I am a farmer. I am typical in that I have lived poor and will die very wealthy. When I plant corn, I have a camera in the tractor with me. When we harvest, I have cameras in each of 3 trucks. I have a camera that lives on the transmission hump of my pick up truck and cameras that live in each car. None of them are full scensored. When we travel one camera I have with me is the Nikon P900. Unless you carry a large container of lenses with you, I can get pictures you cannot get.
It is the history of electronics that they are constantly better, faster, and cheaper. I assume that is also true of camera sensors. Perhaps at some time in the future, a full framed camera will only be seen in museums.
You buy what you want and I'll buy what I want and we will both be happy.
We went on Holland American and had a great time. The cruise we went on had daily classes on photography which I attended every time I did not have a conflict. We were advised to take as many side trips as we could because we will probably never get back there.
I now have better cameras than I did then.
Have a great time.
We went on Holland American and our cruise had a daily lessons on photography which I attended every time I had no conflict. I got many good pictures and we were advised to take as many side trips as we could because we will probably never get back there. I am not a photographer. Just a picture taker. I have better cameras now than I did then.
Have a great time.
I have several cameras where they can be reached quickly and I am intrigued by the Nikon B700.
I have never had that problem.
I have one. I would not consider traveling without it. The other camera I always travel with is the Panasonic FZ1000. The Panasonic is a better camera, but the P900 has much greater zoom. I am sure the real pros with DSLR cameras would not even consider my cameras, but it would take much more room and money to get the camera and lenses to match my cameras. They are good enough for me.
I absolutely don't claim to be an expert in anything, let alone cameras, but when I travel, I take an FZ1000 and the P900. I think I can quickly take any picture I want. I sold an SX60 to get the P900. When the SX60 came out, many on this and other sites claimed the SX50 was a better camera. I still have one and it lives in the counsel of a Buick Enclave. I think the FZ 1000 is my best camera, but on travels, the P900 will zoom onto any subject I want to capture.
My oldest brother took his basic training at Atterbury. I spent more than 20 years in the National Guard. I spent one of my last summer camps at Atterbury. We had to keep a garbage truck useful. That truck was an old truck that had been in use when it was an active base. There is some beautiful scenery in near by Brown County, as I recall.
I believe the FZ 200 is a pretty good camera, but the replacement, which is the F Z 300 is quite a bit better.
I have an FZ1000, but just got it and have not used it much yet. It has a 1" sensor and a 24-400 lens, but has a 2x crop sensor, so the effective range is 24-800. An 1" sensor is 4 times bigger than what is in an SX50, which I have and still love, but it is in the center counsel of one of our cars.
The Nikon DL24-500 has a 1" sensor and a lens that goes from the 24 to 500, but has a 4X crop sensor effectively zooming from 24 to 2000. I would assume I Q would drop off at 2000, but how many pictures does anyone take at that range. I am not smart enough to know this, but I would think the 24-500 is the best travel camera at this time.
I would look at the Nikon Coolpix S9900. It won't fit in a dress shirt pocket, but will fit in a good work shirt pocket. It is highly rated by owners and will zoom from 25 to 750.
I won't take it with me as a second travel camera because the batteries are recharged in the camera. I have 3 batteries for my travel camera so I can keep 2 spares in my pocket.
It seems to take very good pictures, but has no view finder.
Thank you. I agree. Someone suggested I look at the Sony RX100M4. It is blazingly fast and a very good low light camera, but the zoom lens is very limited for a travel camera. To get something I seem to have to give up something else.
I would like the idea of the spare camera to have, for all practical purposes to have unlimited range. I can't think of a time when a travel camera ever needs more telescopic range than an SX50, Sx60, or the P900.
The first digital camera I bought is a Leica V Lux 3 with a zoom lens from 24 to 600. My first trip with it was an Alaskan cruise. I took pictures at both extremes of the lens on that trip.
I have since bought a sx50 and when the sx60 came out, I thought it was an improved camera and had to have one. I use them both. The range finder on the 50 is not great and the 60 is generally thought to be inferior to the 50.
I have wanted to upgrade the Leica. The Panasonic FZ1000 is a better camera, but I refuse to buy anything with less range than the Leica.
Some of the hoggers say you should not to tripping without a back up camera. I thought if I buy a Canon G3 as my main camera and sell the SX60 and buy a P900 I would have a good package. In getting advise from 2 different experts at B & H, they see no reason to trade the 60 for the 900. I think if I do make the trade, in a couple years. somebody will come out with a camera with the range of the p900 with a larger sensor and I will have to have that. What to do?