This may seem back to front but.....

Hejikibob

Hejikibob

Messages
139
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone ever gone from a Bridge camera to a DSLR then back to a Bridge?

I had a Fujifilm S9600 that I got some good pics with then got my hands on a Nikkon D70. I have got 2 lenses with it (an 18-70 and 70 -300) but tbh I am thinking of going back to my S9600. I did try to sell the Fuji but there were no takers so that suits me now as I don't have to buy another :lol:

Has anyone else gone back to Bridge after having a DSLR?
 
I've still got my S9600 it was my first 'bridge/feel like a dslr' camera.

I got it out the wardrobe the other day and it felt really rather poor. The size and weight, the shutter delay, the menu system.:gag:

Of course whats behind the viewfinder is often more important that what is in front of it, so I am not suggesting it is a bad camera at all :lol:

I really don't think I could go back and thats me with one of the smaller DSLRs.
 
Can I ask why you are moving back? What does the S9600 give you that the D70 doesn't?
 
I am still shooting with the S9600, need to make the next step.
 
Hongsta299 said:
Can I ask why you are moving back? What does the S9600 give you that the D70 doesn't?
Click to expand...

S9600 has more pixels, LIve view, flippy out screen, As well as a super Macro mode and a 28-300mm lens that doesn't come off.

Oh yeah, shoot video too....

D70 should be much better quality, IQ, faster and better focussing etc...
 
And if I was going back, I would get the Fuji HS10 instead of the s9600, which is way better! Though the HS20 is out soon....
 
Last edited:
I went from a Canon S3iS to a 350D and initially I hated it. Took me months to get to grips and actually get a picture that I felt was better quality than I could get with the S3. For a while I took both cameras around with me so that I could practice and guarantee I'd get a shot or two I was happy with.

I still have the S3iS, which I do use occasionally if I go to concerts and need something with a long zoom that I can sneak in past security, but the 350D has gone and been upgraded to a 500D & a Panasonic GF-1.

EDIT: Would be interesting to know the reasons you're thinking of going back. I don't think I would go back to a bridge by choice, but if I had to I think I could manage ok.
 
Last edited:
Lawrie29 has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Also the Fuji is smaller and lighter.

I have tried to get to grips with the Nikon but just not feeling it. I don't think I'm that into photography to have the patience to learn how to do it properly. The Fuji actually does a lot more behind the scenes to help get a better picture for general point n click and does good pictures when doing track days and that is pretty much what I am after.

I know the D70 will produce better pics if I learnt how to use it properly but basically I can't be bothered :lol:
 
Why not consider the Panasonic GH1 then?

Small, light, flip out screen, dslr quality pictures, etc, etc.

Basically almost like a bridge camera body/ergonomics with a SLR sensor and interchangable lenses?

I have a GF1 and love it to bits for casual shooting or short trips.
 
Yes. Infact this is my time line from 2005 to today.

Bridge, DSLR (D50), DSLR (D200), DSLR (D90), DSLR (D700), Bridge, DSLR (canon 450D), DSLR (Canon 50D), DSLR (D700)!

I'll never go back to anything but a DSLR again. I sold all my gear, including the D700 and bought a canon SX1 IS. Pretty much instantly regretted it, but I needed the money. Not long after I got sick of it and bought a canon 450D. The story after that doesnt need going over again.

I can understand your reasoning, but take the time to really learn the D70, and you'll be able to get pictures like you did with the bridge.
 
There is no avoiding the fact that the bridge will be smaller and lighter and it pretty much sounds like you've made up your mind already.

The only real case to put forward is maybe to try and streamline the kit you carry around. Either just go with one of your lenses or sell them both and go for a single superzoom if you need the full range you get with both. Possible a bit advantage of it is that the larger sensor & better noise control would afford you to crop into your photo's a bit better than perhaps you can with the bridge.

I've never done a track day so haven't photgraphed it either, but am impressed the fuji is fast enough for it.
 
The fuji S9600 is a competant camera for tracks days. Granted there is a lot better out there but I did get some good pics from Silverstone a couple of years ago. I have since lost most of them unfortunately but it can hold it's own for capturing fast cars.
 
I bought a bridge at the start of January, started using it but wasn't too happy with low light performance, so I bought a 450D, then started thinking about how much money I'd spent, and how much more I'd need to spend on filters, a bag and a tripod, and then instantly started regretting it, haha.

Trying to get rid of the 450D now, and decided to get into DSLRs later in life when I have a more steady cashflow.
 
Last edited:
I once gave it a thought not long after i got my first dslr as things seemed a bit daunting but i didn't and i'm glad of that.
Whilst i first got into photography on a bridge camera which was an olympus 570 the low light capability and frame rate would now prevent me going back.
 
Smeghead said:
I bought a bridge at the start of January, started using it but wasn't too happy with low light performance, so I bought a 450D, then started thinking about how much money I'd spent, and how much more I'd need to spend on filters, a bag and a tripod, and then instantly started regretting it, haha.

Trying to get rid of the 450D now, and decided to get into DSLRs later in life when I have a more steady cashflow.
Click to expand...

But a bag an tripod are equally useful for a bridge camera. I think my first tripod (Hama star from Asda) was bought when I had a Sony P200 P&S then I got a sturdier Manfrotto when I got my bridge. As for filters, they're not strictly necessary so could be bought as and when. If you didn't have them before then you're not going to miss not having them.
 
m1pui said:
But a bag an tripod are equally useful for a bridge camera. I think my first tripod (Hama star from Asda) was bought when I had a Sony P200 P&S then I got a sturdier Manfrotto when I got my bridge. As for filters, they're not strictly necessary so could be bought as and when. If you didn't have them before then you're not going to miss not having them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the bag for a bridge doesn't need to be as expensive or big, and you can get away with a lighter tripod (which isn't ideal, a light tripod, but you can still use a cheaper and lighter tripod with a bridge).

If I hadn't bought the DSLR, I'd only have to spend ~£200 for the camera, and then and extra £100 for all the accessories. Whereas with a DSLR, I've already spent £360 for a 450D, kit lens and 50mm f/1.8, but on top of that I've now gotta shell out another £150+ for a bag, a better (and more expensive) tripod and a filter or two.
 
£150 for a bag? That's far from necessary though. My 500D, 17-70mm, 50mm 1.8 & sigma flash fits in a Crumpler bag that cost me about £40.

50mm f1.8 isn't a necessity either. A bridge camera isn't going to give you the ability to shoot at that aperture so if you're willing to go back to a camera where you're permanently without it then you really don't need to buy it.

You can get a decent tripod for £100, give or take and, like the nifty fifty, the filters aren't an absolute must have.

I'm not denying that a DSLR is more expensive than a bridge, but it's entirely possible to streamline what you buy and keep it affordable.
 
No, I meant £150 for a bag, tripod and any other bits and bobs altogether for a DSLR.

Look, this is how it went. I have a 3-week trip in a few months, and wanted to get a new camera to take nice pics. I got a bridge camera, and found I wasn't happy with the low light capabilities, so I bought a 450D with a kit lens (since it was fairly cheap), and since I wanted low light capabilities, I got the 50mm, since it was the cheapest lens that gives decent performance in low light. That cost me £360. But then I started thinking about the bag I needed to buy (£30), and if it's a DSLR, I'd need a much better tripod since I don't want it blowing over and breaking (£70+), and then personally I want to buy filters because they're something I want to experiment with (£30), and then bits and bobs like an extra battery (£10).

But before I knew it, I realised I was going to have to spend £150+ on top of the £360 I paid for the camera. If I'd have just stuck with my bridge camera to learn with for now, I would've only paid £170 for the camera, and then £25 for a bag, about £40 for a decent-ish tripod, and some filters (which are cheap at this thread size), and I'd only have to have spent about £280 for everything. Sure, not all the accessories are essential, but they're things that I want if want to be prepared for this 3-week trip. So now I've decided to get rid of my DSLR, give my bank account a bit of relief, and make do with my bridge and learn with that.

Sorry for the long post. I'm not saying this is going to be everyone's experience, but it is what I experienced in regards to OP's question "has anyone gone from bridge>DSLR>bridge" :)
 
Last edited:
Just bought a Panny FZ100 primarily for holidays etc but like a lot of its bells & whistles.
Low light may be a drawback but it means carrying far less kit & has HD video mode
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top