Newbie help

[Ladyblackswan]

That would be great! Mine has a ton of menus, half of which I don't know how to use,lol

[JFeinbergPhotography]

Sure, just PM me so it reminds me the next time I come on.

[inkista]

This is just me, but I wouldn't recommend a bridge camera if you want to get available light capability or bokeh. Bridge cameras are terrific if you need a superzoom, don't mind the bigger size/weight, and shoot mostly in the daytime.

But they have smaller sensors, worse high-ISO performance, don't do RAW, and typically only open up to f/2.8. If you have the cash, I'd actually look at the crop of high-end P&S cameras that offer more on the wide end than the tele, and that have max. apertures of f/2 or wider. The Canon S95, Panasonic Lumix LX-5, or Olympus XZ1 are the current front-runners in these stakes (the Nikon P7000 does not do RAW and only goes to f/2.8). All allow full Manual control, shoot RAW, and open up to f/2 or wider (the Oly opens up to f/1.8).

[JFeinbergPhotography]

Originally Posted by inkista

This is just me, but I wouldn't recommend a bridge camera if you want to get available light capability or bokeh. Bridge cameras are terrific if you need a superzoom, don't mind the bigger size/weight, and shoot mostly in the daytime.

But they have smaller sensors, worse high-ISO performance, don't do RAW, and typically only open up to f/2.8. If you have the cash, I'd actually look at the crop of high-end P&S cameras that offer more on the wide end than the tele, and that have max. apertures of f/2 or wider. The Canon S95, Panasonic Lumix LX-5, or Olympus XZ1 are the current front-runners in these stakes (the Nikon P7000 does not do RAW and only goes to f/2.8). All allow full Manual control, shoot RAW, and open up to f/2 or wider (the Oly opens up to f/1.8).

My camera proves all of your statements wrong.

-Size and weight is less than a DSLR
-CMOS sensor, not bad at all.
-f/2.8 lens, I can get some great bokeh.
-I get RAW.
-ISO is fine even at 6400, some noise easily taken care of in LR.
-Full Manual Control
-Hoteshoe for lower-light photography

I cannot find any flaws with my camera except the writing time for RAW with a class 10 card is around 4-5 seconds.

But if you need an all-around great camera on a budget and can't afford a more expensive body and lenses, go bridge.

[RichardTaylor]

@JFeinbergPhotography
I feel some statements in your previous are incorrect.

Care to post some examples of great F2.8 bokeh at anything than very close ups, and some examples shot at of ISO 6400

================


I don't like using my Canon G11 above ISO 400.
I feel shooting at high ISO with a P&S is a great way to turn a beautiful subject into something you wouldn't want to touch with a 40' pole.

I do shoot with P&S cameras as well as DSLRS. While they can be great at times they are not the way to go for hand held low available light shooting or when you want subject seperation from the background by use of shallow DOF (except for very close ups).

[inkista]

Originally Posted by JFeinbergPhotography

My camera proves all of your statements wrong.

-Size and weight is less than a DSLR

Yes, but who said anything about a dSLR? I was saying a bridge vs. an ethusiast compact is big and heavy.

Picture of Fujifilm HS10:


Picture of Canon S95:


Which one do you think fits in a shirt pocket?

And it's not smaller/lighter than all dSLRs:

Pentax K-x: 122.5mm x 91.5mm x 67.5mm [no lens], (w/battery) 580g.
Fujifilm HS10: 130.6mm x 90.7mm x 126.0 mm, 636g
S95: 100x 58x 30 mm, 195g

The depth on the K-x is given without a lens mounted, but then the K-x can also take a pancake lens. HS10 has a fixed lens. And note how the S95 is less than a third of the weight of the HS10. So care to tell me how your camera PROVES that I'm wrong when I say you get a bridge if you don't mind the size/weight of one?

-f/2.8 lens, I can get some great bokeh.

On macro shots. But just being able to blur the background is not the same as getting "great" bokeh. Most of us think that smooth bokeh is great, and crunchy bokeh is bad. It's not only about amount, but also quality. And you yourself said, you can't get anything like the f/1.2 flower shot I posted.

-I get RAW.
-Full Manual Control

Yes, RAW. good. I was thinking mostly Canon's bridge cameras, where they removed this feature. But I also said most of them typically don't do full Manual. Not that none of them do. And if you do get one with a flash hotshoe and RAW and full Manual, you're probably in >$300 price territory, at which point, an enthusiast compact at around the same cost is just as good a choice, and a better one if you want low light capability.

-Hoteshoe for lower-light photography

No. We don't want a hotshoe for lower-light capability. Believe me. I almost never put an EX speedlight on my Canon G9, because it gets awfully top-heavy. We want them for off-camera flash capability. I use my G9's hotshoe for radio transmitters and the ST-E2 all the time. But with a bridge camera, a flash is the ONLY way to get low-light capability. With an enthusiast compact, you can still shoot in lower light without one.

I cannot find any flaws with my camera except the writing time for RAW with a class 10 card is around 4-5 seconds.

It's good to love your gear and to have picked the right tool for you. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right fit for everyone else.

But if you need an all-around great camera on a budget and can't afford a more expensive body and lenses, go bridge.

Or a mirrorless compact, or enthusiast compact. There are more choices out there than just bridge cameras, and look at any review you want. They all say that a bridge camera's main weakness is low-light photography, mostly because nobody bothers to build a bridge with a larger than 1/2.3" sensor (other than the high-end Panasonic FZs). to quote from the dpreview summary for the Fujifilm HS10: "Not so good for: Low light shooting and manual intervention in video capture." And the demand that a bridge camera be a superzoom will always end up making the lens slower with image quality compromises, even in dSLR lenses. A shorter zoom range typically gives you better image quality with a simpler lens design.

I'm not saying a bridge camera is a bad choice. But if your main interest is in shallow depth of field and low-light photography, a bridge camera is not the optimal choice in that price range.

[JFeinbergPhotography]

Originally Posted by inkista

Yes, but who said anything about a dSLR? I was saying a bridge vs. an ethusiast compact is big and heavy.

Picture of Fujifilm HS10:


Picture of Canon S95:


Which one do you think fits in a shirt pocket?

And it's not smaller/lighter than all dSLRs:

Pentax K-x: 122.5mm x 91.5mm x 67.5mm [no lens], (w/battery) 580g.
Fujifilm HS10: 130.6mm x 90.7mm x 126.0 mm, 636g
S95: 100x 58x 30 mm, 195g

The depth on the K-x is given without a lens mounted, but then the K-x can also take a pancake lens. HS10 has a fixed lens. And note how the S95 is less than a third of the weight of the HS10. So care to tell me how your camera PROVES that I'm wrong when I say you get a bridge if you don't mind the size/weight of one?


On macro shots. But just being able to blur the background is not the same as getting "great" bokeh. Most of us think that smooth bokeh is great, and crunchy bokeh is bad. It's not only about amount, but also quality. And you yourself said, you can't get anything like the f/1.2 flower shot I posted.


Yes, RAW. good. I was thinking mostly Canon's bridge cameras, where they removed this feature. But I also said most of them typically don't do full Manual. Not that none of them do. And if you do get one with a flash hotshoe and RAW and full Manual, you're probably in >$300 price territory, at which point, an enthusiast compact at around the same cost is just as good a choice, and a better one if you want low light capability.


No. We don't want a hotshoe for lower-light capability. Believe me. I almost never put an EX speedlight on my Canon G9, because it gets awfully top-heavy. We want them for off-camera flash capability. I use my G9's hotshoe for radio transmitters and the ST-E2 all the time. But with a bridge camera, a flash is the ONLY way to get low-light capability. With an enthusiast compact, you can still shoot in lower light without one.


It's good to love your gear and to have picked the right tool for you. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right fit for everyone else.


Or a mirrorless compact, or enthusiast compact. There are more choices out there than just bridge cameras, and look at any review you want. They all say that a bridge camera's main weakness is low-light photography, mostly because nobody bothers to build a bridge with a larger than 1/2.3" sensor (other than the high-end Panasonic FZs). to quote from the dpreview summary for the Fujifilm HS10: "Not so good for: Low light shooting and manual intervention in video capture." And the demand that a bridge camera be a superzoom will always end up making the lens slower with image quality compromises, even in dSLR lenses. A shorter zoom range typically gives you better image quality with a simpler lens design.

I'm not saying a bridge camera is a bad choice. But if your main interest is in shallow depth of field and low-light photography, a bridge camera is not the optimal choice in that price range.

Never said it was lighter than ALL DSLR's, and neither did you.
-You are comparing blurring the background to bokeh?

I think that it would work for what the OP posted for, but this is my opinion, that is yours.