Bridge or DSLR Camera

[BCobe]

Looking to invest in a new camera for some traveling photos.

Looking at the Nikon P530 and the Canon SL1. I am not an experienced photographer by any means but would really like
to capture some good landscapes pictures during our next trip. I am leaning more towards the DSLR because I have read that the
print quality is better but having some trouble pulling the trigger.

Opinions? Input? If more information is needed then let me know! I am choosing between these two due to the price point and availability of both.

 

[Deleted member 96197]

When it comes to cameras you if you do enough research you will find support for any belief system that you have, but for most cases a bridge camera will do as much as you are going to be asking of it, but if you're the type that tends to dive deeper and deeper in to something once you start, I would reccomend looking at a mirrorless system, the M4/3 (Olympus, panasonic) or the Fuji Xmount, both are very high quality systems for which some pros are even leaving their DSLR's.

 

[Gizzard Stone]

Sony a7

I like the Sony a7 platform. The a7r for stills or the a7s for stills and video.

They both do video and stills, but the a7s is better for video.

They are full frame cameras, but mirrorless, so not true SLRs. But that makes them super light and compact which is nice for overlanding. With one of those and a super light tripos, even a Joby, you'd be set up pretty well.


-M

 

[Scott H Murray]

Just be mindful regarding number of shots per battery life. DSLR's are much better if battery life is important.
As stated mirrorless are nice and light and compact, unless you put on big lenses but battery life is questionable. So either buy extras or take charging gear if going for more than 2 days.

 

[Airmapper]

I use a Bridge (Canon SX60 IS) for several reasons. And I've owned an SLR (before they were DSLR) and have stuck with bridge models since digital took over.

My big reason is it's just one thing to pack, no extra lenses to forget back in the truck or pack with me. My take on it is good photos only get taken when you have the camera and it's ready to shoot. If it's a chore to configure and you have to pack lenses, you'll miss shots and unless you are very enthused the whole packing around photography equipment thing will get old. All I have are some minor accessories like spare batteries/charger and an external mic (for filming video) but other than that it's a grab and go unit. I usually have it attached to one of those skateboarder steady-cam handles, it looks ridiculous, but it makes keeping hold of the thing and taking steady video easier and protects the camera from bumps somewhat. No bag, no lenses, just grab that handle and walk off, if your going to be out a while, put a spare battery in your pocket. (I haven't needed one yet...hardly ever stay away from the vehicle and thus access to a charger that long.)

It's versatile, it may not do everything exceptionally well but the range of things it does well at for the non-Professional is mind blowing.

It's relatively inexpensive. At about $500 I'm going to be sad but I'm not going to be ruined if it falls in the lake or down a cliff, both places I take a camera, and back to my first point on not packing other expensive items to loose with it.

If you are a pro photographer, there are several drawbacks even my amateur photo skills can discern. I don't like the motorized zooming and I don't like not having a grab and twist manual focus. It sucks at low light situations and has a very hard time focusing when it's dark. I'm sure there are a handful of other reasons relating to lens optics, image sensor, and post processing, but I'd need a lot more knowledge and skills to even start to nitpick there.

Until I get the inclination to delve and invest into photography seriously, the bridge does fantastically well for no more than I demand of it. The ease and convenience of a point and shoot, with the big lens and zoom of a DSLR. Actually my Canon easily outperforms my skills, as it has many manual settings I'll rarely play with, and even shoots in RAW.

I say a bridge is fine if your not looking to be a serious pro-sumer or professional photographer, but want better images than you take with a small point-and-shoot, or the ever popular but disheartening to all half way serious picture takers... the cell phone camera. (Although I have been a bit impressed with my phones camera....good in a pinch but lens size has to count for something.)

If your looking to be a serious photographer, DSLRs and dumping money into lenses becomes more appealing because it's more of a hobby and art, and the extra qualities and nuances of the equipment will be appreciated over versatility and convenience.

 

[BCobe]

When it comes to cameras you if you do enough research you will find support for any belief system that you have, but for most cases a bridge camera will do as much as you are going to be asking of it, but if you're the type that tends to dive deeper and deeper in to something once you start, I would reccomend looking at a mirrorless system, the M4/3 (Olympus, panasonic) or the Fuji Xmount, both are very high quality systems for which some pros are even leaving their DSLR's.

This is why I posted here and not some photography site. I have been reading through some of the posts on those forums and they are generally skewed one way or the other. Hard to get a definitive answer.

Also, the Nikon is about $275 and the Rebel SL1 is about $390. The Rebel only comes with one lens though. The sonys are a little out of my price range, same with the M4/3's and the Canon SX60 but thank you for the recommendations.

If I can find a mirror less in that price range I may pick it up. My wife has a Nikon 1 J1 and I loved that camera but it is now plagued with the lens contact error. We are looking at sending the lens itself to Nikon but don't think we will get it back in time for our trip. Downside is that wife also wants one with a viewfinder.

 

[deserteagle56]

Check out the buying guide at www.dpreview.com.

The Panasonic FZ-1000 gets rave reviews from most who have tried it. So much so that Nikon has now brought out one that's equivalent.

Since I went superzoom all my Nikons - and all those heavy lenses - have been gathering dust.

 

[BCobe]

In the end, I went over budget and got the Canon SX60. Thanks everyone for their input!

 

[kojackJKU]

I use the fuji x-s1 "pro bridge". Its built like a tank, produces amazing photos, and no need to lug around a crap ton of lenses. I also have the fuji x10, same sensor, processing engine etc, but fits in a pocket. That way all my photos look the same and give a seamless integration. The x-s1 is my favorite camera. I wish they continued that line, and made upgrades etc.

There is nothing like FUJI photos. 90% of the time I can pick out pictures taken with a fuji before PP.

 

[Deleted member 96197]

In the end, I went over budget and got the Canon SX60. Thanks everyone for their input!

Awesome, most important thing you can do now, its shoot it till it stops working, and don't read single camera review until you're done with that camrea, camera people are as bad as off roaders about lusting after new gear!

 

[kojackJKU]

IF not worse. ha ha

 

[Airmapper]

In the end, I went over budget and got the Canon SX60. Thanks everyone for their input!

Excellent choice. I like mine, I like it a lot. I had a SX30 previously and the difference in quality is amazing. I liked my SX30 so much I decided to stick with Canon and stick with the SX line and I'm glad I did.

If you want to experiment with RAW, which this camera does, go on Canons website and download the Digital Photo Professional 4.4.30 for Windows (Software tab at this link:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...-hs?tab=drivers#Z7_MQH8HIC0L88RB0AMD0F1Q42K25

Also, if you do video, a $20 external mic does wonders. It also suppresses the lens movement noise making it into the video.

The RAW format and an external mic input are two features that set this camera apart from comparable Superzoom bridges.

 

[Kerensky97]

Awesome, most important thing you can do now, its shoot it till it stops working, and don't read single camera review until you're done with that camrea, camera people are as bad as off roaders about lusting after new gear!

So true. All camera's these days are pretty amazing and will take great shots, it's usually not the camera holding back the photography but the user that holding things back. If you're not getting the shots you want do some research online, more likely it's the process of taking the picture that will be the limitation, not the camera. And after 2-3 years when you find your education level is great and it really is the camera holding you back then you can upgrade; by then you'll know exactly what feature it is that you need.

 

[Deleted member 96197]

So true. All camera's these days are pretty amazing and will take great shots, it's usually not the camera holding back the photography but the user that holding things back. If you're not getting the shots you want do some research online, more likely it's the process of taking the picture that will be the limitation, not the camera. And after 2-3 years when you find your education level is great and it really is the camera holding you back then you can upgrade; by then you'll know exactly what feature it is that you need.

x2

 

[99Discovery]

For landscape photography, it is tough to beat a DSLR with a wide angle pro-lens. Especially since full-frame chips tend to have the best dynamic range, which is essential for landscape photography.

Coupled with the fact that the pro-lens is most likely a "fast" lens, you can go from shooting a mountainscape at F8 to F11 to a closeup of a flower at F1.4-2.8, with amazing Bokeh without changing gear.

Sure, some can argue that Micro-4/3 can do "almost as good" and you can "photoshop the rest". I've heard all the arguments, as I moved from Film to APS-C size sensors and finally back to full-frame. The night-time performance is excellent as well.

Also, I'm talking pro or semi-pro DSLRs. I'm a Nikon guy, so this would be the Nikon D300/700, D810, D4, etc. Not the Dxxxx series, which have some of the advantages, but not ALL.

THAT SAID.

When I'm overlanding, one of my most used pieces of kit is the Olympus tough TG series (any of them). They aren't even a "bridge camera" but a high-end point and shoot. Quality is good (not DSLR by any means), but it is pocketable (pant and shirt), doesn't need a case, water proof, crush proof, dust proof and can churn out videos if the need arises.

When a rig is crossing an obstacle, I usually grab the Olympus Tough TG and take stills or videos, the DSLR nicely protected in the car. I do shoot the DSLR enough to warrant bringing it, but it is usually for set-up shots and shots taken at the destination/lunch breaks, not for shots on the trail. It takes too much time.

Likewise, I have an excellent 3-CCD video camera (the old Cannon XH-A1) for my HD videos. The lens on that is AWESOME and it pretty much takes my best videos. But I don't take it on the trail anymore because of how hard it is to access, I end up using the Olympus Tough or my Nikon D800 DSLR instead. But that's a topic for another thread, as the OP is focused on landscape.

For landscape, I'd say full-frame DSLR is still the best. Medium format is probably even better, but hardly anyone has the $$ to invest in one of those systems for landscapes, especially when the Nikon FX, Sony Full Frame, and Canon Full Frame do pretty much just as well (and arguably better) with the smaller sensors.

In the end though, whatever you have is the best camera. So don't wait 3 or 4 years to buy the latest Canon and not take pictures in the meantime. Pick your budget and buy what you can afford, even if it is an older model from 2005. People made big bucks off of their $5k 2005 professional DSLRs and you can pretty much have them for $500-800 on the used market now!