Are "Bridge" cameras worthy?

No. Expensive. Small sensor size, poor image quality. Might as well buy a cheap dslr for same price.

Unless you want that 100x zoom for god knows what.

>>3117610
I just sold my Coolpix b700 and got a Canon 70d, to be fair the camera is not bad for beginners but it sucks on manual and the sensor is too small to zoom in the pictures

The superzoom Nikon bridge camera can see Saturn without some expensive gross oversized tele

Tbh it's better than most dslr cameras

>>3118029
I think I've seen you shill this 10 times this summer
it's garbage, stop trying to convince yourself you didnt waste your money

>>3117610
rx10ii or iii.
fz1000 or fz2000.

maybe g3x.

>>3118034
With the lx100 you get an actually quite large sensor for a compact/bridge.
It also does decent video and RAW

>>3117610
I purchased one when I went to Tanzania. It was the first "real" camera I every purchased. I was going to be living in a tent in the middle of a game reserve doing animal research. So I chose this camera for a couple of reasons:

>Batteries
I made sure it took AA batteries. This way I was able to take a slew of them and never run out of juice.

>Zoom
I think it had the equivalent of a 600mm lens or something ridiculous.
I wanted to get as close as I could to lions and giraffes and hippos as I could. And although my abilities as a tracker are pretty good, impalas and wildebeest still run away once they can smell/see you -- so having a superzoom was useful.

Thaaaaaaaaaat being said, now having a proper camera and looking back on my photos from that excursion -- I laugh at how horrible they were. I took thousands of photos, and I'm only proud of 2 of them. At the time, it was useful and it served its purpose. But if I went back I would obviously take a proper camera with a tele lens -- it's just that a proper setup is significantly more expensive.

>>3117610
The only reason they exist because the average consumerfag sees the zoom and DSLR body and equates that with value.

"Oh you see here? I don't need fancy lenses, this covers every focal point I'll ever need!"

It's a totally irrelevant market because most of the pictures will end up on Facebook or some other photographic cesspits.

>>3118029
kek, I recognise you too.

>muh zoom

>>3118220
>the average consumerfag sees the zoom and DSLR body and equates that with value
lol yup, that's why i bought mine. was also before i knew about sensor size being much more important than megapixels
>16 megapixels? aw man, that's way more than my shitty phone camera, how could i go wrong?

>>3117610
I used two in sequence when I was tight on money, but a good FF or even APS-C IL camera with a good lens is just a *much* better tool to be working with.

If you spend a bunch of time with your photos, get good devices to do it.

Still cheaper than shooting film anyhow, heh.

why i own a nikon p900

a. $600 + universal accessories
b. 2000mm is pretty fun. admit it.
c. leaning HOW to shoot from macro to moon
d. video, manual modes, feature set specs are fair enough

result: i shoot everyday. everywhere.

cheap price for due diligence

>>3117610
The only worthwhile bridges are the 1" superzooms and the Nikon P900 (so you can check out ass from a mile away).

>>3117610
I know high schools (at least rich high schools) buy a ton of them for their photography and possibly video classes.

I know this because I am a teacher and saw one of my students with one and almost broke it cause I tried to take the lens off

>>3118030
>>3118220

nah you got a different shill, that's my first time shilling for bridge cameras

>>3118719
lol "rich" public high schools (not even charter/private schools) all use entry level DSLRs. don't know what your definition of "rich" is.

>>3118717
how do you bear shooting everyday if nothing looks as you want it to be?

>>3118957
It's a big novelty to him:

>DURR LOOK AT THE MOON, I CAN SHOOT 9000 PICS OF IT BECAUSE I CAN.

Superzoom bridge cameras are noisy even at ISO 100, and the built-in noise reduction will kill half the details with anything higher. The zoom is great for wildlife, but you'll only get decent pictures under ideal lighting conditions. Also, the contrast-based autofocus is too slow at full zoom and the live view is too laggy, so forget trying to get action shots like flying birds. I'd only recommend them if you're looking for a beginner camera and can find one for under $150.

If you're going to spend $400+, you might as well get a DSLR. You can get a Nikon D3400 with a 70-300mm lens for around $500. That will give you a 450mm equivalent, and it's 24 MP, so compared to 16 MP bridge cameras, it's like having 675mm when cropped to the same size, and the image quality will be better. Not only that, phase detection autofocus is almost instant and more precise, and you get a real viewfinder without lag.

>>3118957

Easily... I'm better at using the camera than you are. Composition, color, framing, etc are my choice.

Do you have a model that does all that and presses the button for you?

>>3119021

And you can't. Must own a Salty a22d with no window in the basement.

File: no really you guys, bridge cameras are awesome!.png (21KB, 560x280px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 560x280px

>>3119558
reminder

>>3119567

And a big limp dick is still a limp dick.

youknowhatimean, doncha?

>>3119591
i know that your mental gymnastics to rationalize your shit purchase are getting more and more entertaining
>who needs a sensor bigger than your pinky nail? i make up for it with muh skillz

>>3119558
stop projecting your insecurities onto other people. show us some pictures, then i can maybe point at things that would have bothered me to hell. for me cheap digital is just ugly as fuck and even if the composition is perfect i'm still feeling miserable

File: nicecamera.jpg (66KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1280x720px

>>3119598

You're implying that a shitty photographer gets 'better' with a bigger XYZ (insert random feature).

I know that someone with talent can shoot well with a camera obscura.

>>3119617
>You're implying that a shitty photographer gets 'better' with a bigger XYZ
no, you're implying that i'm implying that when i'm really just saying your sensor is shitty and try as you may to justify it, that will always be a limitation on the technical quality of image you can produce and as a result, the range of applications your camera will have
>but teh zooooms of teh moooon XD

>>3119609

Aw, you've come to realize that, no matter how you hold your tool, you will never have what it takes to truly take a good pic.

It's always the camera's fault.
It must be the sensor, or the strap is too itchy.
Stoopid lighting, why can't this camera be perfect and reveal my awesome skillz.

I suspect ALOT of things bother you. I believe 'triggered' is the term. And a trigger might make you feel better, too.

>>3119625
lol you're still just assuming everyone who didnt buy a bridge camera is an inferior photographer to you

>>3119559
What if I have an MTO 1000mm lens?

>>3119625
This is a lot of shit talking for still not posting any photos. If your photos are good, why wouldn't you just post some to put people in their place?

>>3119620

Yes, the smaller sensor allows for an impressive optical zoom. Trade off based on, ya know, physics.. Luckily, I don't shoot @ 2000mm 24/7. It's just that I can. For cheap.

As for range of applications, enlighten me.

What can't I shoot with a p900? Or, better yet, link to a 'better' setup for the same price. Be sure to match/improve the specs.

(btw, you're obsessing about the Moon ability. altho I do have some incredible shots, I suspect you don't/can't. would you care to discuss the dragonfly on that hottie's ass, 1/2 mile away?)

>>3119625
I kinda agree with your sentiment, but you're being a defensive asshole

Post some photos pls

>>3119632
>altho I do have some incredible shots
post one

>>3119632
>that hottie's ass
lol would you care to discuss being 12?

>>3119632
>a 'better' setup for the same price
i dunno, probably any used entry level dslr with a kit and a telephoto lens?

>>3119626

No, you're assuming that it's the camera that limits a photographer. If Joe Bestbuy can't figure out a P&S, how's a APS-C gonna fix that?

>>3119628

Great, know how to use it?

>>3119638

Correct, you don't know.

>>3119639
>No, you're assuming that it's the camera that limits a photographer
we've been over this already
> If Joe Bestbuy can't figure out a P&S, how's a APS-C gonna fix that?
the fuck are you even talking about? that's really neither here nor there lol

>>3119632
>an impressive optical zoom

>>3119642
>dslr? mirrorless? that's just for people who like to waste money. REAL photographers shoot bridge cameras because muh x99 optical zoom

File: 1448601263707.jpg (238KB, 1337x1289px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1337x1289px

>>3119632
>A camera for autists, normies, and pedophile/perverts

we get it, you're socially awkward

>>3119635

12 is awesome. Boobs are new & exciting. What sucks is that I can't afford four camera bodies & 20 lens. Plus, they are heavy. I'm only 4' tall & my bones will warp under the load. Stupid puberty.

>He still has not posted one photo
Being the best photographer in the world will never make up for shit IQ

Stop encouraging this. This is just as bad as the constant m4/3 vs Sony troll threads. Except this guy is even more retarded than those gearfags