some cracking videos there Pete, I took some with mine of the Kingfishers I was watching last year, I held my breath while trying to hold the camera still but after a while you have to breath, sounds like a video shot by darth Vader I too wouldnt change it for anything although I did look at Stephen Rigby's coment that he has the newer sx 50 and felt a bit envious

I use a Canon PowerShot SX30 IS bridge camera and I wouldn't change it for anything. I don't take photographs, I make videos (see below) and try to avoid editing.

David Wilson wrote:

---

My final word on this you will all be pleased to hear.! Think we have gone off from the original question(my fault). I dont deny slr cameras are superior to bridge cameras. Otherwise they wouldnt cost so much more. However there are other factors to consider when choosing a camera. And I think its very unfair to say that bridge cameras are only good for record shots. I managed a swift at full tilt with mine. The original question was bridge camera worth buying for bird photography. Id say yes.

---

Only if its a lumix fz150 ,as the rest are all rubbish

My final word on this you will all be pleased to hear.! Think we have gone off from the original question(my fault). I dont deny slr cameras are superior to bridge cameras. Otherwise they wouldnt cost so much more. However there are other factors to consider when choosing a camera. And I think its very unfair to say that bridge cameras are only good for record shots. I managed a swift at full tilt with mine. The original question was bridge camera worth buying for bird photography. Id say yes.

David Wilson wrote:

---

So I think it is an issue at times. Even more so when there are a dozen of them reverberating in a hide.!

---

Couldn't agree more, David...

...perhaps we could start a business making silencers for these cameras?

Steve

Having looked at the photos taken with dslr and photos taken with bridge cameras ,I think the dslr wins hands down .Im a great believer in you get what you pay for , so if you can afford the dslr and dont mind the extra weight, I would go for the dslr or look at the new evil cameras that have the same sensor as a dslr but are much lighter to carry

I wish I was joking Steve. However on a number of occasions I have seen birds spook because of noisy shutters. We had a Male hen harrier flying towards us a few months back down at Burton marsh. I was happily snapping away and then what sounded like muffled gun fire from 20 yards away sent the bird wheeling away. I also photograph foxes in my local woods and there is no way you could get away with any shutter noise. If you breathe at the wrong time they are gone. So I think it is an issue at times. Even more so when there are a dozen of them reverberating in a hide.!

JOHN TYMON wrote:

---

David Wilson wrote:

---

Aha. Also it seems that these " look at my big lens" camera guys have a volume setting on the shutter set to full max. You can here them a mile away... and so can the birds.

---

There are no volume settings on DSLR ,the shutter sound cannot be turned off like bridge cameras as its a real shutter

---

Think that was a joke from David - or was it?

Actually it is a serious issue. When I studied film-making (pre-digital of course!) we used to have sound-proof camera covers (soft blimps they were called) so that if you were recording sound you wouldn't hear the constant whirring of the camera in the background. Surely these could be made for DSLRs?

David Wilson wrote:

---

Aha. The bridge camera debate has cropped up again.! Ive got a Lumix FZ 150 and to be honest havent looked at slr mega zoom pictures with envy. Surely its all about field craft and getting in the right place as close as possible without disturbing the bird and in good light conditions. And its much easier to carry a compact bridge through the undergrowth than a rocket launcher. Also it seems that these " look at my big lens" camera guys have a volume setting on the shutter set to full max. You can here them a mile away... and so can the birds. As a pro photographer said to me once " nice story. what typewriter do you use.?" in other words its not the camea but the photographer. Feel free to judge for yourself on my flickr page davewilson7. .

---

There are no volume settings on DSLR ,the shutter sound cannot be turned off like bridge cameras as its a real shutter
The FZ150 is a good camera, I had one for my macro shots as its an outstanding camera for that as you can see on my flickr, But it was lacking when it came to birds. Most birds will not let you near enough ,not to have to crop and thats when the bridge camera loses, once cropped the tiny sensor losing quality ,which most DSLR'S will allow a little cropping. Check any magazine and you will find little or no shots that have been done with a bridge camera, as they will not print to the standards required.In fact many magazines won't accept heavily cropped images from DSLR for the same reason.
As said before record shots, bridge cameras are fine unless its a wader shooting past, but for bird photography there is little a bird photographer can do apart from use DSLR ,and high quality lenses.
The same people who complain about the weight of DSLR'S will carry telescopes on there back with rucksacks ,tripods, which I bet weigh Twice as much than my Kit of Bins. dslr with lens across the shoulder, small compact LX7 in pocket for landscapes and Im happy as I could be.
So the original question of the thread-Bridge camera for Bird photography worth doing? I would say no. Bridge camera as an accessory to help with id ,or record of a rare bird etc yes its fine.

keep birding and enjoy as you wish ,thats the main thing

p.s
David-great shots with the Pana on your flickr,you have mastered it well and I also liked when I was using that ,on a hot sunny day when the Dragonflies are about leaving the dslr at home and supprisingly like you find,at times the pictures are more interesting due to the fact that with a bridge camera you can get a lot more viriety,where the downside of the big lens,is you cannot go from a landscape to birdshot without messing about,or carrying 2 bodies,which then becomes a pain,I have got around that with the Lumix lx7 for my landscapes,but I know come summer I will miss the FZ150 for the dragonflies and butterflies,and won't be supprised if I buy another one for that purpose as a macro lens that doas not get as good results costs twice as much as the pana fz150.




-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Tuesday 26th of March 2013 01:40:24 PM

Aha. The bridge camera debate has cropped up again.! Ive got a Lumix FZ 150 and to be honest havent looked at slr mega zoom pictures with envy. Surely its all about fieldcraft and getting in the right place as close as possible without disturbing the bird and in good light conditions. And its much easier to carry a compact bridge through the undergrowth than a rocket launcher. Also it seems that these " look at my big lens" camera guys have a volume setting on the shutter set to full max. You can here them a mile away... and so can the birds. As a pro photographer said to me once " nice story. what typewriter do you use.?" in other words its not the camera but the photographer. Feel free to judge for yourself on my flickr page davewilson7. .

-- Edited by David Wilson on Tuesday 26th of March 2013 10:11:44 AM

-- Edited by David Wilson on Tuesday 26th of March 2013 10:13:28 AM

It depends on how much you want to spend and carry around. Some bridge cameras have good optical zoom up to x 50 but the picture will not be as good as the more expensive cameras and lenses. Lumix has a good reputation as a small pocket point and shoot compact camera with up to x 25 optical zoom. It also has an excellent super macro that can give a decent picture of the smallest thing even a water flea besides being used for birds. However both these have limits for detailed medium distance shots but are a lot cheaper.

Paul Risley wrote:

---

"pink"

---

Well maybe not pink, but it ain't chestnut (the colour as described in Collins Birds of North America). I wouldn't touch any chestnuts that were the colour in your photo!

Cheers.

Dennis atherton wrote:

---

interesting thread. i guess its all a matter of what you want from your photos, Paul is happy with his and that is fine, i am a little picky and i do want to see feather detail up close and be able to print out at large sizes of at least A4 and you need the dslr for that quailty, it is actually quite funny as John Tymon has like he said tried all types of bridge cameras and everytime he does i always say i bet you take it back dissapointed within the first week, he usually ends up taking them back the next day and i say i told you, im sure hes done this at least 5 times i can think of, a abridge camera is the easy lightwieght option but if you want better quality pics then a dslr is the only way, you dont need a massive large heavy lens that needs a tripod and all that stuff, i only use a 400mm handheld with no image stabilization, in theory my shots should be rubbish but with a bit of camera knowledge and skill and you can do ok with a 300 or 400mm handheld and easy to carry and use, not as light as a bridge but like i said it all depends on what quality your after, good luck, let us know what you end up with, cheers Dennis

---

I am sure one day the holy grail of a light camera with powerful lens that gives dslr type images will come. But that day has not arrived yet, and while they keep putting sensors the size of your little finger nail and getting smaller in bridge cameras, image quality will never be there, and the smaller the sensor the bigger the zoom, because that is the way they keep increasing the zoom by making the sensors smaller, because if they used a a full size sensor to get a 24-1000 lens that is on the normal bridge cameras now, the lens would need to come out of the camera to about 4 foot+ long, which will be much heavier than any DSLR and lens. So bridge camera and high quality can never really happen and although good for the web or printing small, they will never be acceptable for large printing or magazines.
Bridge cameras are great for Landscape, macro and record shots of birds that are close and fairly still. :)

interesting thread. i guess its all a matter of what you want from your photos, Paul is happy with his and that is fine, i am a little picky and i do want to see feather detail up close and be able to print out at large sizes of at least A4 and you need the dslr for that quailty, it is actually quite funny as John Tymon has like he said tried all types of bridge cameras and everytime he does i always say i bet you take it back dissapointed within the first week, he usually ends up taking them back the next day and i say i told you, im sure hes done this at least 5 times i can think of, a abridge camera is the easy lightwieght option but if you want better quality pics then a dslr is the only way, you dont need a massive large heavy lens that needs a tripod and all that stuff, i only use a 400mm handheld with no image stabilization, in theory my shots should be rubbish but with a bit of camera knowledge and skill and you can do ok with a 300 or 400mm handheld and easy to carry and use, not as light as a bridge but like i said it all depends on what quality your after, good luck, let us know what you end up with, cheers Dennis

Andy wrote "Well maybe not pink, but it ain't chestnut", for a moment Andy I was going to suggest youd be better buying a new monitor rather than a camera, the Bird is that colour I can assure you, it diet is probably better than mine it will be on display at Haigh Hall country park from may the 1st Im led to believe so if you get the chance nip down and see her, for a harris hawk she is a beauty

Ian wrote "For walkabout birding on a bright sunny day I'd be happy to take a Bridge camera however all the bridge cameras are still too large to carry on the shoulder or around the neck when you've already wearing your bins. Mine spent most of its time sat in the rucksack"
Ian I do most of my birding in wooded valleys, the camera goes around the neck and under the jacket and the bins go in the pocket, when you run down a small slope and jump the stream at the bottom bins around the neck tend to fly up and hit you in the face, after a couple of times you adapt, and anyway if you have a rucksack mate you have too much equipment

Andy wrote "but blown up, they lose a lot of detail (except where in full-on sunshine)".

Ian wrote "In general Bridge cameras are ok for static subjects in good light - preferably direct sunshine"

The question was "Has anyone had any decent results from a bridge camera"? so the answer is yes in good light, the question wasnt how does it compare to a top of the range camera that costs ten times as much.

John wrote "I am sure one day the holy grail of a light camera with powerful lens that gives dslr type images will come. But that day has not arrived yet"
Its not far off John, personally I believe they can do it now if they wanted but just look at the money they would lose in sales of long lenses,
Btw Cracking shots of the stonechat


-- Edited by Paul Risley on Sunday 24th of March 2013 11:19:34 PM

"pink"

Thanks for opening up the discussion. Paul, I've looked your flickr page, and I can see what both sides of the argument are getting at. The pictures look really good when just above thumbnail size, but blown up, they lose a lot of detail (except where in full-on sunshine). And what about colour reproduction? Is a Harris' hawk really pink? Maybe its in the diet it was getting! Anyway, I've got evidence to go on now. The weight factor is the thing that I keep coming back to though.

Cheers,

Andy, as I said I use a bridge camera, check out my flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrisley/ click on one of the photos then to the right of the picture click on the camera details, canon powershot, it will show recent interesting photos taken using the same camera, look at other peoples shots of birds taken with the same camera. While mine arent brilliant, they were all taken on automatic settings and all at least a minimum 30 feet away without a tripod, other peoples pictures show that birds can be well worth doing. To compare them with DSLR pictures as John Tymon suggested is a little unfair, in the canon DSLR range on flickr alone there are over 960 million images compared to just over 100 million in the whole point and shoot range, theres bound to be a few better ones and still have to disagree with John that there is a world of difference, there are too many online magazine reviews disagreeing with that statement. finally think when you go on holiday of the money youll save not having to pay for excess baggage if you take a bridge camera

In my experience in regards to bird photography if you're happy with a record shot then they're worth doing. If you want a bit more quality eg. feather detail or you're going to be be taking photo's in less than ideal condition a DSLR and a 300mm+ lens is required.

In general Bridge cameras are ok for static subjects in good light - preferably direct sunshine. Unfortunately bright sunny days are a bit of a rarity around here especially during the winter months.

For walkabout birding on a bright sunny day I'd be happy to take a Bridge camera however all the bridge cameras are still too large to carry on the shoulder or around the neck when you've already wearing your bins. Mine spent most of its time sat in the rucksack therefore the weight advantage compared to a DSLR became irrelevant.

If money is tight have a look at the used camera market eg. MPB Photographic. You can pick up a Canon 40D or a Nikon D300 for less than £350 (Or even a Canon 400D for £120). Both of these combined with a decent lens will make good birding cameras. If you're looking at Canon the 100-400mm zoom has a good reputation and used it'll cost circa £800. If you prefer Nikon the relatively old 300mm F4 prime lens is hard to beat for sheer optical quality and can be found used for £500. Just remember whilst camera bodies come and go the lens is an investment that you'll own for many years.

Got to agree with John. I've got a Lumix FZ50 and it's great for what I need but the image quality is nothing like John's shots with his SLR. I used to be a pro photographer too so I don't think you can blame the person behind the lens!

Paul's spot on about the shutter noise though - so many hides on reserves sound like a war zone these days

Pauls says there is little difference in quality between bridge cameras and DSLR. There is a world of difference check out flickr sites and see ,search by camera, and you will see the difference for bird photography is still vast between bridge and DSLR, otherwise no one would ever carry the big lenses around and pay the vast amount's of money they cost. As I said in my first answer, I have had and sold most of the bridge cameras in search of the lighter option, but within a couple of days go back to the Nikon DSLR'S :)

Hi Andy, I use a bridge camera, I stick it under my jacket, go for a long walk and take photo's on the way. half the photo's I take I would not get with a big lens and tripod kit, I went out to photograph young Buzzards on the nest a couple of years ago with my brother who use to be a pro photogragher and has all the kit. we spotted a fox on the path in front of us on the way, I got a couple of good photo's of it, but it had gone before he'd even got his camera set up, there's little difference in picture quality nowadays, check out reviews online from various sites for more information on this, don't take my word. and they are also much quieter, everytime I've turned up at a sight this winter with waxwings they've been spooked by someone with a long lens DSLR on burst that sounded like a machine gun with a silencer on it. get yourself a bridge camera mate and enjoy yourself

Andy, as a novice photographer (and birder) I would not disagree with the comments of the more experienced members above but I have recently bought a Canon sx50 which I am very impressed with. O.k. it would not replace your dslr but at around 1/3rd the price of a decent zoom lens perhaps it would make a decent 2nd camera

Thanks guys. Just what I expected really. I used to have a 400mm lens post digital age, and got some reasonable shots. After that though, I never found a 300mm lens was 'big' enough for worthwhile images. Shame really, but with 2 x pairs of binoculars (one for close-up insects), a tripod, telescope, camera and lenses to cart about, I was hoping that something revolutionary might have some along. Looks like bird shots are out then!

I use a Nikon DSLR and also have a Lumix FZ150 bridge camera, I also used to own a Lumix FZ38.

The bridge cams are great for lots of different things all with one lens. Its great being able to shove the cam right up to a macro subject and some of the accessories for sale can make it even better and are often cheap.
They also shoot in camera raw which is great and sometimes it can be hard to tell which cam I used looking back at the pictures.

However they are not always great and sometimes the noise levels can be quite high . I find myself not bothering to take the Lumix out with me anymore as often it makes me miss the clarity of a DSLR.

You do get a lot for the money, they can do so much and can take a great picture but they can also be frustrating.

-- Edited by Karl Blundell on Wednesday 20th of March 2013 10:21:02 AM

Its the Holy grail for bird photographers,and what I have been searching for ,for 10 years.I have had almost every top Bridge camera,and in reality they are not good enough for bird photography,they are ok for record shots,but still only DSLR is good enough for decent shots.Bridge cameras are great for macro and certain landscapes,but the sensors on them that are the size of your small finger nail,do not allow for detailed shots,and are almost impossible even with the best of them,and I have had the best which are the fz150/fz200 panasonics,to get birds in flight,the shutter lag,and viewfinder lag means its just frustrating.
I would drop the DSLR in a second if a full size sensor bridge camera arrived with a 24-1000 lens,but unfortunately it will never happen as the lens will need to be about 4 foot long ,that is why DSLR lenses are so big,its nothing to do with the lens its the size of the sensor and the angle to the sensor that creates the power of the lens and thats why as the lenses get more zoom in bridge cameras the sensors get smaller,so cropping produces poor images.
Its all dependent what you want,if its just a record shot where you can tell what the bird is,abridge can do that.If its good shot that you want,that can be used in magazines or websites,then DSLR is the only way at the moment.


-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Wednesday 20th of March 2013 10:32:13 AM

When choosing a new lens for my SLR recently, I decided to go for a dedicated macro after some thought, as insects are now of most interest to me. However, I would still like to take some bird shots, especially on one-off trips abroad (and for when I next run into a rarity in G. M/c). Has anyone had any decent results from a bridge camera? Some of the magnifications possible these days are way beyond most (affordable) SLR lenses anyway, and so I do not resemble a Himalayan sherpa when I'm out birding, I feel that one of those would be more suitable for my needs.

I'd appreciate anything which might be helpful.

Thanks.