emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Quite a difference in size in weight:

Panasonic Lumix FZ30 - Dimensions (H x W x D) 3.37'' x 5.54'' x 5.44'' / Weight 26.0oz - 1.63 lbs
Sony RX100M3 - Dimensions (H x W x D) 2.28" x 4.01" X 1.61" / Weight 10.2oz

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I think somebody is getting confused. I have the FZ30 that is 8 years old. I doubt if the FZ1000 weighs that much.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

According to the specs, the weight of the FZ1000 is 1.83 pounds. One of the heaviest bridge cameras on the market.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Seems like they are attempting to change the description of it from a bridge camera into something else like a new category. Bridge cameras have been known mostly as Point & Shoot units on steroids but not quite dSLR level but that seems to be too limiting for what they are trying to achieve with that monster.

Might we see a new category emerge for it, and the competitors who are soon to follow, that is essentially a dSLR in quality, possibly with a crop sensor eventually, all the features of a dSLR, with the main and only difference being a permanently attached zoom lens?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I don't think we really need a new category, but rather a clear definition of what a bridge camera is and what a point & shoot camera is. The way I see it, a point & shoot camera is any camera that does not give the user direct control over aperture and shutter, only indirectly through the selection of scene modes and +/- EV; the camera always chooses the specific aperture and shutter values. By this definition, a bridge camera is not a point & shoot. Yes, bridge cameras can also be put on full auto mode rather than manual or semi-manual mode. But most entry level DSLR's have this option also; no one calls them point & shoot cameras.

I always find it confusing when photographers refer to their bridge cameras as point & shoot cameras, as I usually imagine a simple, compact camera without manual exposure controls, not a full featured bridge camera that looks and operates much like a DSLR. Then again, it is not uncommon to see online camera articles that do the same. We really need a precise, universally accepted categorization of camera types.

amehta Loc: Boston

I don't know that we're going to get the agreement you want.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I didn't really call it a Point & Shoot, I referred to it as a Point & Shoot on steroids with most all the features of a dSLR. I believe the category was initially created for cameras that were more advanced than simple Point & Shoots but still used small sensors like a P&S so that there was no competition to the lucrative dSLR category purchased by users who were more advanced. I believe the Bridge models were meant to "bridge the gap" between P&S and dSLR for those who wanted to grow from a simple "snap shooter" into a more learned user wanting to be called a "photographer" instead. The Bridge model sensors were just slightly larger and slightly higher resolution for better results than the P&S category, the lens was always glass and had a fairly long variable zoom which most P&S units didn't have, had a viewfinder that most P&S models didn't have, and so on. It brought the P&S user UP into the more technical world of having more control, better glass, better output, and a platform to learn on before moving UP further into the expense of a dSLR with separate lenses.

Since the days of the earlier Kodak, Casio, and other "bridge" models when the "bridge" category didn't even have a name yet, the cameras have been slowly improving for a decade because of competition between brands. I wouldn't have tried to use a 5MP Casio or Vivitar "bridge" for attempting to get professional results but there are many people today actually keeping their dSLR at home when they want to travel light and they're getting perfectly awesome results with a Canon SX-50 or a Panasonic FZ-whatever or a Sony whatever that sits squarely in the "bridge" category.

Resolution is up in the 16MP range, Panasonic is offering Leica glass, Canon is providing absurdly long zoom ranges, they'll all operate fully manual if you want, and unless doing a lot of printing it's very hard to see a difference between the output of these models versus crop sensor dSLRs. Maybe low light IQ suffers but there's a lot of people who don't do low light at all and they're very pleased with no desire to step up to the dSLR world. It's also no longer a bad thing to step DOWN to "bridge" models today if you don't want the expense and weight of a dSLR system.

The bridge category was initially marketed as the better alternative to the P&S users who wanted to keep their investment low so "bridge" was, and still is, considered inferior to "real" dSLR cameras. The magazine writers and editors are still thinking in those terms. Thus I came up with "P&S on Steroids" as my term to describe a camera that is on the wrong side of a glass wall from the dSLR world just because of a public and media stigma attached to it. Manufacturers are still promoting the separation and carefully not putting dSLR crop sensors in "bridge" models although we all know they could if they wanted to.

That's why I wonder if we're headed for another category of lens-permanently-attached cameras that are not meant for newbies and P&S up and comers, but is meant for professional use with a bigger sensor, better electronics for low light IQ, and the only difference from dSLR being that one really long f/2.0 zoom is all the user needs. Do all professionals really need to be under pressure during a shoot and be standing in a rainstorm at a press conference twisting lenses on and off? Do all need to switch lenses on a sandy beach and get sand in the body? Do all need to switch lenses and chance dropping it while doing so? I think not. Maybe a permanently attached lens isn't a bad thing after all if it's high enough quality.

Although I have a dSLR and a mirrorless Olympus for my work because they need specialized ultra-wide lenses, I wouldn't be opposed at all to owning and using an SX-50 or FZ-200 or higher for all my personal use. I just love Panasonic FZ models with Leica glass and have no qualms about owning them. I look at these as being small, convenient, lightweight, high quality, and having zoom range that is far more than I would ever use. I've never used a 600mm to 1,000mm lens, and don't expect to, so one of the above-mentioned Bridge model would be just dandy.