ELNikkor

Back in the day, I used to deride the "one head/three heads/mountains" cameras as rinky-dink point-and-shoots where all the photos would be a little out of focus. "Real" cameras had rangefinders for precise focus. Then, someone gave me an XA4 with a high quality 28mm lens. It was so much faster to set and shoot than my XA, and took very sharp photos. Today, even the 1 2/3 sensor cameras are capable of very good photos, suitable for blow ups to 11x and beyond. Those cameras also allow for such extreme lens ranges that would have seemed impossible such a short time ago.

Haydon

I had forgotton about that, thank you for the reminder. Their loss my gain. I still use it and in fact it will be accompanying my 5DIII next week to Florida. Beats dragging a long lens around and if you light it correctly you can get decent shots. Thankfully it has a hotshoe which the new SX70 DOES NOT. Seems manufacturers are removing features nowadays that were commonplace not too long ago. Card slots/hotshoe mounts etc just to save a little money because they think we don't need them. I don't know what I'd do without a hotshoe.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Welcome to our forum!

It's a demand that manufacturers are happy to satisfy - one camera that can "do it all." A good DSLR with a good tele lens will give you better results - at a much higher cost. "You pays your money, and you makes your choice."

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

A point and shoot cannot compete with DSLR on specialty lens selection like shift lenses, 1.4 glass, not to mention total flash control, and focus tracking. BUT, point and shoots have an advantage in size and weight, especially on trips.
You forgot the very sharp, very high end Sony HX90V and HX99V, both with a Zeiss 24-750 mm zoom. The HX99V has added RAW.
If I am shooting professionally, I use my DSLR's. If I am on a trip, I shoot my HX90V, because I like to hold my wife's hand when I am out and about.

ggab Loc: ?

Looking at the replies, I see the focus (no punn intended) being on the camera.
The lens quality is also a big factor.
A full frame lens reach from 60 to 600mm would cost $2,000.00 without a camera and be much larger than the bridge camera. I expect the quality to be much greater than what a bridge camera would provide. If you are shooting Nature or action shots, then focus technology and burst speed is another reason to go the DSLR route.

Zooman 1

I have used the Canon PS SX line of cameras for years. Currently have the SX60 as my in the car all the time camera. Have had good results as long as I did not push the limits of the cameras. Tried the Nikon 900, sold it off cheap. Still, I use Canon DSLRs for 90 percent of my photography.

markwilliam1

Yes the Sony is expensive but the cost is easily justified in my opinion. The image quality and the fact that you don’t have to buy expensive lenses!

markwilliam1

The lens on the Sony RX10 M4 has no limits! It’s absolutely amazing and better than all my separate lenses.

jwest Loc: South Dakota

My wife and I cruised Alaska earlier this year. I took my Canon 6D with an array of lenses and she took her Lumix FZ1000. She shot jpeg although the Lumix will shoot RAW, and I shot RAW. Honestly, I am very impressed with the quality of her photos. We have created slide shows and prints up to 16x20 from both cameras. There isn't enough difference to my eye to even talk about. I am buying the new model of the Lumix next year as my exclusive travel camera. We are cruising the Mediterranean next year and the lightweight, smaller size and excellent quality of the Lumix is perfect. IT can do 95% of what my Canon can do and the things it doesn't do are inconsequential. Some capabilities are not as robust as the Canon but really don't affect my normal shooting. I am primarily a landscape, portrait, and pet photographer. I have used the Lumix in all of these settings and really find very few issues. I would not classify it as a point and shoot but rather as a higher end bridge camera. It has a 1" sensor which is the largest in that field.

ggab Loc: ?

"no limits"????

ggab Loc: ?

According to DPReview:
Good for
Casual sports, action and wildlife shooters. World travelers, family vacation photography, videographers looking for a high-quality all-in-one solution.

Not so good for
Sports and action photographers wishing to zoom while also maintaining focus on a moving subject.

lcyoung5941

Why can't the dim light photos
just be lightened up in photoshop or even no cost software?

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

It's not that they can't be lightened up in post, it's that small sensors just don't work as well in dim light as larger sensors. The result is noisier images. If you set the camera to auto ISO, it will pick the ISO that will allow the camera to take the shot, but it's likely going to be quite noisy, especially in the darker areas. It's interesting to note that while a 20mp sensor has more resolution than, say a 12mp sensor, the 12mp sensor will actually perform a bit better in low light situations because the individual pixels, being larger, will gather more light than the smaller, more densely packed pixels in a 20mp sensor. In short, the camera with the small sensor will work, but slower than a camera with a larger sensor, and often the auto focusing mechanism will have a hard time achieving focus. I think, and just my opinion, that the cameras with the small sensors were really meant to be used in good, strong light.

As an example, I had a Panasonic Lumix ZS200. It was actually a pretty amazing camera. It had a 24-600mm f/2.8 lens. Yep, stayed wide open all the way out. It took beautiful, sharp images in the daylight, but struggled when things got dim. I have to credit the 12.8mp sensor and lens for it being able to do as well as it did. But to finally answer your question, yes, you can lighten an image up in post, but it'll still be noisy/grainy-looking, and there's not a lot you can do about it. You can use the de-noise feature and try to sharpen it up, but mostly what will happen is the image will end up being muddy, lacking sharp detail. Cameras with small sensors are great, but they have their limitations, but like I said earlier, if you accept those limitations and work within those parameters, you should achieve good results. It all boils down to knowing what your camera can and can't do and working with that.

BebuLamar

A full frame lens reach from 60 to 600mm would cost $2000? Which one? I don't think you can buy a new full frame 600mm lens for $2000.

wkoehler

Many, many thanks to all of you who responded.