Talk:Bridge camera

message: 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)
thread_title:  More complex? 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Superzoom]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Live-preview digital cameras", "LPDs" and "Conventionally Generated Live-Preview Digital Cameras" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article contains a lot of misleading terminology 

message: I found that the term has been around since the 80's: .  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)
thread_title:  History of the term 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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" 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 . GoldDragon (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current compromise wording by NJGW is fine.GoldDragon (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seems to be very resolved.  NJGW (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: 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)
replies: text: I would support that, for the reasons given. --LjL (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DSLR?  Please define 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Examples arbitrary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: DSLR like camera

message: 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)
thread_title: Canon PowerShot G1 X

message: Need some help with this… 
Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About lenses in bridges cameras 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dated Models