zoom vs sensor size - alaska

[ehobbs1970]

ok what is more important for trip to alaska cruise not doing wilderness trek add on land trip. this is for a newbie that is thinking a bridge camera. but am open would like to stay under 400 if possible. i am a total novice. its seems when u get sensor size big you sacrifice zoom which seems needed for this type of trip whale watching etc. what is more important. i have the ability to get the p600 for about 199 or less but seems like this might not be the direction to go sensor size wise.

[pierces]

The picture you take will always be better than the one you didn't.

 

There is a lot of talk about sensor size, ISO and pursuing the ultimate in image quality but when you get right down to it, the current crop of superzooms outperform a 10 year old non-pro DSLR in almost every way you can measure.

 

If you are a true newbie, a bridge camera is an excellent choice as they try hard and mostly succeed in being an all-in-one package.

 

After you get back, you can evaluate the experience and the photos to decide if you want to make photography a permanent hobby and invest further. You may find that the photos you come back with are just what you were looking for and avoid a lot of expense and time! :)

 

For reference, here's a link to our 2004 Alaska trip that was shot mostly with an 8MP bridge camera:

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/alaska2004

 

Believe me when I say that cameras have only gotten better over the last 10 years.

 

Dave

[ehobbs1970]

any suggestions?

[xlxo]

For me image quality is important.... I say go google for image samples of the camera you want to buy. Not just images in bright sunlight, but also in low light situations.

 

Wildlife pictures would benefit from high-zoom.

[c230k]

I have the Sony HX400V bridge camera. A superzoom camera,check out below address for a great review and a final verdict and scores,compared to other cameras in this range. Last trip to Alaska used the Panasonic FZ200 (GREAT CAMERA) but think I prefer the range of the Sony.

This is from Cameralabs

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Cyber-shot_HX400V/verdict.shtml

 

also do a search at Amazon.com

 

Tom :cool:

[zackiedawg]

Any of the superzooms will be of similar quality - some might be slightly better than another, but not by any great amount, with the exception of those few that offer larger sensors. And as you already know, the bigger the sensor, the lesser the optical zoom reach of the lens (compare the Panasonic FZ1000 which uses a relatively large 1" sensor and has a 400mm zoom equivalent, to the various Canon, Sony, Panasonic, and other superzoom cameras using tiny 1/2.3" sensors - which have optical zoom equivalent reaches of 800mm to 1200mm.

 

In general, the larger the sensor, the better the overall quality of shots through a wider range of situations. But strictly comparing for reach, the superzooms in normal daylight conditions are great travel solutions. They won't be as good in low light, they won't have as much control over shallow depth of field, they won't be as good with focus tracking, and so on - but for the one general purpose of long reach in a reasonably small travel-friendly body, superzooms are great. The more you want to branch out into more difficult aspects of photography, the more those large-sensor, interchangeable-lens cameras become a stronger consideration.

[havoc315]

I'll be a bit of an image quality snob and recommend going with the larger sensor.

 

Those super super zoom bridge cameras... You really need GREAT light to get good super telephoto images. To me, those cameras are more for parlor tricks.. "look... I got a picture of that flag pole from miles away! Couldn't even see it with the naked eye, but I got this poor quality un-interesting picture of it!"

 

It is conventional wisdom to look at analog zoom and not digital zoom. But that wisdom comes from the days of lower resolution cameras. When you have 24mp... If you have good image quality, you can apply a good amount of "digital zoom" (through cropping) and still get much better results than you would with the analog zoom of a small sensor camera.

 

And looking back at even the professional photographers of the film age..... It was rare for those photographers to ever go beyond 300-500mm. (A 500mm lens in the film age was the size of a medium sized dog!).

 

So my point being... You aren't going to get good high quality interesting photos from miles away, with any camera. A camera isn't a telescope. If you can barely see something with the naked eye, you are unlikely to be able to compose a high quality shot, no matter what camera you use.

So I think there is very rarely a need to truly go beyond the 500mm range, and even that is pretty extreme. I'd really say there is no major need to go beyond 400mm. And that includes many wildlife pictures. The only times you really need much more zoom than that, is when taking bird pictures. (As birds are so small.. whales are much bigger)

An APS-C camera... like the A6000... with 55-210 lens.. you get the equivalent of 315mm. You can crop it effectively to 400-500mm and still retain a high quality image.

 

So at the end of the day, with a camera like the A6000, you can get a high quality 400-500mm lens. The so-called "super zooms" may give you 1000mm or higher --- But it will be very very difficult to get any decent pictures at 1000mm. (Unless you have absolutely perfect light, and probably use a tripod, etc).

[pierces]

A note on superzooms: If you have ever hand-held a 35mm camera with a 400mm lens, you know how hard it is to keep the image from jumping around, even with stabilization. 600mm, 800mm or 1000mm equivalent sounds like a really shiny thing to have but I assure you the the shine will wear off the second you take it off the tripod and try to use it past 400mm handheld in anything but the brightest light or past 600mm, period.

 

Dave

[sharod]

While I do agree super zooms have their limitations, I have, and still occasionally enjoy my Canon SX40 HS. It has served me well. I believe I bought this camera back in October 2011. There have been 2 newer cameras in that line since then.

 

Here is a small gallery that has a few SX40 pics in it. Six of those pics were taken in low light. Tripod only for the moon. The elk pic is not a good quality by any means, but I include it to show how far you can zoom. If you look in the field pic, these elk were in the field in the middle, in the little finger of green in the right upper corner.

 

[chipmaster]

ok what is more important for trip to alaska cruise not doing wilderness trek add on land trip. this is for a newbie that is thinking a bridge camera. but am open would like to stay under 400 if possible. i am a total novice. its seems when u get sensor size big you sacrifice zoom which seems needed for this type of trip whale watching etc. what is more important. i have the ability to get the p600 for about 199 or less but seems like this might not be the direction to go sensor size wise.

 

Recent review of the P900 a step above the camera you are considering.

 

Moore's Law and the advancement of cameras, computers and phones have been crazy good, consider this the golden 15-20 years and it will slow considerably soon.

 

There a always a tradeoff, the larger the sensor size the better the low light but the current latest sony sensors even the 1" are amazing in their performance and worth consideration. Unless one shoots in very low light they will be very good and investing in much more unless you are a crazy hobbyist isn't good ROI.

[GUT2407]

any suggestions?

 

I had a Canon 50HS that I was pretty happy with if you are after a "Bridge" I just didn't use it enough

 

 

I would suggest get with with a hot shoe as most of the built in flashes are pretty weak.

[havoc315]

A note on superzooms: If you have ever hand-held a 35mm camera with a 400mm lens, you know how hard it is to keep the image from jumping around, even with stabilization. 600mm, 800mm or 1000mm equivalent sounds like a really shiny thing to have but I assure you the the shine will wear off the second you take it off the tripod and try to use it past 400mm handheld in anything but the brightest light or past 600mm, period.

 

Dave

 

That's my point. Small sensors have come a long way, to the point where good smart phones can produce decent iq. And in order to try to sell small sensor cameras, the manufacturers try to wow with ever increasing superzooms. But it's all smoke and mirrors. There is very little real use to those 50x/1000mm+ zooms. Best case scenario, you will get so-so pictures with a tripod (still not easy to compose an interesting shot from a mile away... Atmosphere still softens the image). Worst case scenario, you will rarely get more than a soft blurry uninteresting shot.

 

Putting aside possible budget concerns, most photographers would get better results with a camera capable of higher image quality, faster lens, even where the zoom may be more limited to effectively 400mm or less.

[ikirumata]

I'll be a bit of an image quality snob and recommend going with the larger sensor.

 

 

 

Ordinarily, I would agree that a larger sensor is the way to go. However (especially in Alaska), when the difference between "look at this high quality spec in the distance" vs "here is a grainy pic of a whale breaching", I believe that the choice is not as ordinary. Obviously neither of those pics will win you a spot in Nat Geo...but for sharing with friends and family, I would choose the grainy whale vs the spec on the horizon (even though the bokeh is fantastic!). :)

 

Those super super zoom bridge cameras... You really need GREAT light to get good super telephoto images. To me, those cameras are more for parlor tricks.. "look... I got a picture of that flag pole from miles away! Couldn't even see it with the naked eye, but I got this poor quality un-interesting picture of it!"

 

Interesting pics is not a virtue of the equipment you are using. I have seen plenty of interesting pics taken with an old iphone and plenty of un-interesting pics taken with top of the line full frame pro cameras. Whatever camera you end up getting, I highly recommend that you take a couple hours to learn some basic photography lessons (there are tons of free online resources). There are some photography composition 'rules' that are simple to learn, but have tremendous impact on the 'interesting-ness' of your photos.

 

Good luck!

Edited April 15, 2015 by ikirumata

[zackiedawg]

That's my point. Small sensors have come a long way, to the point where good smart phones can produce decent iq. And in order to try to sell small sensor cameras, the manufacturers try to wow with ever increasing superzooms. But it's all smoke and mirrors. There is very little real use to those 50x/1000mm+ zooms. Best case scenario, you will get so-so pictures with a tripod (still not easy to compose an interesting shot from a mile away... Atmosphere still softens the image). Worst case scenario, you will rarely get more than a soft blurry uninteresting shot.

 

I've got to generally disagree with this too - I'm in agreement with ikirumata that for the average amateur shooter just looking to share experiences with family, those long-distance zoom shots that actually capture something rare or different from what you see at home will always present better and be more interesting than either not getting the shot at all (due to being too far away), or shooting it as an infinitesimal speck somewhere in the shot that looks like dust. Someone going to Alaska for the first, and maybe last, time - and seeing a bear, an eagle, a whale, a seal, etc along the shore while cruising an inside passage can actually get an identifiable shot of that with a superzoom, which they could not with a phone, or a larger sensor camera that has a short focal reach, or even a good DSLR with a short focal reach and a ton of cropping. The difference might be what YOU consider uninteresting and what THEY consider interesting: if you come at it from a photographer enthusiast point of view, that slightly blurry, atmospheric wavy, or faded color shot of an animal is not printable large, not framable, and therefore not worth your time...but from an amateur traveler point of view, seeing something rare or neat possibly for the only time in their life, having a shot which though a little blurry or wavy or faded in color or noisy, clearly shows a grizzly bear nearly filling the frame with a salmon in their mouth will be a wonderful thing to share with family and friends to say 'look what I saw!'...and to remember that moment in time that may never be replicated.

 

So I personally do see value in such cameras - even if they're not MY personal choice, as an enthusiast. I certainly don't consider them smoke-and-mirrors, as I've used very long lenses and superzooms in the past and been able to identify the name of a passing ship some 15 miles away at sea - I may not frame that shot and put it in my living room, but despite all the wavy atmospheric distortion and lack of crisp detail, I still gained some very cool information and can look back and share that unique knowledge with others. Even with my DSLR, on cruises I'll pull out the Tamron 150-600mm, ass a 2x teleconverter, and zoom in on a distant shore from 12-15 miles away, go to full zoom, and then crop to 100%...I'm dealing with something in the vicinity of 2,400mm equivalent framing at that point, so certainly it isn't pin sharp, isn't very good with contrast, and often is dealing with lots of atmospheric distortion. Yet I personally find some of those scenes very interesting, even if they're not what I put up in my galleries or print around my house. Some shots of Cuba and Haiti, of places I've never been, to me are very interesting and I've spent lots of time going over some of those huge distance shots just taking in the scene and pouring over blurry details. Cool military ships 15 miles away, neat planes flying far overhead - I love playing with long reach lenses even on superzoom cameras and I think a lot of amateur travelers would find such cameras very useful and fun.

[havoc315]

 

Interesting pics is not a virtue of the equipment you are using. I have seen plenty of interesting pics taken with an old iphone and plenty of un-interesting pics taken with top of the line full frame pro cameras. Whatever camera you end up getting, I highly recommend that you take a couple hours to learn some basic photography lessons (there are tons of free online resources). There are some photography composition 'rules' that are simple to learn, but have tremendous impact on the 'interesting-ness' of your photos.

 

Good luck!

 

Perhaps you misunderstood -- or I didn't artfully state my point -- about "interesting." Yes, interesting has NOTHING to do with the quality of the camera. It has to with composition -- as you said.

 

But to compose a good shot, to think about the lighting, to think about the framing, you need to consider whether to get closer or further... you need to give some thought.. you need to SEE what you are photographing. When you are picking out a speck from a mile away, you're not likely to get many interesting photos, because all you are generally doing it grasping at a speck. It's the difference between... when taking a sports photo... to you get as close as possible to the players, regardless of your lens... or do you sit back in the stands and rely on the maximum zoom. Sure, sometimes you HAVE to sit back in the stands. But you will get much better, much more interesting shots, if you move closer. Other than some birding shots, I don't know if I've ever seen an interesting photo taken handheld at 1,000mm.

 

As to it being Alaska and wanting to get the whale breaching, as opposed to a speck...

 

Maybe I'm wrong, I'll find out in Alaska a few months from now myself... But I suspect 400mm-500mm should be enough to get you decent whale breaching photos from a whale watching tour. Sure, if taking such a pic from the cruise ship of some whale off in the far distance... it may just be a spec. But in that case.... Whether it's a spec, or a grain blurry pic of a tail sticking out of a water....... I don't necessarily want either pic. I'd ignore the whale and concentrate on some landscape photos of the mountains! lol.

 

I remember in the 1970s.... families pulling out their "slides" to share their vacation experiences with others. A blurry pic of the White House, or of a mountain, or of Mickey Mouse, of a whale fin sticking out of the water. You were sharing the experiences, and showing others things they perhaps had never seen.

 

But nowadays.. there is little that not everyone has seen. You can go on google and see a good high quality image of anything. So showing people.... "look!!! I saw a whale fin sticking out of the water!! It was miles away, it looked like a speck.. but with my superzoom camera, I got this grainy picture of it!

Eh.

Edited April 15, 2015 by havoc315

[havoc315]

Even with my DSLR, on cruises I'll pull out the Tamron 150-600mm, ass a 2x teleconverter, and zoom in on a distant shore from 12-15 miles away, go to full zoom, and then crop to 100%...I'm dealing with something in the vicinity of 2,400mm equivalent .

 

Wow... and handheld?? lol.

 

Your points are well taken.

 

It does depend on how much zoom you need, and the balance with quality. You are taking 2400mm with an APS-C sensor, and I assume on a tripod. And as you said, you aren't getting "gallery shots" but shots you enjoy anyway. Now if you downsized the sensor... took away the tripod in all likelihood (as few non-enthusiasts are going to lug around a tripod with a small bridge camera)... the image quality will deteriorate even further.

 

I see the photo sharing with friends going like this:

 

"We even saw whales breaching in the distance"

"Did you get any photos?"

"Yes... look at this, that I was able to get at 1500mm!"

"ahhh.... I see a blur..."

"Oh.... look closely.. over on the right"

"Oh, this over here?"

"Umm, no, I think that's a wave... but this little blur over here, that's a whale!"

"Wow"

 

Might some people still find satisfaction in the photos? Certainly. And yes, in perfect lighting, in some of those situations, the whale might even be more identifiable than in my extreme example. I never should make universal statements.

 

But I think there are a lot of amateurs right now, lulled into believing that 1000mm-1500mm zoom has greater value than it really does in the real world. And at the end of the day, many of those people would end up happier with a high quality 300-500mm, rather than a low quality 1000-1500mm.

 

I've found quite a few amateurs who incorrectly assume that dSLRs have huge zoom. They look at an enthusiast or pro with a 24-70/2.8 lens on the camera... a big bulky lens, and they assume it is 1000mm!! And then they think buying a bridge superzoom is a cheap way to be like a professional dSLR user. They don't realize that most dSLR users -- putting aside your 2400m reach! -- rarely use much more than 300-500mm range. Even your 150-600 lens --- zoom lenses like that didn't even exist in the days of film, when the longest zoom lenses were about 400mm, and that was on 35mm.

[chipmaster]

FWIW on specific tours like the Whale tours out of Juneau they do a good job getting pretty close. My understanding is for the cruiseline bear tours you get pretty close when the season is good to.

 

Where the big long lense come in handy is the random wild life on land/water excursion.

 

 

If in a pinch and want something with crazy fast focus, high frame rate and shoot under ISO800 consider a used V1 and the 70-300CX that is a pricey combo but can't be beat for reach, FPS, and focus. Its only 10Meg pixels and a specialized bird/wildlife rig.

[havoc315]

FWIW on specific tours like the Whale tours out of Juneau they do a good job getting pretty close. My understanding is for the cruiseline bear tours you get pretty close when the season is good to.

 

Where the big long lense come in handy is the random wild life on land/water excursion.

 

 

If in a pinch and want something with crazy fast focus, high frame rate and shoot under ISO800 consider a used V1 and the 70-300CX that is a pricey combo but can't be beat for reach, FPS, and focus. Its only 10Meg pixels and a specialized bird/wildlife rig.

 

My son uses a J3.... I'm thinking of renting the 70-300 for him, though he is small and it might be too bulky for him.

[ikirumata]

Perhaps you misunderstood -- or I didn't artfully state my point -- about "interesting." Yes, interesting has NOTHING to do with the quality of the camera. It has to with composition -- as you said.

 

But to compose a good shot, to think about the lighting, to think about the framing, you need to consider whether to get closer or further... you need to give some thought.. you need to SEE what you are photographing. When you are picking out a speck from a mile away, you're not likely to get many interesting photos, because all you are generally doing it grasping at a speck. It's the difference between... when taking a sports photo... to you get as close as possible to the players, regardless of your lens... or do you sit back in the stands and rely on the maximum zoom. Sure, sometimes you HAVE to sit back in the stands. But you will get much better, much more interesting shots, if you move closer. Other than some birding shots, I don't know if I've ever seen an interesting photo taken handheld at 1,000mm.

 

Ah the joys of internet posting :). I apologize, as my comment about equipment were meant to add to what you were saying (not refute...you among others on this board have been very beneficial to me when it comes to all things photography) and to ultimately encourage the OP to not get too hung up about the equipment. The problem arises with trying to be concise with responses without sharing presuppositions (and multiple edits can further degrade the message).

 

As to it being Alaska and wanting to get the whale breaching, as opposed to a speck...

 

Maybe I'm wrong, I'll find out in Alaska a few months from now myself... But I suspect 400mm-500mm should be enough to get you decent whale breaching photos from a whale watching tour. Sure, if taking such a pic from the cruise ship of some whale off in the far distance... it may just be a spec. But in that case.... Whether it's a spec, or a grain blurry pic of a tail sticking out of a water....... I don't necessarily want either pic. I'd ignore the whale and concentrate on some landscape photos of the mountains! lol.

 

I remember in the 1970s.... families pulling out their "slides" to share their vacation experiences with others. A blurry pic of the White House, or of a mountain, or of Mickey Mouse, of a whale fin sticking out of the water. You were sharing the experiences, and showing others things they perhaps had never seen.

 

But nowadays.. there is little that not everyone has seen. You can go on google and see a good high quality image of anything. So showing people.... "look!!! I saw a whale fin sticking out of the water!! It was miles away, it looked like a speck.. but with my superzoom camera, I got this grainy picture of it!

Eh.

 

From the standpoint of just looking at pictures in the vacuum of the internet, I totally agree. There will definitely going to be better whale fin pictures out on the internet, but thats not the point when it comes to sharing your experience. Im having problems putting this into words, but there is more to sharing vacation memories than the quality of the picture. Typically when you share vacation photos, you are telling a story, sharing the experience and the photo is just one part of the equation. To me, sitting down with family and friends and going through their poor quality whale vacation pictures while they explain the experience has more meaning to me than just Googling fantastic whale pictures.

 

I don't want to minimize anyone's point of view on this, I interpreted the OPs original request as looking for perspective rather than trying to see what the best equipment

Edited April 15, 2015 by ikirumata

[havoc315]

From the standpoint of just looking at pictures in the vacuum of the internet, I totally agree. There will definitely going to be better whale fin pictures out on the internet, but thats not the point when it comes to sharing your experience. Im having problems putting this into words, but there is more to sharing vacation memories than the quality of the picture. Typically when you share vacation photos, you are telling a story, sharing the experience and the photo is just one part of the equation. To me, sitting down with family and friends and going through their poor quality whale vacation pictures while they explain the experience has more meaning to me than just Googling fantastic whale pictures.

 

I don't want to minimize anyone's point of view on this, I interpreted the OPs original request as looking for perspective rather than trying to see what the best equipment

 

Though I admitted to being a bit of an IQ snob, I was simply trying to suggest that long zoom is often overrated and often unnecessary, even in wildlife situations. Not suggesting that a 100mm RX100 is adequate for wildlife, but suggesting that a 1500mm zoom bridge camera is not as nice and shiny as it sounds.

 

As to vacation sharing.... I get your point. I partially agree, partially disagree. Reminds me when I went on vacation as a kid, buying post cards... to share what I saw.

 

My wife is often frustrated when I take photos that don't include members of our family... Any scenery pictures. Because to her, she does see photos as family sharing --- and therefore wants to see the members of the family. See the family with a great background. Not see the background without the family.. a picture that could be anybody's memory.

 

I do like scenic pictures. Partially, it's art. Partially, it is simply sharing experiences and sharing and preserving memories. But even then, if I'm shooting something a mile away at 1,000mm..... is it really even part of my memory? Was it really something I experienced? Eh, kinda.

If I'm viewing a mountain...... then my experience is viewing the mountain. A photo at 30-50mm is truly sharing my experience. The goat that is a tiny speck on the mountain that I can make out with my telescope and get a grainy 1,000mm image--- was that goat really even part of my experience?

 

Guess that's also what I'm saying........ What are you trying to capture:

 

- Highest quality images? Unless you are spending tens of thousands on equipment, anything over 500mm isn't likely to be great quality. And 500mm equivalent with APS-C is going to be better than 500mm equivalent on a superzoom.

 

- Preserve and share your experiences? A normal field of view is about 30-50mm. So to me, if you really need 1500mm to see something, it was never really part of you experience to begin with. It might be a speck at 200mm.. but that was your actual experience-- seeing it as a speck. If you're experience was "I got within 50 feet of a grizzly" -- Then a 200-400mm range can re-create that feeling of closeness.

 

- Whether for novelty, curiosity, etc... You just want the ability to capture super far away things in possibly recognizable ways -- Ok, go for a superzoom. And I don't mean to come across as disparaging. There is a "cool factor" to, "I got this picture of people on the beach in Cuba while I was in international waters."

[c230k]

Think with the superzoom, you have a choice of a large range. When I use my HX400V camera, most pictures are from 24mm to about 800mm. The range above that is for the shot you would not get (wildlife) without the extra range. Having a wide range gives me the benefit of choice and the lower range does a good job with the quality of the picture and I do not have to change lens to get the shot. This is a sample at about 700mm taken on our balcony looking forward.

 

Tom :cool:

[emeybee]

ok what is more important for trip to alaska cruise not doing wilderness trek add on land trip. this is for a newbie that is thinking a bridge camera. but am open would like to stay under 400 if possible. i am a total novice. its seems when u get sensor size big you sacrifice zoom which seems needed for this type of trip whale watching etc. what is more important. i have the ability to get the p600 for about 199 or less but seems like this might not be the direction to go sensor size wise.

 

Basically every camera that doesn't have interchangable lenses has the same sensor size -- 1/2.3". The main exceptions are the Sony RX-100 and Panasonic FZ1000, which have 1" sensors, and the Panasonic LX100, which has a 4/3 sensor. The RX-100 and the LX100 are excellent, but have only ~70mm zoom which isn't good for Alaska.

 

Which is why, once again I've got to recommend the Panasonic FZ1000. It has a 400mm optical zoom that can even extend to 800mm with a surprisingly respectable digital zoom. And the image quality is leagues better than any 1/2.3" sensor camera-- the bigger sensor gives you more freedom to crop (essentially more zoom) and better performance on cloudy days. It's really the best of all worlds for anyone who doesn't want to mess around with changing/carrying lenses. The only downside is that it's above your budget new, but there have been some good deals on eBay. Or you could keep an eye on Keh.com, which is a very reputable used camera dealer.

[Locksmth]

Santa's girlfriend brought me a Nikon P900 for xmas. I had borrowed my brothers Canon SX-60HS for a cruise/vacation in may and was impressed with the optics.

 

I realize that the P900 is at the high end of the "bridge camera" price range, but so far I am pretty impressed with the optically stabilized lens and sensor quality.

 

Here is a shot from the other night when I was playing around. 2000mm hand held on auto (yes, I know, but I'm still learning how it works).

 

Please note: this image is unretouched or cropped in any way. Right off the SD card!

 

 

Here are two from the Canon. First one is wide angle, second full zoom and both unaltered.

 

 

 

So, except for the possibility that someone may spend too much time fiddling and not taking pictures at all, I would have to say the current crop of super zoom cameras are outstanding and well worth the money.

[havoc315]

Santa's girlfriend brought me a Nikon P900 for xmas. I had borrowed my brothers Canon SX-60HS for a cruise/vacation in may and was impressed with the optics.

 

I realize that the P900 is at the high end of the "bridge camera" price range, but so far I am pretty impressed with the optically stabilized lens and sensor quality.

 

Here is a shot from the other night when I was playing around. 2000mm hand held on auto (yes, I know, but I'm still learning how it works).

 

Please note: this image is unretouched or cropped in any way. Right off the SD card!

 

 

Here are two from the Canon. First one is wide angle, second full zoom and both unaltered.

 

 

 

So, except for the possibility that someone may spend too much time fiddling and not taking pictures at all, I would have to say the current crop of super zoom cameras are outstanding and well worth the money.

 

Good example of the pros and cons of a small sensor camera. Those images show off the wide zoom range of a bridge camera, with results that look ok, good enough for most people to make small prints or share on facebook.

At the same time, a more demanding person would be very disappointed... The wide shot has the sky almost completely blown out, and has some pretty nasty distortion going on. The long telephoto shot is a bit of a soft blurry mess.

 

So it really shows it comes down to your expectations, what you are hoping to get out of the camera.

[Locksmth]

I think you need to broaden your horizons a bit. I couldn't get either of those shots with my D7100 and 80-200 2.8. Not even close. By time you cropped a dslr photo to get that framing it would probably look worse.

 

Although I've only had the P900 for a week I'm pretty impressed with its capabilities.

 

You also need to consider your audience here. Nobody asking questions on this forum is shooting for Vogue Magazine. These super zoom cameras are going to provide them with top notch memories. Should they decide to print them I'm sure they will be great.

 

Oh, one more thing. When criticizing the Otter shot you forgot that I was shooting on a cloudy day with a lot of moisture in the air. Its not going to make it into National Geographic, but then, I don't care.