GlennInEncinitas Loc: Encinitas CA

I am thinking of getting a superzoom camera (Canon SX50 - 12 mp, 50x zoom). But, since I do most of my photo editing on the computer, I wonder if getting a more compact camera (easier to carry and use more often) with higher megapixels (16 instead of 12) might be better since I could crop rather than zoom and retain picture quality?

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

Bridge cameras tend to have larger sensors than the smaller P&S cameras so the image quality might not be as good on the cropped photo MP count is not the most important aspect the difference between 12 and 16 MP is not that much.

N Tom Loc: Tucson, AZ

I've wondered about this too. The relatively new Sony point and shoot RX100 (maybe it's RV100) has a super-sized sensor similar to many DSLR cameras. You might want to look into that as one possibility. It does not have much of an optical zoom.

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Go for the Canon....

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

If you do a lot of editing, suggest a larger sensor will serve you better overall. There are a few compacts that have APS-C sensors. Not suggesting it should be the only criteria to use for your choice, but it will be a good place to start.

rowandjr Loc: New Jersey

No one has mentipned the 4/3rds cameras excellant image quality

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Larger sensors generally have larger pixels, which gives them the potential to produce images with less noise and a greater dynamic range. 4/3 sensors are smaller than APS sensors.

BillWaxman

A really good alternative to either is one of the mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses available now. I recently was treated to a very nice surprise by taking a chance on the Nikon 1 V1 model currently on sale at historically low prices from several sources. Mine is the kit with two lenses (10~30mm and 30~110mm) and the images it produces are virtually indistinguishable from those made with a D3 or D7000. That was an unexpected truth experienced not just by me but by a friend to whom I turn for advice from time to time despite my experience both professionally and for fun since 1965 when I got my first Nikon F.

Lightweight because the all metal body is magnesium alloy and with compact lenses, the Nikon 1 is a far better camera than the specifications would tend to indicate. It has both a mechanical as well as electronic shutter with frame rates of up to 60 fps at full resolution making it, in combination with its extremely fast auto-focus, one of the best sports or action cameras I have ever seen.

I cannot recommend it highly enough as a great second camera and truly the best "carry everywhere" one I have had.

As the old advertisements used to say, "Try it, you'll like it"

I derive no benefit from recommending the Nikon brand beyond the satisfaction of knowing that those who buy one will probably enjoy using them as much as I have over the years.

Incidentally, the low light performance of the V1 is really amazing and has to be experienced to be appreciated. Just be aware that with a highest ISO of 6400 it will tend to defer to a lower shutter speed than you are used to so be sure to brace it carefully for those shots.

Bill Waxman