Uh oh...you know me and my bridge cameras

[Darrell KSR]

I've been a sucker for the mega zoom, fast shutter/focus, Panasonic Lumix with the Leica lenses. Have bought three of them. Photo quality never where a DLSR camera will be, but it fits my lifestyle.

Best Buy has the 60x OPTICAL zoom Lumix DMC-FZ70 on sale for $179.99.

I. Must. Resist.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[dan_bgblue]

I. Must. Resist.

Yup

[Darrell KSR]

Unlikely I'll pull the trigger. My DMC-FZ100 was acting up around a year ago, for no explainable reason, and I thought I would have to replace it then. But in recent months it has lasted through soccer season, took it to the Auburn game yesterday, etc. and it has done fine.

I generally shoot any pics at 3 megapixels, instead of the 14.1 it allows, because my photos are not great anyway, and very little difference to me for use on a computer screen, and no difference at all for use by newspapers/print media that I used to send photos to here locally. When I do that, the optical zoom on the FZ-100 goes to 50.6x. Sitting in the upper deck yesterday at Jordan-Hare, across from the Auburn bench, I got decent shots of Gus Malzahn on the sideline with that zoom. I'm not sure the 60x optical would do much more for me anyway, other than be a toy if I was taking photos on top of a mountain or something. Not sure it's worth $200 for that.

The high speed shooting is actually worse (9fps vs 11fps) and they have a fixed LCD screen in the back versus the one I have, which I can rotate out, fold backwards, fold inwards, etc. There is supposed to be good improvement with the audio recording, but I take almost zero videos with the camera anyway.

Here's a short list of features side by side between the two, along with a handy-dandy guide to why you should buy one over the other:

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Pa...umix-DMC-FZ100

[Darrell KSR]

For my future reference, I'll want to take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 if/when I replace my DMC-FZ100. It is only 12mp instead of 14, but I rarely use that anyway, and added a touch screen and a ton of autofocus features which makes it faster. Has a max shutter speed of 1/16000 instead of 1/2000. It's # 5 in their superzoom, bridge camera category but in the right price range (the DMC-FZ1000 is # 2 behind a Sony product, but the retail is $800. That's ridiculous to spend for this type of camera, IMHO).

But tell you what is even more ridiculous. Taking a look at their top 10 "sports photography" compact cameras? The DMC-FZ1000 is # 3 on the list. I already think it's too high. # 2 is a Sony with a MSRP of $3300. I didn't stutter when I hit the "3" twice, or the "0." And # 1 is a Leica Q, at $5100.

You pros can have that. I'll stick with the $200-500 camera and try hard to stay at the bottom end.

[PedroDaGr8]

Why not step up to one of the budget DSLR cameras? Canon is runnign a special on the SL1 for $399.99 or $249.99 for the refurbished model, these include the 18-55mm image stabilized lens. Canon has a LOT of models on sale on their website.

[Darrell KSR]

Not interested. More work, less fun. I'd rather be at the top of the area I want than the bottom.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[dan_bgblue]

DSLR= a huge step up in image quality for printing 11x14 size prints. Darrell, nails part of the negative to a DSLR by including the fun part of photography. Cost of quality DSLR body and quality lenses to do what he is doing with a $350.00 camera would run upwards of $5,000.00 and that is not extravagant. Changing lenses from tele to prime is a hassle as is lugging all the stuff with one every where they go.

I carry a Canon bridge camera in my truck everywhere I go, but the DSLR and lenses only go with me when I hope to get some special images to print or to family gatherings where the quality image to share is more important than the fun and convenience of the bridge camera.

[Darrell KSR]

DSLR= a huge step up in image quality for printing 11x14 size prints. Darrell, nails part of the negative to a DSLR by including the fun part of photography. Cost of quality DSLR body and quality lenses to do what he is doing with a $350.00 camera would run upwards of $5,000.00 and that is not extravagant. Changing lenses from tele to prime is a hassle as is lugging all the stuff with one every where they go.

I carry a Canon bridge camera in my truck everywhere I go, but the DSLR and lenses only go with me when I hope to get some special images to print or to family gatherings where the quality image to share is more important than the fun and convenience of the bridge camera.

Dan has it exactly right. I think those cameras are terrific for people that invest in it as a hobby and create terrific images. I just sort of have fun with what I do.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Darrell KSR]

Bringing this back up to the top, considering something for the summer as my son enters his last year of club and high school soccer...thinking about something else for outdoor shooting only.

[VirginiaCat]

I will put a plug in for the sony mirrorless emount cameras if you do not mind spending over $1000. I got the A7ii (now have an iii out) and the full frame difference is simply spectacular. I have been using the kit lens (28-70mm) that came with it. Guessing you could be all in for around $1400 now. I have another lens on backorder (24-105mm f4 constant) to take with us on our Med Cruise and Barcelona here the end of May.