Which Bridge Camera?

Rob MacKillop

Rob MacKillop

Edinburgh Correspondent
Last edited:
What you going to use it for?
I'd probably go the Sony, not though experience of the camera specifically, but the rx100 i have is now my oldest digital. I sold it to a mate once. I bought it back in the end
 
It will be an all-round, general photography camera. The zoom is great on the Panasonic, less so on the Sony, but the Sony can keep at f2.5 throughout it's length, the Panasonic going from f2.5 to 4. When comparing both cameras, almost all the reviews kind of nod towards the Panasonic, but say it is close.
 
Such a difficult thing too choose with so many variables and all of such good quality.

My first digital was abridge a 6mp Konica Minolta A2 CCD sensor and even now looking at the raw files it produced some smashing images.
From the two above I'd attempt to handle them and the feel of there use in hand would be my own deciding factor. I wonder if Currys or the such have them to be able to do that?
Just looked at DPReview and I see the RX10 has a newer recent release with the X1011 so the Panasonic is a slightly newer model.
Also there in depth review of each has the Panasonic coming out just on top as well.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8964627573/fully-stacked-hands-on-with-sony-s-rx100-iv-and-rx10-ii

 
I have no experience with either but from experience with the RX100 (I have just bought a Mk III) and seeing the output from other Sony's I have been impressed. But I'm not sure I would go with a bridge camera at all. I would think about a more pocketable came ash the RX100 is so impressive. And of course the new versions have a viewfinder.
 
Ditto ..
You gotta ask yourself just how much you shoot tele. I bought a 90mm recently, expecting to use it a lot. I use it a lot less than I thought I would.
I tried a super zoom Sony recently something like 720mm equiv lens. I found it basically pointless
 
Hamish Gill said:
Ditto ..
You gotta ask yourself just how much you shoot tele. I bought a 90mm recently, expecting to use it a lot. I use it a lot less than I thought I would.
I tried a super zoom Sony recently something like 720mm equiv lens. I found it basically pointless
Click to expand...

Have to admit Hamish, my 135mm glass is now permanently attached to my camera... :)
 
Hamish Gill said:
Ditto ..
You gotta ask yourself just how much you shoot tele. I bought a 90mm recently, expecting to use it a lot. I use it a lot less than I thought I would.
I tried a super zoom Sony recently something like 720mm equiv lens. I found it basically pointless
Click to expand...

I have a couple of tele lenses and a couple of zooms. I use the tele lenses very seldom and the zooms even seldomer. I didn't buy any of them--they all came in a package with this camera or that. They don't appeal to me. (Although @Douglas McMann is doing some noteworthy stuff with that 135 of his.) What do you want a bridge camera for anyway, Rob? And why are you going dij again? I thought you had become a film man through and through?
 
Oh, hello, Brian. :) I just found film work too expensive, especially when development costs are added - I know you do your own, and that cuts down on more than half the costs. I still prefer film, very much so, but it looks like I need to keep it for special occasions, or when I'm feeling flush.
A bridge camera is an all-in-one camera. I'm not expecting super-high quality, but something that can do a good variety of situations. I have a bridge already, the Fuji XS-1, which is pretty damned good for the price (around £200 these days, half what I paid for it two years ago). So I might just stick with that. It has its limitations, so I was enticed by the new 1" sensor varieties which have come out: the Sony and the Panasonic. But I might wait for the prices to come down.
 
Rob MacKillop said:
Oh, hello, Brian. :) I just found film work too expensive, especially when development costs are added - I know you do your own, and that cuts down on more than half the costs. I still prefer film, very much so, but it looks like I need to keep it for special occasions, or when I'm feeling flush.
A bridge camera is an all-in-one camera. I'm not expecting super-high quality, but something that can do a good variety of situations. I have a bridge already, the Fuji XS-1, which is pretty damned good for the price (around £200 these days, half what I paid for it two years ago). So I might just stick with that. It has its limitations, so I was enticed by the new 1" sensor varieties which have come out: the Sony and the Panasonic. But I might wait for the prices to come down.
Click to expand...
I'd wait as you say Rob, the prices drop so quickly now it seems, then like me wait a bit more, then a bit more and you have money in the bank which sometimes can be spent on things more useful than camera's. Also these bridge cameras do go for a song second hand, I was looking at the Minolta Dimage A2 my first bridge camera, yes old but had some smashing images from a trip around France with it, the files I have still stand up from such a small CCD sensor shooting in raw , they go for about £100 now or there about's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

David Mitchell
Basic manual digital camera - DSLR or other?
Replies
2
Views
2K
David Mitchell
David Mitchell
Chris Dodkin
Fujifilm X10 Ergonomic Extension Kit
Replies
0
Views
2K
Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin
Darren Turner
For Sale - Lowepro Classified 200 AW Shoulder Bag - Sepia
Replies
3
Views
2K
Darren Turner
Darren Turner
Chris Dodkin
The 50 Greatest Cameras of All Time
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Gary R. Smith
Gary R. Smith
Back
Top