That’s a really interesting insight, thank you! And it’s very relevant for me to hear from other naturalists who use their gear in a similar way to how I plan to use mine. When I asked for advice on more photography-focused forums, the answers were sometimes quite different, the general feeling was sometimes that the “minimum” for photos that are worth it would be buying a DSLR or mirrorless body with a heavy telephoto lens, which I’m not opposed to and still considering as an option, but you’re really making a strong case for bridge cameras.
My main remaining hesitation is the lack of upgradability, if I ever want to “upgrade” later on, I can’t just swap the lens the way I could with a DSLR or mirrorless setup.
But for field-naturalist use, long walks, spontaneous observations, switching quickly from an insect on a leaf to a bird in flight, variable light, wanting to stay lightweight and not exhausted… your perspective makes a lot of sense to me.
It’s reassuring to see that people get excellent, practical results with bridge cameras
also thank you for sharing your stacking results, this is very impressive ! such great skills i never guessed something like that could come out of a phone camera !
So much of why it works for me is the use of the PureRaw software I mentioned. It cost me a couple hundred dollars but the free trial results convinced me unequivocally.
Also, since it supports such a wide range of cameras, old and new, it effectively breathed life into some of my old gear and even old RAW files that I kept because they were good compositions or great captures, but too noisy to really rescue. Or so I thought.
And most reviews of (nearly all) cameras often say how the high ISO results were at best, ‘acceptable’ – but very noisy. PureRaw changes all that. And if you calculate how much it would cost to gain two stops on each full frame lens for each camera you have or may yet acquire, it’s actually quite a bargain. To me, it’s a way to rejuvenate older, cheaper, used gear right back into the game.
The one thing you have to get used to though is not seeing the results immediately in the camera. The preview of RAW captures on most camera screens is very limited in showing what you’ve actually captured. Sometimes it might look like almost a pur esilhouette in the viewfinder or screen. Or extremely flat in terms of depth and tonal contrast. Not to worry though because when you bring it into a RAW editor, you will discover deep shadow and highlight details.
In the field you just have to learn to trust the power of the RAW workflow and discover the details when you get back home.
P950 is handleable but P1000 is truly heavy and you can’t exactly point and shoot as you would expect 
aww I shouldve added the pics here itself ! sorry you had to look for em 
Macro isnt the strong point of the plain P950 camera (as demonstrated below clip-on lenses make it even better at macro) anyways its mostly the range of its zoom thats worthy of boasting hehe so I feel like youll do good with it being your long distance camera 
I agree. The weight of the P1000 almost necessitates tripod use, something I found really ‘cramps your style’ and capture rate when roaming about.
But P1000 owners usually insist snd say the extra zoom power is worth the trip’s encumbrances.
I would counter that at the 1000’s extreme zoom, atmospheric haze and turbulence means you’ll never get as clear a shot – with or without a tripod.
And unlike the DSLRs and bigger sensor mirrorless cameras, the much lower pixel widths of a bridge camera means that you cannot simulate a closer zoom by simply cropping.