It all depends on what you want to taken pictures of. If, for example you want to take decent portraits, a digital SLR will,allow you to control the depth of field and blur out backgrounds more easily than a compact or bridge camera. This is because of the option of using other lenses. As well as the kit lens, a prime 50 mm lens will not prove to be expensive, and will deliver stunning portraits or figure studies. The kit lens will also give you great flexibility for landscapes and general photography.

If you are likely to become interested in photography the draw of having a single lens reflex will become irresistible. My opinion for what it's worth.

I'm sure you will get a few more views to give you a balanced overall view from fellow users of this wonderful site.

I am not an expert on the subject, but I had the same dilemma.
I had a bridge that is a good camera and it has served me well for about eight years and there is still nothing wrong with it (my avatar was taken with it)
The thing that I found a bit of a pain at times was the size.
At the time I bought it. DSLRs were too expensive, and compact digitals didn't have any manual control.
This year I decided to treat myself to a joint birthday and Christmas present, but a DSLR would have given me the same problem as the bridge. ie a bit big to carry around.
The answer for me was CSC. Compact system camera. These have the same functions as a DSLR , but are not single lense reflex so there is no bulky prisum. They have inter changable lenses so they are quite versatile. One draw back is there are not many on the market with seperate view finders.
I have the Lumix GF6, it cost a tad under £300, it has a 14_42 zoom. I think a larger lense would be another £100 or so.
Another thing I like about this type of camera is they have a retro look about them.
Good luck
Robin

Since you already have a bridge camera, if you want flexibility and the potential to use different lenses, then an SLR is the way to go. Yes they are bulky, and when you consider the rest of the kit like tripods and other lenses then traveling light is out.

There are also micro 4/3 cameras which try to bridge that gap, but lens choice and price can be a limiting factor. Personally I have an SLR and a Fuji X series which is more compact, has a fast lens and is silent.

I bought a Nikon D3200 DSLR a couple of years ago and absolutely love it.  It's really given me the photography bug.  I would recommend a DSLR you won't look back.

Sean

I have a Nikon 300S DSLR and when I see the results I know why I bought it. I made an error with the white balance earlier this year but having raw files available I could easily overcome the problem. I also have a small Lumix with a good quality lens which is ideal if I don't want to hump the beast about.

Davie  8)

I have had a DSLR for a few years, prior to that a film SLR. This year i got a compact camera with high optical zoom. If you want quality and flexibilty get the DSLR. If you have a concern about lugging all that kit around, still get it and grab a 2nd hand compact with carl zeiss optics for great photos on the go.hope that helps. 🙂

I have been a pro photographer and film maker for quite a few years. For pro work we use Nikon D700's along with a full array of different lenses, accompanied by Panasonic GH3 micro 4/3rd cameras for film work plus a bagful of GoPro's and other additions. For personal/holiday day to do use I have a few to choose from, including Canon G10, G7 and Nikon coolpix and Panasonic Lumix DMC FT3 which records ~HD video as well and is also fully waterproof.
The GH3's can use almost any type of lens on the market, the adapters can be picked up for around £20.00 on ebay. You can then get round car bot sales ebay etc and buy some really good lenses for a few quid. Ebay is not so good for getting the bargains as everyone has become wise to the 4/3rd lens buyers, but I find antique shops more or less give them away. In all honesty my most used camera for non pro stuff is my iPhone!

As Davie has said he uses the Nikon D300. A nice camera which can now be picked up at giveaway prices. It's only the low light capabilities that let this down compared with latest cameras, and is a great 2nd hand buy. Shoot in RAW and white balance is not a problem. WHite balance will only effect jpg images as the camera does the processing. 

What are you going to do with the photos? Printing them at poster size requires high end kit displaying them digitally doesn't. At one time I had a camera bag with several thousand pounds worth of Olympus kit in it. Yes I could take stunning photos but I didn't do much with them and more often than not I left the stuff at home because of the bulk and the risk of loosing it all.

I now have an obsolete Canon Powershot SX210IS that more than matches the Olympus film kit for what I do with the photos but at a fraction of the price and it is pocketable. My wife has a Galaxy S3 which appears to have grafted itself onto her hand and with the latest software is for 80% of the time is as good as the Canon. So the real question is "What do you want the camera for?" and then get the appropriate tool for the job.

I recently bought a Lumix DMC-FT25 for underwater work and in comparison to the older SX210IS it is rubbish. So, my only input would be whatever you buy look at Canon first. 

Most of my photos just stay on the computer and Flickr to view on iPads or on our TV.
Also do the odd private sessions with the wife...... Nudge, nudge, wink, wink......

Tony (2)

I have made a shortlist:

Canon power shot SX60
Nikon D3200
Pentax K50

Any views?

nikon every time for me

I bought a G10 a few years ago and love it.
Although I have a DSLR the G10 is very versatile.

I would prefer a nikon or canon but I am not a real expert just a keen amateur.

As I mentioned above I could not be more happy with my Nikon D3200 😀

Sean

Just had a play with a 3200 and like it a lot. The guy in the camera shop (yes and old school camera shop that isn't a Jessops) says it is as much camera as any amateur would need and more. He did say it has a couple of limitations and the genuine lenses are bit more than other brands but, as with most things, you get what you pay for.

The Canon was nice too but felt a lot less well made. Has a hugenormous zoom though. Had a little play outside the shop and at 60x zoom all looked a tad shaky, even with image stablisation on it. Think I'd need a mono or tripod for anything over 20x. Didn't feel like that on maximum zoom on the Nikon with the lens he put on it.

One thing I will also say. The chap was very trusting letting me out the shop with his expensive camera? Perhaps if I'd worn torn jeans and a hoody?

I think we have a winner.