mas24 Loc: Southern CA

There are some very good to excellent Bridge cameras, in different Brand names, mentioned thus far. You, have to decide whether you want a 1" sensor, or the tiny 1/2.3" Naturally, the 1" is going to cost you more money. My Nikon Bridge camera has the tiny sensor. But, for the frequency that I use it, it meets my needs. Would, I prefer to have a better camera, such as the Sony RX10iv? Of course I would. Without hesitation. But, always make the best of what you own already. Until the time comes along, that you can upgrade. Money, will be tight for many now. Especially, since we are in this Coronavirus pandemic, at the moment.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Yeah, Gene did a good explanation of visual perception in regards to viewing billboards etc.. from a distance a while back.

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

Viewing a large image up close or on a screen can be irrelevant, if you need it to be - which goes to my point that larger format cameras don't necessarily hold an advantage over smaller ones, especially as far as making bigger prints or onscreen viewing is concerned. If I didn't tell you that all the images I posted were taken with a bridge camera would you have been able to tell? I highly doubt that you could.

However, looking up close or on a screen, even if only a 2048x1365 - one can see the quality of fine detail and texture capture, focus, depth of field, noise, etc - both of which are essential for publication and medium-sized prints, which are often viewed at distances between 14" and 24" or so - making it very relevant.

Also, a 20mp camera with a 1" sensor gives more cropping options than a D700, which is a 12 mp full frame camera.

So, are you not convinced by the quality of the current crop of bridge cameras (and even cellphones)? Do you not believe your own eyes? Hey, say what you want - you look at all sorts of images on screens - and it is a perfectly valid platform for evaluating image quality. I send proofs to creative directors, clients, gallery owners for evaluation, and they compare these images to others sent to them by other artists/photographers. I am not sure why you think that viewing an image on a screen is irrelevant. I can't remember the last time I sent a printed image to someone for evaluation.

I am even more surprised, given your long history with digital cameras and your collection of so many great small format cameras, that you would come to the conclusions you did in the first post that I responded to. I bought the Sony after a lot of consideration, being 100% full frame since 2010 or so. I got it because in my opinion, it provided image quality almost on par with my D800 and 810 in many situations, as you could see from the images I posted. As I said earlier - the D8XX cameras are really hard to beat, but so is the Sony RX10M4. BTW, what I am getting with the Sony far surpasses anything I got with any of my previous cameras.

My first digital was a Sony DSC F505v, purchased in May of 2000, shortly after it was released.

In any case, I am sitting here with my left arm behind my back muttering "uncle" - so you win. Not sure what you win, but you win . . . Stay safe.

mrpentaxk5ii

I understand that the Tapanzee Bridge camera is a good one and fairly new.

Dean37 Loc: Fresno, CA

rmorrison1116, the fact is, gravity is getting stronger!!!!

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

Too late - it's been replaced and no longer avaiable . . .

shadowlander11

No way. I have 4 cameras and the one I use most is my cell phone Samsung Galaxy S10+. I also have a Canon powershot that I frequently use on trips to lighten my load. Then there's the DSLR and my film 35mm camera. I've been known to use all of them. The shots I get on any of them is only as good as the Photographer and then post processing. So, you continue using what you have, but process with quality apps. Happy shutterbugging.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

I don't want to appear stupid but will someone please explain what a bridge camera is. I personally don't have any idea.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

It's not a competition. I personally don't care what kind of camera people use; DSLR, MILC, Bridge, P&S, it doesn't matter to me, I'm not a camera snob. I didn't explain myself as well as I could have and should have in my original response. The image quality is only as good as the screen it's viewed on allows. Like I said, not a competition, a conversation.

I was actually thinking about buying a RX10 IV but that money is earmarked for an EOS R5 when it finally hits the street.

Dean37 Loc: Fresno, CA

Bigmike1, I doubt that I can explain it well enough, as I'm not 100% sure I understand it completely, but here goes:

I think most of the major camera manufacturers build cameras that are loosely defined as "Bridge" cameras. They have been around at least since the 1980's, and "Bridge" the gap between the point and shoot cameras and the SLR's and dSLRs. They do not have removable lenses, and the digital ones have smaller sensors than the APS-C. Many have zoom lenses that compare to 28-200mm in 35mm film and full frame digital cameras, with some zooming out to 1,000mm, equivalent.

I am sure there are many who can define "Bridge" cameras better, but nobody had stepped up.

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

Ricky Nelson, "Garden Party".
Bill

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

There are a few different types of bridge cameras but basically it's a camera that has many of the same features, or all or in some cases more, that interchangeable lens cameras have, without having an interchangeable lens. They come in various sizes; small like a pocket camera or larger like a SLR. Some are super zooms and some have sensors as large as APS-C. They are more sophisticated and often more expensive than point and shoot cameras, but may be used like a point and shoot camera.
One way to picture a bridge camera is, think of a good Mirrorless camera with a non removable lens.
My Canon G1X series cameras are bridge cameras.