Timothy S

I have a professional photographer friend who is super excited about his new purchase of the Panasonic LUMIX FZ300. What I know for sure is that it has an incredible zoom range of 25-600mm in an incredibly small package considering its reach, about 691g. I have seen example pictures, and they are quite impressive in their close detail and sharpness. All that for about $500. He says that it is simply the monopoly that big camera companies have that make other professional equipment so expensive. I also know that every positive in this business has a downside. The only downside that I can find is its very small 1/1.23 sensor. I don’t know a lot about that except that a full frame camera gives the sharpest pictures and best IQ, with the least noise. Yet his pictures look great, and the fast 2.8 aperture lens allows for low ISO settings. A regular DSLR with 2.8 600mm would be incredibly large, heavy, and expensive. So why is it that I never see professional photographers who reveal their equipment using a bridge camera like this?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Because pros can write off their equipment?
Because pros will never use a little camera?
Because the big camera & lens is more impressive?

dbjazz Loc: Long Island, NY

Well said. That's it in a nutshell.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

When your paycheck depends on producing consistent excellent results under varying conditions, a professional uses the best equipment available. The size of the camera and/or lens is a consideration only if it is limiting. The write off is inconsequential if the paycheck is big enough.
Bridge cameras have limitations (look them up). They may work for casual shooters under specific situations; but professionals want to maximize their results under all conditions. The tool should fit the job; and you won’t see a surgeon using a kitchen knife.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

"Best" is relative isn't it.
Try slicing a turkey for Thanksgiving with a scalpel.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Could you imagine a professional wedding photographer showing up to shoot a wedding with just a small bridge camera?

People just have this notion that if it’s an important occasion, it better be shot with a big camera. While a pro could take good images with a small bridge camera, they would certainly be better with a professional setup.

Ollieboy

👍👍

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

If all you had was a scalpel it could be made to work for the turkey. However, it is highly doubtful the kitchen knife could be made to work for an appendectomy.
Yes, use the tool best suited for the job, but carry the tool that provides the largest range of possibilities of getting the job done.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Depends on the application/requirements for the task/desired outcome.
Various cameras are deemed "subordinate" by default, whether they are or not.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Professional means business. Yes, the equipment is tax deductible. And there are also wealthy hobbyists. I have had two bridge cameras with a zoom lens, not a super zoom though. The mechanics of the focusing system gave out on one of them. I have not had a SLR, DSLR, PnS die yet. I have pretty much stayed away from extreme zooms of any kind. Perhaps it is because I am a bit old school. As a hobbyist I don't have the budget for the newest and greatest, but I do try to get the best I can afford lenses. Meaning used or vintage. I have a nice collection of prime lenses and moderate zooms. Zooms, such as 16-50mm, 50-135mm, 100-300mm, vintage 40-80mm, 70-210mm, 28-135mm. Though, so far nothing really wide angle for my APS-C bodies. I have to some extent replaced lenses over time. Especially with better and better prime normal lenses of 50mm and 55mm, and nicer Maco lenses. A camera with a super zoom these days likely do take excellent images but how long with it work?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Simple answer: When it comes to sensors and delivering the best possible work under all conditions, size DOES matter.

The upside of small sensors/cameras is size, weight and (maybe) price. The upside of FF (or larger) is absolute performance (resolution, DR, high ISO/low noise performance).

Timothy S

What I have in mind is not anything like wedding photography with a lens that is capable of 600mm. I have primarily wildlife photography in mind. In wildlife photography, as in other types of photography, sharpness and IQ are very important. But just about as important is maneuverability. I don’t like using a tripod unless I have to. Getting a once in a year or even lifetime image with 99% perfect IQ ranks higher to me than no image at all. Sometimes the window for a great photo lasts just a second or two. I am not about to run out and buy a bridge camera, I just want to educate myself and establish whether it is a reasonable option to add at some time. On a budget, I have a light weight but very capable APS-C DSLR with 24mp and a 2017 Digic 7 processor, and for ultimate focal length I use the old model Canon 100-400L and a 1.4 multiplier. I got all three of those used, in mint condition, for under $1300 altogether. They are professional grade lenses. With 4 3/4 pounds of weight, it ultimately gives me 896mm of effective focal length. I love my system on my budget, even though the lens is rather slow and has a first generation stabilizer. But for my purposes, I feel like I should find out the details on what options are available. Lens speed for low light conditions would be nice, especially under two pounds. I have seen excellent example wildlife photos and read impressive professional reviews on it. So that is where I am coming from. With all due respect, my question was why is it not a great option, so concrete evidence means more to me than saying that a professional should not use it because it is not professional equipment. Thank you for some helpful responses. 🙂

bigguytf

On a recent local photo website a contributor posted some very nice photos. Got excellent comments about them. One person asked what camera he was using an his lens. His answer, my cell phone. He processes his pictures quite well.

A good photographer uses the tools he/she has available to them.

I have some of the same equipment you have, I also have a small bridge camera that helps to fill in the blanks when I need it to.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It all depends on what will work for your desires and your application.
I also have a Sony H-1 from 2006. It takes great pictures, albeit only 5Mp and no RAW. But I still get great results from it.
I'll use it when I feel like it, depending on where I'm going, how much gear I want to carry, and what I want to shoot.
Everyone is different in their needs and desires, as well as opinions of equipment.
I'll only get rid of it when it no longer functions.
To each his own.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

Re: bridge cameras
There are many articles, available thru a google search, regarding features and pros and cons of different bridge cameras. I would rely on them before using a single users photos or experiences. After doing due diligence and deciding what you need and expect from a camera you will be able to make an informed choice. Factor in cost, flexibility, growth potential, specific use(s) and you will be happy with the purchase.