DSLR vs bridge camera

[shuttervelocity]

I have the FZ100 for the past year and a half and I like it for its speed, rapid shots, long zoom and size. however, indoors it just plain sucks. The indoor shots, even a indoor shot with sun shining through all the windows, the pictures have blotches of yellow all over, grainy pics even though I've parked the ISO at 200. I am not sure how big of an improvement the FZ150, but low-light shots are where the DSLR just shines like a diamond.

If anyone's looking for a good bridge camera, try the Sony HX100V. I have its little brother, the hx9v and hardly ever use the flash. Pics come out decent with no aforementioned yellow blotches. And if ever you need to use flash, if its for anything other than portraits, the pictures are very sharp and well defined.

 

[Marc32]

I had the FZ100 before the 150. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, the FZ150 is far, far better than the 100. Way less noise, iA actually works very well, and just flat out better pictures from the upgraded model. It is so good, a lot of people use it in place of a DSLR in some situations. It is better in low light, although i can't vouch that it is DSLR quality in that condition. It's one of the areas I'm looking for improvement, but in the grand scheme of it all, I'm trying to decide in my own mind if it's worth the big cost to buy some new gear. If I do upgrade, I want to do it right. WIth the FZ150 as good as it is in some conditions, I want the right body and lens setup to make a noticeable difference once I learn how to get the most I can out of that particluar DSLR. I don't want to spend $700 on a body, and match it up with a kit lens that just won't get me any farther than what I have now.

 

[Crollo]

The FZ150 just flat out beats the 18-200

To expect anything out of an 18-200 lens in terms of quality is atrocious. I wouldn't even carry it for shots I didn't care about.

 

[shuttervelocity]

oh man, you gave me more reason to sell the FZ100! Seriously, if its that better, I know exactly how you feel. In bright sunlight, the fz100 is so good! Here's some pictures taken near the fountain. Very little post processing were done.

I had the FZ100 before the 150. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, the FZ150 is far, far better than the 100. Way less noise, iA actually works very well, and just flat out better pictures from the upgraded model. It is so good, a lot of people use it in place of a DSLR in some situations. It is better in low light, although i can't vouch that it is DSLR quality in that condition. It's one of the areas I'm looking for improvement, but in the grand scheme of it all, I'm trying to decide in my own mind if it's worth the big cost to buy some new gear. If I do upgrade, I want to do it right. WIth the FZ150 as good as it is in some conditions, I want the right body and lens setup to make a noticeable difference once I learn how to get the most I can out of that particluar DSLR. I don't want to spend $700 on a body, and match it up with a kit lens that just won't get me any farther than what I have now.

 

[Marc32]

I was planning to skip a generation in the FZ series as I ordered my FZ100 in July. In Sept, they announced the FZ150, just my f#*&ing luck!! I poured over reviews about the new model, and everyone of the said the same thing. Panasonic fixed 99% of the shortcomings of the FZ100 when they rolled out the FZ150. Flickr pages proved that. It has less noise, better ISO performance (decent even at 1600) and just better images all around. When amazon had their black friday deals, the FZ150 came down to $380 shipped free. I bit the bullet at that price and ordered it, tested it for about 20 minutes and then listed my FZ100 on ebay for $300 buy it now. Sold in 2 days. It's that much better! The only real thing that kind of dissappointed me was the FZ100 had a 60 second shutter speed in manual and starry night mode, while the 150 only goes to 15 seconds in manual and 30 in starry night. I kind of liked doing the long exposures, but what I really want is a bulb setting. Never seen that on a bridge. Other than that, the FZ150 is, by a wide margin, the clear winner.

 

[tacticdesigns]

Does a point-and-shoot have the potential of a faster flash sync speed? If you use the flash as fill on bright sunny days, does it have the chance of syncing at a faster shutter speed? Because it probably doesn't have a focal plane shutter?

That's one of the reasons that I keep looking at a point-and-shoot for vacation use. I don't want a big camera. Its not about all out image quality. I just want to make sure the people I'm trying to capture are well lit and I still have a chance to get a nice rich saturated splash of sky behind them.

Do bridge cameras offer a benefit there?

 

[Coyote]

People who say the big advantage of DSLRs is in their multi-lens capacity must be thinking of special-effects lenses. I see that a lot, and I wonder if they've actually used a bridge camera with a zoom range equivalent to, say, 27mm-810mm (Sony HX100v) or 24-1000mm (Nikon P510) or 24-1200 (Canon SX50HS). Not bad for under 600 grams total weight. So then I see LOTS of references to DSLRs having the advantage of allowing the user to carry around a pack full of lenses to attach and remove, and I'm thinking these folk must be using a lot of very nice lenses indeed, such as fisheyes, I suppose. I still have my beautiful Super-Takumar lenses, and lately I'm wondering whether to take a $1,000 gamble on a Pentax K-30 being able to take incomparably sharper photos than my Sony HX100v. If I spring for that much money, I'd sure be disappointed if it didn't.

 

[MLeeK]

People who say the big advantage of DSLRs is in their multi-lens capacity must be thinking of special-effects lenses. I see that a lot, and I wonder if they've actually used a bridge camera with a zoom range equivalent to, say, 27mm-810mm (Sony HX100v) or 24-1000mm (Nikon P510) or 24-1200 (Canon SX50HS). Not bad for under 600 grams total weight. So then I see LOTS of references to DSLRs having the advantage of allowing the user to carry around a pack full of lenses to attach and remove, and I'm thinking these folk must be using a lot of very nice lenses indeed, such as fisheyes, I suppose. I still have my beautiful Super-Takumar lenses, and lately I'm wondering whether to take a $1,000 gamble on a Pentax K-30 being able to take incomparably sharper photos than my Sony HX100v. If I spring for that much money, I'd sure be disappointed if it didn't.

The sharpness, quality and lower light ability of the lenses with a DSLR are the biggest advantages. Then there is the sheer size of the sensor and the quality that comes from a larger sensor, especially at higher ISO and for high quality large prints. The size of the sensor and the ability to get the shallow depth of field on a DSLR is a huge thing I hear people complain about in bridge cameras constantly. They can use a wide aperture, but can't get the bokeh and have a very hard time getting an extremely shallow DOF.
The advantages of the bridge being having the mega range all in one and not having to pack in gear and change lenses. It's a convenience for anyone who wants this as a hobby, but not the extreme quality that a professional requires from the better lenses and larger sensors.

The bridges you mention have apertures that are
P510 f/3.3-5.9
Sony HX100v F2.8 (W)-5.6 (T) (discontinued)
Canon SX50HS f/3.4 (W), f/6.5 (T
Frankly, all of those really suck for anyone working with it in anything less than overcast daylight.

 

[SCraig]

If the photographers for National Geographic or Sports Illustrated or Vogue or anything else could get the image quality they require from a $300 bridge camera instead of carrying around $20,000 worth of camera gear don't you think they would be doing so? I guarantee there isn't a single one of them that wouldn't make that trade if they could.

Yes, I do have a bridge camera. I take it on motorcycle trips when space is at a premium. I understand the convenience of an all-in-one, lightweight package. I also understand the limitations of one when it comes to image quality and whenever possible, when I'm not concerned about space or weight, I use my DSLR. When one of the manufacturers does some up with one that combines the convenience and simplicity of a bridge with the image quality of a DSLR then I'll certainly consider it. It hasn't happened yet though so I'll keep going the way I am.