Judy795

I have the FZ200 and the FZ1000. On some landscape shots the FZ1000 matches my NikonD750. Would I use it for BIF instead of my D500 and big lens? No way.

ialvarez50

Only an amateur who only sees photos on his phone or tablet will say things like this. This camera compared with my 5D Mark III, is crap. My images have to be the best and the best requires a great camera and not an amateur camera. But, you can only understend this if you are a photographer and need to print your images.

jimmol

I also have an FZ300 and can heartily recommend it. The optics are excellent, designed by Leica. It can operate at F2.8 all the way out to 600 mm effective focal length. In addition, it can double the effective focal length to 1200 mm in producing JPEGs (though not for raw). Try to find F2.8 1200 mm on the market: the nearest thing I have seen is 600 mm Canon F5.6 prime, offered by B and H at $180,000.

Despite all the exhortations to shoot in raw mode, I don't, and I don't miss it. The FZ300 does an excellent job of automatic white balance, so there is one less thing to address in post-processing. JPEGs have fewer bits per pixel than raw, but realistically this shows up only in dark shadows, which are seldom the important part of the image.

Yes, a full-frame camera can produce better images, but how much better? Not much, not enough to make up for the convenience of a single lens for everything, more compact kit overall, and lower price. If I wanted to take the next step to better images, it would cost me as much a fairly new used car.

Actually, I do have a second lens: an Olympus C-180 teleconversion lens, which gives a 1.7x greater focal length with little effect on the image or loss of lens speed. Autofocus still works fine. The net result is 2000 mm effective focal length, which is nice for bird photography although at the limit for hand-holding.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I've witnessed low budget wedding photographers use bridge cameras. (Poor people get married too!) If they make a living from photography, then they certainly qualify as "professional photographers" - even if the quality of their work may be somewhat lacking.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Key operator: may be

Rogers0435 Loc: Alabama

The answer for me was micro 4/3 camera with two Olympus zooms. These are used by several professionals.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - likewise - but for me it is two Panasonic zooms - although I have just ordered a M4/3 equivalent of a nifty fifty (25mm) for the f1.7 starting point (from teco buy).

ialvarez50

Only an amateur who only sees photos on his phone or tablet will say things like this. This camera compared with my 5D Mark III, is crap. My images have to be the best and the best requires a great camera and not an amateur camera. But, you can only understend this if you are a photographer and need to print your images.

ialvarez50

Good for you, let us know if your images ever appear in National Geographic.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Why not the 1D? Isn't that better that the 5D?
...
Oh, I understand.....

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

I bet he could do it

ialvarez50

It's not better, and I can get my photos exactly the way I want them with the 5d and my prime lenses. There is no need for anyone to spend 7 grand on a camera if you know photography and have a Cadillac and not a Rolls Royse. Both cameras will give you equal quality.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So I guess "best" is relative.
Good, I'm comfortable with my T1i and Sony H-1.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I don't know the exact definition of a bridge camera but last year for Kayaking I bought an olympus TG 6
love that little camera. Much different then my Canon 77D and my 150-600 Tameron G 2 zoom.