[FroggySeven]

I am looking for a new lighter equipement in two parts (from éq. 17mm to 200mm or more),

and was wondering if a bridge could be a good solution for the tele.

Does a bridge exist, that is as good as a 50-250 on a EOS500D for instance ?





I knows that's no bridge tests on photozone (it is not a reproach <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ),

but perhaps someone have some experience about it...

[Guest]

[quote name='FroggySeven' timestamp='1360612667' post='21904']

I am looking for a new lighter equipement in two parts (from éq. 17mm to 200mm or more),

and was wondering if a bridge could be a good solution for the tele.

Does a bridge exist, that is as good as a 50-250 on a EOS500D for instance ?





I knows that's no bridge tests on photozone (it is not a reproach <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />/> ),

but perhaps someone have some experience about it...

[/quote]





The main problem is that with most bridge cameras have a small sensor, in particular the ones you are most likely interested in, i.e. those with a longer focal length (you are looking at least at 400mm FF equivalent). So, the Sony HX20v (500mm FF equiv) and it's bigger bridge cousin (HX200V, 810mm) have a small 18Mp sensor, with all associated issues, i.e. noise reduction already at 100 ISO, noisier images at higher ISO etc. In particular in the tele range, you often benefit from being able to increase ISO a bit to get good enough fast shutter speeds when the lens itself is already not that fast anymore.

You could have a look at dpreview, they have tests for some of the bridge cameras.

And here is a thread I started trying to compare say a Canon 100-400 IS L with a long bridge camera (those that go >= 800mm).

No clear answer, although in good light, one can get quite decent results with a bridge camera.



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3180953