FZ1000.2 Multi shot panorama stitched in Camera Raw |
Let us have a look at the main camera types in use today with a summary of their strengths and weaknesses.
Smartphone
The great majority of photos are taken on smartphone cameras
which are entirely adequate or even in higher end models well in excess of many
users requirements.
Smartphone photography is mostly fully automatic, point-and-touch
style. Smartphone photo files are usually fully processed in-device and are
easily shared with other devices.
Smartphones lack a single, all purpose wide-to-telephoto
superzoom lens, an eye level electronic viewfinder, an articulated screen, a
handle and thumb rest and a suite of controls by which the user can decide what
settings the device will use. Most also do not provide RAW files which can be
downloaded to another device for post processing in photo software. The whole
point of smartphone photography is that no such post-processing is required,
and that works just fine for most types of casual photography. This is the 21st Century version
of Kodak’s 20th Century business model “you press the button, we do the rest”.
Small compact with
superzoom lens
These little wonders look like any other small compact
camera but they have a triple extension 30x superzoom lens which emerges like
magic at the touch of a lever.
Unfortunately these things are built down to a price and are
considerably less impressive in practice than the specifications might lead you
to hope.
That lens has a very small aperture and is of mediocre
optical quality and focus speed. The
sensor is the tiny 7.67mm diagonal mini-sensor type with too many pixels and
poor image quality with bucket loads of digital noise.
Having owned and used several of these from Panasonic and
Sony I no longer recommend any of them.
FZ1000.2 Bridge cams are good for this kind of photo with things happening everywhere all at once. |
Mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC)
The MILC has superseded the DSLR as the dominant
interchangeable lens camera type. MILCs range in price and capability from
low-end entry level to high grade professional bodies and lenses. Perusal of a
catalogue would suggest there is something here for everybody. And there is,
but with just one limitation which is zoom range and aperture.
The three bridge cams which I currently recommend have the
following lens specifications:
Panasonic Lumix FZ1000.2,
25-400mm (equivalent) f2.8-4, 16x.
Panasonic Lumix FZ300, 25-600mm (equivalent) f2.8 at all
focal lengths, 24x.
Sony RX10.4, 24-600mm (equivalent) f2.4-4, 25x.
The superzoom lenses on bridge cameras are compact and have
a wide aperture (small f stop) because they are built into the body of the
camera, they are of retracting type and the sensors behind them are smaller
than those in any MILC system.
MILCs use sensors with a diagonal of 21.5mm (micro four
thirds, M43), 27 or 28mm (APSC), 43mm (full frame, 35mm), or 55mm (small medium
format).
We can buy superzoom lenses for M43 and APSC sensor cameras
but they always have a smaller zoom range, smaller aperture or larger size, or
all three of these characteristics than typical lenses on bridge cameras with
no apparent improvement in image quality or usability. In addition a MILC plus
superzoom lens will cost more than a bridge cam.
FZ1000.2 The kookaburra has his eye on someone's picnic |
Bridge cameras
For me a bridge cam is a proper camera which looks and
operates just like a mid range MILC except it has a built in powered superzoom
lens and a smaller sensor size. Good bridge cams have the full works: MILC
style design, ergonomic handle and thumb support, EVF over the lens axis, fully
articulated touch screen, front and rear control dials and a full set of
controls for the expert/enthusiast user. The better bridge cams are fast and
responsive with very good image quality, ergonomics and performance.
Why are bridge cams more appealing this year
then last year ?
Nothing to do with the cameras, it’s all about the
increasing number of AI features in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop which are
now a great deal more numerous and sophisticated than we can find in DXO Prime
or Topaz denoise. Adobe denoise AI is
the headline feature but there are now many others. For instance the small
sensors in bridge cams make it difficult to render backgrounds softly out of
focus. Now we can select the background with a level of accuracy not previously
possible and apply adjustments to render it soft and smooth looking, while
leaving the subject sharp.
Why did bridge
cams fall out of favour with buyers and/or camera makers ?
I suspect the process has been driven mainly by camera
makers rather than users although that is just my as-yet-unproven hypothesis.
Posts about bridge cams have rated the greatest number of page views on this
blog for many years, so I know there is a steady user group although I have no
way to estimate the size of that group.
Fujifilm’s camera business consisted mainly of compacts and
bridge cams until 2012 when the corporation made an executive decision to
abandon all that and move into MILCs. I
don’t know why they made such a wholesale change so I have to guess. And that
guess would be that they wanted to differentiate their cameras from smartphones
to the greatest extent possible. And I guess the same consideration would have
been exercising the minds of product development people at the other camera
makers.
But I think they have almost abandoned a potentially very
viable camera type (bridge cams) along with the no-longer-viable small compact
cam genre.
Can camera makers
re-invigorate the bridge cam genre ?
They sure can. There are many improvements which they could
make to autofocus, data handling, image
processing and performance using technologies which the camera makers already
have in their box of technologies.
Nothing new needs to be developed, they just need the will to incorporate the
good new tech into updated versions of existing bridge cams.
What about image quality ?
This is where the discussion gets interesting.
Does my Canon EOS R5 make better pictures than my Panasonic
Lumix FZ1000.2 ? On the metrics yes of
course. Look at DXO Mark or Photonstophotos scores. Photograph highly detailed
test charts in controlled conditions. No contest, on these technical measures
the R5 is better.
But is that the right question to ask ? I think not.
I guesstimate that 99% of people who look at a photograph
either printed or on a screen engage mentally with the subject as a gestalt.
They do not scrutinise the details with a magnifying glass. They do not pixel
peep. They are not concerned about technical minutiae.
Here is the awful secret about modern digital cameras: Many
of them can deliver more image quality and
performance than we need for most purposes.
Professional photographers have specific requirements which
can in some situations make the latest hi-tech gear a practical tool of trade
and worth the investment. But most enthusiast and amateur photographers can
meet their requirements with much more compact, less expensive gear.
I spent many years in the middle and latter part of the 20th
Century taking photos with 35mm SLR film cameras, using various different types
of color and black&white film. So I am very familiar with the level of image
quality which this type of equipment can deliver. And I rate my little
Panasonic Lumix FZ300 bridge camera as being able to routinely deliver a level
of image quality about the same as that which I got from 35mm film behind a
good quality prime lens on a 35mm SLR camera.
Now with the latest AI post processing we can now obtain
considerably better output from the FZ300 than we could ever get with 35mm film
especially in low light with high ISO sensitivity.
Nobody in the camera business wants us consumers to know
this. They do not want us to discover that those super hi-pixel, hi-performance
cameras being presented for our excited purchase, are really a waste of money
in the sense that they deliver more image quality and more performance (like 40
still frames per second) than we need.
My ideal camera
This is a bridge style camera about the size, shape, style
and lens of the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000.2 but with an updated set of controls
including a thumb actuated joystick. The Canon EOS R6.2 has an efficient
control layout which would be worth copying.
This camera has two distinct operating modes.
In Auto Mode
it works like a smartphone cam, using a Snapdragon or similar processor to
produce HEIF files or similar which have been fully processed in camera. This
is the “You press the button, we do the rest” mode. Most of the buttons and dials on the camera body
are disabled and Menu options are limited.
In Control Mode
it works like a modern proper camera to produce Raw files for post processing
in separate imaging software. The user has full control over the image capture
process and all camera settings via Menus and camera modules such as dials and buttons.
This gives us the best of both worlds.
Will any camera maker do it ?
I don’t understand why they have not already done it. Such a
camera could be extremely popular with a large body of photographers from
beginners up to enthusiast/expert level and some professionals.
Love this idea! I wish one of the classic camera makers (Canon / Nikon / Panasonic) would offer something new in the bridge camera space. I think there is the consumer demand to support it. I think 20x optical zoom plus 1 inch sensor with the auto and control mode you mentioned would be amazing.
ReplyDelete