Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Newbie Help (
-   -   Can someone explain.... (

bucky09266 Sep 2, 2019 5:10 PM

Can someone explain....
Can someone explain why a bridge camera can't have a bigger sensor (maybe not full but bigger than the small point and shoot and bigger than 1")? Is it price or size or weight? I would love a bridge with a 25 to 35x zoom with an aps-c sensor size. Can this ever be acheived without a price tag in the thousands? And I'm not a techie so if you do attempt to answer this for me please dumb it down. LOL

TCav Sep 2, 2019 7:20 PM


Originally Posted by bucky09266 (Post 1417495)
... a bridge with a 25 to 35x zoom with an aps-c sensor size. Can this ever be acheived without a price tag in the thousands?

No. The longest zoom lens for an APS-C size sensor is the Tamron 18-400mm lens (22x) for $650, and it's not very good. It has a lot of distortion, chromatic aberration and field curvature.

The larger the sensor, the larger the lens needs to be, and the larger the lens, the better it needs to be, optically. Squeezing all that into a single package is difficult and expensive.

Smaller image sensors allow physically smaller lenses, and smaller lenses are easier to make well.

I think these are as good as you can expect:

bucky09266 Sep 2, 2019 7:26 PM

Thank you TCav. I thought there had to be a reason for it. I was looking at that Sony but its a little out of my price point. But it does look like it has everything I would be looking for in my next bridge (minus the built in ND filter). I have to have a bridge because I know myself and I won't want to drag around lenses with me. Plus I love my zoom. Thanks again

Ozzie_Traveller Sep 6, 2019 6:19 PM

G'day Bucky

I am also a bridge / superzoom camera lover as well ... and although I also have a Panny mirrorless SLR, the all-in-one cameras do have my preference for convenience over other things

TCav has given you a very good answer to your Q: and so it comes back to your convenience vs esoteric performance. I say 'esoteric' meaning that 'yes' cameras with larger sensors plus physically larger lenses to go with them will produce better results in some situations. The "but" is the Q: do you / the user really need this better performance?

Over the past 15-yrs or so I have used all of Fuji + Canon + Panasonic bridge cameras, following 40+ years of film camera SLRs. I have used a Pentax digital SLR and found it and its lenses fell way behind the usefullness of the bridge cameras "for my style of photography". If I were still doing commercial [wedding & event] photography, it would be different, but now retired and travelling for much of the year, the size and weight and zoom capabilities of the bridge camera outweighs all other so-called disadvantages

I prefer Panasonic cameras these days and have both the FZ-200 [now updated to be the FZ-300] and have acquired the FZ-2500 for occasional magazine work. I very much like the FZ-200/300 because Panny have kept the sensor down to 12mpx to reduce noise issues, and the fact that the zoom lens is a constant-aperture lens, meaning that as it zooms the aperture in use stays the same all the time. I use this regularly in low-light locations and theatre work, where the F2,8 aperture along with 300mm to 600mm [film-camera equivalent] makes the photography very nice indeed!

Hope this helps

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:34 PM.