frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Do very few prints, let alone large. Most images I put into slide shows and/or share a few on social sites. Print a few, but no larger than 8X10.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

No. Not a deal breaker for me.

wetreed

The Nikon P1000 is a excellent choice, but it might be a little heavy. The Nikon D3500 could also work. The 3500 is very small and light, with the right mid range zoom it this also could work.

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

The Nikon P1000 is a beast. For a travel camera, I would think it a poor choice. It’s best use especially with the lens racked out begs a tripod, hardly a convenient travel camera and the P900 isn’t much better. Just my opinion.

wetreed

You are correct.that is what I was saying.

rcarol

I can highly recommend the Panasonic Lumix FZ-1000 bridge camera. It has a 1" sensor and if you get the Mark II, it has the touch screen,

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

And boy is it hard to hold steady on a subject when it’s zoom so far out! I have the P900 and at “only” 2000mm it’s very hard to hold still. But it’s fun to use.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Go to your local camera store and explain all of this and perhaps they could recommend one for you.

ggab Loc: ?

Gas attack or are you shifting to video?
What feature upgrade was important? I am looking at both the FZ2500 and FZ1000

Ratelliott

I bought the FZ1000 for travel when carrying the full frame and associated gear was too much. I’ve been pleased with the results.

Robg

Wildlife/Travel photography is my principal reason for having a camera. Long ago I tired of lugging multiple lenses, etc. About 5 years ago I purchased the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 for an African Safari and found that it met or exceeded all of my goals. The Leica lens which zooms from 25 to 600 is spectacular. What is especially noteworthy about that lens is that zoomed all the way to 600 it is not stopped down and gives you a constant F2.8 all the way from 25 to 600!

For wildlife photography that is very valuable because even at 600 you get a lot more light than with a telephoto that has to step down. At fast shutter speeds it is much easier to get great shots at a distance without needing a tripod. Talk about traveling light - no tripod, no lenses!

Earlier this year I killed my camera in a sand storm in Egypt and had to replace it. Given the rave reviews of the Sony RX10 Mark IV I did a side-by-side comparison to the Lumix DMC-FZ300 (the more current version of my FZ200). While the Sony certainly warrants the designation of being the best Bridge and possibly the best camera, period, I nevertheless elected to go with the DMC-FZ300 because the Sony's weight is almost a pound more than the Lumix (38 oz vs 24 oz). That doesn't seem like much until you carry the camera around your neck all day, or when you have to get off a quick one-handed shot.

The Sony weighs more because of the larger sensor and is also bulkier as a result making it more obvious for candid shots.

In my side-by-side comparison I did not see much difference between the quality of the photos that I got. Although there were some cases where I could see that the photos with the Sony were better, the differences were subtle and to me not worth the extra weight. Although the Sony costs about 4 times as much as the FZ300 ($1,600 vs $400), that was not a very significant factor in my decision. I rely on my camera so much that I was willing to shell out a lot.

So, the FZ300 meets all of your criteria except for the sensor. Based on my side-by-side comparison and my requirements, the image quality improvement in the RX10 over the FZ300 was not worth the increased weight. Also, with the RX10 at full zoom (600 mm) the lens is stopped down to F4 whereas with the FZ300 at the same full zoom (600 mm) you are still shooting at F2.4 which will allow a somewhat faster shutter speed and give you a little better shot at eliminating blur from movement (both yours and the subject's).

I also considered, but did not try hands-on, the Lumix FZ1000 which has a large sensor, but in almost all other aspects that matter to me does not come up to the specs of the FZ300. The zoom only goes to 400mm, it weighs more, and at full zoom stops down to F4.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I have the RX10 III & IV. Both great cameras!

bwa

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

You are not overthinking this. I own a Canon SX50 HS which has the 1/2.3" sensor and a Lumix DMC-ZS100 which has a 1". The SX50 has only 12MP, the ZS100 has 20MP. While both are not great in low light, the SX50 makes up for it with a stronger internal flash. It also has a hotshoe that fits my flash which I use on my 80D. Where flash is OK, I prefer the SX50 in low light. HOWEVER, BOTH the FZ300 and FZ1000 can use external flash as well as an internal one that is much better than my ZS100. Of course, the ZS100 is best for a "pocket camera".

The main things you give up with a 1/2.3 over a 1" (for the same # of MP, all other things equal) - low light performance/noise levels. If the MP is lower on the 1/2.3, then resolution and extent of crop available comes into play.

Robg

Frankly, you can't go wrong with any of the cameras that have been mentioned. I have the FZ300 and it is excellent. To get the larger sensor in the FZ1000 you will get a slightly bulkier and heavier camera than the FZ300, which matters to me, maybe not to you. Also, with the constant aperture in the FZ300 you will be slightly less at risk of blur because you will be able to shoot at a slightly faster shutter speed when zoomed out.

Why not do what I did, order the camera(s) you are interested in from B&H, compare them, and keep the one you like best.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

ENJOY!

If you ordered from one of the shops that offer 100% satisfaction guarantee, you might consider a touchscreen. Darned convenient for changing settings.