "glass" in an extension tube -- it is completely hollow (it does pass the electronic signals through between camera body and lens). Since there is no glass, it does not suffer the same degradation as a "close-up diopter" but since lenses are optimized for specific back-focus distance and you are pushing the detail resolving power of your lens, it's not quite as good as having a "true" macro lens.

Both "close-up diopters" and "extension tubes" are a low-cost way to get even closer to a subject. They cost less than buying a true macro lens -- but the true macro lens is more versatile and will ultimately deliver the best quality. The lens is truly optimized for close-up work.

Animal shots are possible with any camera, although having a very long lens is nice if the animals you are trying to photograph are shy and would be frightened away by your presence. Photographers use both bridge cameras and DSLR for animal photography.

Moon photography is also fairly easy with any camera though it is likely easier if you have a camera that allow you to manually set the exposure (which you should be able to do on either a bridge camera or DSLR) and also manually focus. The biggest problem with the moon is that you're typically shooting a very dark sky with the moon being the only bright thing. This tricks the camera into thinking that it needs to boost the exposure and as a result the moon is horribly over-exposed. You can take a photograph of the moon with any camera that allows for manual exposure by setting the f-stop (aperture) to f/11 and then set the shutter speed to the inverse of the ISO setting. E.g. at ISO 100 use 1/100th sec exposure. At ISO 200, use 1/200th sec exposure, etc. (this assume the moon is well-up in the sky and not near the horizon. You'll need a longer exposure if the moon is near the horizon.)

Another nice thing about DSLRs is that since the lenses are removable, you get buy (or rent) them over time. No need to buy everything all at once. The DSLR is more of a "system" rather than a camera with a fixed set of features.

A Canon T5 with kit lens (18-55mm) is about $400. A Nikon D3300 with ken lens is about $500. Both would work but there is a caveat of the Nikon in that it lacks "exposure simulation" when using the live-view screen. This is only an issue when focusing night-sky images. I had a group of Nikon shooters out at the observatory last year. They wanted to capture images of the moon through the telescope. The cameras kept over-boosting the live-view image (due to all the darkness in the sky) and this caused the moon to appear as a white blob. We couldn't focus it accurately. I ultimately compensated by running the telescope over to a star, putting a device called a "Bahtinov focusing mask" on the front of the telescope (which throws diffraction spikes that, when converged, indicate the telescope is accurately focused) and then running the telescope back over to the moon. Canon models do have exposure simulation so it was possible to just dial-down the moon brightness, focus, and shoot.

The downside of a DSLR and your $500 price tag is that while that will get you a camera and single 18-55mm kit lens (which is fine for landscapes) and night sky images (although it's nice to have a lower focal-ratio lens for night-sky images), as well as macro-shots (with a close-up diopter), but this won't give you anything for long focal-length shots (e.g. animals shot at a distance.) That would require purchasing or renting another lens.

I don't think it's possible to get "everything" you want all at once with a $500 budget. But a DSLR would let you have some of the things you want right away... and you'd be able to buy additional lenses for other things at some future date.

 

[Machale.luke]

When you use a bridge camera, the lens is a built-in feature of the camera. When you use a DSLR, the lens is removable.

For night photography, you're going to want to take very long exposures and you'll need a camera with "bulb" mode. You also need a camera and lens that can be manually focused because the auto-focus system will not be helpful when attempting to focus stars. You will probably want a steady tripod. The camera should support being controlled via a remote shutter release (many cameras can use an IR wireless release but I've noticed that this often isn't possible in "bulb" mode. But it is possible when using a "wired" remote release. It may also be possible to link the camera to a computer to perform "tethered" shooting (usually via a USB cable.)

Unrelated to the camera ... if you want to take long exposures of the night sky, keep in mind that the sky is constantly moving (well... more accurately the Earth is constantly moving.) This creates a challenge for very long night sky images. Stars will begin to elongate and form a "tail" as the Earth rotates. The amount of time you can exposure before this happens depends on the focal length of the camera lens and the size of the camera's imaging sensor (even with a large sensor camera and a very wide angle lens you are usually limited to less than 45 seconds. With smaller sensors and longer lenses it may just be a few seconds.) To get around this, the camera can be piggy-backed on a tracking telescope (telescope must be mounted to an equatorial mount or a "wedge") -or- you can use a "tracking" head attached to a regular camera tripod (iOptron SkyTracker, Vixen Polarie, AstroTrac, or Losmandy StarLapse). The iOptron and Vixen trackers are in the sub-$500 category. The AstronTrac and Losmandy StarLapse are in the above-$500 category. The most stunning night-sky photographs typically involve at least two exposures... one (or more) long exposures for the landscape on a non-tracking shot -- and one or more long-exposures of the sky with camera attached to a tracking mount.

For landscapes, either camera would work fine.

Macro is a tricky one because it depends on what you have in mind when you think of "macro". Most bridge cameras can do some "close up" photography -- to some degree. But what a manufacturer will label as "macro" might be 1:3 scale or even 1:4 scale. You can get a "true" macro lens with for a DSLR which can provide 1:1 scale (1:1 scale means the size of the object projected internally onto the camera's imaging sensor is as large as the object is in real-life. If we use a US penny as an example, it has a diameter of 19mm. The sensor on a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor is about 15mm x 22mm). This means a penny photographed at true 1:1 scale "macro" will not quite fit on the sensor in the vertical (short) direction and will only just barley fit in the horizontal (wide) direction with just a tiny bit of space to spare.

You can add a "close-up diopter" to the end of most any camera lens IF that lens has threads on the front. All DSLR lenses do have threads. But not all bridge cameras do (I have a camera that has a bayonet type mount on the front of it and they sell an adapter that attaches and then provides filter threads so I can attach filters such as a close-up diopter or a polarizer, etc.) Most close-up diopters have a degradation in image quality as you get farther from the center of the image.

You can also use something called "extension tubes" with a DSLR. You cannot get extension tubes for a bridge camera because it requires a removable lens to use it. The extension tubes mount between the camera body and lens and serve to position the entire lens farther away from the camera. This shifts the entire focusing range closer to the camera body and also enlarges the object being projected onto the sensor. There is no "glass" in an extension tube -- it is completely hollow (it does pass the electronic signals through between camera body and lens). Since there is no glass, it does not suffer the same degradation as a "close-up diopter" but since lenses are optimized for specific back-focus distance and you are pushing the detail resolving power of your lens, it's not quite as good as having a "true" macro lens.

Both "close-up diopters" and "extension tubes" are a low-cost way to get even closer to a subject. They cost less than buying a true macro lens -- but the true macro lens is more versatile and will ultimately deliver the best quality. The lens is truly optimized for close-up work.

Animal shots are possible with any camera, although having a very long lens is nice if the animals you are trying to photograph are shy and would be frightened away by your presence. Photographers use both bridge cameras and DSLR for animal photography.

Moon photography is also fairly easy with any camera though it is likely easier if you have a camera that allow you to manually set the exposure (which you should be able to do on either a bridge camera or DSLR) and also manually focus. The biggest problem with the moon is that you're typically shooting a very dark sky with the moon being the only bright thing. This tricks the camera into thinking that it needs to boost the exposure and as a result the moon is horribly over-exposed. You can take a photograph of the moon with any camera that allows for manual exposure by setting the f-stop (aperture) to f/11 and then set the shutter speed to the inverse of the ISO setting. E.g. at ISO 100 use 1/100th sec exposure. At ISO 200, use 1/200th sec exposure, etc. (this assume the moon is well-up in the sky and not near the horizon. You'll need a longer exposure if the moon is near the horizon.)

Another nice thing about DSLRs is that since the lenses are removable, you get buy (or rent) them over time. No need to buy everything all at once. The DSLR is more of a "system" rather than a camera with a fixed set of features.

A Canon T5 with kit lens (18-55mm) is about $400. A Nikon D3300 with ken lens is about $500. Both would work but there is a caveat of the Nikon in that it lacks "exposure simulation" when using the live-view screen. This is only an issue when focusing night-sky images. I had a group of Nikon shooters out at the observatory last year. They wanted to capture images of the moon through the telescope. The cameras kept over-boosting the live-view image (due to all the darkness in the sky) and this caused the moon to appear as a white blob. We couldn't focus it accurately. I ultimately compensated by running the telescope over to a star, putting a device called a "Bahtinov focusing mask" on the front of the telescope (which throws diffraction spikes that, when converged, indicate the telescope is accurately focused) and then running the telescope back over to the moon. Canon models do have exposure simulation so it was possible to just dial-down the moon brightness, focus, and shoot.

The downside of a DSLR and your $500 price tag is that while that will get you a camera and single 18-55mm kit lens (which is fine for landscapes) and night sky images (although it's nice to have a lower focal-ratio lens for night-sky images), as well as macro-shots (with a close-up diopter), but this won't give you anything for long focal-length shots (e.g. animals shot at a distance.) That would require purchasing or renting another lens.

I don't think it's possible to get "everything" you want all at once with a $500 budget. But a DSLR would let you have some of the things you want right away... and you'd be able to buy additional lenses for other things at some future date.

Thanks a ton!! I'll do some more research and decide soon on a dslr I think.

 

[soufiej]

Hello, I am trying to get into photography but I cannot seem to decide which (a dslr or a bridge camera) is righr for both my uses and my needs. Here they are:

-night photography (mostly landscapes with stars)
-night exposures
-landscapes
-macro
-occasional animal shot or moon shot

-need a viewfinder
-only going to post on social media and print smalls occasionally
-under 500 for camera and a lens of dslr

I know a tripod is a must for the night photography, so discount that factor.
Based on my needs and uses which style of camera would you recommend?
Thanks in advance!!

I am typically the outlier when it comes to DSLR vs other camera types. This forum tends to go with DSLR at minimum and I find that compacts, bridge, superzooms and other camera types and sizes can easily fit into the real world of desires and needs vs cost.

Two issues here though; first, you're asking for a lot of versatility in a less than $500 system and, second, your descriptions are still somewhat vague as to real world use. Additionally, what you foresee as your use may not turn out to be how you actually use the camera once it's in your hands. That last is rather common with any camera IMO. Every system is a series of trade offs; pros vs cons. I give you this and I take away that. Therefore, when you begin to realize where your camera shines, you also begin to realize where it falters. The more you actually use the camera, the less you lean towards those areas of photography where your camera has its greatest weaknesses.

At a $500 budget you are really at the low end of the DSLR range, if you are buying new. Your price range will get you a camera and a kit lens. Today's kit lens systems are somewhat better all around than those of years past but still generally a compromise meant to satisfy the broadest range of potential buyers. They still lack low light capability, macro detailing and zoom power. They are best in their midrange which is quite adequate for taking snaps of the kids or those vacation photos of ancient buildings. As a learning tool, they suffice and do so nicely. As an entry way into more serious photography, they exhibit their cons as often as their pros.

No doubt though, as a system from which to build, a DSLR offers more versatility than a bridge camera. This fact is simply due to the reality that you can change the lens and have a new camera system.

Here, IMO, it is important to keep in mind how a digital camera operates as "a system". Most modern digital cameras will make internal corrections for whichever lens has been mounted. Further adjustments can be made in post production. This is in large part how we have made the improvements in lens quality over the last decade. The lens screws up something and the digital systems of the camera make a correction. Generally speaking, the results are benign and go unnoticed at small print sizes. Think then of a DSLR's lens interchangeability as a set of chef's knives where every time you want to cut with one, the knife handle makes internal corrections to where your hand drives the blade.

IMO one of the advantages of a compact or bridge camera is the non-changeable lens system. The designer of the lens and the designer of the camera body know all there is to know about each other's design. The system is fixed and no variables need be accounted for. As a purpose built system, there is no guess work and no this-not-that with a single lens system camera. To be sure, nothing is as simple as it can be made to look on paper but I find the single lens systems to have some distinct advantages not found in a typical DSLR.

Moving to the next issue, your description of use. Night exposures? I don't know exactly what that entails. I assume from your other possible uses you might mean photography of static objects rather than moving targets. If so, a tripod will be your best answer here. Animal shots are broadly divided between those taken of kitty and poochy, those taken of animals in a confined environment such as a zoo or preserve and those where you head out to stalk wild game and uncooperative critters many of which can take flight to evade your gaze. Once again, if the animal is at rest, most any good camera system will suffice. If you want to capture fast moving animals, and certainly if they are moving rapidly in low light, you'll need more than your budget can handle. Even the lens for a DSLR well suited to such use would be above your price range if this were your actual need. Macro is also a very loose category as macro can easily be just a nice close shot with a minimum focusing distance on the lens or macro can be counting the elements of a bee's eyeball. Certainly, the latter is really above your pay grade in most DSLR's.

Finally, you really do have to handle a camera and determine where its pros and cons fall in your hands. Controls and control layouts make every camera different and even two cameras from the same manufacturer will have distinctions which make one more usable for you and not for me. And, in the end, if you shoot with a digital camera, you must do some post production processing. While larger sensors have the somewhat inherent benefit of greater light gathering for low light use, the camera remains a system and the lens and internal processing of the camera can make up some ground when combined with a smaller sensor.

Post production cropping to achieve a "macro look" can leave you with a less usable pixel count than a longer zoom or superior minimum distance focusing on the lens feeding a smaller sensor.

As you should be seeing, there is no one answer to your question since the real world use is what will determine the most suitable selection. Often there is no real way for even the potential buyer to state their actual use since the camera will, as I have suggested, determine what types of photography you favor with any camera system.

I'm going to link you to a few examples taken with a "superzoom" camera. This isn't meant to suggest you buy this camera, I simply have these in my bookmarks since this is one camera I do own. IMO they show the versatility of a compact bridge type camera. This is a category of camera that has seen some growth in numbers lately so there are more than a few good cameras of this type to choose from. As a note, if you buy refurbished or pre-owned, your costs can drop by a good margin. The SX50 is currently available from Canon's direct sales/refurbished at a typical price of around $200. Obviously, refurbished DSLR's also show up on Canon's site. And most major manufacturers have such sales constantly with a rotating stock based on what is available at any one time. Buying last year's technology can save you money if you determine the "advances" made in the model change are largely insignificant to you.

With that said, ...

Favorite Canon SX50 HS Photographs - tonybritton

SX50 beats all my DSLRs Backyard Birding with Kenn Temple

Animal Kingdom.... SX50 Canon PowerShot Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

SX50 with Raynox 150 Canon PowerShot Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

Just joined the Canon SX50 club with samples Canon PowerShot Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

These are all taken by real world users, not professionals with specialized "test gear" and under test conditions which are being tightly controlled.

As I mentioned, the superzoom category has grown somewhat in recent years. Here's a not-the-most-recent review of several; Best Superzoom 2014 Eight competitors 2.5 clear winners

To conclude this post, there is no one camera capable of doing everything with equal grace and taste. Most of us own more than one camera for just that reason. Somewhat similar to the collection of knives, each serves a purpose and each is used when most appropriate.

IMO your question simply cannot be which one is best but which one to begin with. The answer to that is quite easy; any one. Today's cameras are quite good and it would be difficult to go terribly wrong with any camera in your price range. Once you have the camera though, you will begin to see its strengths and weakness and you will adjust your expectations accordingly. And, in the end, it is more about you than it is the gear.

Two somewhat contrary views;

DPReview Gear of the Year Canon Rebel SL1 EOS 100D Digital Photography Review

Recommended Cameras

 

[Derrel]

A couple of simply fabulous responses here!!!!

 

[Raj_55555]

Having used both a bridge and a DSLR long enough to form an opinion on this, my advice for you would be to definitely get a decent bridge camera if you know that you can't invest in more lenses right away. It is beyond frustrating to miss shots because you didn't have enough reach.

I've used an SX50 for a very long time, and will agree with @soufiej on this. If you're learning on a budget, a bridge camera is as good as it gets. Night exposures are quite possible, I've taken some decent moon shots, landscapes, macros and a lot of animal shots. It has a viewfinder, and you can get a Raynox 250 attachment if you're serious about macros. The upgraded version SX60 is even better!
The only thing that I doubt it'll be able to achieve is the ability to capture stars and starry landscapes(I've never tried(, but given a decently lit environment a night exposure is definitely possible. I wanted to make a new thread for this, but I'll post it as an example for you:

I've done light paintings in moonless skies, and the results were pretty cool when you think that it's just a P&S and gives you a good idea of the things you can achieve if you work within the limits of the camera and put a little thought to it:

To conclude: Get a super-zoom bridge camera if you think you can't invest into this for the next year or so; get a DSLR if you think you can. I still use my SX50 for birding, even though I've invested a decent amount of money in camera gears. You can go through my recent thread where I've posted my work from both a DSLR and a bridge; could help you make up your mind. Learning to process your images properly will make a lot of difference.
I hope you choose wisely, and stick around to show us the results.

 

[Machale.luke]

Having used both a bridge and a DSLR long enough to form an opinion on this, my advice for you would be to definitely get a decent bridge camera if you know that you can't invest in more lenses right away. It is beyond frustrating to miss shots because you didn't have enough reach.

I've used an SX50 for a very long time, and will agree with @soufiej on this. If you're learning on a budget, a bridge camera is as good as it gets. Night exposures are quite possible, I've taken some decent moon shots, landscapes, macros and a lot of animal shots. It has a viewfinder, and you can get a Raynox 250 attachment if you're serious about macros. The upgraded version SX60 is even better!
The only thing that I doubt it'll be able to achieve is the ability to capture stars and starry landscapes(I've never tried(, but given a decently lit environment a night exposure is definitely possible. I wanted to make a new thread for this, but I'll post it as an example for you:

I've done light paintings in moonless skies, and the results were pretty cool when you think that it's just a P&S and gives you a good idea of the things you can achieve if you work within the limits of the camera and put a little thought to it:

To conclude: Get a super-zoom bridge camera if you think you can't invest into this for the next year or so; get a DSLR if you think you can. I still use my SX50 for birding, even though I've invested a decent amount of money in camera gears. You can go through my recent thread where I've posted my work from both a DSLR and a bridge; could help you make up your mind. Learning to process your images properly will make a lot of difference.
I hope you choose wisely, and stick around to show us the results.

Thanks for that point. I've been looking into the fujifilm hs35 exr and the nikon coolpix p610. Both are great it seems! However I must ask, is there any bridge camera that can do astrophotography? It's a favorite style of photography and I am really willing to invest into a dslr to just do those shots (say a nikon d300 or other)

 

[Machale.luke]

Hello, I am trying to get into photography but I cannot seem to decide which (a dslr or a bridge camera) is righr for both my uses and my needs. Here they are:

-night photography (mostly landscapes with stars)
-night exposures
-landscapes
-macro
-occasional animal shot or moon shot

-need a viewfinder
-only going to post on social media and print smalls occasionally
-under 500 for camera and a lens of dslr

I know a tripod is a must for the night photography, so discount that factor.
Based on my needs and uses which style of camera would you recommend?
Thanks in advance!!

I am typically the outlier when it comes to DSLR vs other camera types. This forum tends to go with DSLR at minimum and I find that compacts, bridge, superzooms and other camera types and sizes can easily fit into the real world of desires and needs vs cost.

Two issues here though; first, you're asking for a lot of versatility in a less than $500 system and, second, your descriptions are still somewhat vague as to real world use. Additionally, what you foresee as your use may not turn out to be how you actually use the camera once it's in your hands. That last is rather common with any camera IMO. Every system is a series of trade offs; pros vs cons. I give you this and I take away that. Therefore, when you begin to realize where your camera shines, you also begin to realize where it falters. The more you actually use the camera, the less you lean towards those areas of photography where your camera has its greatest weaknesses.

At a $500 budget you are really at the low end of the DSLR range, if you are buying new. Your price range will get you a camera and a kit lens. Today's kit lens systems are somewhat better all around than those of years past but still generally a compromise meant to satisfy the broadest range of potential buyers. They still lack low light capability, macro detailing and zoom power. They are best in their midrange which is quite adequate for taking snaps of the kids or those vacation photos of ancient buildings. As a learning tool, they suffice and do so nicely. As an entry way into more serious photography, they exhibit their cons as often as their pros.

No doubt though, as a system from which to build, a DSLR offers more versatility than a bridge camera. This fact is simply due to the reality that you can change the lens and have a new camera system.

Here, IMO, it is important to keep in mind how a digital camera operates as "a system". Most modern digital cameras will make internal corrections for whichever lens has been mounted. Further adjustments can be made in post production. This is in large part how we have made the improvements in lens quality over the last decade. The lens screws up something and the digital systems of the camera make a correction. Generally speaking, the results are benign and go unnoticed at small print sizes. Think then of a DSLR's lens interchangeability as a set of chef's knives where every time you want to cut with one, the knife handle makes internal corrections to where your hand drives the blade.

IMO one of the advantages of a compact or bridge camera is the non-changeable lens system. The designer of the lens and the designer of the camera body know all there is to know about each other's design. The system is fixed and no variables need be accounted for. As a purpose built system, there is no guess work and no this-not-that with a single lens system camera. To be sure, nothing is as simple as it can be made to look on paper but I find the single lens systems to have some distinct advantages not found in a typical DSLR.

Moving to the next issue, your description of use. Night exposures? I don't know exactly what that entails. I assume from your other possible uses you might mean photography of static objects rather than moving targets. If so, a tripod will be your best answer here. Animal shots are broadly divided between those taken of kitty and poochy, those taken of animals in a confined environment such as a zoo or preserve and those where you head out to stalk wild game and uncooperative critters many of which can take flight to evade your gaze. Once again, if the animal is at rest, most any good camera system will suffice. If you want to capture fast moving animals, and certainly if they are moving rapidly in low light, you'll need more than your budget can handle. Even the lens for a DSLR well suited to such use would be above your price range if this were your actual need. Macro is also a very loose category as macro can easily be just a nice close shot with a minimum focusing distance on the lens or macro can be counting the elements of a bee's eyeball. Certainly, the latter is really above your pay grade in most DSLR's.

Finally, you really do have to handle a camera and determine where its pros and cons fall in your hands. Controls and control layouts make every camera different and even two cameras from the same manufacturer will have distinctions which make one more usable for you and not for me. And, in the end, if you shoot with a digital camera, you must do some post production processing. While larger sensors have the somewhat inherent benefit of greater light gathering for low light use, the camera remains a system and the lens and internal processing of the camera can make up some ground when combined with a smaller sensor.

Post production cropping to achieve a "macro look" can leave you with a less usable pixel count than a longer zoom or superior minimum distance focusing on the lens feeding a smaller sensor.

As you should be seeing, there is no one answer to your question since the real world use is what will determine the most suitable selection. Often there is no real way for even the potential buyer to state their actual use since the camera will, as I have suggested, determine what types of photography you favor with any camera system.

I'm going to link you to a few examples taken with a "superzoom" camera. This isn't meant to suggest you buy this camera, I simply have these in my bookmarks since this is one camera I do own. IMO they show the versatility of a compact bridge type camera. This is a category of camera that has seen some growth in numbers lately so there are more than a few good cameras of this type to choose from. As a note, if you buy refurbished or pre-owned, your costs can drop by a good margin. The SX50 is currently available from Canon's direct sales/refurbished at a typical price of around $200. Obviously, refurbished DSLR's also show up on Canon's site. And most major manufacturers have such sales constantly with a rotating stock based on what is available at any one time. Buying last year's technology can save you money if you determine the "advances" made in the model change are largely insignificant to you.

With that said, ...

Favorite Canon SX50 HS Photographs - tonybritton

SX50 beats all my DSLRs Backyard Birding with Kenn Temple

Animal Kingdom.... SX50 Canon PowerShot Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

SX50 with Raynox 150 Canon PowerShot Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

Just joined the Canon SX50 club with samples Canon PowerShot Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

These are all taken by real world users, not professionals with specialized "test gear" and under test conditions which are being tightly controlled.

As I mentioned, the superzoom category has grown somewhat in recent years. Here's a not-the-most-recent review of several; Best Superzoom 2014 Eight competitors 2.5 clear winners

To conclude this post, there is no one camera capable of doing everything with equal grace and taste. Most of us own more than one camera for just that reason. Somewhat similar to the collection of knives, each serves a purpose and each is used when most appropriate.

IMO your question simply cannot be which one is best but which one to begin with. The answer to that is quite easy; any one. Today's cameras are quite good and it would be difficult to go terribly wrong with any camera in your price range. Once you have the camera though, you will begin to see its strengths and weakness and you will adjust your expectations accordingly. And, in the end, it is more about you than it is the gear.

Two somewhat contrary views;

DPReview Gear of the Year Canon Rebel SL1 EOS 100D Digital Photography Review

Recommended Cameras

I think you are exactly right. I am simply asking which one to start with.

 

[Raj_55555]

Thanks for that point. I've been looking into the fujifilm hs35 exr and the nikon coolpix p610. Both are great it seems! However I must ask, is there any bridge camera that can do astrophotography? It's a favorite style of photography and I am really willing to invest into a dslr to just do those shots (say a nikon d300 or other)

HS35 has a manual focus ring AFAIK, which could be useful while focusing at night. It also seems to have better low light abilities than other bridge cameras, but I've never used them.
I have used the SX50, and have seen people post pictures of Saturn where the rings were clearly distinguishable and even the photograph of the Orion nebula, which I remember because I was amazed by it!

So, yes you can do astrophotography with a bridge camera, just don't expect a quality good enough to start printing and selling stuff!

If you're willing to let go of animals and macro shots however, I can say that investing in a DSLR will definitely be better. I've seen people mount telescopes on their DSLRs and get amazing results, my knowledge is limited in that field but if astrophotography is a priority, go the DSLR way.

 

[soufiej]

I think you are exactly right. I am simply asking which one to start with.

I know what you're asking. We get this same question all the time. And we give variations on the above answers all the time.

We can no more tell you which specific camera to buy than we can tell you which breakfast cereal to buy. Which shoes to wear or which car to drive. You must make a decision you will be happy with.

If you've laid out your priorities and your budget, you're a long way towards a reasoned decision. Don't, however, continue to add to your list when you've seen us say you are already asking quite a lot from any camera in your price range. Or, at least, don't expect us to say, "Oh! OK, now you've definitely made the decision for us. We recommend ... "

You are asking a lot from any camera in your price range.

However, if you've now changed your mind ("I am really willing to invest into a dslr to just do those shots"), then you should invest in a camera to do a single purpose. Forget the rest. Or, at least, don't say "these" are my priorities when you really mean "This" IS my priority.

I've been in high end electronics sales for decades and I am quite accustomed to clients telling me one thing and then making a decision based on something completely out of the realm of their stated priorities. We can only go on what you say you want/need. Based on your first post, you are asking a lot from any camera in your price range. Based on your new, single priority, we can only assume you are willing to largely forgo what you have otherwise said.

The Nikon or the Canon in your price range will be a nice camera. As has been stated, most any modern digital camera will do a good job of covering as many bases as possible. Several other manufacturers also produce cameras which would be sufficient and each will have its own set of reasons for buying that camera.

The idea is to make a decision. Nothing you buy will be ideal and perfect for all things at all times. However, the longer you stall by indecision, the longer you are not taking photographs.

You learn largely by doing in this hobby. Yes, you should study the rules and theories of photography but implementation is still the key. You become indecisive by not doing, simply reading reviews and specs or waiting for someone else to take you by your hand and lead you to water.

You really need to make a decision and start learning and enjoying, realizing no one camera will be perfect for everything at all times.

Have you even made a trip to a camera retailer to handle a few cameras? That should be your next step.

 

[Machale.luke]

I think you are exactly right. I am simply asking which one to start with.

I know what you're asking. We get this same question all the time. And we give variations on the above answers all the time.

We can no more tell you which specific camera to buy than we can tell you which breakfast cereal to buy. Which shoes to wear or which car to drive. You must make a decision you will be happy with.

If you've laid out your priorities and your budget, you're a long way towards a reasoned decision. Don't, however, continue to add to your list when you've seen us say you are already asking quite a lot from any camera in your price range. Or, at least, don't expect us to say, "Oh! OK, now you've definitely made the decision for us. We recommend ... "

You are asking a lot from any camera in your price range.

However, if you've now changed your mind ("I am really willing to invest into a dslr to just do those shots"), then you should invest in a camera to do a single purpose. Forget the rest. Or, at least, don't say "these" are my priorities when you really mean "This" IS my priority.

I've been in high end electronics sales for decades and I am quite accustomed to clients telling me one thing and then making a decision based on something completely out of the realm of their stated priorities. We can only go on what you say you want/need. Based on your first post, you are asking a lot from any camera in your price range. Based on your new, single priority, we can only assume you are willing to largely forgo what you have otherwise said.

The Nikon or the Canon in your price range will be a nice camera. As has been stated, most any modern digital camera will do a good job of covering as many bases as possible. Several other manufacturers also produce cameras which would be sufficient and each will have its own set of reasons for buying that camera.

The idea is to make a decision. Nothing you buy will be ideal and perfect for all things at all times. However, the longer you stall by indecision, the longer you are not taking photographs.

You learn largely by doing in this hobby. Yes, you should study the rules and theories of photography but implementation is still the key. You become indecisive by not doing, simply reading reviews and specs or waiting for someone else to take you by your hand and lead you to water.

You really need to make a decision and start learning and enjoying, realizing no one camera will be perfect for everything at all times.

Have you even made a trip to a camera retailer to handle a few cameras? That should be your next step.

Thanks for these great replies. I agree, that is my next step and I'll find time to go to a local store! Thanks for the help and yes I'm going to make a decsion, so thanks again! Great forum.

 

[Solarflare]

IMHO the category if bridge camera is for "lazy shooters" who want to think about the camera used as little as possible. When it comes to price for performance, entry level DSLRs are unbeatable, and bridge cameras are the worst.

Since you dont want to photograph fast moving subjects, a system camera that isnt a DSLR (i.e. a mirrorless) would be an option, too. Not an option to save money, though.

The sensor on a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor is about 15mm x 22mm)

Canon-User confirmed (for everyone else the APS-C size is a bit larger - approx 16x24mm).

 

[407370]

Sounds to me like astrophotography is the thing you REALLY want to get into. Set your stall to achieve that goal and get a DSLR + KIT LENS.
You can get into the rest later.
I had a look at astrophotography earlier this year and it seemed to me that a telescope and tracking system were equally as important as the camera. Orion Stars Solar System Astrophotography Bundle Orion Telescopes

 

[astroNikon]

IMHO the category if bridge camera is for "lazy shooters" who want to think about the camera used as little as possible. When it comes to price for performance, entry level DSLRs are unbeatable, and bridge cameras are the worst.

Since you dont want to photograph fast moving subjects, a system camera that isnt a DSLR (i.e. a mirrorless) would be an option, too. Not an option to save money, though.

The sensor on a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor is about 15mm x 22mm)

Canon-User confirmed (for everyone else the APS-C size is a bit larger - approx 16x24mm).

Actually the Nikon sensor is a bit larger than the Canon.
Crop factors are 1.5x for Nikon and 1.6x for Canon
==> APS-C - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
not to be confused with APS-H Canon sensor.

And (some) bridge cameras do allow full Manual control. I've been looking at the Nikon P900 for certain things. The only problems I see, are no RAW format and greater than 15 second shutter speeds, limited remote control, etc.. bang for the buck it's hard to beat for certain situations.

But for astrophotography you really need manual focus (or infinity focus) and the above camera I mention does have infinity focus mode ... assuming you are using a lens and not a telescope. You may also need, which the P900 doesn't do:
Bulb mode (let's you control how long the shutter is open)
remote shutter release
Mirror up feature, if a mirror type camera is used (dslr, bridge)
I say may not need it, depending up how serious you get about astrophotography.

So it depends upon how much you really get into it.

such as:
If you are using a telescope you'll want to research how you plan on using your specific camera with a specific telescope. There are adapters out there for many type of cameras including bridge cameras, just search for them.

For instance, you can use a smart phone to capture images from a eyepiece, such as there ==> Celestron - Astroimaging Accessories - Smartphone Adapters

or you can look at specific atroimaging systems, such as these ==> Celestron - Astroimaging Cameras - Series

but the dslr or interchangeable lens mirrorless options give you better flexibility on a direct camera mount such as: Celestron - Astroimaging Accessories - T-Rings and Adapters

You can connect various bridge cameras etc to other eyepieces using an "F-adapter" - just search for it with "camera and telescope" in the search.
or maybe here ==> TELESCOPE CAMERA ADAPTERS TelescopeAdapters.com

but to use a bridge camera for "basic" astrophotography it's just fine.
but limited.
at which point you may opt to upgrade to a dslr/mirrorless.