 |
| Simpsons Gap Central Australia FZ1000 |
The name ‘bridge” has been applied to a group of fixed zoom lens cameras which were for some years seen as creating a transition , or bridge, between compacts on one side and interchangeable lens models on the other.
They are creatures of the digital era.
The usual features of modern versions of the bridge type are
* A hump top DSLR looking shape with a substantial handle and a fixed non removable power zoom lens,
* Very big zoom ranges have become the norm, ranging from about 16x up to 80x,
* An EVF in the hump which sits over the lens,
* A rear monitor, often fully or partly articulated,
* In current models the sensor is either the “one inch” 15.9mm diagonal type or the much smaller 7.67mm diagonal type. The latter allows greater zoom range, larger aperture or smaller overall size or all three, the penalty being reduced image quality especially in low light.
The better current models are not really a bridge from somewhere to anywhere else, but fully fledged and highly capable do-everything devices in their own right.
However the name “bridge” has stuck probably because nobody appears to have come up with anything to replace it.
The type has its origins in the earliest days of digital technology around 1998 and 1999. Some of the early models from Sony utilised a very avant gard design. However in recent years bridge camera design has settled down to a more predictable and arguably more ergonomically functional form.
Most current model bridge cameras are from Sony and Panasonic. Fuji and Olympus appear to have abandoned this sector. Canon and Nikon have limited offerings not recently updated.
For me the keyword which best captures the spirit of the bridge camera is versatility.
Which is why it has become my favourite camera type.
Plus I never have to change lenses. Ever again.
If memory serves, my first experience of a bridge camera was the Canon SX20 of 2009. I remember this had one of the most slippery handles of any camera I have ever used, with no overhang under which to tuck the third finger of the right hand. It also had very prominent chromatic aberration and purple fringing. It did not last long in my camera drawer.
In 2014 I had another go at a Canon model, this time the SX60 which by the way is still in Canon’s current catalogue and desperately in need of a major update.
In contrast to the SX20, the SX60 had a really well designed handle, in fact one of the best implementations of an inverted L type handle I have seen on any camera at any price. Unfortunately nothing else about the SX60 pleased me at all. Canon user forum members often rate the Previous model SX50 a better camera.
From Nikon I bought and used two models.
The P900, introduced in 2015 has an amazing 24-2000mm (83x) zoom lens of quite decent quality, very good VR and decent image quality although without RAW output. I bought and used one for a while but didn’t keep it. I found the overall performance and responsiveness was very slow, AF unreliable and the longer reaches of the lens very difficult to use in practice.
The B700 is a more recent and more compact model which does enable RAW output. This too has a lens of decent quality, very good VR and good image quality. But again performance is sluggish with long EVF blackout after each exposure and long shot to shot times especially with RAW. The more I used the B700 the more frustrated I became with it.
This camera desperately needs a major processor upgrade.
None of Sony’s small sensor (7.67mm) bridge models allows RAW output so I have not tried any of them. I hope that changes sometime soon.
I have owned and used four small sensor bridge models from Panasonic, the FZ70, FZ80, FZ200 and FZ300.
I could never get consistently sharp results from the FZ70 or FZ80. The problem appears to be a sub standard OIS mechanism because results on the tripod could be quite good.
In most other ways the FZ80 is a remarkable piece of kit for the very low asking price. AF Single and AF Continuous are very fast, the camera is overall very fast and responsive to user inputs, the specification list is extensive and the ergonomics quite good.
Maybe I got a bad copy of the FZ200. Many users report getting very good results from this model but I never did.
The FZ300 is a big step up from the FZ200. Although on paper the sensor and lens appear to be the same I found everything much improved. The FZ300 has a really nice viewfinder, good ergonomics very good performance and good image quality outdoors and in reasonably well lit interiors.
The FZ300 is easily my pick as the best of the small (7.67mm) sensor models. It can follow focus sport and action quite well and is the only model of this group which can do BIF (birds in flight).
The only real complaint I have of the FZ300 (our family having tried four copies) is one which affects many modern cameras which are built to a price point. That is considerable copy to copy variation in the optical quality of the lens. I would much rather pay more if it made getting a good copy of the lens probable rather than hit-and-miss.
In 2012 Sony revolutionised the compact camera world with its new and very capable “one inch” (15.9mm diagonal) sensor. The first camera to get this new sensor was the RX100, a very small compact.
This was followed in 2013 by the RX10, the first bridge type to get the 15.9mm sensor.
The 24-200mm (equivalent) focal length range of the RX10 did not interest me and neither did the rather pedestrian autofocus system so I passed on that model and the Mk2.
Then in 2014 Panasonic got hold of the Sony sensor and put it in the FZ1000.
This has been a landmark camera for me.
It is the only camera which I have seen fit to give a Camera Ergonomics Camera Of The Year award.
It is the first camera which enabled me to part with all my ILC gear and not feel I was giving up anything that mattered.
For me the FZ1000 has been the most important camera ever.
It has an extensive list of specifications and features, very good performance including follow focus on fast moving subjects and very good ergonomics. Image quality is good enough for my requirements which are in fact quite demanding. I want to be able to make A2+ prints from my image files and the FZ1000 easily enables this in most cases.
The only real complaint I have with the FZ1000 is the same one as I have with the FZ300 namely inconsistent optical quality of the lens. Our family has had 5 copies of the FZ1000 over the last three years. One of them had a really superb lens, very sharp at all focal lengths. Unfortunately this copy got a bit of junk inside the lens. This was speedily removed by the local Panasonic service agent but the lens was never the same again.
The copy I am currently using has a good lens so it is a keeper. The lenses on the others have been a mixed bunch, good at some focal lengths but not others.
I did try a FZ2500 when it came out. My copy had a sub standard lens as did many others reported by reviewers and users on forums. Some owners have reported their FZ2000/2500 lens is very good so again we see the inconsistency problem rearing its ugly head.
My take on the FZ2500 is that it seems to me like a model heavily biased towards video capability.
As such it is not the update to the FZ1000 which some might have expected but an alternative model geared to video. It seems to me to be the bridge camera equivalent of the GH line in the Micro Four Thirds system.
What about the Sony RX10 Mk4 ? Hmmmm……… I’m still thinking about that one. On paper it ticks all the boxes.
However it is big, heavy and expensive. I don’t like the ergonomic layout and some of the controls and operation. Some of the major camera review sites have not yet posted final review results and I wonder why.
We shall see………