EdgarCPoone

I know this has been asked in various forms before, but I am looking for recommendations for a good bridge, compact camera. I have older Nikons, (D5300 and D7200) with a number of lenses. I do a fair amount of international and domestic travel and it is just a pain to lug those cameras and accessories around. I have been looking at the Sony A6400 and it appears to have some nice specs and good reviews although there were some negatives. Thought I would check this forum and see what the 'experts' would suggest for a good walk around, mirrorless compact camera, a popup flash would be nice along with a viewfinder. Most of my shooting is of landscapes so some zoom capabilities would be nice but not an extremely long reach. Would like to stick to something in the $1,000 range with $1,300 being the top.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Robert Kincaid used a Nikon F for a bridge camera.
--Bob

EdgarCPoone

Thanks for that update, will consider the Nikon F next time I shoot a bridge.

tramsey Loc: Texas

About the easiest way to find your camera is go to DPRview, right under their logo on the left hand side you will side several tabs. The fourth one says 'Buying Guides' click on it and a long list of different cameras will come up toward the bottom of the first list will be fixed lens cameras or something similar. That will get you started.
Good luck hunting

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Have you considered the Nikon Z50 with an APS-C sensor? It is an excellent little mirrorless camera which is quite small to carry especially when the collapsible and equally excellent Nikkor Z DX 16-50mm kit lens is mounted. The combination costs less than $1000 USD. A fully charged battery will give you around 300 shots, so carrying at least one spare while on vacation is a good idea. If you want something even smaller, there is the Sony DSC-RX100 Mark Vii which is basically a full featured point and shoot with a one inch sensor which costs around $1300. The smaller battery for that camera will give you around 240 shots so I suggest carrying two spares when you're out and about if you shoot a lot.

The added benefit of the Z50 is that with the addition of the lightweight $250 FTZ II adapter you will also be able to use all your Nikkor lenses with it.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

My go to Bridge camera is my Canon G1X III. It has a 24 megapixel APS-C sensor and dual pixel AF. I bought it right after they hit the streets a few years ago, and it has been my pretty much always with me camera ever since. There are plenty of accessories available for it, including lens attachments. It's just like having a full feature full size crop sensor camera that fits in many pockets. Unfortunately, it's a wee bit big for the average shirt pocket, but then that's a dangerous place to carry a camera anyway.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

It all depends on what you want for a sensor, body style, and zoom range. If the standard bridge camera sensor of 1/2.3" is enough, there are 2 types of choices, smaller than but SLR shaped or pocketable.

The pocketable has less of a tele end of the zoom range. There are several models to choose from. I have and am happy with the Lumix DCZS80, others suggest the Sony HX99. There are others with less zoom range.

If you want more tele as well as a stronger flash, you would have to go to the larger standard Bridge camera. I have a Canon SX50 HS, my go-to for long tele, the current model is their SX70 HS, then there is the Lumix DC-FZ80 and the Nikon B500.

However, if you want a better sensor, the next up is a 1". They also come in the 2 body styles. For the pocketable I have the Lumix DMC-ZS100, 'tho the DC-ZS200 has more range, and the much more expensive Sony DSC-RX100 vii. There are others with less zoom range.

For a large sensor bridge style there are the Lumix DC-FZ1000 II and Lumix DMC-FZ2500 or the expensive Sony DSC-RX10 IV. The only 1" Canon with a viewfinder is the G5 X, but it has very little zoom range in comparison.

These are the ones I would consider, you may find examples of others as well.

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

Small lightweight cameras with small sensors - 1" or less - are not great for landscapes. The reason is that fine detail in foliage becomes "mashed together" so it looks clumpy under close inspection. To get decent results, at least a 1.5X crop sensor camera or better yet, a full frame camera is a better choice for that kind of subject. I own all three - a highly regarded bridge camera - Sony RX10M4 - and a couple of Nikon full frame and one crop camera.

Here is a sample of what I am talking about from the Sony.

If you don't need a zoom, then either the Ricoh GRII or the Fuji X100F would be a good choice.

(Download)

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I also have a G1x iii and though I really enjoy it, I'm not sure I would call it a bridge camera, which is normally associated with longer reach? The G1x iii is 24-70mm equivalent. I use a third party lens hood on mine but I haven't seen any other lens attachments?
It definitely is a marvelous little camera though that doesn't get a lot of respect. It could stand a brighter lens like the G5x ii but would that would probably compromise the compact size.
Currently available refurbished on Canon's website for about $800.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

Your example photo is of what's bad, not good??? At any magnification, everything is just clumps of blur.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Nicholas J DeSciose

The 6500 is a better camera. A lot depends on the lens or lenses that you choose for it

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

A used Olympus E-M5 and 12-45 Pro lens (24-90 in 35mm terms) might meet your needs except for the flash. You would need a tripod but would be able to produce 50mp JPEG / 80mp RAW landscape images. If you would about buy a new OMDS OM-1 with the 12-100 f4 Pro IS lens (24-200 in 35mm terms) as a travel setup, you could drop the tripod from travel, have ISO the same as most full frame cameras, have a weatherproof system, and do handheld 50mp JPEG / 80mp RAW landscape images. But this setup would cost one much more than the $1000/$1300. Changing out the OM-1 body for a used Olympus E-M1 mkIII body would change the last indicated setup by 2 stops ISO and much less cost, but would still allow handheld landscape images of 50mp JPEG / 80mp RAW, still no tripod needed for travel, and still a weatherproof system. Weight for the above systems would be 2.7 pounds or less (depending on the 12-45 or 12-100 lens). Well worth consideration especially for travel. Plus it allows for expansion of the system where a bridge camera does not. And it is a larger sensor than 1".

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

The Sony A6400 with Sony's 18-200mm zoom is a nice walk about set-up however not much more compact than your D5300. Bridge cameras such as Canon & Lumix with 60x zooms are a bit smaller and lighter but with small sensors have poor resolution for landscape. Nikon superzooms such as their Coolpix P950 & P1000 are great forgetting close to distance object (birds?) but again have terrible distance resolution - also bigger and heavier than some mirrorless APS-C. My recommendations based on touring in Europe/Britain several times is a Lumix or Olympus M4/3 with a 14-150mm lens. The Olympus M1's & M5's as well as being small and light are also weatherproof which can be really handy sometimes. Not sure about price in your neck of the woods.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

If you want shirt pocketable, then the Sony RX100 series is an excellent choice. For Bridge also with a 1 in sensor, the Sony RX10m4 is tough to beat. I own both. For APS-C , The Sony 6xxx series is super. I happen to own the a6500. Note: the a6xxx with both kit lenses . PZ 16-50mm and E55-210mm are jacket pocketable. They are all excellent cameras