Should I sell my D7000 DSLR and get a bridge?

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by zed4, Aug 15, 2013.

  1. zed4

    zed4
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,459
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    South Coast UK
    Ratings:
    +1,020
    Hi,

    I have a Nikon D7000 with the 16-85mm VR lens and the 70-300mm VR lens along with memory cards, tripod and various filters.

    It's a really good bit of kit but I hardly ever use it and when I do I find the sensor is dirty, or its too big to carry around. For example, this weekend we're going to London, but the DSLR is too big to carry around on the train and tube with luggage etc. and a hassle in shops and restaurants.

    I use a Nikon P510 at work and its really good. I'm wondering if I should sell the gear and get a Panasonic FZ200 or something similar. Realistically, how would it compare?

    Also, what is my camera and gear worth second hand?

    Thanks,

    Dan
     
  2. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    It won't unless the light is very good. As in sunny and outdoors. Strange the sensor is always dirty.
     
  3. Min125

    Min125
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3
    I'm in th market for a D7000. A much as its a brilliant camera, if you dine use it its a dead investment
     
  4. zed4

    zed4
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,459
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    South Coast UK
    Ratings:
    +1,020
    F2.8 lens on the Panasonic not an equivalent to an F2.8 DSLR lens then?
     
  5. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Sensor size is different, the Panasonic sensor is puny. The Nikon will be fairly clean at iso1600 and usable at 3200 the Panasonic will be awful after iso400-800. That's a lot of stops.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2013
  6. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    What you can do is look at compact system cameras, NEX, olympus pen, Panasonic g, fuji x. Big sensors small size.
     
  7. andyUK101

    andyUK101
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,708
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +456
    Dont forget Samsung :)

    OP - i had the same dilemma recently and invested in a mirrorless camera

    Picture quality is on par with my D7000 and the ease of use is fantastic
     
  8. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    And Nikon 1
     
  9. gringottsdirect

    gringottsdirect
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,919
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    50 Rue St Georges, Paris.
    Ratings:
    +34
    I have an FZ200 which I bought to take on holidays as it is smaller and lighter than carrying a DSLR for my purpose, motorsports.
    It works better than I expected, especially when combined with the optional tele converter which offers 1100mm F4 zoom from 600mm 2.8 zoom.
    When comparing pics on 50" tv ( I don't print anymore ) I can't see any difference against a Nikon D7100 with 70-300VR except on very dull rainy days when the FZ200 is possibly better, not much in it.
    Where the FZ200 loses is speed of writing to the card to take next pic, speed of focusing, and cropping quality ie even when using the D7100 extended zoom mode you can see more detail when cropping pics.
    I also prefer the optical viewfinder of the Nikon, although the electronic Panasonic is very good.
    This probably isn't much help but my preference is the Nikon solely for motorsports, never taking it anywhere for any other purpose.
    The FZ200 is only used for motorsport on holidays, for everything else I use a Panasonic LX7 which is superior in low light and with wide-angle, plus is easily pocketable although heavy.
    I would pick the LX7 or similar over an FZ200 purely because its easier to carry, but the FZ200 is the smallest light fast zoom for my purpose.
    I looked at m43 cameras but nothing grabbed me ( yet ).
     
  10. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,114
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,828
    I've just gone the other way ie bridge to DSLR, well SLT as it's a sony. The main reasons were image quality and low light performance.

    Admittedly I'm a complete and utter novice but as yet I don't feel the difference is huge, at least not as big as the difference in sensor size would suggest. I got useable images at ISO 1600 on my bridge. There's a difference for sure, but I expected it to be night and day but it isn't.

    This is just my opinion (and I'm sure Ill be flamed) but if you can take really good pictures then going from a DSLR to a bridge might not cut it, but if you only take mediocre pics with a DSLR then you can probably get similar images with the bridge.

    One thing to note though is you'll struggle to get a shallow DOF due to the small sensor. The Panasonic would be your best bet for this as you can use the zoom in conjunction with the f2.8 aperture to get a small DOF.

    Another thing with bridge is the lack of manual zoom. I'm only aware of the fujifilm, but this doesn't have a constant f2.8 aperture like the Panasonic so you'll run into more DOF issues. Manual focus is also more tricky with bridge cameras, with the sony being the only one I'm aware of with the ability to manually focus using the lens ring. But even then it uses the motor so is not very accurate.
     
  11. arthurdentpc

    arthurdentpc
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +105
    If you use a DSLR on auto / landscape / portrait modes with auto-WB and matrix metering to create a jpg, then tbh you're not going to notice massive amounts of difference between good compacts and DSLR. Learn to use manual (or aperture / shutter), spot metering (with zonal system) and raw and the DSLR is capable of much more.

    This is just a general observation btw, I'm not saying the OP only uses auto.
     
  12. Bl4ckGryph0n

    Bl4ckGryph0n
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    41,312
    Products Owned:
    11
    Products Wanted:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    ::1/128
    Ratings:
    +14,795
    I never minded my d7000 with me, it was always dangling by my side on the blackrapid strap. However since it was stolen I bought into the m43 system, I must admit that I really like the compactness of my Olympus Pen e-p5 and the lenses are fantastic. Alternative one that might be interesting for you is the olympus omd as it is weather sealed great when you are out on the water :D

    What I find frustrating of a lot of the 'compact' cameras is the slow focus speed and shutter lag. so watch that when you try alternatives.
     
  13. shotokan101

    shotokan101
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    75,362
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +25,444
    "No" ;)
     
  14. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Canvey Island
    Ratings:
    +265
    Utter nonsense anyone says a modern SLR sensor is even comparable to a bridge camera. I have had a top end Canon, Nikon and Panasonic compact camera and even in amazing light the difference, if you know how to use the SLR, is incredible... fact!!

    I have a Olympus m4/3 camera and with the 45mmF1.8 I can produce photos that are comparable to my DSLR, but are still noticeably miss the absolute sparkle, when I do weddings, I rely on the sparkle... hence I will be hitting full-frame again.

    I do think the up and coming 42mmF1.2 Leica/Panasonic M4/3 lens might change my opinion..
     
  15. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,114
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,828
    I agree, I didn't know anyone had said that. I think a few (myself included) that if you just take general snaps, and/or don't know what you're doing you're not going to get that much better images (if at all) from a DSLR over a bridge.

    I'm starting to get the odd one or two from my DSLR now that I'm quite happy with (for now), and are noticeably better than any I got with my compact or bridge, but for the most part I'm not seeing a huge difference. Obviously though as my skills progress I will (hopefully) start getting more and more high quality pictures that I just would not be able to have done with my compact or bridge.

    I don't think high ISO performance of compacts/bridges are as bad as some think though tbh.
     
  16. shotokan101

    shotokan101
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    75,362
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +25,444
    If you had said the "good light performance" - I'd have agreed with you but feel free to post some "High ISO" shots from a bridge/compact ;)
     
  17. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,114
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,828
    I'll dig some out if I've still got some. I never said they were marvellous, just some people think over 800 ISO images are unusable. I had some at 1600 that were useable :smashin:
     
  18. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Canvey Island
    Ratings:
    +265
    What good is useable? tbh want to see it now, you have my attention!
     
  19. shotokan101

    shotokan101
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    75,362
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +25,444
    "Go For It!" :D
     
  20. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,114
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,828
    Eeks the pressure's on now :laugh:

    By useable, I'm not referring to publishing quality, just good enough to be able to use on my computer, iPad etc, and therefore I assume printing on 7x5 etc :smashin:
     
  21. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Peoples ideas of good enough vary a lot, my idea of good enough is ISO 1600 max and thats on a FF! On a bridge ISO 200 would barely cut it.
     
  22. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,114
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,828
    Fair point. Sometimes I just want a photo for recollection purposes etc and I'd rather have one at 1600 ISO than not at all, providing of course the image still looks decent, which I believe some I've shot at 1600 on a bridge do :smashin:

    That being said I had a recent clear out of my photos and if I had many of the same subject (such as my squirrels when I've been practising) I've only saved the best so not sure if I have any 1600 ones left :facepalm::laugh:
     
  23. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Canvey Island
    Ratings:
    +265
    Which backs up our claims that at 1600ISO they look poo :devil:
     
  24. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,114
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,828
    Well obviously low ISO are going to be better. Here's some high ISO with my bridge. It does have RAW so sharpening and noise reduction is limited.

    Here's some high ISO pics taken with the Sony HX300 Bridge camera. I don't know what the focal lengths in the EXIF data are referring to, but they were all taken at 50x optical zoom or just under, so roughly 1200mm equivalent, therefore sharpness and overall quality was effected. I don't think they're too bad unless you start pixel peeping.

    ISO 1000
    [​IMG]
    DSC01853 by snerkler, on Flickr

    ISO 1250
    [​IMG]
    DSC00283 by snerkler, on Flickr

    ISO 3200
    [​IMG]
    DSC01836 by snerkler, on Flickr
     
  25. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    That ISO 1000 shot is actually pretty decent, till you view the full size version. Still, not bad for web use.

    On the 2nd pic at 1250 you can see the smudging even at web size.
     
  26. shotokan101

    shotokan101
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    75,362
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +25,444
    +1 - pretty impressive - especially the detail that's retained in the 1000 ISO shot :)
     
  27. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Woudnt mind seeing the ISO1000 in less than ideal conditions, lower light.
     
  28. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,114
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,828
    the 1250 was massively underexposed to be fair so had to up the EV by something like +3 which I don't think has helped. I think the ISO 3200 looks better than the 1250 in normal view personally

    As we've said I guess it depends on what you want to use it for, if it's just for a record of an event etc then I think these images are perfectly acceptable for me, although obviously I would never say they were great images :smashin:
     
  29. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Id agree with that now after seeing these samples, not bad.
     
  30. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Canvey Island
    Ratings:
    +265
    Yep 1st one is a classic example of when someone gets a bang on exposure, sharp and with good light, noise at high iso is hidden, a great shot and proves us all wrong to a degree, but I don't have to get it bang on at 1000ISO and can produce as good if not better results and if I replicate the perfect exposure and good light my D7100 can do that at ISO6400, a full frame can do that and better with 12800ISO.

    [​IMG]
    DSC_2367

    [​IMG]
    Untitled-1
    25600ISO
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice