cameranut64 Loc: Murrells Inlet, SC

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

HA HA HA!!! Coming from YOU that is :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

The Panasonic 60X sounds great, but the 60X is owing to a wider lens at the wide end, but the same 1200 equivalent as the Canon SX50 at the zoom end. Those buying because of the superzoom ought to be aware that the Panasonic has not improved over the Canon at he zoom end of 50X magnification, which is the important one for most superzoom buyers.

Having said that, I have a Canon SX50 and love it, but Panasonic is an excellent brand as well, and don't doubt that it will meet with great success.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

And the picture quality keeps getting better year after year at maximum zoom with those bridge cameras.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I wonder why no one has mentioned the best point and shooter Canon has ever made. The 1dx

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Because that is NOT a P&S!!! Interchangeable lenses.......

HIGH end dSLR!!!

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Show of hands please!!!

All of the people who bought ANY digital camera and did not find a valid reason for replacing it within the first year.

Now, those who had more than one or two valid reasons for making a change to another camera within that first year, lower your hands.

Ooops , all the hands went down.

Now, those of you who bought another camera that improved the original camera (what you thought was wrong) and did not throw into the mix some other problem you could have not anticipated lower your hands,

Oooops. all the hands went back up.

Within the range of all the known brand manufacturers, they're ALL GOOD. However they each do what they were designed to to. Everything suggested on this thread is anecdotal and useless for the most part in the "search for the perfect camera".

You won't know what you can do with any of these camera's until you've had one with you at all times and use it until the day you can absolutely say, "hey this camera won't do that, and I MUST HAVE THAT~~~~"

Now you set the criteria in the first post as P&S and long telephoto, which commonly are referred to as "bridge" or SuperZoom"

In both of those categories, you should know you are still limiting yourself to SMALL SENSOR camera, which would be a more appropriate place to start the discussion. That would then include mirrorless and interchangeable lens models. The arguments for superzoom are good, until you remember to include that these cameras usually contain one of the three smallest sensors in the picture below:

Bottom three PS, bridge, superzoom (for example Canon SX40 and 50 close to last sensor on this table.)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Come on don't you recognize irony. And by the way if you never take the interchangable lens off and allways shoot in auto and the only adjustment you ever make is the length of zoom you have in effect a very expensive point and shoot camera.

mel Loc: Jacksonville, Florida

Canon SX50. Search and see all the topics on this great camera.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

Thanks Mel, but that was my sick attempt at humor. Actually I'm usually touting how much I love my SX-50, but if you've not seen those posts, I can understand the reason for your comment. Thanks anyway, for helping propagate the good news about it. I do think it is a great camera.

Lomax Loc: Florida

I don't believe I have ever read a more assumptive (smartest person in the room) patronizing post in all my life. All those who agree raise your hand.

Now maybe you could educate us all on algorithm compensation for reduced sensor size.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Hi Lomax. :thumbup: :thumbup:

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:lol: :lol: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Hi Lomax... nice to grab your attention. I think the proper word would be presumptive as opposed to assumptive, but it's your choice.

As far as an algorithm compensation for sizes differing sensor sizes, and IF I though you could grasp the concept, I still wouldn't waste my time. My point is made in the post quite clearly.

What you suggest is an explanation for a process which simply rationalizes attempting to use P&S sensors to do what requires a larger sensor to accomplish.

The only benefits is in the wallet.

That said, I do use point & shoots for what they work for. I use the larger sensors for what they do well. An engineering treatise to answer your question is absurd.

Your posts is either presumptive or assumptive as it relates to me, and you are simply a trouble maker and a moron.

Lomax Loc: Florida

I didn't suggest anything except a topic for your next lecture. However you did make my point again with your egocentric response and wrong assumptions. All I ask is please spare us from another patronizing lecture. We get it, you smart we dumb.