Bridge Vs DSLR

[Satchmo]

I'm currently using a Fuji Finepix compact and ever since joining this forum I have outgrown it rather quickly. The main limitations I find are the 3x optical zoom, unable to change DoF and Aperture, white balance settings are all presets, can only take photos in jpeg format, only autofocus, min focal length is something to be desired........ need I go on

So basically I'm looking to upgrade but I'm not sure of the differences between the bridge cameras and the DSLR. The bridge cameras I am interested in are the Panasonic fz series though I have heard the noise is quite bad at the mid ISO levels and beyond. However, I have seen some fantastic shots on this forum using this camera series. The DSLR I have been looking at is the Canon EOS 400D, again, because I know a few people on here use them and recommend them and I have seen some wonderful shots also from this camera. I don't really want to buy something that I may outgrow (maybe not as quickly as my compact) and need to upgrade in a year or so.

As for what I will use it for........ well anything and everything really! I'm currently taking alot of macro shots, which admittedly is due to the limitations of my compact but it is something that I love and I will continue to take this style of photo regardless of what I upgrade to. I would also like to take some photos of Birds in my local area too and possibly mammals such as Deer and Rabbits. Also, landscapes are something I enjoy to capture and being a mountain biker the ability to take action shots is important too. As I said, every type of photography . So I guess to start with I would be looking for a camera with a do it all lens and I would buy a macro lens seperate. I have a 2Gb XD card but I don't mind buying a different "type" of card if necessary.

Oh, and my budget ideally is a max of £500 which I think is enough for either option (correct me if I'm wrong).

This is what I was looking at in terms of a DSLR if that were the recommended option.

Any help is more than welcome.

Thanks

Simon

EDIT: Crikey, I can ramble on!!

[glsammy]

Hi.

If £500 is the maximum you can spend to cover that range of options, then I'm afraid the DSLR route isn't viable. You'd need at least two, possibly three lenses to cover good macro, wide angle and telephoto work.
You do sound very familiar, I was thinking much like you two years ago! I decided to go with the Panasonic FZ30, only within a month I realised that I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a DSLR, so it was a big deep breath, reach for the plastic and about £2,000 later I had what I really wanted.

[Ollie]

Hi Simon

Your budget to go with a Panasonic FZ bridge camera I think would be ok because the add on lenses are much cheaper for these than the DSLR lens. You only have to look at the macro shots Matt xyz takes with a Panasonic and close up lens, second to none they are. Matt has also a good few shots taken with the longer telephoto lens with this set up that are excellent as well.

The DSLR route wouldn't really be possible with your budget as a decent telephoto lens for a Canon 400D comes in at around 300/600 pounds depending on the range you want and a good macro lens would be in the region of 250/400 pounds.

No doubt others will say different but this is my personal opinion. Of course you could get a DSLR with something like a Sigma 70/300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro lens that doubles as a telephoto and macro lens like I started of with, but to be honest I don't think you would be happy with the macro side of this lens. I wasn't and upgraded to the Sigma 150mm macro

Hope this helps
Roger

[Satchmo]

*Feels rather sheepish*

Thanks for your input guys, some real food for thought. Looking at Matts and Mark H's galleries the Panasonic certainly can produce some incredible macro shots. But what sets a DSLR apart from a bridging camera?? From what I have read the Panasonic has all the features of the DSLR without being one and it's cheaper but what does a DSLR have that justifies the cost? Graham, what did you find was missing from the Panasonic that spurred you on to getting the DSLR??

Cheers

Simon

[mh68]

If your photography is going to be as varied as you say it would cost a LOT of money to acquire the various lenses you`d need with a DSLR,worth it though if you have the cash theres no doubt about it.
As far as noise goes with the FZ cameras, up to iso200 its not too bad provided you dont make the images too large when editing , which shows noise more.I`ve taken iso400 shots with my fz20 which were acceptable for small 800x600 size images (theres a thread somewhere by me about high iso`s with the FZs).
The more recent FZ models (fz50, fz8 ) use the venus III engine for processing and these tend to smear detail due to over-zealous noise reduction in-camera.The fz30 is better in this respect and is probably the best FZ model to go for.....less pixels on the same size sensor as the fz50 means less noise. I have seen some very nice shots with the fz50 though, mostly by those who shoot in Raw (no in-camera processing when shooting this format so no extreme noise reduction).
I`ve read recently on one of the Panasonic forums, that a few are going back to the fz50 from DSLR due to the versatility the fz50 has with its 35-420mm lens.
One thing to note though with the FZs is that it takes a while to get the best from them, trying various settings etc. but once you suss them out they can give top notch results.

Mark H

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by Satchmo

*Feels rather sheepish*

Thanks for your input guys, some real food for thought. Looking at Matts and Mark H's galleries the Panasonic certainly can produce some incredible macro shots. But what sets a DSLR apart from a bridging camera?? From what I have read the Panasonic has all the features of the DSLR without being one and it's cheaper but what does a DSLR have that justifies the cost? Graham, what did you find was missing from the Panasonic that spurred you on to getting the DSLR??

Cheers

Simon

Well Iv'e never used a bridge camera like the Panasonic so I can't relly answer through experience, but I'm guessing at faster focusing with the DSLR, and a greater range of lenses available. But I'm sure Graham or someone else who has used both set ups will reply in more detail
Roger

[glsammy]

Although the Panasonic FZ range are excellent cameras, a DSLR has quite a few important advantages. The first obvious one is the lens interchangeability. Secondly they focus and track subject far faster and more accurately. They are FAR superior in image noise levels. You can use ISO 800 with a Canon DSLR and get excellent results, whilst you'll struggle with anything faster than ISO 200 with just about any bridge camera. There is no shutter lag to speak of.
There are disadvantages as well. Dust on the sensor screen, No video, No Live preview. Although models are now coming on line that offer this.

It really comes down to your priorities. If your after the best possible shot, the a DSLR will give you that, but at a large cost. Only you can decide if it's worth the investment.

[Satchmo]

Hi Mark, thanks for your help. I'm a scumbag student so I don't have the money unfortunately. It is looking more and more like the Panasonic will be the way forward but I'm curious to know what the differences are between the two camera types. I'm sure the Panasonic will be more camera than I will ever need anyway

I have seen the blurring of the images as a result of the fz50's noise reduction thingy and I was a little put off so the fz30 could be the one to look at. So the lenses are much cheaper then? And are they widely available to fit these camera bodies?

Cheers Roger, that's sort of what I was expecting.

Simon

[Satchmo]

Thanks for the explanation Graham. So basically it has a better processor, sensor and well it's just better overall. So the problem with dust on the sensor screen is not something bridge camera users need to worry about?

Simon

[mh68]

The fz30/50 has a built in lens of 35mm to 420mm, the only additions you`d need are a macro attachment lens such as one of the Raynox`s (roughly £30) and maybe a teleconverter for more reach, for the likes of birds where its hard to get close(£50 or so).
One thing which personally puts me off a DSLR is the limited shutter life.....I feel loathe to spend a large amount of cash on a camera thats eventually going to need the shutter replacing.As i`m shooting most days I could probably wear a camera out fairly quickly.So far this year i`ve taken approx 10,000 shots with the fz20....and the camera is now approaching 30,000 shots overall with no sign of failure, and still going strong.I think Canon DSLRs have a shutter life of 20,000 shots? (correct me if i`m wrong) so such a camera would maybe last me 3 years tops before needing repair.I cant justify that despite the other advantages of a DSLR

Mark H