let's get to it...when $$ is ignored but not weight or IQ: best bridge or pseudo bridge

by pseudo bridge, I mean changeable zoom lens body combo that is never changed...
(I'm not sure what defines bridge...)
remember, we are ignoring $$ but seeking high IQ & low weight;
let's do this thing, let's make, say, a Top 5...?
starting it off, what beats an RX10 IV?

PS. I wanted this in The Bridge section, it seems to show in open talk ?!?!

Using that criterion, I use my Lumix G9 + 14-140mm superzoom (28-280mm equiv) more than my FZ1000 (25-400mm equiv). The G9 is a better camera but the FZ1000 is pretty good as well, just not a fan of the motorised lens mechanism.

This is the quirk that is caused by the logic of the forum. If you enter a "joint" forums of higher level instead of particular forum, the Thread you create then, is assigned to the first forum in the list (you can check that when you are creating the thread, but you didn't because it is counterintuitive).

In that way (creating threads) it is best to not use joint forum "headers".

Sony is alleggedly about to release new RX10.
In these days, I cannot imagine buying anything lesser than 1" sensor for general purpose job. For most reach, I get it. But not for full range.
What zoom(focal length) range do you need for your photography? Would you discuss that and settle for a preferred range?

Sorry guys, if you're talking changeable lens bodies, you're in the wrong forum! Non-changeable lens is the very essence of "bridge" camera. Do you mean changeable zoom or changeable lens?

Maybe make-a-bridge is better than pseudo bridge;
if one NEVER detaches a detachable zoom from a body, voila, one has make-a-bridge camera...
but the make-a-bridge must be as light as heavier bridges & also not bigger...
I say let make-a-bridge be a bridge, at least in this specific thread...
if not, then reshuffle this thing back to "open" gawblimey...

The use discussion is always the most important topic for any class of camera. What you intend to do with your photos is huge.(pun intended) The elephant in the room is how cell phones have progressed. The other is how small many dslr's have shrunk.

Here is my use: To begin with, now that I know I'm at the bottom of the pecking order with a smaller than 1" sensor and an electric zoom...........
I live in a small town in a heavily forested area. On any hike or drive it's not inconceivable to see a predator, Mountain Lion, or Bear, in which case a long zoom is advisable. Then on that hike or drive you're more likely to see small critters that won't allow close company, or a butterfly that requires macro. That is possible with my "bridge" camera, no muss no fuss, one handed zoom with excellent stabilization.

Explanation, I don't photo people. If I see a crowd I run the other way, or should I say, at my age hobble.

Not my call, but the Google, or any other description, is quite clear. Many of the Sony full frames are as small as what was originally described as a bridge. Where do you draw the line?

Where it needs to be drawn for the user and intended purpose. If the user wants to compare his options between bridge camera, and "make-a-bridge" setup, then there is no point in not allowing him.
As the topic is still very bridge related, I would consider it the right place to discuss. If mods don't seem it that way, action will be taken.

To my surprise, there are quite few users that like to use just one lens, like 18-150(28-240)mm lens or similar, and never take it off thebody.

I would also love to compare different long reach setup, and make an i formed decision between a bridge camera or different solution. This needs interaction with bridge camera forum.

I have lots of cameras (mostly 5-7 years old, used models) of different sensor sizes from 1" to small medium format. I use interchangeable lenses (mainly primes).

But I find I am also drawn to superzooms for much the same reason I like my FZ1000. I use almost exclusively a 14-140mm on my m4/3, an 18-135 on my XT-1. I have 18-125mm (no longer used) for my old Nikon and Canon DSLRs (long departed). I have an adapted Nikon 28-200mm I use as a support lens for my Sony and my GFX. I'm obviously trying very hard not to have to bother with changing lenses! Changing lenses is a pain, as is choosing and acquiring the right lenses and managing the cost of doing so.

The benefit of ICL is that you can choose the right lens for the job. The benefit of a superzoom/bridge is that the one lens that sort of works for most jobs. An alternative way to think of an ICL with a superzoom is as an honorary bridge camera on which you can occasionally swap lenses if you absolutely have to. I had not really thought much about this before, but a bridge camera is more a mindset than the camera type you use. My ILC are bridge cameras 90% of the time, the way I use them.

A slightly different take on this is to say: a lot of people like bridge cameras because they seem to be an all-in-one flexible solution. But what they actually are is a flexible, but constrained solution. While people see constraints mostly as a problem, for photography constraints can sometimes be a blessing. They free you from too much choice and force you to think creatively within the constraints. This often drags better pictures out of a photographer than when they are equipped with a huge bag of gear to handle any potential situation. You lose the complete flexibility of a big bag of gear, but in compensation your brain works harder to see images you might otherwise have overlooked. Similar the oft seen recommendation to spend the day using a single focal length.

Interesting to end up with these little insights based on nothing more than ruminating on what kinds of cameras can legitimately be described as bridge cameras! Gotta love forums.

My first digital camera was a Panasonic FZ30 back in 2005, and I can still understand the desire.

Previously I had a film SLR and a case full of lenses, and the desire was to get rid of all that and just have one do-it-all camera. In some respects it did, but the Achilles heel was poor low-light performance - very noisy.

Subsequently swapped it for an LX3 and later an LX5 which I still have; as compacts these were superb, went everywhere (small enough to fit a pocket) and were very reliable - always nailed focus and exposure .
But these days my iPhone 14 films that role very nicely.

The fact, that there are any number of possibilities to "pretend" you're using a bridge camera, is obvious. If the other gear creates better results, whether it's more expensive or not, then by all means use it. But if you have that prime lens mounted doing say "street" photography and a UFO suddenly appears off in the distance, what do you do? Run back to the car, or home, to get your monster two foot long mega zoom? By the time you get back you're huffing and puffing and can't hold that monster steady. Alas, it doesn't matter anyway, now the UFO is out of sight. Well, maybe that first shot taken with the prime can be cropped to 800% and have more than a few pixels. But it's not over, suddenly the UFO streaks between the rooftops, when a small item falls from the craft. You rush over, not wanting to touch it and can't read the tiny writing. You've got just the cure, a small macro lens, back at the car, or home, you start to run................

Next time that won't happen. You've got this three tiered backpack that will hold all the lens possibilities. Only weighs 30lbs. or stones for you U.K. guys.

The truth is there are some mid zooms now that have great macro ability too, over on that "pretend" forum.

(I'm joking guys. To me photography is just for fun, not a job)

thanks for all responses;
two questions to those with hands-on experience
& if weight & IQ primary, zoom range a close secondary:
1. your bridge better than Sony RX10 IV...with evidence
2. your make-a-bridge better than ALL bridges...with evidence

thanks in advance...

I think there is a bit of a difference between 30lbs and 30 stone. About 14x different...

Yes, I know, just being facetious. (took four spell checks to get that word right) Considering my three years living near Oxford you'd think I'd know the pounds/stone equivalent. I was there when the money changed to "newpence", talk about confusing.

Well, this goes rather nowhere. You know it is impossible for one camera setup being better than ALL other cameras in ALL disciplines. Every setup has advantages and disadvantages. It is not a fair request. For example Coolpix P1000 will demolish Sony RX10 in long reach, and possibly macro too. It about "trashes" any other superzoom.

For the fair comparisons evidence, there are already reviews all around the internet. I can put some in here, but the amount would render it to be rather "spammy".

So you shoot your scene with a potato (and excited/stressed) in a hurry, shaking, and you get your image debunked as fake. That's what's going to happen. It was oddly specific though. 😂

Well, it doesn't have to be bag full of lenses. Canon 28mm macro in a pocket, and 55-250mm on the camera for example.

Now, not all users have the same needs. There are obvious and not so marginal differences between RX10 and P1000. Which to choose one and why?
Why the 18-150mm or 18-200mm combo could not be on one edge of the choice, and P1000 on the other edge?

I do not force anyone to do anything, but I am now more likely to have no photo, rather than low quality photo. "About noone" wants to see these already, let alone multiple times. Not even myself.

This is all but academic discussion. We should focus on the users needs. Basically, he doesn't want a camera, he wants photos. Now which ones? That would be appropriate question to start with.

I was at primary school when the money changed. We had to learn both systems and how to swap between them. Then when the broad shift to metric weights and measures happened but we still retain the old system, we had to learn both systems and how to swap between them. My daughter who is approaching 17 was spared that. She no more has to learn how to swap between imperial and metric than I have to learn to translate new pence into groats.