Choices, Choices!

[David Morison]

I have come to a turning point. I am a keen wildlife photographer with a few landscapes thrown in. At present I use a Canon 7DII with Sigmas 150-600 Sport, 18-300 and 8-16. I'm happy with the whole outfit except the weight and for travelling, my son lives in France and I visit him often for short periods using only the cabin bag only option on flights. If I load my cabin bag up with all my kit plus binoculars I only have room for a few spare underpants so I have come to the conclusion that I have to change my habits. I am looking at a bridge camera for travelling which would fulfil the weight/space requirement but not all of the focal length options. I realise the limitations of a small sensor but my experience with my iPhone shows that for normal web use and prints up to A4 the quality is more than adequate plus I would be able to capture more images. What do folks think and recommend? I have had a Panasonic bridge before.
Many thanks
David

[Rodbender]

Re: Choices, Choices!

I have been using Panasonic bridge cameras since I retired. From the FZ20 up to todays FZ330. Yes some did have noisy sensors but for web use they were OK. I am more than pleased with my FZ330 and would recommend it to anyone on a budget. If I had the choice and the money I would upgrade to the FZ2000. Here is a link. https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consume...mc-fz2000.html Maybe Farther Christmas will be kind this year.

[Garry]

Re: Choices, Choices!

Being I have never owned, or used a bridge camera. I cant suggest anything.

But I do understand your dilemma.

Most of the time, I love using my Canon7d and long lenses.

But there are times, when I wished I had a smaller, lighter camera.

I also agree that for web use, it is almost impossible to tell the difference now.

What ever you decide. Good luck. Will be looking out for your findings and photos.

[Rab]

Re: Choices, Choices!

I have used bridge cameras. Mostly Panasonic FZ series that I passed on to my son when I moved to DSLR. I do however still have a Canon sx50 HS which has a very useful 24-1200mm (35mm equivalent) zoom but is only 12 MP low by today's standards. I use it mainly at venues where a DSLR is not allowed ( music concerts etc where they seem to think that anyone with a half decent camera is going to get better pictures than them and deprive them of income). Despite a slightly noisy sensor it does get reasonable results. The newer SC and powershot ranges will be better I'm sure.

[mike_j]

Re: Choices, Choices!

A friend in a similar position has just bought a Nikon 1 and a couple of lenses. Gives up to 810mm equivalent and decent quality.

Personally I use an APS Sony a6000 and 18-200mm lens for travel. Good quality, does acceptable macro, excellent video and quality is good enough for significant cropping. I also have the 16-50mm which is compact enough for the camera to be pocketable.

[David Morison]

Re: Choices, Choices!

Many thanks everyone for your words of wisdom, I finally went for the Nikon P900 and it has finally arrived. Just taken a couple of shots out of the bedroom window of a Buzzard on a tree around 100 metres away on the maximum 2000mm setting and I am pretty impressed, actually gives me a slightly better image than my Canon 7DII plus Sigma 150-600mm Sport at 600 although being a small sensor it won't enlarge as much. However for A4 prints and web use as a travel camera it will do the job I need it to.

[IMG]DSCN0057 by DAVID MORISON, on Flickr/IMG]

David

[Garry]

Re: Choices, Choices!

That is an impressive photo at that distance.

Camera must be a good one !

[David Morison]

Re: Choices, Choices!

Error in my post, the Buzzard was taken at 2000mm equivalent not 200mm!

David

[Garry]

Re: Choices, Choices!

That helps explain the quality of photo at that range.

[David Morison]

Re: Choices, Choices!

To compare the Nikon P900 to the Canon 7DII/Sigma 150-600 Sport I took a couple of images of a sapling cage around 30 metres away. 2000mm for the Nikon and 600mm for the 7DII/Sigma. Obviously the Canon had to be substantially cropped to compare with the P900 image, exposures near enough equivalent. No PP except of course the Canon was converted from RAW in LR whereas the P900 is straight out of the camera. Personally I can hardly see any difference that couldn't be adjusted in PP. Just confirms that the P900 will do OK for what I need.

Canon/Sigma:
591A2141 by DAVID MORISON, on Flickr

P900
DSCN1008 by DAVID MORISON, on Flickr

David

[Rodbender]

Re: Choices, Choices!

Thanks for posting this comparison. I have been following this thread from day one. You may recall I recommended the Panasonic FZ330. or FZ2000. I downloaded the two images and played with them in my editor. Apart from a slight difference in saturation there is just detectable more noise in the P900 image. Comparing these images with some of my own from the FZ330 I would say there is very little between the two cameras. I also considered the P900 when I purchased my camera. Ian had posted some images here that he took with the P900 and that made me look closely at it as an alternative purchase. I chose the FZ330 as I had owned many Panasonic cameras and liked the FZ's constant f2.8 aperture throughout the full zoom range of its Leica lens. It's zoom power is perhaps just a little shy of the P900s at 1200mm (using the intelligent zoom setting) But it's image quality even at this extreme setting is more than adequate for my purposes. Bridge cameras have come a long way in recent years and I would say that the way things are going it will not be long before more keen amateurs ditch the heavy expensive gear and use the more convenient lightweight bridge cameras that are emerging onto the market.

[Garry]

Re: Choices, Choices!

[QUOTE=Rodbender;86187 I would say that the way things are going it will not be long before more keen amateurs ditch the heavy expensive gear and use the more convenient lightweight bridge cameras that are emerging onto the market.[/QUOTE]

I fully agree, Ron.

I am amazed at how LITTLE differences there are.

Thank you David, for showing these findings. It has made me think !

[Rodbender]

Re: Choices, Choices!

I fully agree, Ron.

I am amazed at how LITTLE differences there are.

Thank you David, for showing these findings. It has made me think !

I have considered the Panasonic FZ2000 which has a bigger sensor and produces far better quality images. Zoom power is reduced by having the larger sensor but that can be over come by adding their tele converter lens. Just think, you always have the right focal length for the subject and no more dust on sensor problems. Prices are quite high compared to the FZ330 which I have at the moment, but come the middle of the year I can see the prices coming down and may just tempt me to spend my last bit of savings, after all I can't take it with me can I?

[Rodbender]

Re: Choices, Choices!

Back in 2013 I purchased a Panasonic FZ200, now been replaced with my current FZ330. Here are two shots taken with it to show the zoom power and image quality. Not bad for such a small sensor and handheld.

[Autumn]

Re: Choices, Choices!

I particularly like the first one with so many views, including the side mirror. I agree very good image quality.