In looking at some posts, it seems some of you do not know what a bridge camera is. A person asking about "the best" bridge camera ia offered advice on DSLRs, mirrorless cameras, etc. A bridge camera does not mean a camera to buy before you can buy an expensive one, kind of like a starter home!

Bridge cameras have been around for years in film cameras. They offered SLR style and similar function, but did not have a removable lens. They offered a longer zoom range than point and shoot cameras and frequently a better viewing system. Some say that the lenses were not as good as removable ones, and that may be true of some or even most. But for the target audience, they were sufficient.

The digital versions often looked a lot more like DSLRs with many of the same modes. They were mirrorless and many had an electronic eyepiece viewfinder (not as good as the best ones today, but helpful in strong light). A few on the very low end omitted the eyepiece finder, which IMHO were to be avoided.

Bridge cameras have always been looked down upon by the SLR/DSLR crowd, but that is a matter of opinion. Latest models have insanely long lenses and keep improving. Perhaps one day we will look back at the bridge camera debate as we now do with the debate over fixed focal length lenses versus zooms in the 1970's. Years later I doubt if more than a handfull of you carry 6 lenses in your bag.

Just to make you all aware that Adobe WILL increase the price of the Photographers package when they so decide I thought you might like to know the New Zealand scenario.
When I subscribed to the package about 2 1/2 years back, the price was $9.99 Australian. (With our currency that translated to about $NZ11.50 a month.) About a year ago Adobe decided that we should pay significantly more for this wonderful package and increased the price to $AU 11.99 per month. That currently translates to about $NZ15.00 a month. Wasn't impressed with this increase but just decided to bear it. Have just received an email from Adobe which tells me that our NZ Govt have caught up with a number of businesses trading in NZ as they do and from End of November they will have to increase their price to recoup the 15% GST they are required to pay. Thats going to add a further $NZ2.25 to the present charge. Starting to get expensive now and I'm keeping an eye on the reviews and comments coming from this site regarding Luminar, On One and the other new and developing software packages. $NZ17.25 a month takes it out to $NZ210.00 per year. Its getting up there!!

Both photographed using RAW.

The inspiration for this is that in my reading I found a couple of keystroke that could let PS automatically set certain adjustments in ACR. I tried them. In each of those adjustments Adobe tended to push things towards the plus end of the scale and, in some cases, considerably so. This inspired me to hit the street to take and process something completely in Auto mode. To compare, I took a similar photo in manual and controlled the process throughout. There is a difference.

I tried an experiment this afternoon. I picked a very unideal time of day to photograph this building. I took one photo in which I was completely in Auto, used Auto in ACR as well. The other I used manual and was in control of everything, including using my settings in ACR. I metered the scene, using the same spot, set the exposure (knowing my camera's capabilities). Then, I took the photograph.

The first photo was taken in P mode, letting the camera decide everything. In processing, I simply let PS make the decisions by using Auto.

In processing the second photo, I did my usual basic settings and adjustments. I did nothing along the lines of burning and dodging, vignetting, etc. Just the basics to where the photo is where I'd start working on it. I did do an image specific WB on the second photo.

For those of you who have a bit of insight on my exposure settings, WB was set to Auto1 for this series. This eliminated any additional adjustments in ACR.
--Bob

Both photographed using RAW.

The inspiration for this is that in my reading I found a couple of keystroke that could let PS automatically set certain adjustments in ACR. I tried them. In each of those adjustments Adobe tended to push things towards the plus end of the scale and, in some cases, considerably so. This inspired me to hit the street to take and process something completely in Auto mode. To compare, I took a similar photo in manual and controlled the process throughout. There is a difference.

I tried an experiment this afternoon. I picked a very unideal time of day to photograph this building. I took one photo in which I was completely in Auto, used Auto in ACR as well. The other I used manual and was in control of everything, including using my settings in ACR. I metered the scene, using the same spot, set the exposure (knowing my camera's capabilities). Then, I took the photograph.

The first photo was taken in P mode, letting the camera decide everything. In processing, I simply let PS make the decisions by using Auto.

In processing the second photo, I did my usual basic settings and adjustments. I did nothing along the lines of burning and dodging, vignetting, etc. Just the basics to where the photo is where I'd start working on it. I did do an image specific WB on the second photo.

For those of you who have a bit of insight on my exposure settings, WB was set to Auto1 for this series. This eliminated any additional adjustments in ACR.
--Bob

I was looking at comparisons review between Canon 100-400 Mark II vs a Canon 300f/4 with a 1.4 teleconverter attached and a Canon 400 f5.6 and the reviewer remarked that the 100-400 did not reach as far as the 400f 5.6. He believed it fell somewhere around 380mm fully extended. The reason I was even looking at the review was that I recently visited the Conowingo Dam and I was photographing the Eagles some of which flew over our heads so I retracted the lens but neglected to fully extend it after that a couple of times and it was not till I reviewed my photos that night that I realized how often I did this. ANYWAY I thought next time I might just lock the lens at it's total length and use my 70-200 for the close shots which led me to think about my 300 plus a tele which would give me 420mm. Long story for a short point, is there really such a mm lost with the 100-400?