From: David J Taylor on
"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message
news:AsadnSzxdfyIGKXRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
[]
> I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only
> problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But
> it is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera
> like the 8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout,
> function and capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which
> provides some justification for the usage.

Thanks for your thoughts.

One problem I have with the term is "bridge to where?". Doubtless some
would say that it's an end in itself, and not a bridge to anywhere. In
terms of being a bridge to a DSLR, I think a punter's money would be
better spent on a real DSLR, now they are much cheaper than a few years
back. [At least the 8800 had a half-decent-sized sensor.]

Cheers,
David

From: Neil Harrington on

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:i1a6pj$949$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message
> news:AsadnSzxdfyIGKXRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> []
>> I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only
>> problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But
>> it is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera like
>> the 8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout, function
>> and capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which provides some
>> justification for the usage.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> One problem I have with the term is "bridge to where?". Doubtless some
> would say that it's an end in itself, and not a bridge to anywhere. In
> terms of being a bridge to a DSLR,

That's what I've always taken the term to mean.

> I think a punter's money would be better spent on a real DSLR, now they
> are much cheaper than a few years back. [At least the 8800 had a
> half-decent-sized sensor.]

I fully agree. The 8800 when I bought mine was more expensive than a D3000
with kit lens is today, and much as I still admire the older camera there is
no question that the newer and cheaper one is superior in every way. (Except
perhaps in that it doesn't have a magnesium body like the 8800, but I doubt
that is likely to be of much concern to the buyer, apart from RichA of
course.) And even the 8800's 2/3" sensor, relatively large for that type of
camera nowadays, is only 6.6 x 8.8 mm -- less than one-sixth the area of the
D3000's sensor.


From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message
news:hbmdnf1KIZgLCKrRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>

> If I said things fall DOWN and not UP, you would disagree. Your
> disagreement in this carries no weight, it is just silly.
>

Obviously you are not from Australia.
I've heard that in Australia the women go up on their men.
Can anyone verify this?

--
Peter

From: Phil B. on
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:34:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net>
wrote:

>
>"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
>news:i195of$t70$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message
>> news:XMydncJ8Ko38A6rRnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> []
>>> All that illustrates is that the term has become popular for any digital
>>> camera that isn't an SLR. I don't dispute that it's become the most
>>> *popular* term, only that it isn't an appropriate one for many if not
>>> most of the cameras called that. I've seen little cheap digital cameras
>>> sold in blister packs at Walmart. For *those* the term P&S would probably
>>> be appropriate (I say this not really knowing anything about the
>>> cameras), because they are very likely analogous to the original and
>>> appropriately characterized 35mm point-and-shoot cameras.
>>>
>>> But really, do you believe a camera like the Nikon 8800, for example, or
>>> Canon G11, should be given the same type name as something that sells for
>>> $25 or whatever in a blister pack? Why should anything and everything
>>> that isn't an interchangeable-lens SLR be called a "P&S," when that term
>>> originally meant, and still implies, a simple-to-use little camera with
>>> practically no user controls and no indication about what the camera
>>> itself was doing in terms of exposure?
>> []
>>
>> That was one of the reasons I accepted the use of the term "ZLR" or
>> perhaps "bridge" camera - neither "compact", "P&S" or "SLR-like" was
>> appropriate or correct for one reason or another. Anyone who is really
>> interested in a camera such as the Nikon 8800 or Panasonic FZ38 isn't
>> going to worry too much about how it's categorised, more about how well it
>> works and what it might do for them.
>
>I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only
>problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But it
>is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera like the
>8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout, function and
>capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which provides some
>justification for the usage.
>

"Bridge camera" does not work. Those who use high-end superzoom cameras see
DSLRs as clearly the archaic "bridge camera". They're painfully, and
unsuccessfully, still trying to bridge the crippling mechanical
rube-goldberg mirror and shutter contraptions; and dust-inducing,
shot-missing need to change lenses of last century; to a fully digital
device. Non-DSLRs are not thus encumbered by last century's huge mechanical
drawbacks and its inherent crippling limitations. Non-DSLRs are a full leap
into this century. No bridge used.

From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:23:15 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message
>news:AsadnSzxdfyIGKXRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>[]
>> I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only
>> problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But
>> it is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera
>> like the 8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout,
>> function and capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which
>> provides some justification for the usage.
>
>Thanks for your thoughts.
>
>One problem I have with the term is "bridge to where?". Doubtless some
>would say that it's an end in itself, and not a bridge to anywhere. In
>terms of being a bridge to a DSLR, I think a punter's money would be
>better spent on a real DSLR, now they are much cheaper than a few years
>back. [At least the 8800 had a half-decent-sized sensor.]
>
>Cheers,
>David

Yet those who are far more talented and intelligent than you find that
spending their money on a superzoom camera to be the far wiser choice. You
can't see that because, well, you're not more talented nor more
intelligent. You'll never be able to value something that is far beyond
your limited comprehension, limited capabilities, and limited experiences.
It's just the way it is.