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

I was in the process of deciding which Nikon 300 mm or greater lens to buy and learn how to use prior to the upcoming north-bound migration of birds staging on our local river. I saw an ad on UHH for a bridge camera that offered reach far in excess of even 500mm. The question came to me as to why I, as a newbie, was considering a heavy DSLR tele lens when there are a slew of bridge cameras with vastly superior range at much less weight and much less cost than any similar DSLR lens. I understand a DSLR gives far greater flexibility for creative talents than any bridge camera can provide but for a newbie such as I, it appears that the bridge cameras could easily handle most of the shots I take on my DSLR. The bridge cameras now seem to have most of the capabilities formerly available only on DSLR camera with appropriate lens with the exception of macro. Would appreciate considered opinions on this issue. Trolls need not respond, save your put-downs for other websites.