Camera discussion - bridge/superzoom - what do we want?

As a background, my first digital camera was an APSC Pentax k200d (6MP, I think) because I had some Pentax SLR lenses from a film camera. After a few years, I decided that I didn't want to change lenses and bought a Panny FZ200. A few years ago, I bought my current FZ2500 and my son took over the FZ200 (he's been upgraded to a FZ300). In full disclosure, I did consider the Sony RX10iv, but chose the 2500 due to being familiar with Pannys and price.

There are times where I do want more reach, better autofocus and less noise. Ideally, I'd like an upgraded 2500 (or 1000ii) with PDAF autofocus and a bit more reach. The noise issue will still be there, and only getting larger sensors would help. I'm interested to see what happens, if anything, in the bridge/superzoom arena in the future.

Any thoughts? What do others want in these types of cameras? Or should I just get an APSC mirrorless camera and go back to changing lenses?

A bit more detail.
I recently replaced my FZ1000 with an FZ1000 MkII and like it quite a bit. It serves as my grab & go casual use camera as a complement to my high-rez work kit. The one thing that bugs me slightly is that the lens isn't what you'd call tack-sharp. My GX9 with 14-140 captured more detail. Now, it is perfectly capable of yielding a crisp 24" print after a bit of fine USM in post. But, I'd be willing to give up a bit of reach (25-200 or 25-300) if that would enable a lens that's as sharp as Panasonic's 14-140.

I needed to replace my FZ1000 a few years ago and struggled a bit among FZ1000ii, FZ2500 and RX10iv. The advice from users on the Sony forum who had faced the same decision was that the RX10iv was sharper and focused faster than the 1000ii/2500, even at full zoom and widest aperture. The 600mm focal length was an added benefit.

Using DXO Deep Prime, I'm happy with the noise level at ISO 3200-6400, even when viewed at 100%.

Sherm

www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/sets/
P950 album: www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/albums/72157713228488992
P900 album: www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/albums/72157671637486978
RX10iv album: www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/albums/72157719453957168

My main camera is an Olympus EM5ii which is a fantastic camera but I also have a Fujifilm XS-1 that I still use now and then because of it's huge 24-624mm zoom lens. The XS-1 was almost my perfect camera when I first got it but I wished it had a larger sensor and better AF. I eventually managed to buy a Sony RX10iv and was blown away by the sharpness of the lens and the superfast AF and I thought I had fnally found my perfect camera but alas it was not to be. Compared to the XS-1 the RX10iv was a lot heavier and bulkier and the ergonomics just were not there for me, so I sold it but still have my XS-1. I use Topaz Photo AI and Luminar Neo to edit my photos for all my cameras and the Topaz programme has Gigapixel built in which enables me to double the file from my XS-1 (or more) so I can crop if I want and still have plenty of detail and it has given new life to all my small sensor cameras. I wish Fuji would bring out an updated bridge camera of course but I am more than happy with my XS-1 :)

My first digital camera was a Casio QV-3000EX (3MP) with an IBM 340 MB Microdrive. Over the years, I worked my way through several Nikon Coolpix cameras (P530, B700, P1000, A1000) but eventually sold them all and went on to DSLRs. After a while, however, I stumbled on an old review of the FZ1000. It renewed my interest in bridge cameras because it offered features that Nikon Coolpix lacked like user selectable autofocus points and the ability to be configured for back button focus (BBF). I bought an FZ1000 and loved it but gifted it to a family member and moved to the FZ1000 II because it offered some added features that I liked. For additional reach, I then acquired an FZ300, also a great camera.

Recently, I sold the FZ1000 II to partly fund a lightly used Sony RX10 IV. With 315 phase detection autofocus points, up to 24 fps burst rate, and a buffer that's about 200 images deep, I feel like I now have almost everything I wanted in a bridge camera. I say "almost everything" because focus can't be changed while zooming. I've adapted to that. If Sony ever offers a RX10 V (doubtful after all these years) that fixes that shortcoming, I'd be all over it.

i was just going through some old folders and came a cross an image of my dog that has just passed. i thought wow what a great shot perfect detail even on my 4k monitor. it was taken with my fz150 10 years ago.

I had a similar journey. Early on I used the Olympus E-100RS superzoom and to this day was the camera I had the most fun with. It was 35 - 350mm and with the TCON 17 got additional reach. Then I moved to the Pentax K100D which had a huge jump in IQ. Cameras after were the Pan G1 for bird photos and then the Pan FZ 300 (a truly excellent 12mp superzoom in its time). As good as the FZ 300 was, the IQ was just insufficient and I returned to MFT with the EM5 and stayed with MFT since. I was very happy when Olympus released the 12-200mm lens since it effectively made any MFT camera with IBIS into a superzoom camera from 24mm to 400mm with decent IQ. For those ok with less reach, the 12-100mm is a great alternative with better IQ.

Regarding the all-in-one superzoom camera, I would like to see Panasonic release a BSI PDAF 1" sensor with 16:9 aspect ratio with no more than 15mp (for acceptable low light/isoperformance). Other key features would be IS and a 35-700mm focal range from f/2.8 to f/4. I start at 35mm since you have to compromise for IQ and going too wide will lead to significant loss of detail at teh long end for a compact setup. Also, it would be easy to carry a small camera like the Sony ZV-1 for the shorter stuff and the lighter weight would be better for vlogging etc.

One of my favorite cameras was the FZ150. I loved that camera. It always did a nice job for me. But while suffering from a GAS attack one day, I bought a Sony A6000 with two kit lenses. It is an APS-C camera. Well, I got to say, jumping from 12MP to 24MP and being able to get decent photos with an ISO higher than ISO 800 was compelling. As good as my FZ150 was, there was definitely a step up in IQ with the A6000. But I did miss the 600mm zoom, and swapping lenses was turning out to be inconvenient. Besides, it seemed like every other lens swap needed a dust removal cleaning of the sensor.

So, I was slowly being drawn to the Sony RX10iii. 20MP, 24-600mm zoom. Arrrgh... GAS attack! I bit the bullet. Wow! it was twice the size and weight of the FZ150. But after a month, I no longer noticed a size or weight issue. It felt normal. Interestingly, the RX10iii's IQ was very comparable to the A6000. Granted it had the kit lenses which were OK, but not Sony's finest glass.

So, I had the same zoom range as the FZ150. A definite jump in IQ. No lens swapping, and a 4 times larger sensor, allowing much higher ISO values when the light got low. I was impressed. I since upgraded to the RX10iv with significantly better focus speed. It has the PDAF focusing and does a terrific job of tracking and eyeball detecting.

At the time, my only other choice was the FZ1000. It lacked the zoom range I craved, and according to the posts, it softened a bit at the long end. It was also very significantly cheaper than the RX10iii. But I threw caution to the wind and went for the top of the line. I have no regrets.

The A6000 was sold, and so was the beloved FZ150.

I looked long and hard at various APS-C cameras. Matching the 24-600mm zoom range would involve multiple lenses and those did not come cheap. Back to lens swapping again! There is not enough significant difference between the 20MP 1" sensor and the 24MP APS-C sensor with respect to resolution. You will have much narrower DOF with the APS-C sensor and the ability to use much higher ISO values. So, ask yourself, how much will you use the additional features in the higher end APS-C cameras? Will that be worth the 2x or 3x price to get to that level? For some folks it will. Again, personal preference.

Granted everybody's needs are different. I have reached the point where I get a high enough IQ to satisfy my personal needs. I am getting too old to haul around a bag of lenses and gear. Other than a couple spare batteries and SD cards, all my camera gear hangs from my neck strap.

I still peek at the specs of FF and APS-C cameras, but I have yet to see a feature that I am missing.

Being a relative newbie with an FZ300, this is the sort of review that sits well with me. My expectations were not too high but it is hard when one sees the quality of shots from higher end gear. The RX10iv is outside my hobbyist budget at the moment, but it is good to see where the goal posts are.

Bryan

Bryan,
The 1/2.3" sensor FZ150-200-300 are excellent cameras in good light.

Bristlecone Pine, Schulman Grove, Inyo National Forest, CA
One of the oldest trees in the world. FZ200 May, 2014

Sherm

www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/sets/
P950 album: www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/albums/72157713228488992
P900 album: www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/albums/72157671637486978
RX10iv album: www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/albums/72157719453957168

Thanks for all that have commented!

After using my FZ2500 at the local zoo today, and the recent airshows, I really don't want my main camera to have multiple lenses. I like the all in one, and it performs pretty good for me. Now, my question is what will be available when my FZ2500 eventually craps out? Will Panny still have the 2500/1000ii or Sony the RX10iv available? Will new models be available?

Yeah I have seen plenty of good pics from that sensor, even from the earlier pana compact models. I am still learning mine and I know I will eventually get some good keepers.

The screen saver on the very revealing 32" 4K monitor consists of randomly-selected photos, one per minute, from the tens of thousands taken over the decades, both digitally and on (now scanned) film. This enables a constant reminder of - and ability to compare - photo qualities, both of technical IQ as well as my own abilities with exposures, composition and digital editing.

One realisation is that, although better qualities of various kinds are worth having, they matter far less than just having a picture of all sorts of moments. All the cameras used, from an ancient 120 film item with a leather bellows ( first used when I was about 9) up until my present FZ 1000 have been sufficient for this purpose of creating prosthetic memories in their time. In fact, their qualities (or lack of them) add something important to the photo-memories.

I've had an FZ1000 for many years now, as well as an FZ82 (for its greater telephoto reach and wide angle) as well as an Olympus Tough TG6 (for use in wet, mucky, sweaty and dusty occasions). I feel no need for anything better, especially since the controls and features of these cameras are now second nature whilst various ever-improving development software can be used to improve IQ both of photos to be taken as well as those already taken & stored in the various digital places.

There's a law of diminishing returns. For my purposes, the critical point camera-wise was reached many years ago; and using ever-improving software from the likes of Adobe and Topaz automatically offers marginal improvements for no more than the cost of their rent one pays anyway. (Renewal costs of the improvements, in the case of Topaz).

Cugel

Bryan:

Probably your best chance of an in-budget upgrade is something along the line of the FZ1000 I or II or the FZ2500. You get the higher resolution and the larger sensor. But, unfortunately, less zoom range, which may or may not be significant for you.

One saving grace would be with the higher pixel count, you can crop down to the equivalent area of the FZ300 at 600mm and probably be about the same IQ. So, you would not be worse, and you still have the advantage of being able to use a higher ISO level.

Just a thought...

Jerry

A slightly different route, after many years with SLRs and DSLRs, I decided to go with the FZ200, eventually moving to the FZ1000 because of the low light problems. Loved the camera and had it for for several years. In the end I wanted better skin colours which I could not get with the FZ1000, I tried everything even adjusting the white balance but still skin colour wasn't right for me. So in the end I changed to the G9 plus the 14-140 mk2. Not quite the zoom length but it has a handy Fn button that gives me 2 x or 4 x digital zoom which is quite good, there is a built in algorism that improves it.
Low light is excellent owing to 6.5 stops of I S. Skin colours are very good as well so I'm pretty well satisfied unless they bring out a smaller G9. I dont like the GX9 viewfinder or I might have gone for that.

Nice to see you've moved over Sherm.

Skin colours, like all the other colours from a digital sensor, can be changed to suit your tastes or expectations in development software. it's easiest to do this with RAW files but even jpegs can be tweaked albeit to a far lesser degree.

One set of development software tools that are very versatile in changing the subtleties of skin tones (of every hue you can imagine) is the set of tweaks possible using LAB colour space in software such as Photoshop. For details and techniques, see "Photoshop LAB Color" by Dan Margulis. Once you've found the colour settings that produce the results you want, they can be saved in various ways for calling up and application to your photo with one screen button or menu option click.

Camera manufacturers sell us wares that traditionally offer the "ready meals" of pre-processed jpeg option inclusive of development profiles they think are good options. Often they aren't, with reviewers and users complaining about colour castes or inappropriate skin tones. But it's an expensive and often inadequate "answer" to buy a different camera with slightly different jpeg output options. Much better to use RAW and learn to use development software to achieve exactly what you want from the camera you have.

These days, you can even make such a case concerning IQ, since software such at that of Topaz and similar vendors does allow very effective denoising, sharpening and upscaling so that a camera such as the Panasonic FZ80/82, for example, suddenly offers the possibility of far better results than its teeny sensor suggests should be the limit.

That was my situation 8 months ago but things have now drastically changed! I have sold my Fujifilm X-S1 despite saying I never would and I have also sold the Olympus EM5ii and lenses and have bought another Sony RX10iv. Yes I said it was heavier and bulkier than the X-S1 and the handling is still a bit of an issue but I am adapting to it, it was that amazing lens that I missed and I have not found anything in my price range that can beat it, except a RX10V, if it ever comes about. :)

For me the Fuji xs1 and hs50exr were spot on . The xs1 would benefit from faster auto focus as that’s my only complaint it 10 years on . The hs50 had hybrid pdaf 24-1000 fully articulated lcd but what I really liked was the mechanical manual zoom of the lens .
I’ve had fz200/330/1000ii/2000 and all versions of the Sony rx10 and my one single complaint is slow motor zoom .
I still have the P950 purely for the 24-2000 in a small light body design but I’m trying to decide on another rx10 mk4 and live with the zoom or try an apsc body with the tamron 18-300 for faster af , manual zoom , it has good close up as well just like many bridge cameras but with an apsc sensor some extra lowlight and cropping ability.