Why Not a 1 or 2 MP Bridge Camera?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicks Pics

Manfred, I take it you are an advanced photographer, and probably?? don't have a superzoom. I really wouldn't suggest that advanced photographers exchange their DSLRs for a superzoom, even if it did have fewer, larger megapixels, but, for the point and shoot'ers who dont often print or plan to print, but mostly use their photos for sharing on the computer, (tourists, and other non-real photographers who like to walk around and take pictures) I am suggesting that they would be better off with lower MP cameras, because their point and shoots always do have small sensors, and by having 12-20 + MP they are always downsizing for their purposes anyway.

---

Nick, I am a little disturbed by the generalizations above linking pointing and shooting with "tourists, and other non-real photographers", especially that "non-real"! While I am sure it is not intended, it does come across a tad elitist. Probably you touched a nerve and, since I never print, my currently serious DSLR camera is 3.4MP, 1.7 crop with a huge 9.12um pixel pitch. And my "bridge" camera is a 12MP m4/3 chosen for it's ease of operation, not for it's MPs - and for fact that it and it's three lens and a set of extension rings all fit nicely into a 10"x8"x6" bag. Those three lens are equivalent to 90mm macro, 28-90mm zoom and 90-400mm zoom, BTW.

So, I feel well-served, if a trifle non-real ;)

Nick - I was an "advanced shooter", if you want to call it that, from the times before I went digital.

My first serious digital camera was a point & shoot. Strangely enough, I was still an "advanced shooter", worrying about things like composition, lighting, subject matter, etc.

This is one of the oldest digital shots I have around, taken with a 4MP Canon Powershot S40 almost 11 years ago. It is a pair of monk's shoes taken at the Tashilunpo Monastery in Tibet.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5145/...770c8f8d_b.jpg


Or how about this one?

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7371/...89639140_b.jpg

Native indian farmers in Peru, floating their crop down the Yanayacu River so that they can be taken down to the Amazon River to be sold in the markets of Iquitos. This was taken with a Panasonic FZ20 superzoom.

The main reason I upgraded my camera and lenses is that I found my work was being compromised by the quality of my equipment. Shutter lag, lens performance, viewfinder performance (which is one of the main reasons I went full-frame), etc. Nicely said, I could not take the pictures I wanted to because the equipment was incapable of meeting my photographic needs.

I have (all in working order), 3 point & shoots, 1 superzoom, 2 crop frame DSLRs, 1 mFT mirrorless camera, 2 film SLRs and one full-frame DSLR. All are still in use. Before I retired back in the fall, I always had a fully charged point & shoot along with me pretty well at all times (because it was tiny and handy to have with me).

My latest aquisition was the mFT camera and I took it on my recent "trip of a lifetime" to South Asia, rather than my large and heavy DSLR. I missed getting shots I would have nailed with my D800, but it was not practical to take it on a 2-month backpacking trip, so size and weight were the primary consideration, and I still got some absolutely stunning shots.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7479/...c3bf6bdf_b.jpg

Even though it is not as "good" as the DSLRs.


So, yes, I know superzooms quite well and fully appreciate their advantages and disadvantages. I will also say, that under good shooting conditions, where DoF is not a concern, I can get excellent images, regardless of what type of camera it is. The issue to me as a photographer is that generally, the lower end cameras don't give me the control I want so that I can get the image that I want.

Let me throw another analogy at you. I drive an AWD car with snow tires, but quite frankly I could do without it for about 95% of my driving. For that 5% where I do need it, I'm happy I have it. Cameras are much the same way. We buy the "upgraded" features for those 5% - 10% of the pictures that we couldn't get without them; and that is why there is no realistic market for the camera you are proposing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Nick, I am a little disturbed by the generalizations above linking pointing and shooting with "tourists, and other non-real photographers", especially that "non-real"! While I am sure it is not intended, it does come across a tad elitist. Probably you touched a nerve and, since I never print, my currently serious DSLR camera is 3.4MP, 1.7 crop with a huge 9.12um pixel pitch. And my "bridge" camera is a 12MP m4/3 chosen for it's ease of operation, not for it's MPs - and for fact that it and it's three lens and a set of extension rings all fit nicely into a 10"x8"x6" bag. Those three lens are equivalent to 90mm macro, 28-90mm zoom and 90-400mm zoom, BTW.

So, I feel well-served, if a trifle non-real ;)

---

Manfred, Ted,

My apologies, certainly I don't take point and shoot cameras lightly! In fact, I have been pursuing photography very seriously with my point and shoot superzoom, not having a big set of DSLR equipment. Thus lead to my thinking about them. All I meant was that those who indeed are not serious photographers would do better with lower MP point and shoots, IMO, and that I wasn't saying pro's should use them instead of DSLRs. But, I was going to add that I think enthusiastic photographers would also be pleased to see an improvement in point and shoots, (like me) because many of us want to use one, even if we already had a DSLR. I don't think one needs to use DSLRs to engage in photography seriously. I was just trying to explain my point, but I'll edit some of that inappropriate terminology! :)

Is there any market for low MP point and shoots? I still don't see why not. To me, there is a place for DSLRs, and a place for my proposed superzooms. Not so much a place for a 16-20 mp superzoom. As I've stated before, I think the majority of their images are used on computers/web, (where they're displayed usually under 2000 MP across), and they are too noisy, and don't generally produce the IQ needed for fine prints. So when do you need all those pixels? Never, would be my answer. So, most of the time, (i.e. for screen) you would be getting the benefit of the larger pixels. As far as printing goes, I would think you could probably get better results by upsampling a 4 mp good quality image for printing than get a good print out of a noisy 16 mp image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Nick, I am a little disturbed by the generalizations above linking pointing and shooting with "tourists, and other non-real photographers", especially that "non-real"! While I am sure it is not intended, it does come across a tad elitist. Probably you touched a nerve and, since I never print, my currently serious DSLR camera is 3.4MP, 1.7 crop with a huge 9.12um pixel pitch. And my "bridge" camera is a 12MP m4/3 chosen for it's ease of operation, not for it's MPs - and for fact that it and it's three lens and a set of extension rings all fit nicely into a 10"x8"x6" bag. Those three lens are equivalent to 90mm macro, 28-90mm zoom and 90-400mm zoom, BTW.

So, I feel well-served, if a trifle non-real ;)

---

Agree with you Ted. Even I dont suggest exchanging a DSLR for a super zoom but many times zoom lens is not affordable by many DSLR users Atleast not above 300mm I guess. Though bridge czmeras with super zoom do not produce images with same quality as that of DSLR but those are not worst either. Images are usable for web and if one knows how to get the best out of it, one can print those even.

One just needs to find that sweet spot between image quality and budget (Else there are 600mm primes to end the discussion :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrinmoyvk

Agree with you Ted. Even I dont suggest exchanging a DSLR for a super zoom but many times zoom lens is not affordable by many DSLR users Atleast not above 300mm I guess. Though bridge czmeras with super zoom do not produce images with same quality as that of DSLR but those are not worst either. Images are usable for web and if one knows how to get the best out of it, one can print those even.

One just needs to find that sweet spot between image quality and budget (Else there are 600mm primes to end the discussion :))

---

Please view my latest post above. My point may have been mis-interpreted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicks Pics

Please view my latest post above. My point may have been mis-interpreted.

---

Got it mate.