Bridge Cameras - Discuss

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by Rocket

Really like the shot taken with the canon Phil. Iam feeding our birds in the garden like crazy at the moment as we have a blanket of snow. The bird feeders look like a scene from the film "Birds"

That's very kind of you Paul to look out for the birds at this time of year with the bird feeder and I hope the horses are bearing up.

Of course Mike is right when he says not everyone can enjoy the variety of wildlife. He is correct about bird numbers going down. I am equally concerned with the damage done by human predators to the environment and to the animals. Poaching is a big problem in Kenya and I am more worried about the rustlers/poachers when I am out in the bush than any old Lion or croc....

Here I am diverting away from the thread. Apologies peeps

[Canonite]

It's one of those things ive noticed with all my compact Canons, all compacts will have it even at low ISO. Getting the balance between sensor size, aperture and ISO can be hard. I think Canons attitude has always been a case of giving punters the big numbers, thinking they can edit the results if they look bad. It's refreshing to see that Panasonic have resisted temptation to challenge Canon SX50 for the big zoom stakes, instead choosing to refine the lens they already have on their new FZ200. So shooting an equiv 600mm at f2.8 is a very interesting move. Cant wait to see some sample images from it.

Very nice work Phil, the one shot with the Canon does appear a better image but there is still a fair amount of noise in it, look in the sky and on the breast area of the bird.
I was going to ask of there's been any smoothing done, then read on the next page you'd used some noise reduction, this really shows.

[Gate Keeper]

I will have a look at the Panasonic FZ200 to check out the specs and images.

You made some strong points Alan about Canon bumping up the numbers against image quality with post editing correcting the Canons short comings. I think that it what you said.

I just revisited the images I did of the birds and you are right about the noise in the Canon picture. I did not edit it in LR 4 which has noise reduction. I did not think it looked too bad, so left it. Having just seen it again, on reflection and to be fair to the Nikon photo, I really should have gone back to take the noise down on the Canon pic then it would have been a fairer comparison. I tried different filters and twiddled but could not make up my mind, so just left it as an original pic. So in the final analysis, the Canon photo was not touched up. The Nikon was.

A lesson learned that you guys see everything!

I have some more images and subjects I took which I am still to edit and will bear this in mind. Mmmmmmm lol

I see that Gary had to return his Canon SX 50 HS as it had a problem and he got a refund. I do not know who he bought the camera from but I am glad for him that the refund was honoured in full. It will be interesting to see what he decides to go for should he decide to get a bridge or a DSLR or just wait and see.

[Canonite]

A lot do it to a point, but i've owned most of the top end SX superzooms and they've always tried to outdo the competition, this was always in the zoom range. I do regret buying this SX30, it is so limited in comparison with the older SX1 that I had before. That had a CMOS sensor with RAW shooting, real 4fps till the card was full and shot HD video, it may have only had a 20x zoom lens but this was more than adequate when paired with the Canon or Raynox teleconverters as you had the CMOS sensor.

The one rule of thumb I go by when out and about is that it's better to capture a noisy image than a blurry one. Keeping the ISO low down is good for overall image quality, but if the natural light isn't good, for example in a woodland, then low ISO will need a longer shutter for correct exposure.
The problem with bridge cameras is their tiny sensors have limiting factors. What they are good at is combining a long range zoom lens with high resolution in a small affordable package. They are never going to compete with SLR sensors and dedicated and specific lenses. You just have to work with the limitations of what the camera can do rather than using it like an SLR.

Canon have always gone for bigger numbers, it looks more impressive on paper and people think that more megapixels means better images when it doesn't. Generally they downsize the sensor to allow it to be amplified more, to give bigger range. I larger the zoom the more artefacts you'll find in the images.
When I owned Nikons I was always slightly envious of Canon owners, they had a whopping 8.2mp as opposed to my 6.1 on the D70, and in my naivity I felt I was missing out.

What Panasonic have done is take a step back and thought, "600mm is close enough, how far away do you really want to be to get a shot", so their lens is the same 25-600mm of their last few 24x zooms. An f2.8 constant aperture makes shooting at 600mm a much more pleasant affair and opens up the possibilities of actually getting a shot in the bag rather than missing out because of longer shutter speeds creating blurry shots.
Compare this with the Canon SX50 HS which at the same 600mm zoom setting is only giving a widest aperture of f5.6, shutter speeds are going to be much quicker so you'll get more shots that are keepers.

[coolcat]

Originally Posted by Canonite

A lot do it to a point, but i've owned most of the top end SX superzooms and they've always tried to outdo the competition, this was always in the zoom range. I do regret buying this SX30, it is so limited in comparison with the older SX1 that I had before. That had a CMOS sensor with RAW shooting, real 4fps till the card was full and shot HD video, it may have only had a 20x zoom lens but this was more than adequate when paired with the Canon or Raynox teleconverters as you had the CMOS sensor.

The one rule of thumb I go by when out and about is that it's better to capture a noisy image than a blurry one. Keeping the ISO low down is good for overall image quality, but if the natural light isn't good, for example in a woodland, then low ISO will need a longer shutter for correct exposure.
The problem with bridge cameras is their tiny sensors have limiting factors. What they are good at is combining a long range zoom lens with high resolution in a small affordable package. They are never going to compete with SLR sensors and dedicated and specific lenses. You just have to work with the limitations of what the camera can do rather than using it like an SLR.

Canon have always gone for bigger numbers, it looks more impressive on paper and people think that more megapixels means better images when it doesn't. Generally they downsize the sensor to allow it to be amplified more, to give bigger range. I larger the zoom the more artefacts you'll find in the images.
When I owned Nikons I was always slightly envious of Canon owners, they had a whopping 8.2mp as opposed to my 6.1 on the D70, and in my naivity I felt I was missing out.

What Panasonic have done is take a step back and thought, "600mm is close enough, how far away do you really want to be to get a shot", so their lens is the same 25-600mm of their last few 24x zooms. An f2.8 constant aperture makes shooting at 600mm a much more pleasant affair and opens up the possibilities of actually getting a shot in the bag rather than missing out because of longer shutter speeds creating blurry shots.
Compare this with the Canon SX50 HS which at the same 600mm zoom setting is only giving a widest aperture of f5.6, shutter speeds are going to be much quicker so you'll get more shots that are keepers.

It's funny how Canon have gone the other way with their G series of compact cameras in that they've wound back the megapixels in favour of less noise on the sensor.
Also, the new 5d mk3 Dslr they haven't pushed the megapixels and for once its Nikon who have done this with their new D800!
Wonder why Canon haven't done the same in their Bridge cameras

[Rocket]

It's a fact that cameras with high zoom ratios and/or high mega pixel counts sell well. The above features are of course important but a camera with less magapixels and a lower zoom ratio may take a better pic.


For my amateur efforts 12 meg is fine. I would much rather have good glass and good noise control in my camera. Of course if you have good/fast glass the noise is less of a problem anyhow. Hence I try and shoot with fixed focal length lenses but this can be inconveniant and not always possible.


It's worth pointing out that the conveniance of a high zoom ratio may be a loss of quality.

The above is a general comment and of course may not be true in every single case.

Having said all that, bridge cameras and compacts can take excellent pics. They tend to struggle more in difficult situations.

[Woof25]

The warts and all isnt that bad an approach I think good composition is a huge part of the feelings the pictues evokes in the viwer, as for noise I felt both pics were of a high standard phil and a blind man would have been glad to have seen them. I still have my minolta rokkor lens and with a adapter I can use them on my nikon DSLR the rokkors are excellent lens but again more weight to carry around hence the bridge camera, it always going to be a compromise specially as you get older I used to use a aluminum camera case which I could stand on if in a crowd those were the days !!!

Phil knows my editing programs are simple and also free !! one I still use from 1998 is Livepix its simple and very effective i think Paint shop pro 7 is my second call and finally photoscape which is excellent for effects and worth a try I think.

Meeting cancelled for tomorrow so no piccies but next weekend hopefully
weel I off to watch Stargate Ark of Truth LOL


Mike

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by coolcat

It's funny how Canon have gone the other way with their G series of compact cameras in that they've wound back the megapixels in favour of less noise on the sensor.
Also, the new 5d mk3 Dslr they haven't pushed the megapixels and for once its Nikon who have done this with their new D800!
Wonder why Canon haven't done the same in their Bridge cameras

I bought a new photography book yesterday called 'Birds of Kenya, the photographers guide and it suggested buying the best DSLR camera one can afford with the priority being sharpness and clarity of detail for capturing birds and action shots.

The SX40 gets closer than the Nikon I use but it does suffer from noise even with the Canon's new digic 5 processor at max zoom.

I had a look at the new Panasonic FZ200 at photoblog.com and it gave a detailed review. I won't go into the review as I suggest people read it for themselves and then decide how it matches up.

I have come to the conclusion that bridge cameras are more convenient for carrying around but they can not match the quality of a good DSLR and lenses, although they are coming close to it. Feel free to agree/disagree

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by Woof25

The warts and all isnt that bad an approach I think good composition is a huge part of the feelings the pictues evokes in the viwer, as for noise I felt both pics were of a high standard phil and a blind man would have been glad to have seen them. I still have my minolta rokkor lens and with a adapter I can use them on my nikon DSLR the rokkors are excellent lens but again more weight to carry around hence the bridge camera, it always going to be a compromise specially as you get older I used to use a aluminum camera case which I could stand on if in a crowd those were the days !!!

Phil knows my editing programs are simple and also free !! one I still use from 1998 is Livepix its simple and very effective i think Paint shop pro 7 is my second call and finally photoscape which is excellent for effects and worth a try I think.

Meeting cancelled for tomorrow so no piccies but next weekend hopefully
weel I off to watch Stargate Ark of Truth LOL


Mike

I take on board all of your comment Mike positively. Who would have thought a blind man would be pleased to see my photos

Bad luck the meeting at Halfway House was cancelled. Maybe you made it to the Little Chef

Here are some more photos I took using the Nikon DSLR and the Canon Bridge. All needed some work to reduce the noise. Both cameras by coincidence are rated at 12.1 megapixels. In the last shot, the young eagle turned its head as the shutter went down. I waited and waited for it to fly away as I wanted to capture it in flight - but no luck.

I will post my other bird and wild game photos in the Out of Africa thread I started some time ago in case there are any members who appreciate bird life

[Rocket]

Originally Posted by Gate Keeper

I have come to the conclusion that bridge cameras are more convenient for carrying around but they can not match the quality of a good DSLR and lenses, although they are coming close to it. Feel free to agree/disagree

Spot on Phil

They are very handy and take acceptable pictures in normal conditions but in essence they are a compromise. For the average punter taking snaps of the kids etc they are great.

If you really want to take the best pics possible of far away birds you will need a setup like you see photograpers at sports events. The lens alone may cost several thousand pounds.

Also, your nikon can only be as good as the lens you have on it. I don't know anything about the camera itself so cannot comment.

I don't have the equipment to take fantastic long range bird shots myself.

Most people who get seriously into photography end spending lots of money and have a bagful of lenses. I don't think any of the newer breed of cameras has changed that.

Edit: Here is guy I seem to end up on the same page on flickr quite a bit. He uses averagely priced DSLR gear and takes lots of good wild life stuff.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerbosma/