mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

We will be traveling to Italy this summer and I am looking for a new pocket or bridge camera for the trip. I do not want to carry my R6 or R10 and multiple lenses for this trip because we will be going from city to city for 3 weeks touring. I am looking for a small, light pocket or bridge camera of the same or better quality of my R6 or R10 with a hefty zoom, good lens, newest features and the newest chip. I am a Canon user, so that would be my first choice, but am open to suggestions of other brands. The camera must be new, or refurbished and of excellent quality, and I am willing to spend up to $1,000 on it. Any suggestions?

banjoboy Loc: Austin, TX

Sony RX100 VII

ELNikkor

" light pocket camera" with a "hefty zoom"? "Same or better quality than R6 or R10"?? Why bring the R6 or R10, if such a bridge camera existed? Probably that R10 with a wide-range zoom will take 90% of your photos. One of those amazing Sony small cameras like the HX 99, or RX 10 or RX 100 will do the trick if you want to go smaller.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Hands down the best travel camera. A whole camera bag that slips into a pocket, I'm hard pressed on 9x13 print out to see any difference with my FF.

BebuLamar

[quote=mvetrano2 I am looking for a small, light pocket or bridge camera of the same or better quality of my R6 or R10 with a hefty zoom, good lens, newest features and the newest chip. I am a Canon user, so that would be my first choice, but am open to suggestions of other brands. The camera must be new, or refurbished and of excellent quality, and I am willing to spend up to $1,000 on it. Any suggestions?[/quote]

Something doesn't make sense. If there is such a camera then why anyone would buy either the R6 or R10?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The R10 plus teleconverter would give you a lot of zoom from a moderately sized lens. You could include a wide angle lens (without TC) that would be small enough to keep in a pocket until it was needed.

There's no magical formula. For compact cameras, small glass = small sensor, which means less IQ and a greater chance of blown highlights and crushed shadows. The RX100 series are good but not quite as good as the R10. You may find the drop in quality acceptable. The main difference between the RX100 vi and vii is in their video capabilities (and price).

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

mvetrano2, this really depends on what you shoot, what you want to record and what you want to do with your images.

I have four travel cameras and can try to answer any questions you might have on any of them.

Best at fitting in a pocket is the Sony RX100 VII. There are too many reasons to list as to why this is near perfect for travel.

Best at being capable of travel abuse, fitting in a pocket and recording GPS tracking data is the Olympus TG-5.

Not quite pocketable, but with a bigger sensor and unique ring controls for aperture and shutter speed is my Panasonic LX100. This would still be my favorite for travel except that the Sony RX100 has seriously improved autofocus and video capability. (My wife's choice for her compact travel camera is the newer Panasonic LX100 II version to go with her too large for travel RX10IV)

Newest of all is a Samsung Galaxy S23 that Verizon insisted on giving me. It has three lenses, is more capable than it should be and I'm working at figuring out what is does and doesn't do.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I use a compact camera regularly -- my most used camera in fact as I carry it with me everywhere. I leave the house; the compact goes along.

When I was shopping for the compact I use now I considered the Sony RX100 VII noted above. We all have different priorities and are different in what we choose to photograph so fortunately we have some choices in cameras. The Sony was a runner up for me and instead I bought a Canon G7xII. The two cameras are virtually identical in shape and size (Canon is 2 grams heavier and the Sony is 1 mm thicker). They both have the same sensor -- I suspect literally in that I think the Canon uses Sony's 1" sensor for the G7.

I don't do video so I don't care what video features they have.

So then for me it boiled down to the lens and here the two cameras are quite different.

The Sony has a 28mm - 200mm equivalent f/2.8 - 4.5 zoom.
The Canon has a 24mm - 100mm equivalent f/1.8 - 2.8 zoom.

I see wide and maybe once or twice a year (probably not) I see something I want to photograph that would require a long lens. So the 200mm equivalent reach on the Sony's long end does nothing for me. I'm likely to go years before ever wanting to use it. On the other hand the 24mm equivalent on the Canon is occasionally not wide enough and there's times for me when I'm cussin' that it isn't 20mm equivalent -- 28mm equivalent on the Sony was a deal breaker for me. Top that off with the Canon lens being 1 & 1/2 stops faster than the Sony lens and that clinched it for me. And one last consideration: the Canon is 1/3 to 1/2 less expensive than the Sony.

I'm very happy with the G7 and it really is my most used camera. IQ is excellent; the scene below has 9 to 10 stop DR range -- no problem for today's 1" sensor cameras.

(Download)

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

A pocket or bridge camera won't have the photo quality of your R6 or R10, but can come close.
You need to decide which is MOST important, small size or zoom range since this is what will determine if you choose pocketable or bridge. Then there is the decision of 1" or 1/2.3" sensor. The 1" will have better low light/noise performance BUT less zoom range. I wouldn't get a camera without a viewfinder, so that leaves out a few Canon and other models. The choices are (prices are from March):

I) Bridge (Largest zoom, 1/2.3" sensor)
a) Canon SX70 HS ($599)
b) Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 ($398)
c) Nikon COOLPIX P950 ($797 - only 16 MP)

II) Bridge (Large zoom, 1" sensor)
a) Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ1000 II ($850)
b) Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2500 ($898)

III) Mega- zoom Pocketable (1/2.3" sensor, with viewfinder)
a) Panasonic Lumix DCZS80 ($398)
b) Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99 ($473)

IV) Mega- zoom Pocketable w/ 1" sensor (with viewfinder)
a) Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 ($598) only 15:1 zoom

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

Whatever your final candidates are, i strongly recommend taking the time to hold them to see how they feel and function in use. I went through a series of all the usual suspects (Sony, Panasonic, Olympus) before deciding that “pocket” cameras were just too small for me. I keep a TG-6 in the car now just in case, but for any travel I would just use an APSC body and a convenience lens. Hey, I’m a photographer, and I need gear I can use easily and gives me good pictures.

Have a great trip.

Red6

This is an issue I have been looking at for several years. When I retired, my wife and I started traveling more often and I quickly realized that my kit, at that time a Nikon and several lenses, was not the way to go. Too bulky, too heavy, and inconvenient to change lenses and carry on and off buses, taxis, excursions, etc.

My first travel camera was a Sony A6400. Smaller but still too much and it still had the need for multiple lenses.

The second try was a Sony RX100 vIII purchased used at KEH. Excellent camera, takes great photos, and can be carried in a fanny style pack or pocket.

Third try was a Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70. I just returned from a trip and cruise around Italy and it too is a great camera. I took lots of photos and am not disappointed with the photos themselves BUT the camera itself is a bit heavier than I want to carry, due mainly I suspect to the lens. It is a little larger than the RX100 and heavier. So, I am selling it.

So for now, my recommendation is a Sony RX100. Great all-around camera, is small easily packable and could be carried in a pocket if needed. It also shoots raw, jpg, or both if desired. Several models are available in your price range.

I also took a lot of photos with my iPhone SE and my wife took her iPhone 13 Pro Max. While my iPhone photos were pretty good her iPhone 13 photos were outstanding and are making me rethink the whole travel camera issue. My next trip may be with an iPhone only. A cell phone is always with us and going to an iPhone for photos would eliminate the need to carry that extra camera.

My goal in travel is to carry as little as possible while walking around and visiting sites but still be able to document our visits for our memories. In my opinion, there is little chance of me taking a National Geo-level image of any place that I will be visiting that has not been done before. And in that context, the iPhone would serve my purposes perfectly.

If considering the use of an iPhone check out all the sites now posting iPhone and other cell phone photography. It is truly amazing what some are doing. Also check out Scott Kelby's book on iPhone photography.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Only men who want to look like they have a banana in their pants wear "Bridge Cameras." These cameras are way too bulky and made to look like DSLR cameras. One-inch sensor SupeZoom cameras are a sensible choice. With our AI world the old full-sensor hi resolution days are gone.

I learned early about pocket cameras. My first 35mm was a small folding camera made in Germany. When in the army it fit in my Class A uniform undetected.

A phone camera can be your backup.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Sony HX99, you get a 24-720 mm Zeiss lens, accurate pop up viewfinder, articulating rear screen for low level shooting (see second image below) , pop up flash for auto fill, shoots RAW or jpeg, shoots pans four different ways, has HDR, and best of all, fits into a belt pouch, or your pocket allowing you to be HANDS FREE. Did I mention you can get great 20X30 prints. And it will only set you back $400.00. so you will have $600.00 more to take to Italy. The first shot below was my grab shot from Venice.

rfreudenheim

Sony RX100 Mark 7 with the hard shell case is my go-to for travel and walking around.

rfreudenheim

The earlier versions of this camera are also quite good.