a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Yes. But not really. As has been discussed on UHH endlessly, the equivalent focal length is just a convenient descriptor. It's easier for us to understand a positive integer than a decimal. It's also easier to understand a "bigger is better" relationship and that applies here.

The P900 lens is 357 mm on a so-called 1/2.3" sensor which gives a very narrow angle of view. Then they cram 16MP into that tiny area so that you can have your reasonable size print. With current technology that gives much poorer image quality and light sensitivity than a "full frame" camera in almost every case.

If you had a 2000 mm lens on a normal full frame sensor camera (24 x 36 mm) you would get the same image of the same subject at the same distance. That is the equivalence.

But the lens would be more than six feet long and for most of us would also be too heavy and unwieldy. I'm ignoring the factor of "F" stop which is the relationship between the actual focal length and the actual aperture. For a given length, a larger aperture (smaller F number) will be physically larger and, given the materials in common use, heavier. My 220 mm/F4.0 is very close in size and weight to the P900's 357 mm/F6.3 (just an example with which I'm very familiar).

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Thanks for explaining.