I don't really know the best category to put this so.....

[janzman]

...I'll have a go here.
I want to upgrade my 'point and shoot' camera,not as far as a DSLR so I'm looking at 'bridge' cameras.I like the look of the Nikon P100 and the Panasonic Lumix FZ45.
There is also Canon,Fujifim,Olympus and others.Has anyone a favourite and if so why...My budget is about £300.What would Abers recommend.Any advice welcome.Thanks

[237SJ]

A lot of camera manufacturers these days are as much about computers as camers so I would look at the lens manufacturer. Apart from the range of f stops and other specs that you want, I personally would seriously look at the make of lens. Leica, Zeiss and Nikkor would sway me.

[Slapshot]

You won't go wrong with anything that has the name Canon on it, The Ixus range is pretty damn good you'll get an Ixus 1000 for around £250.

Save more buy an SLR

[janzman]

I agree .I wouldnt look at Panasonic if the camera didnt have a Leica lens.
Slapshot ...I suspect you view Canon the way I view Nikon ...in near reverence...I will look at the Ixus 1000 :-)

[jno]

I've got a Lumix FZ18, which is a cheaper version of the FZ45 and works fine. The lens is excellent. But ask yourself exactly what it is you want in a fancier camera. I like the zoom lens, so much so that I'm not worried that the zillions of other features that it has mostly go unused.

[jno]

sorry... brainstorm there... it's the FZ45 I have (used to have the FZ18, which had less of a zoom). As I said, I think it's fine - for me.

[237SJ]

I revere Nikon. I always have. The professionals always seem to have Nikon. You can`t beat it but the Canon EOS seems to be very popular. I know you have set your mind on a bridge camera but have you thought of a DSLR? The cost wouldn`t be hugely different and there is so much more you can do with it. I`m still stuck in the film mentality and I have a digital camera that I call my "snapper camera" and if I was going to upgrade, which I will do, I will go straight to the SLR. I don`t think I would bother with anything in between. Just my opinion though.

[jno]

just to respond to 237SJ - the reason I don't have a DSLR is because you don't get the zoom; and even to get the lesser zoom range you need at least two lenses which you have to interchange. I'm told the picture is usually - but not always - better with a DSLR. The main drawback of bridge cameras is that they have a smaller sensor (like compact cameras) and struggle with high-contrast photos or photos in low light generally.

[karenmac60]

I think AP's your man for this jan - dunno if he's about just now though.

[Answerprancer]

He is :-)
I use a Lumix FZ38 and it is great. I chose it because:
a) I was on a low budget and you can pick them up for less than £200
b) I HAD to have something that shoots in RAW.
Also, I like the way Panasonic Lumix bridge cameras give you lots of control over white balance, shutter speed, aperture and focus.
If you are unlikely to be doing much (or any) post production, then your choices are much wider in the non RAW shooting category. The FZ45 is the next step up from my 38, it has slightly higher resolution (14MP I think) and 24 times optical zoom. The only disadvantage I could see with it is that it has a different battery from all its predecessors and you can only buy genuine Panasonic batteries for that model afaik. When I go out and do a lot of pic taking I can easily get through two batteries so I have four in total ! I bought 'after market' ones which were cheap.
Have a look here - this is where I got all my info before I went out to buy my one:
http://www.photographyblog.com/
Here's what they have to say about the FZ45:
http://www.photograph...umix_dmc_fz45_review/

[Slapshot]

@janzman - I wouldn't use anything else and have been the same since my early 20s, I have a wee Powershot G9 i bought a couple of years back just to have in my pocket, otherwise an EOS 1D MkIII and an older 30D plus a range of lenses and other bits, couldn't be without them.
@jno, there are enough mid priced superzooms out there that you can get better range with an SLR, example I've just picked up a cheap secondhand Canon 10D and a Tamron 28-210mm lens for my ratbag daughter's birthday, she wants to learn. Whole lot less that £150.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/ - good place to start with SLR's without breaking the bank as is
http://www.ffordes.com/

@237SJ - I think the balance is evening out though the Nikon D3 is superb, the EOS 1 more than matches it. A few of the Pro's I know use Canon because they feel it's much simpler than the Nikon and one who uses supplied Nikons but would use canon if he was paying out of his own pocket.

[jno]

Slapshot, the FZ45 has a 24x zoom, which translates to 25-600 in old money. It's far lighter than the old SLR (also with a Tamron 28-210) than I used to have - weight is more important than price to me these days as I can't carry too much. And having the whole range in one lens means I don't have to be switching from one SLR lens to another while the subject sprints out of sight. (But AP is right, they still don't seem to have come up with a cheap substitute battery for it.)

But as I say, it's for janzman to decide exactly what he wants his camera for.

[Answerprancer]

..ps JNO is right on the matter of sensors.
My next purchase will be a DSLR mainly for that reason.
However I have found ways and means of getting the best quality photos in low light, especially controlling "noise" which I deal with mainly in post production (via Adobe Camera Raw/Photoshop CS5).

Here's one I did a couple of months ago.

http://i1028.photobuc...Photator/Wheelpod.jpg

Here is some of the Exif data for that pic:
Camera Panasonic DMC-FZ38
Exposure 6 sec
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 28.3 mm
ISO Speed 80
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
Exposure Program Manual
Max Aperture Value 2.8
Metering Mode Center-weighted average
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Time Created 22:00:15
Photoshop Quality 12
Format image/jpeg

[jno]

terrific shot, AP. I love the embankment lights reflected as a string of fairy lights along the glass. Presumably with a 6 second exposure the wheel had stopped for the night? And yes, noise all gone, though I suppose if you lightened the night sky at all it'd be crawling with them.

[Answerprancer]

Thankee you !
Yes, it had stopped - I kept noise to a minimum by having a ridiculously low ISO setting for a night shot, if there was much noise (I don't think there was) I will have removed it by lowering the luminosity in Camera Raw then selectively removing any more in Topaz Adjust.

[mike11111]

Trainspotters, anyone?

[Answerprancer]

Oh stobbit !
I was already a bit self conscious that my answers were starting to look a bit 'Aspergery'.

[jno]

just ignore him, he has no beauty in his soul.

[janzman]

Im sorry I had to leave last night but now I have read your answers and I thank you all very much for your valuable imput.I shall read, learn and inwardly digest the info.