Cameras

aardvaak

I am trying to buy a resembly priced bridge camera to replace my Fujifilm S4200.

The supermarkets just don't appear to be stocking them - does anyone know why and where I can get one?

aardvaak

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I don't think there's much of a market for that type of camera nowadays.

People that did use them will have stepped 'down' to phone cameras, stepped up to small dSLRs or moved sorta sideways and upwards to mirrorless/compact systems.

But camera phones produce very poor quality photos 2-3 mega pix. if you want to upload to online photo site they are of no use.

boliston

aardvaak wrote: »

But camera phones produce very poor quality photos 2-3 mega pix. if you want to upload to online photo site they are of no use.

My phone cost 200 pounds and has a 13mp camera but my camera cost 1100 pounds and only has a 10mp resolution - resolution by itself is not the main measure of image quality. The main problem with a phone is that it can be quite fiddly to use for photography - no veiwfinder, no controls for shutter speed, aperture, focus etc like you would normally find on any half decent camera.

DCodd

To be fair, most Independent camera shops still have Bridge cameras available and the latest high end bridge cameras cost more than DSLRs. I've seen Sony and Panasonic versions well above £1k.


aardvaak, check out Argos for the price range you are looking at.

Gloomendoom

boliston wrote: »

no veiwfinder, no controls for shutter speed, aperture, focus etc like you would normally find on any half decent camera.

I find the biggest problem I find with phones and most compact cameras is the lack of a viewfinder. In sunny climes, it is almost impossible to see what you are trying to photograph.

However, the old saying that the best camera is the one that that you have with you is very true and, more often than not, it's a phone.

almillar

No idea why you're looking for a bridge camera in a supermarket. They're not really 'consumer' items any more, and you'll need to go to electronics or camera shops to look at them.
And of course, you've got the internet to look around on.
Also, I was in Currys the other day and they didn't have any bananas!

[Deleted User]

aardvaak - what are you trying to take pictures of? That might help move this 'discussion' in a better direction than arguing about camera shapes.

Sports? Nature? Landscapes? Family photos? Architecture? Low light? Indoors?

Personally, I fancy a Panasonic LX10 once their price drops to something more sensible. I've got the LX7 and it's superb in many respects. It's got a micro 4/3rds sensor in it and a f1.7 max aperture. Sure, it won't zoom much - but I don't need zoom for most things.

I had a bridge camera a long time ago. It was a bit of a novelty, and the massive zoom was a bit pointless.

EssexExile

Good point Ringo, we all use our cameras for different things. I'm not too worried about the f1.7 but couldn't be without my 30x zoom. We agree on Panasonic though.

[Deleted User]

EssexExile wrote: »

Good point Ringo, we all use our cameras for different things. I'm not too worried about the f1.7 but couldn't be without my 30x zoom. We agree on Panasonic though.

Don't worry, i've got a 500mm prime lens for my Panasonic dSLR (after sensor cropping, the equivalent to 30x zoom) It is manual focus though... You can buy really cheap Olympus OM lenses and use them with an adaptor. The 500m was only £30.

I think i've only used it 3 times! The SLR hasn't been touched since I got my LX7 compact. It was a first generation (Panny L10) and was far, far too slow to keep up with my kids. It would probably make a decent bird watching camera.

aardvaak

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

But the latest iPhone is 12MP for example, if that's your primary concern.
Many people are still very happy with older 12MP full frame cameras and produce amazing work for weddings etc.
I know that's far from the only criteria but if that's a serious worry, it shouldn't be.

I still sell a couple of photos that were taken ten years ago with a 3MP camera (I've got one on a French detective novel cover right now) and have others that are publicly available and get dozens of hits a day. You don't need much for web applications.

It's too small for stock photos or printed enlargements of course but there's a middle ground there that more and more phone cameras are stepping into.

I hear what you're saying though, you need a camera you're comfortable with and can rely on. I feel the same.

Not everyone have the latest iphone

aardvaak

ringo_24601 wrote: »

aardvaak - what are you trying to take pictures of? That might help move this 'discussion' in a better direction than arguing about camera shapes.

Sports? Nature? Landscapes? Family photos? Architecture? Low light? Indoors?

Personally, I fancy a Panasonic LX10 once their price drops to something more sensible. I've got the LX7 and it's superb in many respects. It's got a micro 4/3rds sensor in it and a f1.7 max aperture. Sure, it won't zoom much - but I don't need zoom for most things.

I had a bridge camera a long time ago. It was a bit of a novelty, and the massive zoom was a bit pointless.

General scenery, buildings, postboxes etc.