Talk:Bridge camera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Photography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 

More complex?[edit]

The most of this article explains what makes bridge digital cameras simpler than DSLR cameras. But what makes them more complex than compact digital cameras? Is there any real definition? JIP | Talk 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Superzoom[edit]

Ive Heard some of these bridge cameras describes as superzooms or "SLR-like" cameras, referencing their large zoom range in relation to other compact/live preview digital cameras, and their shape, often being confused with a small slr on first glance. --58.110.134.169 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty muddy; I'll type up a draft of changes sometime soon, but its my understanding that bridge's are NOT superzooms. An easy defining characteristic may be price; superzooms are less than basic dSLRs, whereas bridge cameras tend to be more expensive than their SLR brethren. Also, superzooms are defined by their huge telephoto, and most bridge cameras I can think of don't have huge zoom ratios because their instead equipped with higher quality lenses with less range. DUCK 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

good point, but with DSLRs as well you could buy higher quality lenses for them, when your budget allows for it, ie getting Canons Luxury professional lenses, while for a bridge or superzoom, yiur stuck with the lens your cameras has stuck to it --58.110.128.252 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Have just added a brief mention that bridge cameras with long focal length zoom lenses are often called superzooms. Perhaps someone should make Superzoom camera redirect here - have already edited Superzoom to provide a link here. 72.145.4.192 07:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

prosumer?[edit]

I removed the references to "prosumer" from this article, since I don't think it describes accurately a bridge camera. I would typically use the prosumer name to describe a mid range DSLR, like the Nikon D80, Nikon D200, Canon EOS 30D, or Canon EOS 5D, which are typically used by some pros and some consumers. Bridge cameras fall below the strictly consumer DSLRs like the Nikon D40 or the Canon EOS 400D, and would typically not be used by a professional. --rogerd 06:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of a sliding scale and the continuously decreasing price of tech. Note that I don't think "prosumer" ever meant "used by some pros", but rather a consumer product that approaches the pro level. At one time, bridge cameras were the prosumer option. They would have bigger and better optics, more manual control, as many goodies as the maker could afford to fit in there, but selling a DSLR to a consumer wasn't an option. Then a few years back, prices really started to dip, the sub-$1000 DSLR showed up, and suddenly "entry-level DSLR" became a phrase and they captured the prosumer niche, leaving bridge cameras as just bigger, nicer P&S cameras -- at least in the minds of some people. Andrew Rodland 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ive heard prosumer being used in both contexts (here in Australia), depending if you were talking to a crowd of mostly P&S or bridge shooters, or a crowd of mostly dSLR users, with P&S talking about prosumer as the high end bridge cameras, and SLR users referring to middle range SLRs such as the Nikon D200, Canon EOS 40D...--58.110.133.153 23:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The main difference between, entry level dSLR's and higher-end-Bridge cameras, being bridge cameras placing emphasis on movie and automatic point and shoot simplicity, while entry-level dSLR's geared more toward expanding creativity, and going above and beyond just 'snapshooting'. --58.110.133.153 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Id like to make the Point that the Canon Powershot G9 brakes this dslr / Bridge camera barrier of auto control/little manual control, with extensive manual controls and the Ability to shoot RAW files and a Canon Speedlite Hotshoe, in a compact body, (ie not a Slr-like or superzoom body). And that higher end bridges are also marketed towards increasing creativity, in contrast to superzoom high end cameras which are marketed for action and sports shooting. --122.104.43.105 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
While Bridge P&S's are point and shoots that have some dSLR features, dSLRs are starting to adapt point and shoot features...Live View, In Camera Image Stabilization, lower price, point and shoot looking image processing right out of the caemra, etc. My point is two fold...there are 2 sides to every bridge and something like the Oly E510 could be considered a Bridge dSLR and also that the term Bridge Camera is probably going to be eventually obsolete when used in relation to point and shoots. --70.225.67.181 (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Follow up to above: You will not be able to source them as both terms referring to a category of digital camera were made up on wikipedia. See the original page for Live-preview difgital cameras here to read the following:
The name "Live-Preview Digital camera" (and its acronym LPD) is specific and simple but is just a suggested one here in the hope that it will fill the gap (or that better alternative will replace it here).
This leads me to state that the category and terms were made up on wikipedia and are, at best original research, and should not be used here. --Stujoe (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Stujoe may be correct. The term prosumer is used in press and by online camera reviewers in reference mostly to what we are refering to as bridge cameras, though "bridge camera" does see some use in on-line forums and communities. Some of the less technical press also uses prosumer in reference to DSLR's. Canon uses the term prosumer for it's 20/30/40d line, as well as for the G-series [1] (they are the only producers of "bridge cameras" with pro and near-pro lines of DSLR's, though sony has a pro line in the works). I did not find the term "bridge camera" listed on camera manufacturer websites. As a side note, the prosumer term is used heavily in reference to camcorders. NJGW (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops on my part! I actually meant my comment to go as a follow up with my comment below asking for a source from the person who reverted my edit about "LPD". Sorry for that.
As far as "prosumer"...it is used more in the dSLR realm than in the bridge camera realm from what I have seen. As far as bridge cameras, I typically see them referred to as "Advanced Digital Cameras" or 'dSLR-like camera" much more often than "Prosumer". --Stujoe (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Say "Prosumer" and people know what you mean. Say "Bridge camera" and people say "What?" When you explain or show them they say "Oh, you mean Prosumer!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.211.202 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Certainly this may be true in certain circles, but it is no longer the industry accepted terminology. Peruse some reviews, and resulting discussion, of any recent DSLR-style fixed lens camera (Panasonic Lumix FZ150/FZ200, Canon Powershot SX40/50, Nikon Coolpix P500/510, Sony Cyber-shot HX200V, Fujifilm Finepix HS30 -- the list goes on and on, with new/updated models being announced every few months) and you'll find that they are all typically referred to as superzoom bridge cameras. In fact "superzoom" tends to be used interchangeably with "bridge" these days, because almost all such cameras offer at least 21x optical zoom, with 30x, 40x and now even 50x not being uncommon. But they're obviously not the same as "travel" or "compact" zooms, which may offer up to 21x optical zooms themselves, but lack DSLR-like styling and features. So I think it's clear how the terms are being commonly thrown around by the industry today, with "prosumer" starting to become noticeably absent. As such, I don't see why the term "Prosumer cameras (AKA Bridge Cameras)" should form the very beginning of this article, as if "Prosumer camera" was the title. Rather, it should be "Bridge cameras (AKA Prosumer cameras)" to more accurately reflect reality, with a view to dropping the term "prosumer" completely once everyone else has caught up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.229.205 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Live-preview digital cameras", "LPDs" and "Conventionally Generated Live-Preview Digital Cameras"[edit]

Can whoever reverted my edit please provide sources for these terms in general use in the digital camera industry and not just on Wikipedia or Wikipedia clones? Thanks. --Stujoe (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Article contains a lot of misleading terminology[edit]

Description of bridge cameras as "a type of high end digital camera" - No. They occupy the market segment between "point and shoot" and entry level consumer SLRs. Describing this as "high end" implies that everything that isn't a basic "point and shoot" is "high end", which renders the term meaningless. - I have removed this.

A statement that the typically high zoom ratio of bridge camera lenses is comparable to SLR lenses - Misleading. It is comparable to SLR 'superzoom' lenses, but most SLR zoom lenses, especially professional lenses, have a much shorter zoom ratio. - I have reworded this to try to get across the point that I think the original author was trying to make about the physical size of the lens.

There seems to be a general confusion about that a DSLR is throughout the entire article. While it is true that all DSLRs on the market have larger sensors (compared to compacts) and interchangeable lenses, these are not exclusively DSLR features - what makes a digital camera a DSLR is the fact that it uses a mirror to provide a TTL OVF. There are examples of cameras with other features that tend to be identified as DSLR features but are not DSRLs: the Sigma DP1 and DP2 are compacts with a larger sensor. The 'Micro Four Thirds' system currently being introduced by Panasonic and Olympus has a larger sensor AND interchangeable lenses, but Micro Four Thirds cameras do not have an OVF, are not DSLRs and should in fact probably be classified as bridge cameras. The Leica M8 has a larger sensor, interchangeable lenses and an OVF, but is still not a DSLR because it is a rangefinder. Cleaning up this last piece of confusion will require more work but I will have a go as and when I get time. Eggybacon (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the term[edit]

I found that the term has been around since the 80's: [2][3][4]. I feel like the language of the article should be changed to reflect the foundation created by the film cousins (or rather aunts & uncles) of the current cameras. NJGW (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Megazoom etc[edit]

(discussion brought here per wp:BRD)

GoldDragon (talk · contribs) keeps adding that Bridge cameras are a.k.a. Megazooms, but the refs being used don't make this statement. Megazooms have long zooms, where as bridge cameras have advanced functions similar to SLRs (according to the refs). The inclusion of "megazoom" as an aka in the lead seems like wp:SYN to me. NJGW (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Please check the references carefully. CNET describes categorizes these as megazoom cameras, as does another shopping website.
SLR-like or SLR-style: These are standard digicams that use an electronic viewfinder (EVF)--just a small LCD--in place of an SLR's pentaprism or a point-and-shoot's optical finder. They can't truly be considered SLRs because they have no mirror, and we've yet to see an EVF that approaches the image quality of a decent pentaprism viewfinder. Most cameras of the type have extremely long zoom lenses and cameras are sometimes referred to as ZLRs or megazooms.
Top 5 Megazoom Cameras: Not ready to take the plunge into dSLR? These megazoom models offer the ease of use of a point-and-shoot, as well as powerful zooms and a bevy of advanced features. Photo enthusiasts will be pleased.'
GoldDragon (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is wp:SYN because the refs do not mention bridge cameras. Furthermore the refs are not RS material. The cameras that can be called "megazoom" includes many more cameras than those cameras that have advanced/SLR-like features, and not all bridge cameras have "megazoom" lenses. "Bridge camera" is an industry term that goes back to the 80s to mean something very specific, something that "megazoom" only has overlap with (picture if you will a Venn diagram). Please don't keep reverting, as it is considered edit warring (see, once again, wp:BRD). Wait for us to come to an agreement first. NJGW (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Though... what are the sources defining bridge cameras the way the article does, including the "advanced features" and other things you mentioned in your last revert? --LjL (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm calling that part of CNET dubious (my first revert) because they are not RS. When you follow the link to CNETs discussion of megazooms,[5] you see that advanced features are no longer mentioned. It's not a consistent source, and it doesn't say "bride-cameras are sometimes called megazooms". NJGW (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I just re-read your question. See the discussion section just before this one, can take your pick from [6]. NJGW (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool, but my point was mainly that relevant sources should be in the article. If the article says that "bridge" cameras are defined by being so-and-so and having this-and-that features, each of those should be sourced in the article (since the term is obviously at least a bit vague, so the meaning's not prima facie apparent). --LjL (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that they should be in the article... but that's a different discussion. I recently found the refs from the 80s, and putting them in will require a rewrite to change the language to include film cameras. For now though, the question is about megazooms. NJGW (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It is perhaps, but I do suspect adding sources (and rewording the article is necessary) to have a well-backed-up, clear definition for the term would avoid not having arguments like this one about megazooms to begin with. --LjL (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You're speaking in hypotheticals... if I had enough time, I would be all over rewriting this article. I don't, but that shouldn't keep you from giving your opinion on the sources, or offering to rewrite the article. NJGW (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Arbitrary break[edit]

Megazoom: best of both worlds This is why camera makers also call them 'bridge' cameras, a clunky but accurate term: they bridge the gap between compacts and dSLRs.[7] While I do admit that megazoom can often be confused with superzoom, however it seems that many sites are using that term.

I suggest that if NJGW wants to talk about 1980s film cameras which are also known as bridge cameras, then that should be on a new page, as a distinct topic from digital bridge cameras. GoldDragon (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A) "Megazooms are sometimes called bridge" is not the same as "Bridge cameras are sometimes called Megazooms"; again, see Venn diagrams. B) The term started appearing in the 80s, and kept on being used in the 90s, 2000s, and is the same term today. C) BRD. Not BRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD. NJGW (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A) "Megazooms are sometimes called bridge" is good enough as this article is about digital bridge cameras. Furthermore, it is clear that the same cameras have been classified under both terms, so we are not going to have/need a new article on megazooms. B) I guess that the term megazoom didn't exist back in the 80s and 90s when it was just film bridge cameras, but that shouldn't be a problem since this is digital bridge cameras. GoldDragon (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Then what's wrong with saying, like, "some of these bridge cameras, sporting a very large zoom, are also called megazooms"? --LjL (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This along with the ref I just inserted will hopefully finally help you understand how to use Venn diagrams. Notice that 3 of the top 5 "bridge cameras" in the above list have short zooms. They over lap, yes. They are not identical categories though. NJGW (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with this distinction "some of these bridge cameras, sporting a very large zoom, are also called megazooms" since I just realized that short-zoom bridge cameras exist as well. We do know that DSLRs are never referred to as megazooms, though. As megazooms constitute the majority of bridge cameras (CNET doesn't bother with short zoom bridge cameras), its worth a mention in the intro. GoldDragon (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Good, so you finally are starting to understand. Now you need to understand that the language you are using is still full of OR and SYN, and the refs are not good enough to back you up. I already put a note about long zooms in the article, but "megazooms" are a separate category of camera. There are many megazooms that are not bridge cameras. Since you've been blocked for 3rr in the past and are now at that limit, I suggest you wait until we actually have an agreement. NJGW (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with GoldDragon that "megazooms" overlap with "bridge cameras" enough to deserve a relatively prominent mention, and probably in bold type, but while specifying that they are not exactly the same thing, just strictly related. --LjL (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying they are "strictly related" is problematic. They are strictly related to a lot of types of cameras, and have overlap with those groups as well. What is needed is an article on megazooms. Then the distinction can be made more clear. There is a line now in the lead that many bridge cameras have long zooms, and this should be enough given that there are also "superzoom" and "ultrazoom" cameras. It would be far too confusing for the readers to list all of those terms in bold in the lead and say "but that's not what a bridge camera is." NJGW (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course I didn't mean to say we should literally have the article state "they're strictly related". But I don't really agree this should be split into two articles, as I really doubt the two concepts separately (even though there's little doubt they're "at least a bit" separate) would be notable. The two articles would end up having mostly the same content. I'm pretty sure I've seen a few other articles where boldface was used to indicate terms that were "very close" but not identical to the title. --LjL (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
My understanding was that bold in the mainspace was only used for names and alternative names. Given that there is a lot of media discussion of "Super/mega/ultra" zoom cameras, I think it would be pretty easy to source a new article. The very-long-zoom length is not a feature of bridge cameras, only an option. Zoom length on bridge cameras vary from 1x to over 20x, with several at 5-8x. There's a whole segment of bridge cameras devoted to giving SLR photogs something smaller than an SLR that still has loads of features that they can drop in their pockets... a bridge down so to speak. None of these have over a 10x zoom lens. Meanwhile, there are lots of cameras that can not be called bridge for lack of any manual functions etc that have 10x, 15x, even 25x zooms. Bridge means a very specific thing, and long zoom is not as important to the concept as features/modes/speeds/flash-capability. NJGW (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good day gentlemen. I was made aware of this disagreement due its listing at WP:THIRD. I have virtually no knowledge of cameras and the terms "Superzoom" and "bridge" are entirely new to me.

It would appear that The Independent newspaper (respected in the UK) confuses the two terms. Another newspaper, The Guardian, appears to conflate the two terms.

Oh. And now I've done that research I realise I should have been looking up "megazoom" all along! :o)

OK, let's try that again. Hmm. This time my newspaper search returns no hits. But I do find this:

Megazoom: best of both worlds ~ If you want a more capable compact rather than the costly option of a dSLR (with inevitable further expenditure on extra lenses and accessories), there's plenty to be said for choosing one of the megazoom models we've reviewed here. These offer lenses with optical zooms of up to 26x, allowing you to capture usable shots from quite a distance. These translate into focal lengths between 24-28mm at the widest angle setting, and up to 676mm at the longest telephoto distance. Their high-quality lenses are just as capable of coping with traditional portrait or landscape shots - and even macro shots as close as 1cm away - delivering photos that are much better than those you'd get from a pocket-sized compact. This is why camera makers also call them ‘bridge' cameras, a clunky but accurate term: they bridge the gap between compacts and dSLRs. - PC Advisor.

I actually came here expecting my research to assert that megazoom and bridge were quite distinct. (Just on a gut instinct level). But I feel there's sufficient evidence to at least support the claim that "superzoom/megazoom and bridge cameras are sometimes regarded as meaning much the same thing" (and you could use those links as citations).

If someone wished to challenge that claim they would have to provide their own references. Remember that Wikipedia goes on the basis of verifiability, not truth.

I have a feeling I've just made myself very unpopular without meaning to... --bodnotbod (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are conflated; no they're not the same thing. There are bridge cameras (cited in the text) which are not mega/super/ultra zooms. There are also mega/super/ultra zooms that are not bridge cameras (like the superzoom pocket cameras). NJGW (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Might I suggest you report this disagreement to Portal_talk:Photography, get some input from knowledgeable parties? --bodnotbod (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, as megazoom is colloquially used for bridge camera nowadays, we should mention this in the article but also point out that it is not entirely accurate, rather than just entirely ignoring megazoom entirely. Of course, several websites that have an advice section "DSLR versus megazooms"[8] usually select bridge cameras with long zooms for comparison purposes. I don't known if superzoom pocket cameras are commonly classified as megazooms or not (the DMC-ZS3 seems more like a point and shoot, albeit a sophisticated one [9]. GoldDragon (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The current compromise wording by NJGW is fine.GoldDragon (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Are all parties satisfied that this particular issue is resolved as far as the article is concerned now? If so, I needn't return here again. If not I'll try to assist in so far as I can, although I would still recommend taking any outstanding issues to Portal Talk:Photography to drum up more input. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be very resolved. NJGW (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

I propose to move this article to Bridge camera, as the sources refer to "bridge camera", not "bridge digital camera". Also, this term and the type of camera being referred to date back to the 80s, before the digital variety existed. NJGW (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support that, for the reasons given. --LjL (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DSLR? Please define[edit]

The article defines what SLR is, but then it uses DSLR. It would be nice if the D was defined.

It is defined, but it is used before the first definition. Vaccano (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed it so that the first reference to DSLR has the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaccano (talkcontribs) 19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples arbitrary[edit]

Looks like in the Examples section, a lot of people incorporated their favourite cameras, just to have them represented. If a camera like the DP1 is included, the term bridge camera looses all of its meaning. If anything, a bridge camera is a monolithic camera that tries to provide in a single package, as much of the functionality of a DSLR, i.e. a viewfinder, a range of focal lengths, and a certain size for ergonomics and providing space for operating elements like dials and buttoms (i.e. the are not "compact" as such). I think cameras without:

-a fixed zoom lens -an integrated viewfinder -a certain handling size

should be excluded. This concerns not only the DP1, but also cameras of the typical compact camera format, even if they have included OVFs, like the Nikon Pxxx, or the Canon G series. These cameras are not typical compact point and shoot, but nevertheless, compact cameras. Thyl Engelhardt.213.70.217.172 (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go further and remove all mention of particular models. It's a general article, and thus should be about what is typical, whilst most of the named examples offer a claim or at least a hint that they are in some way extraordinary and thus should be disqualified. And there are at least hundreds of models if not thousands, so any attempt at thoroughness would create a mere list article. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

DSLR like camera[edit]

Bridge cameras are cameras which fill the niche between the single-lens reflex cameras (SLRs) and the Point-and-shoot camera. The statement above I think should be changed only to 'DSLR like camera'. Why? Because in the recent time, some of the point-and-shoot (compact) camera is more sophisticated than DSLR like camera. For examples:

  • Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX9V, 16.2MP Exmor R CMOS, 16X Optical zoom, Full HD 1080/60p Video
  • Panasonic Lumix DMC-Z510, 14.1 MP, 16X Optical zoom, Built in GPS function
  • Nikon Coolpix S9100, 12.1 MP CMOS, 18X Nikkor Optical zoom, Full HD 1080p Video

The above examples are clearly more sophisticated than some of Bridge Camera, such as:

  • CMOS (faster) vs CCD (slower)
  • There are current Bridge Camera with only 15X Optical zoom
  • Full HD vs HD
  • GPS built in vs Without anything

Even the Compact Cameras have more features and everything avalaible in Bridge Camera are also ussually available in Compact Cameras. Thank you so much for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I don't see why the article should address the question of which of these broad classes may be more or less "sophisticated" than another. "Fill the niche" is, far as I see, mainly about size, price, performance in poor light, versatility in use of attachments, and manual controls. DSLRs have more of all the above; compacts have less. There are also differences both among and within classes, in pixel count, video resolution, zoom ratio and various features. The Nikon P-6000 that I used this morning has GPS which is mandatory for my kind of photography, but does that make it more "sophisticated" than its larger and photographically more capable successor the P-7000? Will either be more or less "sophisticated" if we call one of them "compact" and the other "bridge" or place both in the same class? Surely these questions are important to someone, somewhere, but a general article can't address every oddity. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. Henderson. I don't mean to compare Compact Camera (Point-and-shoot Camera), Bridge Camera and DSLR. I only suggest to think about the term of 'Bridge'. And I don't mean to change the term of 'Bridge', but the explanation of the article, I think should follows the era. Even some of Compact Cameras have more sophisticated features than some DSLR, but certainly the quality of the DSLR picture 'ussually' is the best (depend on the sensor, lens and processor). Bridge means bridge between compact camera and DSLR, but some compact cameras have more abilities than some of bridge camera, so from some of compact cameras are easy to directly jump to DSLR (some people say bridge camera is bridge to jump to DSLR). The only thing that cannot debatable is bridge camera has shape as DSLR and ussually use undetachable lens (some of the compact cameras even use detachable lens). For longzoom I think bridge camera will end at 30x, there are 36x, but the longest zoom still 810 mm, except the bridge camera use smaller sensor, so the magnification may be will be addded. The zoom magnification of compact cameras may be will increase gradually. But certainly Bridge Camera may be still fill the niche between Compact Camera and DSLR, but they are overlapping, not overlapping only between Compact Camera and Bridge Camera and also between Bridge Camera and DSLR, but even overlapping between Compact Camera with DSLR in several things (Definitely Compact Camera still different with DSLR). By the way I agree with you that general article can't address every oddity, but overlapping makes all the definitions become blur and today oddity may be usual tomorrow. Thank you for your sharing.Gsarwa (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If by "overlapping" you mean in zoom range or "sophistication" then yes and not greatly relevant to the terms as used in the article. If you mean different classes may be equally suitable for some particular purpose, then yes and again irrelevant here. If you are pointing out that shoppers sometimes mistake commercial class terms such as "bridge camera" as necessarily relevant to their choice of tool, then yes and again the relevance to the article is not great. When you say the future of the industry is not yet very clear, yes indeed but the article isn't about the future. If you propose that the term "DSLR" should be changed to something vaguer like "DSLR-like, I don't understand the purpose. "DSLR-like" would mean big bridge cameras, right? Surely such tools have important uses and some users will profit from them, but I don't see why that changes things. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that we are not talking about the future. I'm might be an immediatist, but the others might be waiting for the establishment. So, might be better for us to wait something until mature, if necessary. I don't mind at all. My aim is only tick the readers to think about swift technology in camera (mobile phones are swifter changes), both frequently I read. DSLR-like is only the shape not the size (exclude EVIL camera), because some Bridge camera is bigger than DSLR Sony Alpha 230, but certainly smaller than full-frame DSLR. There are also many point of views, so it is really hard to make a firm definition, because it is certainly not mathematic. Thank you for your complete explanations.Gsarwa (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Canon PowerShot G1 X[edit]

Mr. Dale Arnett has contributed a complete writing about Canon PowerShot G1 X, but in: http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/news/531346/canon-g1-x-announced.html is stated "acclaimed PowerShot G series of advanced compacts - the PowerShot G1 X" and in: Wikipedia: Canon PowerShot G is stated " The G series cameras are Canon's flagship 'compact' models aimed at prosumer photography enthusiasts desiring more flexibility than a point-and-shoot without the bulk of a digital single-lens reflex camera." Recently, some of advance compacts can be used as bridge camera to DSLR complete with PSAM dial and features like DSLR. Overlapping is also occur in optical zoom and sensor size between compact camera and bridge camera. My question is can we categorized one type of camera as compact camera and also as bridge camera or we have another category.Gsarwa (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

About lenses in bridges cameras[edit]

Need some help with thisIskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

Im testing SL1000 from Fujifilm right now, it doesnt have a manual zoom and it does 1080i/60 not 1080p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.226.253 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have checked again and you are right. Sometimes users who has the camera know better about their camera rather than reviewers (references), because they should wrote fast but maybe not so accurate, mainly for the drawback as I found with Kodak Z980 and newer Kodak Z981. Z980 has external hotshoe and Z981 has no external hotshoe, almost every reviewer wrote that Z981 has it, but when I checked the image of the Z981, there were no sign of hotshoe (maybe hidden) and I'm browsing again until one article mention that's a drawback of Z981. Because I interest also with DxOMark, I know that newer camera maybe has drawback in image quality such as Canon 600D, Canon 650D and Canon 700D which Canon 700D has the worst image quality among it and the old Canon 600D has better image quality than Canon 650D.Gsarwa (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Dated Models[edit]

the page could use some attention. the images are outdated. they look kind of old fashioned. the examples section is debatable, it is always going to be out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagpolewiki (talkcontribs) 15:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)