I went from the FZ200 to a Nikon D7200 with an 18-140 zoom lens. It was substantially heavier than the FZ200. The FZ was lighter and handled well, and seemed pretty well balanced. My only complaints were the focusing problems at the far end of the zoom range, dim EVF and rear screen and loss of IS in the digital zoom range. All of these were fixed with the FZ300. Another choice. You might consider another choice, and that is the Nikon P950. It is a true super zoom bridge camera and offers both JPEG and RAW modes of capture. It’s not real light, but it is lighter than a DSLR with a lens. It has great focusing and IS, although, like all super zooms, it tends to hunt for focus at times when zoomed out. I had the P900 and although it zooms to 2000mm, eq., I rarely zoomed it out that far. I mention this camera as it’s newer technology than the FZ200 and 300.

And yes, we have some great scenery up here.

I was in the same situation. I ended up with a Lumix FZ200 (about $75 in LN condition) for a river cruise down the Rhine. It was the perfect camera for shooting from the boat, especially on overcast or drizzly days. I used the "happy" mode to make things "pop" a little. Note that I am 83 yo, with really bad legs, so it was a little too heavy for shore excursions, where I used a Canon s110. Someone in better shape could probably use the fz200 more.

As indicated by other readers, cameras with larger sensors will probably give somewhat better results, but with many trade-offs (cost, weight, constant f2.8 aperature, zoom reach, and versatility). I found the results from the fz200 more than adequate.

Note that the fz300 is basically the same as the fz200, but with weather sealing, heavier weight, and higher cost.

Hope that this helps.