Camera people...

I cant speak for that particular model but I have a snapper that is a Panasonic lumix (its about 3 years old now) and it is fab....pic quality is amazing, even when I go to gigs and concerts and take pics of artist on stage.

I have loads of pics on my personal fb page that you can have a look at if you want to see the quality including many of my gig ones...let me know and I will give you access to them

Dawn

Without sounding like an absolute d*ck, I don't see the benefit. My compact is comparable, if not better (but then my compact is a decent one with a significantly higher price tag than this bridge camera).

http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-LZ20-vs-Panasonic-TZ30/specs

But most decent compacts now offer aperture/shutter speed priorities, ISO control, manual exposure correction, and so on. I have learned most of the basics (not suggesting that I am in any way proficient in them!) with my compact.

There were two reasons for me to move up to a DSLR:

1. Interchangeable lenses.

2. Ability to shoot RAW images.

Given the type of photo you usually post here, I suspect you will find that these two reasons apply to you as well. This bridge has neither of these functions.

Save for a DSLR. You will love it.

I don't have that particular model - mine is a DSLR that OH got me for my 30th - but that one does look good & has a lot of features that you can play with. The added HD video is a nice bonus. I'd suggest go for it - it has a lot of features for such a good price.

Some good reviews on it on here (scroll to the end) https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8567522816/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lz20-budget-21x-superzoom

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-D70-DSLR-body-with-accessories-and-original-box-/130934796573?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item1e7c52711d

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm

God damn you footlong, I knew that would be the answer.

I actually have a compact Panasonic Lumix already (although I can't remember the model - it was a gift). Learning about the ISO, exposure etc was my reason for stepping up - I have no idea if my current compact does that.

ETA: I think it's this one- Panasonic Lumix DMC FP3

Mine is the one before this and I love it.

Kharv, here is an image shot with my DSLR, using a particular type of lens, and that wouldn't be acheivable on that bridge (ignore the boring subject matter and any other numerous faults with the picture - it was the first time I took any pictures with it).

It was this - the ability to shoot in focus close up, with all the blur behind the subject - that prompted me to buy a DSLR.

Here's a portrait - don't quote as will remove ASAP:

I just couldn't have done this without my (now favourite) lens and the picture being in RAW.

I want to be able to do that close up focus and blurred background.

That ebay one - would that be a good buy?

Ken Rockwell says it's his second favourite DSLR ever. He is well-regarded.

You would have to buy a lens though. To get the close-up focus/blur background, you're looking at a lens cost of £80 for a manual focus and £130 for an autofocus. I have just found an autofocus second-hand one from a reputable dealer for £75.

It sounds a bit stupid, because I'm giving you the same advice I received from TOGs here when making my choice to buy, and I completely ignored it.

You know, my uncle is second hand camera dealer. Maybe I should have thought to ask him at some point, too! Ha.

Probably better than buying off Ebay!

If you want, I'll bring my DSLR to the Leeds meet and you can have a mess around with it (before we drink too much wine).

Ooh I'd love that! Is there a DSLR for dummies book or similar? (I am COMPLETELY clueless).

I wanted a DSLR for the same reasons, to get those shots I love. Mr C bought me a bridge for Christmas as a surprise a few years ago, which is great, but doesn't do what I wanted the DSLR for. *feels ungrateful*

It a Fujifilm HS20 EXR

I've got a book Barry recommended called understanding exposure... Tis good

Removed - was trying to be helpful but I won't bother again! I hope you find a good camera Kharv.

I'm gonna call that. You can see the lines where the photo moves from in focus to out of focus, strongly suggesting you've selectively added blur to your backgrounds. It's particularly evident in the top picture (bottom right quadrant) and the sharp line of focus change across your phone in the bottom picture.

ETA: when I open the flower pics on Photoshop, it's even more apparent - you can trail your outline all the way round.

What is the point of posting pics and crediting the camera for them, when you've changed the image in such an important way?

I can definitely see the blur/no blur line on the mobile phone screen in the bottom photograph.

I hadn't realised I had pulled the one of the flowers from facebook not the original file, however the bottom one certainly has not been edited.

I think it would be fair to say that was an honest mistake because as you say what would be the point.

Unfortunately it is posts like this that does make me very wary to add to any OT threads as I feel some people jump down my throat quite easily.

Thanks!

Oh FFS.

Here is a picture I took/camera ace/didn't think I could do it.

Um, that is a Photoshopped picture.

*flounce*

Really??

What did the originals look like? That would be very helpful for Kharv.

It was quite obviously an innocent mistake, as I don't spend my time finding pictures and trying to be helpful just to screw someone over and make them by a more expensive camera!!

It is just so tedious to have people trying to one up me.

How is it "one upping" you, to point out that you appear to have posted an edited set of pictures while claiming that the camera did the work? Genuine question.

If I were to post a heavily-Photoshopped picture and claimed it to be original, I'd expect to be called on it.

Ok, what I meant to say was the way you said it, felt like you were trying to one up me, not the actual point you made. In which case I will just say that they camera is a good one, and it does the blurry thing that Kharv said she liked. Leave it at that?

For once you are wrong footlong, (I can un quote in a bit if you like so you can keep your flawless record ?) but I brought OH a Fuji bridge camera (cant remember the exact model) and he has been able to achieve photos like this (dont ask me how).

Perhaps an original photo would help?

I have one from my compact that shows they do have the capacity to blur in some situations:

The max aperture on my compact is f/3.3 (at 24 mm, the widest angle), which is what this picture was shot at. What model compact do you have again? But it's fair to say that a DSLR with a 50 mm f/1.8 is going to blur far more effectively!

It all depends on the lens. If your lens has a wide enough max aperture, you can blur the background easily. The one Kharv posted doesn't have a particularly wide aperture (it's not any better than on my compact) and therefore, it wouldn't be easy to take photos with a heavily blurred background. Higher level bridge cameras (and even some compacts) will have faster lenses....and a higher price tag to boot.

The railings photo was taken at a bit of a distance, so the background is not as blurred as it could be.

Here is one taken close up, at f/1.8 (ignore the fact that the tulip isn't in focus, it was windy Actually, is it even a tulip?)

I think it is a tulip.

Ok, I think I need to do some reading to properly understand aperture etc. What would you say is the minimum I need to looking at?

That picture of the tulip is the type of thing I want to be able to do but for the cheapest possible price ?

? This thread makes zero sense to me. I like my little camera that you can choose 'party mode' landscape mode' etc ?

Me too funky. I take blurry photos all the time. Mostly because I'm using an iphone and I'm pissed...

Photoshop costs £60

Buy a cheap DSLR body. Then stick on a 35 or 50 mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens (new or properly-refurbished). If I had to go back to when I purchased, and realised what I know now (which is not a lot by any stretch, but a bit more than I knew 6 weeks ago), I'd do this (instead of buying a spanky new camera body). The first lens I purchased was the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. In making a picture, it does far more work than my spanky new camera body, and thus, I could have gone for a cheaper/second-hand body quite easily. Like I said, this is exactly what was suggested by the lovely TOGs here. And exactly the advice I ignored

If Mr Funky has a bridge that does this, it might be worth seeing if that suits you better. However, in general, the wider the aperture (the smaller the f number), the more expensive a lens is. So a bridge camera (or a compact) that runs to this is going to be much more expensive that the bridge you originally posted (a few hundred quid). Then you're into cheap DSLR territory anyway.

Kharv, is this what you want most of your photos to look like (different dog though) ?

The only bit of this thread that I have understood is "tulip"

and 'dog' for me!