Change bulky setup for simple all-around bridge camera?

[brusaerba]

Hi everyone, I am writing to ask for a quick advice. I hope I am not repeating the topic of other thread, in case please address me to the proper post. Thank you.

Disclaimer: I am not a rookie but a pro neither, I have a relatively old setup (5-10 years old) with a Nikon D750, a Nikon D3100, a sigma 14-20 wide angle, a nikon 50mm 1.8F, a macro lens from Tamron ... since it's been a while I am not taking photos... I am thinking perhaps is time to cash in this gear and opt for an easy to carry bridge camera.

I do like to take from time to time decent photos in fully manual mode with a camera which is not the one on my phone but I do not need any highly technical or complicated heavy gear... I would rather move towards simplicity ... and this is more or less the inspiring thought.

The simplest of the things would be to get rid of all lenses and keep the D3100 + 50 mm from Nikon (this would be the lightest gear) but somehow... it would not be as versatile as a bridge (not to mention the sensor quality of the D3100 and the limitations coming with a fixed focal length).

Any tip on what could be a good camera fitting my needs? I like landscape photography as well as portrait... I never really used tele or super tele objectives.

thank you for your 2 cents

 

[Razon]

If your needs are met with a D3100, keep it and the sigma+ 50mm. This is the cheapest solution.

Bridge cameras are not that good at portraits, and most go up to 400-600mm eq which you don't really need. Look into a big sensor compact that covers roughly 24-75mm, since most of these cameras don't have ultra wide angles for some landscape shots.

Alternatively, look into a Z series Nikon, for example a Z50 II or even the first version with a 12-28mm lens would cover your landscape needs, add a nice 56mm prime lens for portraits

 

[Craig Gillette]

I'd suggest looking into recent mirrorless cameras some. A bridge camera will likely have a conveniently longer focal length range (I haven't looked recently to see what's out there these days) but that's allowed through use of smaller sensors. If only shooting under good light conditions and not rigorous viewing/sharing conditions, may do reasonably well. But while older, the D3100 aps-c dslr is still an aps-c size sensor and if you aren't happy with its performance, it seems likely the same issues might be more troublesome with the smaller sensors.

A recent aps-c mirrorless will have sensor improvements over the 13 year old 14.2 mp D3100 and could be fit with a current extended range lens and then one could avoid lens changing or add lenses to the kit as desired.

 

[ishwanu]

Any tip on what could be a good camera fitting my needs? I like landscape photography as well as portrait... I never really used tele or super tele objectives.

Does that mean you'd prefer the future camera to not cover that long end? If you don't need it, you might save money and/or get better performance and/or reduce bulk and weight by concentrating on cameras that cover just the range you need.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

I had much the same thoughts. My solution was the Panasonic Lumix G100 (now the G100D) micro 4/3 camera.

About the size of a bridge camera but with access to the full range of M43 lenses. The kit zoom is a bit limited on the long end. It's 12-32 -- equivalent to 24-64 on full frame -- but there is a nifty collapsible 35-100 (70-200 equiv) that makes a nice companion.

And if you're in the US there's a special on at B&H right now, and probably some other dealers:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...g100dvk_panasonic_lumix_g100d_mirrorless.html

Gato

--
It's a work in progress, but the website is up and running:
https://jrsprawls.smugmug.com/
.
Personal pictures, road trips, rural nostalgia, and kitty cats:
https://www.instagram.com/j.r.sprawls/

 

[Schrodingers cat]

Your use case doesn't sound like, to me anyway, like you are the target market for a bridge camera. And from my understanding a bridge camera is something with a super zoom permanently attached. I suspect that going from a D750, which is a pretty damn good camera still, to a bridge camera is going to feel like you bought a toy.

I think you would be better served with one of the smaller, lighter, full frame Nikon Z cameras and a suitable range zoom. Perhaps something like the 24-70 f4.

While I can clearly only speak for my own preferences, I would much rather use the D750 and a short zoom, three small primes, or even just a 50mm. If you're not in the mood to shoot manually just set the thing for aperture mode and f5.6 with Auto ISO and press on. The thing about advanced options is you can always ignore them. If you're thinking about generating a significant amount of money selling the D750 (I don't think you will) I suggest you get a couple of online bids and think about them. I rather like selling to UsedPhotoPro, but there are several.

It seems to me that a bridge camera just requires an awful lot of compromises unless you're really making simplicity the overriding concern.

I'm 78, so I'm also conscious of weight/bulk. My preferences of course are dependent own my personal frame of reference. The stuff on my website doesn't include much of anything shot with a lens longer than maybe 85 or so. If that's not your subject matter of interest then my advice is probably not useful.

My wife and I travel to Europe and Mexico every chance we get. We limit ourselves to one personal item and one carry on bag each. That's satisfactory for us to spend a month in Europe. I typically travel with one high resolution body (currently a Z9) and three small primes. Or maybe a mid range zoom. I notice that lots of people feel under equipped unless they have a long lens, and if that's what's needed for your choice of subjects I guess you gotta do what you gotta do, but I just don't personally see that many things traveling that interest me enough to carry a long lens.

--
Personal travel snapshots at https://www.castle-explorers.com
Making good decisions is generally the result of experience. Unfortunately, experience is generally the result of making bad decisions.

 

[Eddie Rizk]

I have never gotten rid of any lenses, since I got my first FF camera in 2011, and I don’t intend to.



That said, when traveling by plane, it’s impossible to take a versatile setup without checking baggage. I needed a compact system to be able to travel, like a normal human being.



Like you, I figured, that the bridge camera was the way to go, and I think that’s particularly right. The best one is the Sony RX 10 mark 4. It zooms from 24-600mm Eq.. The 1” sensor is as good as most systems cameras, in daylight. And its features are numerous, interesting, and useful.



But my little Sony has four weaknesses; no true ultra wide, no macro capabilities, no shallow DOF for portraits, and it’s weak in low light.



So I got a small bag and added my EOS RP, the smallest Canin FF camera , and three inexpensive compact prime lenses; the 1.5” 16mm f2.8 for ultra wide, the 35mm f1.8 macro, for nighttime, wide macros of food or whatever, and the 85mm f2 macro for portraits and traditional macro photos. I’m sure Nikon has analogous cameras and lenses.



It all fits in a small shoulder bag, which I can bring along with a carryon, no significant weight, unobtrusive, and convenient to access.



There is nothing I can’t shoot with that setup. Sure, the big lenses, bigger camera, and the heavy tripod will get better results, particularly in difficult conditions, but it’s just not conveniently carryable.

 

[Ryan Schwartz]

Doesn't seem like you shoot longer focal lengths, so spending money on a bridge camera doesn't make much sense to me. I think I would stick to one of the bodies you have currently.

--
Ryan

 

[RubenJ]

Hi everyone, I am writing to ask for a quick advice. I hope I am not repeating the topic of other thread, in case please address me to the proper post. Thank you.

Disclaimer: I am not a rookie but a pro neither, I have a relatively old setup (5-10 years old) with a Nikon D750, a Nikon D3100, a sigma 14-20 wide angle, a nikon 50mm 1.8F, a macro lens from Tamron ... since it's been a while I am not taking photos... I am thinking perhaps is time to cash in this gear and opt for an easy to carry bridge camera.

I do like to take from time to time decent photos in fully manual mode with a camera which is not the one on my phone but I do not need any highly technical or complicated heavy gear... I would rather move towards simplicity ... and this is more or less the inspiring thought.

The simplest of the things would be to get rid of all lenses and keep the D3100 + 50 mm from Nikon (this would be the lightest gear) but somehow... it would not be as versatile as a bridge (not to mention the sensor quality of the D3100 and the limitations coming with a fixed focal length).

Any tip on what could be a good camera fitting my needs? I like landscape photography as well as portrait... I never really used tele or super tele objectives.

thank you for your 2 cents

What about selling the D750 and Sigma, and buy a (used?) 18-200 or 18-300 mm lens for the D3100 (or trade that for a d3500/5500).

 

[number_5]

A big plus one for NO bridge camera.

For landscape and portrait, I would lean toward a high-res FF; something like A7R III or Z7s. Newer model if you have the fund. There are quite a few ultra-wide zooms for each mount. Ditto for a portrait lens.

Want something smaller, m43. Some might be as large as small FF, but the lenses tend to be smaller. There's a 2x crop and really need to choose a portrait lens wisely.

 

[Owlsfan]

Nikon Z50 with the two kit lenses. They are pretty cheap now the Z50II is out. You could also buy a faster prime if you like

I find I don't need the latest gear myself. So I wouldn't personally buy the new version.

Same with the Z5 which you might consider. Plenty good enough for me and half the price of the Z5ii.

 

[Schrodingers cat]

Nikon Z50 with the two kit lenses. They are pretty cheap now the Z50II is out. You could also buy a faster prime if you like

I find I don't need the latest gear myself. So I wouldn't personally buy the new version.

Same with the Z5 which you might consider. Plenty good enough for me and half the price of the Z5ii.

I rather like to purchase used when possible, as there are so many hobbyists who enjoy having new gear more than using gear that there's a whole mountain of fairly used I generation old stuff out there.

On the occasions where I do purchase new, I typically do as you do and look for the most recently discontinued model. I mostly can't tell the difference anyway

 

[brusaerba]

thank you guys for the good inputs!

I was not aware of the zoom range of the bridge cameras - I agree, there is too much for me and is definitely not a requirement for me.

the other thing is the sensor size: if picture quality will go considerably down moving to a large sensor/compact camera or even a bridge.... then it does not much sense (unlsess - again - I would like to make good use of a larger range of focal lengths). I kind of lean towards what you suggested of keeping my gear as it is

I was initially tempted - mainly for esthetic reasons, I admit - by the recent fujifilm X100 cameras but if quality will drop too much I prefer to stay where I am - with my good old stuff.

I will still do a better search, considering also the cameras some of you have suggested.

Thank you again !!

 

[Schrodingers cat]

I kind of lean towards what you suggested of keeping my gear as it is

Boy are you on the wrong forum

Seriously, as you don't seem to be a gear fanatic as some of us are, I think you are exceptionally well equipped with the D750.