Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

As one who used a bridge for 7 years before getting a DSLR I suggest you buy a used 2 generation old - Canon, Sony, Panasonic or Nikon -
this will bot save you a bundle and give you everything you want - The Zoom and auto will give images to be proud of and manual is even better.
B/ and Adorama carry a good selection with guarantees
.

therwol Loc: USA

I recently bought the Canon G7X Mark II. It comes in at just under $700, shoots RAW and fits in my pants pocket. I lowered the sharpness sensitivity and fineness for jpegs. (Gives you more detail) No regrets. It may be the only camera I take to Europe in September.

bobbyp7714 Loc: Orange MA

Anyone have any experience with the new nikon w300 or olympus tg5 as a bridge camera?

Spectre Loc: Bothell, Washington

No RAW but I love my Nikon Coolpix P520.

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

I shot with the Sony HX300 for years and got superb results...didn't need RAW cause the JPEG processor is that good. However, I'd recommend the HX400 instead for the 300 has a design flaw which causes the image stabilization to go out in a couple years. It does OK in low light but you will get some noise. I was able to work up to ISO-800 fairly well and remove the noise with software. In good light...no problem. The Zeiss 24-1200 mm lens beat all others on the market for sharpness. I've since retired my HX300 and replaced it
with Sony's RX10M3. The RX10 gives me a tingling sensation, because it's so good, the viewfinder is amazing...Below are slideshow links to both cameras. I shot all images in every kind of light and situation you can imagine. Good luck with your hunt for a camera. I gave up carrying heavy gear due to arthritis years ago and I can say...I don't miss all the gear, bags and weight one bit. Smoke a joint or have a shot of whiskey, put on some music and enjoy these slideshows of remarkable Sony bridge cameras with Zeiss lenses. Be sure to click on the view full screen icon at the lower right when the page loads for best viewing. Leave your mouse stationary and the magic will begin.

Sony HX300: http://www.flickr.com/photos/james-frazier/sets/72157646216293167/show
Sony RX10M3: http://www.flickr.com/photos/james-frazier/albums/72157678229950722/show

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

Now here's a little bit of a different idea...a nice zoom lens.... in the range you want, that you do not take off on a trip but will be
useful even afterwards when you get back, that is on an ILC where you just don't take it off for the trip ?

tjjm Loc: Saint Louis, Mo.

Bought the Canon G 7X mark ll last month as didn't want to haul my DSLR and a couple lenses up and down the trails in Rocky mountain national park. Was very pleased with the image quality of the 1" sensor. Concern was over the fact it didn't have a view finder but the touch screen was so easy to use it didn't really bother me. Shot raw, full manual.

therwol Loc: USA

As I said, I bought the same camera recently. It isn't a problem with RAW, but the jpegs at the normal setting can lack the full detail available with this camera. (My personal testing.) If you shoot jpegs, go into the Program Mode and adjust the sharpness settings to reduce the fineness and threshold for the sharpening. Or you can just use the maximum sharpness setting. The instructions are in the online manual, not the one they give you with the camera. The touch screen is awesome. I like the feature of touching the object you want to focus on, and the camera will follow it if you recompose.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

I really like my SonyRX10ii.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Many good cameras suggested in this thread, and I learned a thing or two. What it really comes down to for me is sensor size and focal length. Alas, in a small form factor camera the laws of physics demand a trade off between the two: A small sensor allows for a longer focal length (read: superzoom), while a larger (1" or even larger) sensor will not support a long focal length on a small camera. At least, not a quality lens. Most 1" sensor cameras use a zoom in the 3x-4x range, with Panasonic's Lumix ZS100 boasting 10x, 25-250mm Leica glass.

So is sensor size or zoom more important? To some extent, it is simply a trade: Shoot with a large sensor and crop later to achieve what you could have with a longer lens. But when considering DoF and noise, this is not a perfect solution. Personally, I find I do my best composition in post (I tend to shoot too wide), so I really need the cropping latitude that a larger sensor affords me. And I do like a brighter, faster lens for the control it offers. Additionally, a larger-sensor camera with a faster lens -- all else being equal -- will always offer better low-light performance than will a smaller-sensor camera with a long, narrow tube of glass elements for light to travel through to find a tiny sensor no larger than my thumbnail.

Now I suppose I don't need to say which I prefer. It depends on you, though, and your style of shooting. I shoot primarily with my DSLRs, but I also use an Oly XZ-2 pocket bridge camera (1/1.7" sensor and 28-112mm equivalent lens) and an Oly SZ-31 pocket consumer camera (1/2.3" sensor and 25-600mm). It might not seem like much, but the former's sensor is 35% larger than the latter. The IQ, especially with the superior lens and shooting RAW, is much better -- but I still can't crop and expect to get usable 16x20 prints. Either is fine for social media, however.

donie95 Loc: Staten Island NY

Thank you all for the input. I think I am just as confused as before but thanks for the help.

donie95 Loc: Staten Island NY

Thank you all for the input. I think I am just as confused as before but thanks for the help.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

<<A small sensor allows for a longer focal length (read: superzoom), while a larger (1" or even larger) sensor will not support a long focal length on a small camera. At least, not a quality lens. Most 1" sensor cameras use a zoom in the 3x-4x range..>>

I don't understand this. For example the Sony DSC-RX10 III has a 1 inch sensor and a 24-600 Zeiss lens that all the reviews I have read praise very highly. If a 1 inch or larger sensor will not support a long focal length lens how can this be? Could you please clarify? Thanks.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I would not consider the RX10iii to be a small form factor; it's nearly the size of a DSLR.

A smaller sensor captures a much smaller portion of the image rendered by a lens, as I'm sure you know. So when that smaller image is then displayed at the same size as an image from a larger sensor, it will have the appearance of having been taken with a longer (more powerful) lens. This is the crux of 35mm equivalency. So it is clear that a small camera with a small sensor can accommodate a superzoom. Conversely, put a larger sensor in the same small camera/lens and the image will not fill the sensor. It's like when I shoot with a crop lens on my full frame body, I get a round image that fills 2/3 of the frame. You would need to move the lens farther away from the sensor to fill it, creating a larger camera -- such as the DSLR-size RX10iii (a very nice camera, btw).

seagull5

Hi....just sayin the RX0 iii is over $1300 and 600mm.....from what I have read great IQ....the FZ1000 my camera has awesome IQ 400mm and a heck of a video system $500 to 600 optical I believe is 4x (I don`t use it)...What I am trying to say is you can purchase a FZ1000 and a FZ300 and a SX60 which would cover a whole lot of photo equipment and spend a few hundred more than an RX10 iii and have 3 very nice cameras. If i am confusing I apologies but this is what I have done except substitute the SX60 for a P900 and pick what I shoot with where I am going and how I feel....Just have fun...no matter what you pick just have a great day.....its going to be awesome what you end up with