Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Don't know the specs yet but I read where Sony 'may' and I say may be developing a full frame bridge camera in the RX series. Don't know the size, weight or the FL but if true, ought to be pretty interesting. Currently the RX10iv, with a RX10v supposedly coming out this quarter. It has the 24-600 and I understand from reviews and videos, its pretty good even for BIF's, granted not a Canon or Nikon with the appropriate telephoto lenses....Cheers

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I beg to differ, 24MP is a common sensor size in DSLRs, not much different than 20. I find it amazing there are bridge cameras with 20MP or more!

My second digital camera (after a DSLR as my 1st) was a bridge camera, the Canon SX50 HS. I still use it. As the OP said, it has a great zoom range at a price much less than could be had in a DSLR, even an APS-C. The real disadvantage is the smaller individual pixels which cause poorer low light performance in both auto-focus and noise.

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

For most subjects I get fewer artifacts and better quality shooting raw and cropping than using the NRFPT (not ready for prime time) Clear Image Zoom on the RX10M4. If the subject is not in their image database, as they say in Brooklyn, "fahgettaboudit!" More pixels on a subject simply does not translate to more detail, sharpness or image quality. In your comparison series, is there a reason why you only have one higher resolution image and the rest are thumbnails? It's hard to judge quality on a thumbnail.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Small sensor cameras don't like bright skies or high dynamic range situations (dark bird, bright sky), and that problem will be compounded if you have to keep your shutter speed up. If you think you'll be happy with colourless or blown out skies (not inevitable but highly likely) then go for a bridge, if not, stick with your DSLR. Renting a lens may be an option if you're not going to do birding as an ongoing thing.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I have a Sony RX10 IV. It's light weight and great for birds as it has one of the best focus systems available and shoots 24 frames per second at 600mm f4 but it does have the smaller 1" sensor. I recently posted a photo of an eagle eyeing a fish while hovering. A friend liked it and asked if he could print a copy for his wall. I warned him that it may not blow up well for a wall hanging. He sent it to Walgreens and had it printed poster size at 24x36 and it came out unbelievably clear even at that size. The Walgreens printer said it looked as good as some of the pro prints she'd seen. So, you CAN get great results from a bridge camera.

HiFromSusan

My 2 cents: Bridge cameras can be tricky -- they do offer some superzoom lenses but at a cost, and I don't necessarily mean money. They offer limited ranges of shutter speeds and apertures, which in turn limits focus ability. So, plan to use them on bright, sunny days. Also, be wary of the super-duper superzoom such as is found on the Nikon p1000 -- with the lens at full extension the center of gravity shifts from the camera body to some point out on the lens, which cannot be adequately supported and firmed, even on a tripod. You will likely have to buy a Lim's plate (which doesn't always compensate) or will have to jury-rig something (like a cut-up Manfrotto 293) in order to provide the stabilization needed to get goo shots. Lastly, remember that the "superzoom" of those superzoom lenses is computed, based on a very tiny (less than 1") sensor, so what you are getting is an effective FOV, not an actual one (this makes a difference when trying to maintain clarity when enlarging a photo).

I've heard good things about the Sony RX10vi, but you will pay over $1k for it with only a 600mm EFOV (1" sensor, 2.7 crop factor), but I am done with bridge cameras after spending well over $1K for a Nikon p1000 and never getting anything that I would consider a keeper, even with the Manfrotto support. I do have a Nikon p900, but I don't use it very often, and if I do I don't use it at full extension. Plus it does not have RAW capability; even though the upgrade the p950 does, the additional weight is not worth the benefit to me.

What I did after I sold that piece-of-trash p1000, was invest in some good MFT gear. I spent about the same amount of money, just over $1K, for a used Olympus OMD-EM5iii plus a PL 100-300 lens. The crop factor of 2 is better than that of a bridge camera, and there is no issue of the center of gravity changing with lens extension. So, for the same money I have a camera and lens combination that gives me a full range of shutter speeds and apertures PLUS many other features, such as an amazing IBIS system, the best color array ever, the ability to do in-camera raw processing -- the list goes on and on.

I have since added the EM1iii and the new 100-400 Olympus lens, and I consider it the best money I have ever spent on camera gear. Pricewise it was the cost of two Sony bridge cameras, but I get so much more for the money.

Best wishes to you

HiFromSusan

P.S. When I bought the used PL lens, it came with a Panasonic GX9 attached to it. It has proven to be a really good little camera, especially for street work.

Some people are wary of MFT but I have been more than pleased so far with both the quality and the price. Dumped all my heavy Canon gear (along with those awful bridge things), and I haven't looked back.

John Hicks Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England

A friend of mine who lives in the UK as I do has a Nikon bridge camera with a zoom up to 2000 mms he gets excellent results and often has photographs published in railway magazines. I use a Canon m50 and use an adaptor with my existing Canon ef and efs lenses I think my photographs are as good as his and better as I shoot raw and jpeg and my friend shoots jpeg only, I think my Canon set up is better than his bridge camera but if did not already have the lenses I might have well bought a bridge camera and possibly a Nikon one

John Hicks Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England

A friend of mine who lives in the UK as I do has a Nikon bridge camera with a zoom up to 2000 mms he gets excellent results and often has photographs published in railway magazines. I use a Canon m50 and use an adaptor with my existing Canon ef and efs lenses I think my photographs are as good as his and better as I shoot raw and jpeg and my friend shoots jpeg only, I think my Canon set up is better than his bridge camera but if did not already have the lenses I might have well bought a bridge camera and possibly a Nikon one.
However if you have your mind set in a nikon bridge camera then get it or you will never be satisfied if you buy something else

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I go out every saturday morning with a group to shoot in a national park. We have cell cameras, Point and shoot, bridge, DSLR and MIL users.
the quality of those that have Bridge cameras are quite disappointed ( for long shots needing the 500 MM) when they post their pix on our FB page compared to the DSLR cameras . Close up pix are good , until you have to blow them up.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Hi Susan, sorry to hear about your experience with the Nikon Bridge, however, if you think you can't get truly superb images from a 'bridge camera' you really need to take a look at Gene51's work with the Sony RX-10iv, its simply beautiful and stunning; its one reason I'm downsizing and on my purchase list, might wait for the 10v, but granted, I'm not in his category....Cheers.

TRSquared Loc: South Carolina

You might be quite satisfied with a bridge camera for some or all of your shooting, especially since you consider yourself a Newbie. It is a very personal decision and one way to decide is to rent the camera you are considering for a week or more when you have nothing else to do and force yourself to use it every day and night and judge your results critically. Some rental outlets (I have used lensrental.com with great success) will apply your rental fee to the camera purchase. I used this approach with the Nikon Coolpix P950 and bought the camera for my "fun" photography. For my commercial work I primarily use a Nikon D850 and top Nikon lenses. I am particular and critical and in film days shot nature phots on 4 x 5. I was published in Sierra Club Calendar and Audubon books along with numerous other publication so I think my critical attitude speaks for itself.

The P950 has limitations but they can be overcome by shooting more images. I find a pistol grip on a monopod helps to salvage sharpness when the shutter speeds get long. Your milage may carry.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Nikon's p1000 has a insane 24-3000mm equiv. lens and it's bigger & heavier than most DSLR's' yet i have seen shots taken from top of a stadium and the shots were clear as a bell and they looked as if they were taken on the field.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

For a strictly hobbyist photographer, I don't think having a backup camera really needs to be a major priority. I don't have a backup microwave oven, a backup lawnmower or even a backup vehicle. Should one of these fail and needs to be repaired or replaced, then I will deal with it at that time. Why should it be any different concerning cameras?

Rae Zimmerman Loc: Pine Island, FL

For the last 15 years or more, I have used the Canon PowerShot HX ** IS bridge camera line exclusively for my photography. Prior to that, back in film days, I used Canon EOS bodies with a variety of AF lenses.
I am delighted with my current camera, the Canon PowerShot HX70 IS. It has a zoom range from 21mm to 1365mm. It has an AF lock system for maintaining focus for subjects on the move. I find this useful, as most of my photography centers around birds. I find the autofocus quick and responsive. And best of all, I never have to change lenses, never have to haul extra weight (of more lenses) when I'm out and about. Image quality is good, and it shoots in JPEG and RAW. I've been thinking about another DSLR, but each time I think I'm ready to make the change, I am held back by the issues of extra weight to carry, extra expense for more lenses and teleconverters to capture the same range, and the inconvenience of changing lenses at inopportune moments. Especially if you are a beginner, I say go for the bridge camera.