12-01-2014, 11:45 PM
(12-01-2014, 08:35 PM)zx_volcane Wrote: A bridge camera is just a compact with a longer optical zoom wrapped up in a silly 0.5x dslr like form factor.
Again, it's down to opinion whether or not that's a negative. I like the fact that they're larger than a compact, as instead of stupid menus to change things, you have actual physical buttons. It's also a good way to start out and then move on to a dSLR. The feel of a camera is a big thing for me, and I've never used a nice compact.
(12-01-2014, 08:35 PM)zx_volcane Wrote: Same small sensor size and image quality, lack of real viewfinder and most annoying of all shutter lag.
Some lower end dSLRs don't have "real" viewfinders or at least 100% ones. But having one at all is better than none IMO, hate using live view unless it's strictly necessary. They do, generally, offer more manual options and longer exposure settings, too.
(12-01-2014, 08:35 PM)zx_volcane Wrote: How often does anyone really need a long lens? I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the time people shoot towards the wider end of the spectrum unless they're a twitcher or just like taking pics of people from afar :p
Often. Not for taking pictures of stationary cars, obviously. But I take pictures of everything, I love track photography and nature etc. This is where a bridge comes into it's own, because you have the ability to do everything in one without carrying around an array of expensive lenses. Not everyone wants to/can do that.
This doesn't apply to me obviously, because I now have my dSLR but it used to.
I just think they're a good compromise for people starting out or with more than a very casual interest. But as I said previously, it's all down to opinion
