Bridge Camera

[mungo]

I've been thinking about upgrading from my point and shoot compact camera to bigger bells and whistles bridge camera .

Something like this - http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-and-camcorders/digital-cameras/compact-and-bridge-cameras/fujifilm-s9900w-bridge-camera-black-10120092-pdt.html?srcid=198&cmpid=ppc~gg~~~Exact&mctag=gg_goog_7904&s_kwcid=AL!3391!3!51071423255!!!g!82454094575!&device=c&istCompanyId=bec25c7e-cbcd-460d-81d5-a25372d2e3d7&istItemId=rrwmtmmqx&istBid=tztx&PLA=1&ef_id=V0qAhwAAANze8SVe:20160825171137:s

I've an old point and shoot Sony  which does the job fine , but its outdated technology at about 7 years old now. I thought it might be good to move up one level and get something along these lines.I'm not massively into photography or anything but do regularly send pictures  to family members that live abroad and also frequently sell old shit on ebay - so a camera that takes better pictures would be handy.

Looking from advice from P and B'ers on practically/value of these things. They look fucking massive and I don't really want to carry a huge brick around my neck. Also - they are expensive , is it worth it? Especially if I'm just taking day to day photos - I won't be entering  competitions or anything like that or taking pictures of the eclipse.

Any general advice /suggestions would be welcome.

 

 

 

[BallochSonsFan]

Bridge cameras tend to be frowned upon. The relatively low cost of an entry level dSLR has taken a lot of potential bridge camera buyers away. I had a bridge camera when dSLRs were still stupid money (maybe 12 years ago) and at the time they were ok if you could live with the drawbacks. As cameras have improved, so too have bridge cameras. If you don't want a bulky camera then don't get a bridge camera. A compact with a super zoom will be easier to carry around. The drawback with a compact super zoom is that compacts with super zoom lenses aren't the easiest to hold steady and can often give less than ideal results at the full zoom range. Image stabilisation is common on most cameras these days but its not as effective as a proper steady hand. Bridge cameras feel better in the hand and are easier to hold steady. A bridge camera will also offer the option of aperture or shutter priority as well as fully automatic shooting modes so you have more of the control that you'd get from a proper SLR. It'll likely shoot in JPEG or the higher quality RAW format so your image files will be bigger and potentially better (JPEG files are compressed and no matter how good your camera is they are always a compromise over the RAW format). 

A bridge camera is a compromise. You're stuck with the lens it comes with regardless of any limits with the glass and you'll possibly find that you can't use filters as the front of many bridge cameras don't have the threading that filters need. Depending on the type of things you want to photograph, most people who use SLRs will build up a range of lenses that will perform far better in different situations than a single super zoom lens will. A bridge camera might not be great with close-up macro photography, with shooting in low light, with shooting fast moving subjects etc. You're stuck with the glass that comes fitted. SLRs? You adapt your kit to the type of photos you take.

That said, an entry level dSLR and a couple of general purpose lenses will set you back about £500. If you don't intend to get into photography as a hobby but you want the flexibility of a bigger zoom lens and some manual controls then save yourself about £200 and get a decent bridge camera. Its a compromise over the flexibility and quality of a proper SLR, but maybe one you can live with, particularly if it's saving you £200.