MiroFoto

I may be a bit stubborn, but my question is - which camera will give me a BETTER picture ...of the same crop !!!

I have compared my Sony 30x bridge with a Nik+ 300mm Tamron and cropped the shot to the same picture detail to straight shot from Sony . I do not see much difference is sharpness etc.

I need to gear up for my trip to Alaska.

Please comment

Thank you Miro

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

You never mentioned the model of the Sony Bridge camera. I can only guess it is a RX10. Those cameras are of excellent quality, and generally have a fixed lens made by Zeiss.

MiroFoto

Sorry it is Sony DSC-HX-100
I have posted 2 pics in photo gallery under Hawk

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Sorry. I don't know about the Sony HX-100 camera. Check to see if it has Zeiss glass. Zeiss and Leica glass are on some Bridge Cameras. Both Sony and Panasonic. Two of the best lenses.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

The problem with the bridge cameras is the small sensor needed to obtain the large focal length excursion. It is a function of the laws of physics. The proof will be in the printing as you print to 30x40 full image or proportionately cropped, the smaller sensor of the bridge camera will not yield as good an image. On the other hand, if you are shooting for the web, it works.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Print it to the same size print. You'll see the difference.

mffox Loc: Avon, CT

Looking at your 2 images posted in the Photo Gallery, I find the cropped (Nikon??) photo to have greater clarity of detail and richer in color. On any given day, my bridge camera might or might not do better than my mirrorless. In my case, the difference lies with the photographer, not the gear.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

MiroFoto, I struggled and finally found those two pics but neither was taken with a Nikon so I assume the post in Gallery is correct that both were taken with the Sony.

I did a little math, assuming the Nikon to be a full frame version and SWAGing the resolution at 24mp just to have a working number. If you let me know the correct sensor size and resolution for the Nikon I can tweak these numbers. PM or public - either works.

The Sony has a "1/2.3" sensor, the same size as many super zoom bridge cameras, even the Nikon P900. It's actually 6.17 mm wide. Your Sony has a 144mm lens (actual focal length) and thus a crop factor of about 5.6 (diagonal). That gives the "equivalent" length of over 800 mm. No correction needed for the assumed full frame camera.

These numbers were used for convenience: an object with a width of 150 mm (medium bird like a hawk, more or less) and a distance of 3500 mm (11.5 feet approx). I used those numbers because that means the bridge camera will have filled the frame with the object almost exactly. If you take the same picture from the same distance with a full frame camera and a 300 mm lens you get an image that is actually almost twice a large. Specifically, the width of the Sony's image will be 6.17 mm (size of sensor) but the image on the full frame sensor with a 300 mm lens will be 12.87 mm (much less than the full frame). You will notice that these numbers are in the same relationship as 144 : 300 and that is simple math and geometry.

Now let's look at the pixels in the image. The Sony used all the available pixels and at a high pixel density so the width in pixels of the image is 4608. But assuming the full frame sensor gives 6000 x 4000 = 24 mp, then the pixels in that same image on the full frame camera of that spec will be 2157. Since an image has pixels in area, not lines, the pixels in the image will be 4.65 mp vs 21.61. In other words, the bridge camera has a 4.6x head start on the full frame camera.

But a good full frame camera, especially in low light, will give lower noise and MAY give better lens performance. Can it make up a 4.6x head start? Only actual testing can answer that question for a given pair of cameras; math alone is not enough. That said, if the full frame camera were a Sony alpha 7R2 with 42 mp then the bridge camera's advantage shrinks a lot. On a Sony a6000, 6300,6500 you get a 1.5 crop factor and a higher pixel density than the a7R2 by about 15%. Those cameras' sensors are not as good in low light as the a7R2 but they are much better than the 1/2.3 sensors.

If you are trying to fill up a monitor like mine which is 1920 x 1280 then you only need 2.5 mp. Printing an 8 x 10 at 300 dpi, you'd need 8x10x300x300= 7.2 mp. I think this means that the bridge camera can do that large a print but the 4.65 mp image on the full frame camera would not make it without pixel interpolation (that discussion is above my level of understanding).

I could be doing the printer math wrong, though, since I don't use printers at all. Others may be able to correct me on that. I looked up some Epson photo printers for home use and their maximum resolution was 5760 x 1440 dpi but I think they meant those numbers for the page, not just one inch. Other sources suggest decent prints at 300 dpi. On 500px, photos for sale at maximum quality are 300 dpi in at least some cases.

By the way, if these two cameras were compared to the Sony RX10 III then the mp in the image would be 15.12 and the pixel density advantage shrinks to 1.5X, the larger sensor and (probably) better lens will (probably) make up for the head start and even reverse the results. This paragraph is just educated guessing. However, I note that 15 mp is twice what is needed for an 8 x 10 at 300 dpi.

For some use cases, the larger sensor on the RX10 III (but much smaller than full frame) is the sweet spot. In my own research, the 1/2.3 sensor is well below the sweet spot for anyone but casual shooters. Just my 2 cents and YMMV.

I have no idea what 300 mm lens was used on the Nikon and you did not post the Nikon pics. I can tell you, though, that I've tried a few legacy Nikon lenses on my Sony a6000 and compared them to my Sony FE 70~200. I was very unhappy with how the old Nikon glass performed. It's a new world; the new lenses are, IMHO, a lot better. You could be using a modern Nikon rig and then this paragraph would be irrelevant.

I hope this was not TMI and that it put the issue in context and on a solid footing. Match can't answer all the questions but it can help understand our observations and predict some results or at least the rough range of possible results.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Those two pics were both taken with the Sony. A Nikon's filename is DSCN but the Sony's is DSC.
Just sayin..

Bill_de Loc: US

I had that Sony from 2011 until I gave it to my nephew last year. As long as the light was good and I wasn't making big prints, it really was a good camera. I used it mostly while kayaking.

MiroFoto

Yes, my two pictures in the Gallery are from Sony DSC-HX100 bridge camera 30x zoom. The first one is reduced size (200) for internet...so the quality may be worse.
I normally use Nikon 7100 with Tamron 16-300 zoom lens.

a6k - Thank you for the detailed explanation. I am an engineer, so I will have to digest it.

I also appreciate the simplified input from others -> PRINTING ! I do not print any photos, I do not even consider myself a photographer. So I got a bit blush in my face reading about selling stuff.

My original question and intent was: shall I buy a 65x crop camera instead of trying to get better lens for my Nikon ? Now I see, for a casual shooter , bridge camera will give me photos with relatively sharp crop size which Nikon Dx (even with 1.3 crop) can not match due to huge enlargement need ...for the same size.

I think that this Sony 30x bridge is roughly 300 mm on Nikon Dx - size & quality . I know, In darker areas , it will change.

And yes, I will do the Phd. as provided by a6k.

Thank you Miro

MiroFoto

Bill de- Thank you for the comment. I wanted to get rid of this Sony and buy a small one for fishing. Nobody wants that and your turtle convinced me to keep it. 30x is great and now I think to get 50 or 65x + my Nikon 7100 rather than changing lenses and pay $1000 for 500 mm heavy beast.

Miro

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Probably the best advice that can be given. Seeing is believing!