epd1947

If money is not an issue - I would recommend the RX10 Mark IV from among those you list - unless you feel you really need an equivalent focal length beyond the 600mm available on the Sony. You would gain the advantages of a 1 inch sensor versus the much smaller sensors found in the Nikon and Canon cameras. As well, the Nikon is actually a rather large camera and the very long end of its focal length range is virtually unusable without a tripod - so you would be right back to carting a lot of heavier gear.

markwilliam1

Just the cost of the Amazing lens on the RX10 M4 is worth the price. A 24-600mm f4 that’s sharp though the entire range. Takes better pictures than my Sony 70-400mm SSM G lens which cost over $2000 and it doesn’t require a tripod.

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

It is...

ppage Loc: Pittsburg, (San Francisco area)

I have the P900 and I wouldn't do that again. It does not shoot raw and has that tiny 1/2.3 sensor. The P1000 uses the same sensor but it does shoot raw. If I had it to do over I would get the Sony RX10 IV. The zoom on the Px series is so long it is really hard to locate and track a subject like a flying bird. The 600 zoom on the RX10 is a lot more manageable and because of the 1" sensor you have more room to crop with.

markstjohn

If money is no issue, then the Leica Q or other Leicas are a fun new challenge and take great pictures.

RobertW Loc: Breezy Point, New York

The P900 is something I keep handy at all times, but the P1000 is fairly heavy and not conducive to handheld work

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

Several months ago I bought a Canon factory refurbished SX60HX on sale for $300.00. Shortly thereafter I purchased a mint condition used RX10iii from a reputable reseller for $900.00. After a week or so of comparing the two I decided to keep the Canon and returned the Sony. The Sony is a nice camera, but for me and the way I use a camera, it was not worth three times the money to me. The Canon is much lighter, has a longer usable zoom and when used with good lighting (it is not a low light wonder) takes images as good as the Sony did. BTW I own both Canon and Sony full frame cameras so I do not think I am partial to one or the other. Just my 2 cents worth. Happy hunting.

wdcarrier Loc: Eureka, California

I have been using Canon EOS for a number of years (currently the 7DII) with a Canon 500mm lens and 1.4 extender with a gimbal head and tripod for bird photography. Closing in on 80 years of age I find packing that weight is getting too difficult so last year I purchased a Sony RX10 IV. The quality of the images is impressive and it is so much easier to carry in the field (I hand-hold it using a pistol grip) and to carry on planes in a small carry-on bag. I still use the Canon equipment in a blind or from the car. There is a very small detectable difference in the images, particularly if printing larger than 11 X 17. The crop factor on the 7D is 1.6 and on the Sony 2.7. I use the Sony regularly at the 600mm level but have also had great results at wide-angle. Overall the Sony is amazing.

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

Nobody has mentioned the Canon GX3, light and small with 1" sensor and 24-600mm lens. Maybe you can find a used one with the removable EVF. I did for $650

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

It's worth every penny! Zeiss lens, incredible quality.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It is amazing . . .

pminyard Loc: Bartlett, Tennessee

At $1000, the Nikon P1000 is an excellent camera for carry around shooting. the image quality is on a par with all but the best full frames. A monopod, or, if you prefer, a tripod, is a must for telephoto shots. The monopod is most appropriate for this camera, based on the type shooting that you will be doing with this camera. If you want pictures to submit to National Geographic, stick with your full-frame, prime, 600mm telephoto. Don’t expect much quality out of the digital zoom component of the p1000, but the 24 to 3000mm pictures will do you proud.

I am not beating a particular drum as I own a Nikon P1000, a Canon 5dMark3 with several “L” series lens, and a little canon “shirt pocket” camera plus a closet full of analog equipment that is gathering dust.

You might also consider that, if you do decide to purchase the Nikon P1000, you might find yourself shelling out a few more bucks for such items as a separate battery charger, since Nikon was too stingy to include one with the camera and without one, you must charge the battery while it is in the camera, and a Dot Sight (from Nikon, Olympus or any of a multitude of other manufacturers).

Good luck with your choice. It will be really hard to go wrong!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is an interesting discussion. I am on the verge of getting close to starting to get older (68th birthday next month), and while I'm not facing this decision today, there's a good chance that it may be coming for me at some point in the future.

My current thinking that instead of completely ditching everything I'm using now (and have been using for about 12 years), I will probably just make some adjustments to my lens choices. For instance, I might look at selling my 200-500mm zoom and get a 1.4x or 1.7x converter to use on a shorter zoom. Maybe giving up a little bit of sharpness for a whole bunch of weight reduction, and keeping the rest of my equipment. Or I might just change my target subjects to things that are closer, sell the 200-500, and not get a converter. Or I might sell the long lens and buy a Z7 so that I have VR on everything.

Not convinced that I really have to give up everything vs. just rationalizing my equipment slightly.

Might change my mind when I get closer to actually needing to take action. We'll see.

markwilliam1

Not sure if the Nikon P1000 can track BIF or sports as well as the Sony RX10 M4

jerrylh Loc: Texas

I have looked at the Canon SX-70 as a replacement for my SX-50, read reviews on it too. It appears to me that Canon has gone backward on the SX-70. I will not get it. I will borrow a friends P1000 to see what I think of it, it looks too big and heavy. Weight was why I went to a bridge camera in the first place, got tired lugging my bad of lenses around. I have been very pleased with the SX-50 but had hopes for a better camera in the 70.