I know there are several Camera topics on the Forum, but I want to buy a bridge camera with +50x zoom and I’ve seen quite a lot of cameras, but I can’t decide. Are any of the Nikon Coolpix cameras worth buying even if they are old (e.g Coolpix P610)? Or are Canon Powershot Cameras better (e.g SX70 hs)?
(edited the topic title to make it more specific)
better needs context. what are you planning to use the camera tor? why do you need 50x+ zoom? how much are you willing to spend? why do you want a bridge camera as opposed to an interchangeable lens camera or just a mobile phone camera? what kind of camera(s) do you currently use?
I’ll be photographing birds and insects and birds are usually far away, so a lot of zoom will help. I can spend up to $800 dollars and I want to bridge camera instead of an interchangeable lens camera because it’ll be my first one because right now I’m using clip-on lenses, but the telephoto one is broken.
I am very fond of my Nikon P900, a bridge camera with excellent zoom and a built in GPS. There is a discussion of it vs the P1000 here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/opinions-nikon-coolpix-p900-or-p1000/30248
1 Like
I wouldn’t buy Coolpix P610. I think the software is outdated, AF has progressed a lot since.
I have a Canon SX70 HS (upgraded from a 65000 frame SX730) and an OM TG-7.
The other cameras I would consider are the Nikon Coolpix P900, P950 and the Panasonic Lumix FZ 80D. See comparisons on RTINGS.com.
Canon SX70 HS is a solidly built camera, not sealed.
- Zoom in from a distance in macro mode, great for insects
- AF works well for plants
- Full manual mode
The guide beam spooks the birds. With the beam off, AF is slower. There is no dedicated bird mode.
Nikon Coolpix P900 / P950
- Great zoom
- Bird mode AF
P900 has GPS, P950 doesn’t.
These are good cameras, just too heavy for me.
Panasonic Lumix FZ 80D
- bird mode
- focus stacking
- sort of focus bracketing - adjust focus after taking the picture
I only included this camera because of the focus stacking and bracketing that offsets any AF shortcomings.
1 Like
it’s worth noting that these bridge cameras have relatively small sensors by today’s standards. it may not matter much if you plan to take most of your photos in bright lighting conditions, but all of these cameras will struggle in low light, which includes some of the conditions that are best for looking for birds and certain insects (early in the morning, late in the day, at night, on rainy days, in heavily forested conditions, etc.).
in other words, a lot of zoom will not help you if you don’t have enough light.
that said…
while i think you’ve narrowed things down correctly, in my mind, unless you really need the ultrazoom capability of the Nikon P900/P950, there’s absolutely no reason to get one of these over the much lighter and less expensive Canon and Panasonic.
to me, the main advantages of the Canon over the Panasonic are that it has an articulating screen, can switch automatically between screen and viewfinder, has wifi (albeit slow, but good enough for remote operation), and mic inputs. the Panasonic has a touchscreen, better stabilization, and a hot shoe. generally, i also prefer the default color from Panasonic cameras over other brands.
i don’t have any reason to doubt the durability of the Canon, but the spring in the zoom mechanism in my old inexpensive Panasonic broke after a few years of heavy use, and at least one other person in the forum mentioned the same sort of thing happening to their FZ80 (predecessor to the FZ80D). so that may be something to be aware of.
so you just have to decide if those factors make it worth paying 30% more for the Canon over the Panasonic.
here’s a good video that compares the the Canon and Panasonic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppr0pUKcB14
3 Likes
I think I’m the person you’re referencing. I just went back through my photos to get some data, and it turns out my FZ80 only lasted me one year. It was already two years old when I got it but had been barely used during that time. These are my observations from the year I had it; most of them are from that camera, although some are from my TG-6. It was a great camera for birds and insects. I’m sure it would have lasted longer if I hadn’t used it so much, so if you have a lower observation rate than I did, that’s something to take into account. I can’t compare it to other bridge cameras, but I can say that I now have a DSLR (Canon 70D with Sigma 18-250mm lens) and in terms of zoom range and image quality, it was definitely a downgrade.
2 Likes
I can absolutely recommend Sonys RX10 (Mark 3 or 4) for Birding, they have an equivalent of 600mm focal length, but use a larger 1" sensor (4x the size of most other bridge cameras) with 20MP.
The next step in image quality might be to go with a MFT-Camera with a 75-300mm lens, which would also give you an full frame equivalent of 600mm focal length, however, with proper autofocus and everything they can get much pricier. If you want a MFT-Camera, you should maybe look into a used Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 2 or 3
However, I’m super happy with my RX10M3, here’s some sample images I didn’t crop too much:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/296612368
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/297276940
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/296876802
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/298274167
plus all my other observations since 25th of june, but keep in mind the pictures might be cropped (and I think all of them are scaled to 72dpi by iNat anyways)*
With a huge zoom like the p950 or p1000 I’d worry that theres no way to get the photos sharp, because you’d have to use a shutter speed like 1/3000 all the time while using a sensor that really struggles with low light conditions, but i might be wrong.
1 Like
yup. i went back and checked my observations on my old inexpensive Panasonic bridge camera (an FZ28), and it looks like the period of heavy use (for iNat observations) was about 15 months (3000 observations) before the zoom spring broke, though i used it less heavily for at least 3 years prior to that.
these are way outside the range of the maite39’s stated budget, even considering that you can only get these second-hand nowadays, and they don’t have 50x+ zoom either (although it could be argued that you could just crop in to achieve similar results on these cameras).
if willing to go second-hand, the only relatively recent bridge cameras with larger sensors within that budget would be Panasonic’s FZ1000 ii or possibly an FZ2500. but these max out at ~20x zoom.
1 Like
I paid 465$ (400€) on kleinanzeigen (german equivalent for…craigslist? its a subcompany of ebay) for a like-new one. I don’t know about US platforms, but on US-eBay I can find some within the price range right now.
While I don’t think you can achieve the same thing just by cropping, my main argument was that the usability of a zoom like that is often overestimated, especially considering low light scenarios. But this might also depend on the area you live in. However FZ1000 II and FZ2500 have even less zoom than the RX10.
If you want to go to go with the P900/950/1000 anyway, theres a photographer on flickr that uses it, and he really manages to get some awesome shots. Check out https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodge_rock/
(notice how they’re all shot in bright sunlight)
EDIT so sorry @pisum, you said most of this low light stuff already, I was a bit too hasty in reading through the thread before answering…
EDIT 2 Oh man I really missed the point here entirely with the zoom… sorry I will get into the habit of properly reading through the thread before I answer..
1 Like
I really love my bridge camera for iNatting and I’m not sure what I’ll do once it bites the dust. I have the Canon PowerShot SX60 HS, never “upgraded” to the SX70 because that did away with features I cared about (notably the hot shoe for attaching gadgets like external flash, ring light and microphone). I use the articulating screen all the time and that’s really the number one feature I wouldn’t want to do without.
Two add-ons I use a lot are a filter adapter (mostly for circular polarizer to reduce reflections) and a clip-on Raynox macro lens. The Raynox lens results in very shallow depth-of-field, which sometimes is exactly what I want but other times I’d like more focus so I’ve learned to do focus stacking on the computer. Aside from cropping and slight adjustments for colors and contrast that’s probably the most common post-processing that I do.
One thing I hate about the camera is that it locks the ISO at 100 when exposure time exceeds 1 second. According to the Canon folks, that’s a “feature” to protect the sensor from clueless users fiddling with the settings. I don’t appreciate that and would much prefer full manual control of the ISO as it pretty much eliminates the option of nighttime photography.
In regards to image quality, sure, the small sensor has its drawbacks when it comes to resolution and noise. But I think a bridge camera more than makes up for it with its versatility - going from zoom on bird in the sky to macro on bug on flower in seconds without being weighted down by pounds of gear. Given the plethora of blurry cell phone pics, the pictures are more than adequate for iNat. In fact just last month I had two winning pictures again in a local nature photography competition. Both of them made use of the long zoom range, one was a bird and the other a bug with two images with the Raynox lens focus-stacked. So whenever someone mentions low image quality with bridge cameras, I just have a little laugh. Are they NatGeo quality? Probably not, but plenty good enough for me.
2 Likes
My most faved image (Which is of a harvestmen) was on a “bridge” https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/93672002 on the Sony RX10 IV.
Its only 25x, but it has a much larger sensor than most megazooms. I upgraded to it from a canon superzoom which was longer, but smaller sensored. Personally that was my last fixed lense camera, and I wasnt a fan. I ended up giving it to my mum, and getting my first entry level mirrorless (Used body + used lens to save on price).
The bridges I used in the past were good at what they did and I accepted the tradeoffs back then. Since I mostly moved into macro, they stopped really cutting it. My mum still isnt confident on cameras in general, and once a year I take her on a trip somewhere hoping to help her improve confidence. So I still play with the rx10iv sometimes, there are still some cases where its good, and easier than switching lenses.
1 Like
For birds i would certainly recommend the Nikon P950, for close-up pics of moths etc i use an old Panasonic TZ series compact.
1 Like
Thank you all for your answers.
Cool, I just bought my first “real” telephoto a cannon 200-800, but its like 2kg. Far from compact. That plus macros lenses certainly changes the game of carrying long distances.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.