# DSLR vs bridge camera



## Marc32 (Mar 5, 2012)

I know I'm probably going to get ripped to shreads for even thinking of comparing a bridge camera to a DSLR, but believe it or not, I did just that and was really surprised by the results.  I have a Panasonic FZ150, and while I think it is an excellent camera, I've always been of the popular choice that a DSLR with the right lens would outperform the Panasonic any day.  I had a friend with a D90 and a NIkon 18-200mm lens and a Sigma 105mm macro and he took a series of shots then compared them to the same shot from the FZ150 with the settings as close to matching as possible.  No post production, raw tricks, nothing but straight out of the camera, side by side comaprison.  Indoor closeups, and outdoors at different focal lengths were the test shots of the day.

It was crystal clear that the FZ150 outperformed the 18-200 all around.  The colors were more accurate, better saturated, and sharper.  It was just flat out a better series of pictures.  I attributed that to 'maybe it's just a cheap lens'.  Surely the expensive Sigma 105 macro would do better.  Again, I was stunned.  The Sigma lens was way darker than any of the images taken from the FZ150.  Sharpness was as close to equal as I could see, I even zoomed in to 150% to take a closer look.  Not a lot of difference, and in fact, if I didn't know which picture was taken with which camera, I might even give the edge to the FZ150 for being brighter and better lit.  The only advantage to the Sigma was the DoF was quite a bit better.

I did some research to see what others were doing with the FZ150 and found a lot of people saying the same thing.  "I reach for the FZ150 most of the time now, it's lighter, more compact, fewer lenses to lug around, and 90% of the time, every bit as good as a DSLR.  Only in specific situations will I reach back to my DSLR and lens"  I'm always curious and interested in moving forward, learning more, and trying to get the best I can out of my images within the budget I have.  I'm not a pro, just a serious enthusiast.  So, how far do I really have to go in the DSLR world to get a noticeable improvement?  If a D5100 with a 16-85mm lens (or Canon T3i with 15-85) won't make a serious dent anywhere except low light shooting, what kind of camera and lens setup do I have to look into?  Is it just the features of a DSLR in these bodies that will give me the advantage of ease of use, but nothing much in terms of final image quality?  What's the next step up the ladder?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 5, 2012)

D90 and a *NIkon 18-200mm* lens  <---do you expect sharp pics from this lens?


----------



## Dao (Mar 5, 2012)

In short, bridge cameras are capable.  Once the limitations are reach, this is where DSLR shines.

If the person who has the D90 with the Sigma 105mm macro lens cannot produce an image better than the FZ150 in the macro world, that person maybe did something wrong at that time.



> No post production, raw tricks, nothing but straight out of the camera, side by side comaprison.


Maybe you do not know, any images that come out from the camera were processed (Post production).  Nothing straight out from the camera.  In your case, the Panasonic engineer(s) tune it for you by his/her settings.  A lot of photographers prefer using their own settings based on the photo.  Rather than one size fit all case, hence, they often shoot in raw and apply their own settings instead of someone from Canon, Nikon, Sony or Panasonic settings.  

As for jpeg output, the person can still able to fine tune the settings in camera if needed (i.e. increase color saturation).  But then again, unless that settings fit all photos you are planning to take, otherwise, shooting raw may have its advantage.  And if shooting photo in RAW format, post processing is needed.  It is part of the process.


Most of the entry level DSLR are capable of producing good images.  The main advantage of DSLR over bridge camera is able to change lens and has a bigger sensor.   Like your friend who has a Sigma 105 dedicated macro lens.  He/she can produce an image of an object at live size (1:1 ratio).   With the Canon MP-E 65mm lens, it can even do 5x the live size.

As far as the image quality goes, once it is paired with a quality lens (optically), you should see the difference.  You will notice the difference once you are there.

But from what I read, the FZ150 still a capable camera for what it gear for.


----------



## ph0enix (Mar 5, 2012)

We would need to know more about your experiment.  What was the set-up  and how did you assure that the test would produce accurate results?   It's possible that you simply don't know how to get the most out of a  DSLR camera.


----------



## Marc32 (Mar 5, 2012)

My buddy is more of a camera junkie than I am, shot weddings, sold pictures, etc so he knows far more than I do.  He's the one who actually turned me on to the FZ150.  I took my Panny and shot a panorama and had it blown up to about 40" from 7 images after PP in PSE10.  I was scared to death to do it fearing the final image would be a disaster due to it bing beyond the capabilities of a bridge camera.  He says, let's check it out and compare.

We took some pictures close up of some holiday decorations with tinsel, tassel, and things like that with really fine lines for close ups.  Then went outside and took some picture of houses, trees, sky, etc at the same focal length.  We tried to keep it as neutral as possible with ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and a 0 EV metering.  I follow what Dao is saying about the in camera post production, hadn't thought of that.  Maybe a raw test would have been better.  I was just really surprised with the results.  The 18-200 is a fairly inexpensive lens so I didn't expect too many miracles, but the Sigma is supposed to be pretty sharp.  The FZ150 just flat out beats the 18-200 across the range and is at least a fair competitor to the Sigma in macro mode.  I understand the low light limitations, but I rarely, if ever, shoot like that for serious shooting.  I may grab the camera for candid indoor shots, but I don't do weddings, or other such photography where low light and/or fast lenses are mandatory.

I guess I'm of the popular theory that I need better equiptment to get better results.  There's plenty of people who won't even consider a bridge camera as it is 'inferior'.  I'm curious to see if I need to change my way of thinging and the Panny is better than what most people, including myself,  will give it credit for.  If I do decide to upgrade, I don't want to invest $1500-$2000 and be too close to the same place I'm already at.  For that amount of money, I'd really like to learn to wring the most I can out of any camera and get the best results possible.  The difference in IQ would have to be far more noticable than what I saw in the test we did to justify that big price tag.  From what I've gotten out of the FZ150 so far, it is a very capable camera, but what would be the next logical step forward equiptment-wise?


----------



## KenC (Mar 5, 2012)

I use my G11 for a lot of things and the results are very good, but still not quite equivalent to a DSLR.  If I stick to the lower ISO range and/or don't view or print the results at a very large size it is difficult to tell which camera I used.  However, a DSLR gives you much more freedom as to ISO range and also lens choice, so if you are serious about photography as a hobby you should get into the DSLR world.


----------



## tacticdesigns (Mar 5, 2012)

Dao said:


> In short, bridge cameras are capable.  Once the limitations are reach, this is where DSLR shines.



+1

Nicely put.

I like Panasonic. For friends and family, when they ask about a PAS camera, that will be their only camera, I have no hesitation to suggest the Panasonic ZS series. Kinda fast, good out of camera quality (with / without flash), etc . . . and if I had some money kicking around I'd pick up a ZS or a FZ to carry around when I just don't want to carry my dSLR.

I actually stopped shooting with my dSLRs last year to test whether I was just buying the stuff to have cool stuff, or whether I actually enjoyed and could make use of the stuff.

I kept running into situations where I was sitting there with a PAS and thinking to myself, if I had my dSLR with X lens I could do Y. But I can't do it with this PAS. When I kept running into this situation, I realized, I couldn't walk away from dSLRs. I had spoiled it for myself by learning (partly) the power of a dSLR and interchangeable lens. Now I'm trapped spending lots of money. <grin> Not that I mind. The memories I'm capturing of my daughters, for my daughters are priceless to me . . .


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 5, 2012)

A bridge is not a DSLR, and should not be compared as such. They both have areas where they perform best, it just so happens that under capable hands DSLR's have more of said areas.


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Mar 5, 2012)

Can someone explain what a bridge camera is? I am not familiar with them.

Edit: never mind, I found a good wiki page on it. For the rest of you who like me did not know, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera


----------



## Dao (Mar 5, 2012)

Snakeguy101 said:


> Can someone explain what a bridge camera is? I am not familiar with them.



It is often referring to those point and shoot cameras that allow the user take control on camera settings. Just like in DSLR, user with bridge camera can set the camera in aperture priority, shutter speed priority or manual mode.  User can also adjust the ISO value manually.  Some of them even can shoot in RAW format.


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Mar 5, 2012)

yeah, I had a cannon s90 that did that. I love that camera and it took some awesome shots but the versatility of a DSLR is much more useful in most cases. I do still bring the s90 with me when I don't want to be weighed down though.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 5, 2012)

Some of the new bridges have nice sensors paired with nice glass.  In your comparison, the dSLR you chose was a nice camera, and capable, but more toward the bottom of the dSLR range.  Also, as others have mentioned, if you shot JPG, both cameras performed processing internally, and seeing as how they are from different manufacturers, it is impossible that this processing was identical.  Your test also didn't involve the specific areas of image quality where a dSLR would most obviously shine above a bridge.  How do they compare in low light at ISO3200?  How do they compare in a scene with wide dynamic range?  (i.e. a complex lanscape with the sun in the frame)

Image quality is only one of the reasons to use a dSLR however.  The primary reason, is the interchangeable lens.  You build your set of lenses based on the subjects you want to shoot, and you can optimize your glass to get the best results in a particular situation.  If your lens is not capable of a shot you want to get, you can switch it out for a lens that is (over 200 currently in production that mount to that D90, and even more that are discontinued).  On a bridge you're stuck with just one.  The other significant reason for the dSLR is the technology that gives it it's namesake, the moving mirror mechanism.  When you look through the optical viewfinder of a dSLR, the actual image from the lens is reflected via mirror to your eye, so you see what the lens sees.  When you take the shot, the mirror moves out of the way, and the light from the lens strikes the sensor.  In a bridge camera, if it even has an optical viewfinder (not all of them do), it doesn't actually look through the lens, because there is no mirror mechanism.  Another important feature afforded dSLRs by the mirror mechanism is something called phase-detect autofocus.  In a bridge camera, light from the lens strikes the sensor, pixel data is analysed by software, and an algorithm focuses the lens.  This is called contrast-detect autofocus, as the algorithm is looking for contrast differences in adjacent pixels to determine focus.  Phase-detect in dSLRs has a dedicated sensor, on a separate optical path from the capture sensor and viewfinder, which relies on phase differences in the light across the frame, and not pixel data.  This enables the dSLR to have much faster, more accurate, and more easily controlled autofocus than the bridge cameras.


----------



## mjhoward (Mar 5, 2012)

Marc32 said:


> Surely the expensive Sigma 105 macro would do better.  Again, I was stunned.  The Sigma lens was *way darker* than any of the images taken from the FZ150... if I didn't know which picture was taken with which camera, I might even give the edge to the FZ150 for *being brighter and better lit*.



It sounds like neither of you really understand exposure if these are your conclusions.  And yes, the bridge camera is doing some sharpening, saturation, and contrast adjustments when storing the JPG in camera, as is the D90 (probably to a lesser extent).


----------



## KmH (Mar 5, 2012)

Marc32 said:


> I guess I'm of the popular theory that I need better equiptment to get better results.


That theory has repeatedly been proven wrong, by people upgrading equipment but getting the same results.  

Better results stem from the photographer being more knowledgeable and skilled. "It's not the gun, it's the gunner".

[video=vimeo;13081827]http://vimeo.com/13081827[/video]


----------



## One2 (Mar 5, 2012)

KmH said:


> Marc32 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm of the popular theory that I need better equiptment to get better results.
> ...



The beginning of that video was pretty funny.


----------



## shuttervelocity (Mar 5, 2012)

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 (Mar 5, 2012)

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 (Mar 5, 2012)

Marc32 said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2012)

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.  











Marc32 said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2012)

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 (Mar 6, 2012)

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 (Nov 4, 2012)

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 (Nov 4, 2012)

Coyote said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2012)

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.


----------

