Sorry to ask this question again when I know there are a lot of camera and photography threads on here but what are the advantages of having a DSLR such as [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-D3000-Digital-Camera-18-55/dp/B002J9GIAQ/ref=tpi_image_1?ie=UTF8&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_p=474773573&pf_rd_s=center-6&pf_rd_r=02A1ZKHSA6DRQ334ZVKX&pf_rd_i=403542011 ]the Nikon D3000[/url] for £300 or any other DSLR camera for that matter over a bridge camera such as [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-FinePix-S2950-Digital-Camera/dp/B004G8Q600/ref=dp_ob_title_ce ]the Fujifilm S2950[/url]?
Both have manual controls, shutter priority, aperture priority, similar megapixels, large zoom possibilities, scene recognition, image stabilization.
Apart from being able to change the lens on a DSLR and add filters, is there any reason not to get a Bridge camera if I'm not so sure about spending lots of money on a DSLR but want more control than my current compact is giving me?
Also, is buying 2nd hand a bad idea with something as technical as cameras?
SLR advantages:
Big sensor means much more scope for reducing depth of field. Also means more dynamic range and less noise.
Phase detection means faster AF.
Optical viewfinder means greater clarity. Manual focus is a perfectly viable option.
Fast lenses can be used.
SLR = big sensor = better low ligh performance, and lenses are what they say they are, i.e. a 50mm lens looks like a 50mm lense, not a 120mm lense. Also means a much shallower depth of field, depends on what your shooting as to whether thats a bad thing.
Interchanagable lenses, theres no way my 28-300mm (.135 equiv) fuji s9500 is as good as a 28mm or a 300mm lense, it's good but not like say a 28-70 and a 70-300 on an SLR, which in turn aren't as good as a 28,50,70,100,120, 180, 250mm, 300mm.
Optical viewfinder, digital ones on bridge cameras are almost impossible to focus with.
On the other hand I don't need to faff, and the missus can use it on full auto mode.
What Bez said, except...
Optical viewfinder means greater clarity. Manual focus is a perfectly viable option.
Optical view finders only offer an advantage on moving stuff as their can be a lag or "tearing" of the image as you try to compose. They're much better for manual focusing as you can "zoom" to get critical focus. Better in low light too. Assuming it's a good electronic view finder (which it may or may not be), but consumer dslrs have awful viewfinders anyway...
Bridge is smaller and more convenient. DSLR is bigger with better image quality.
If you only plan to post on the web and print small it will need quite extreme circumstances (like low light and fast action) for the dslr to be 'better'.
If you only plan to post on the web and print small it will need quite extreme circumstances (like low light and fast action) for the dslr to be 'better'.
I'll be honest and say I'm not really going to go way out of my way to take some pics - I'm not going to go on a photography holiday or sit around waiting for the right types of clouds to arrive before taking the snap. I'm suspect I'm what you might call an 'opportunist photographer'. The majority of the pics I take at the moment sit on the computer not being looked at but I'm hoping to put together a bit of a scrap book of pics i've taken. I guess some might get printed out but probably no larger than 12x8 or something like that.
I don't think I want to spend £400-500 and find that I don't use the camera properly. However, I don't mind spending £150 on a bridge rather than £120 on a compact if i'll get more out of the bridge.
You'd need to spend at least £4-500 just on lenses to get the same flexibility from a dslr as you would from a bridge.
Have a look at [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/photos-you-have-taken-in-the-last-month-which-you-are-proud-of ]photos you have taken in the last month which you are proud of[/url] - only a minority were taken with dslrs and I doubt they'd form a majority of the 'best' ones.
Have a look at Micro Four Thirds and Sony NEX type cameras too - somewhere in between the two sort of.
I don't have any experience with bridge cameras but my old Nikon D40 DSLR is still holding up well. Would love a newer body eventually.
Heres some pics that I took while on holiday in Majorca a few weeks ago, to give some idea of the quality you get from a decent DSLR
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rossmiller/sets/72157626693224703/
I would say the main advantage of a DSLR would be the amount of control you have over what the camera does. I'm not sure I would have been able to take a long exposure like the ones in that set with any other type of camera.
i'd say a good bridge will give you what you want. I had both for a while (a canon IS bridge and a 400d) - only got the 400d now, and I'd say if you're wanting flexibility, and a small package, a bridge ticks the boxes. if you're happy to spend a load on glass, the DSLR will undoutably provide better results, however the lenses tend to limit the zoom range available, and the more versatile lenses (i tend to just leave my 18-200 on the body now) tend not to give all the quality improvements a dslr could offer
I'm not sure I would have been able to take a long exposure like the ones in that set with any other type of camera
Any bridge camera will do that.
If you don't know if you want a DSLR then you don't. It offers specific advantages for folk who want to be 'into' photography imo. If you just want decent pictures then get a bridge camera, learn to use it and think about where you point it. Then you can appreciate the smallness and convenience.
Olympus E-PL1 at £280 is bonkers value though and something well worth considering when looking at bridges. Also Oly XZ-1.