Bridge camera recommendations for Alaska cruise

[Gregg00ss]

I realize everyone has their own opinion so this may or may not help me decide what I want.  Own a few SLR's and various lenses and really never use them.  Last trip I took them on it was a PITA so think a bridge camera is the way to go.  Have an Alaskan cruise booked and think I want to pick up a camera before we head out, otherwise all pics will be taken with the Iphone.  

 

Sony RX10 seems like the clear choice, but I just can't stomach dropping around $1500 on it.  I'd like to stay in the $500-$1000 price range.  Eye balling the FZ300 & FZ1000 ii.  I realize the 1000 has the 1" sensor which will make it much better in lower light situations, but the compromise is 400mm max zoom compared to 600mm on 300.  I feel like maybe I am going to want more zoom on an Alaskan cruise, but then I feel like a 1" sensor is going to take better pictures.  I'm not sure where the compromise is and how much zoom is too much.   

 

Love to hear from anyone with some first hand knowledge on which, zoom or 1" sensor, would be more beneficial on my cruise.  I'm also open to other brands/cameras within the price point.  Thanks for the help.   

[TheOldBear]

Note also that the FZ300 and the RX10 mark IV are weather sealed, while the larger sensor FZ’s are not weather sealed.

 

My ancient FZ50 is still going strong, despite exposure to rain, snow, salt spray and blowing beach sand. It was not rated as weather sealed, but a fixed length internal zoom and focus lens discourages sucking contaminants into the camera.

[Heidi13]

The Canon SX70HS is highly rated and is within your range. Previous year models can be at the lower end of your range.

[mskaufman]

I used a Canon SX 740.  It has a 40X zoom, fits in your pocked and below your budget.  Very happy with it.

[outdoorphoto]

The main question is how good is good enough for image quality. If sensors of the same generation/technology are tested side by side, the larger sensor will always have better image quality. It's physics and no amount of software/firmware or wishful thinking can change that.

 

To save weight and space, I bought a Canon SX50 several years ago. This is a small sensor superzoom (24-1200 equivalent). Image stabilization is outstanding. I took a photo of a lion cub at a zoo from about 50 yards away. I printed an 8X10 and the individual whiskers are visible on his face. Good enough for me!

 

However, the Achilles heal of all small sensor cameras is in light sensitivity. As you move up from base ISO, image quality degrades rapidly. You are pretty much stuck at base ISO with small sensor cameras which is problematic in low light conditions. It's tough to handhold or freeze moving subjects at 1/15th second shutter speed. Good light is needed with the small sensor cameras. "Good' light in terms of sensor needs may differ dramatically from 'Good' photo light, i.e., sunrise/sunset.

 

To carry it a step further, I bought an APS-C sensor mirrorless. Image quality is pretty good up through ISO 400 and still usable at 800. However, it's pretty hard to shoot moving subjects, including wildlife looking at the rear monitor. I like the size and weight, but rarely use this camera anymore.

 

We're leaving Friday for an Alaska cruise. I'm carrying a 'light kit', Canon 6D full frame for wide angle, Canon SL2 APS-C for telephoto, Canon 20-35 2.8 and Canon 70-200 2.8, along with the 1.4X and 2X converters. This covers from 20mm wide angle to 640mm equivalent.

 

I carried only the Canon SX50 on our last Alaska cruise. It did fine in good light but really struggled on our whale watch. I'm ready this year! The downside is my gear weighs close to 20 pounds.

 

If you are only going to view your images on your phone or computer, a small sensor camera like the SX50 is great. If you are going to crop the picture or make larger than 8X10 prints, you might be disappointed in the image quality. 

 

Other items for consideration are, do you process RAW files or shoot jpg? Are you willing to carry a camera bag and several lenses? Will the extra weight keep you from using the camera?

 

Now specific to your question. I think at times you'll want a bit more reach than the 400mm. The 400 will be plenty MOST of the time. Remember, telephoto lenes excel at making close subjects larger, i.e. birds. Not necessarily making distance subjects more identifiable. Atmospheric conditions degrade image quality over distance.

 

Hope this helps a bit!

 

Rob

[outdoorphoto]

Found the cub picture.

 

[Hezu]

Although you are already eyeing the cheaper alternatives, I have to mention that Sony RX10 IV has few tricks that makes it superior to the competing models and worth the premium. First, the phase detect autofocus is much faster and more reliable than the contrast detect systems used by the others. Also RX10 IV trumps in burst rates and you can shoot up to 24 frames/second. So if you want to capture action (eg. flying birds) RX10 IV might be still the best choice despite the high price.

Also worth checking if there would be any cameras available on the second hand market, that could shave off some of the price.

[Gardyloo]

To me it comes down to what you want to do with the images you save.  16 x 20 wall prints?  Posting on the web?  Roadside billboards?  Because, all things considered, most images taken with a 12mp+ sensor are going to offer enough detail to tolerate all sorts of selective enlarging or cropping and still remain adequate for the vast majority of eyes that will behold them.  

 

Case in point.  Here's an image I took at Seattle's Fishermen's Terminal (a terrific destination if you're in town, by the way) using my FZ-1000.  I'm reducing the base image (5472 x 3648px) to 1200px on the long axis just for ease of posting here.  

 

 

Here's the same scene with a severe cropping (the base was around 2100 x 1000 I think) that I've also reduced to 1200px on the long axis to post here.

 

 

Now I think that detail is fine, but of course YMMV.  

 

So for me, the difference between a super zoom and a super duper zoom is sort of inconsequential.  I worked for a pro years ago and he liked to say that the cheapest telephoto lens comes with shoelaces.  Now that may not work for an Alaska cruise, but if the whales are that far away I'm not sure more zoom is going to help.  The big sensor might, if it's dusk or dawn, but in my years of living in and traveling all over Alaska I can't recall an occasion where the light levels were that critical.  I HAVE encountered conditions on Africa safaris where you had to point and shoot quickly before the animal vanished into the thicket late in the evening, but those were also pretty rare.

[mskaufman]

Taken with my Canon bridge camera

[Nikon1957]

I'll muddy the waters a bit more. I have carried a Sony RX100 for several years as my primary travel camera (own FF Sony A7Rii, but too much bulk and weight to carry). My current model, the RX100 vi, has a 28-200mm zoom equivalent. That would not be enough for distant wildlife images. But it does make nice images with the 1"" sensor. I personally wouldn't consider anything smaller. I have recently shifted from the RX100 to an Olympus M-10ii. It is a very small and compact form, but very DSLR-like if you are comfortable with that style camera. It is not quite pocketable like the RX100, but it is still very small. I have a small "man purse" I use for travel and off-ship carry and I fit the camera, extra lens, batteries and memory, along with other stuff including a hat an windbreaker/fleece in it. My longest reach with it is currently 300mm equivalent (long enough for me for my purposes). I am sure they have longer lenses and/or lens/converter combos that would get you longer. It is larger than a 1 inch sensor and I have been very happy with the IQ I am getting both sensor-wise and with the Olympus lenses (even the "consumer grade" lenses). I bought all my stuff used and it was very reasonably priced.

[byargertx]

I am a Sony shooter with a full complement of full-frame cameras and lenses (in addition to my APS-C Sony cameras), but I am probably taking my Sony bridge camera to Alaska this summer on my cruise. I have the Sony RX10 MIV. It’s the 1” 20 mp sensor with a Zeiss lens 24-600mm F2.4-4.0. It shoots 24 fps and has the fastest autofocus in a comparable camera. Full pro feature set if you need that much. This is my second RX10 (I converted my original to infrared). The RX10 is much bigger than a point & shoot, but is great to shoot and covers every eventuality, extremely sharp at all lengths and fstops. 
 

I’ll cloud the issue by saying I also have used a Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ1000 II and its performance was also excellent at half the price of the RX10, but at 24-400mm, it has less reach. 
 

I’ll post some from the RX10 IV later. Here is a pic from the Panasonic DC-FZ1000 II.

[MBP&O2/O]

I use a Sony HX400/HX400V .. Great results ... as a test I took a pic of a bee on a flower some 50 feet away. It succeeded so it should be OK for Whales in Alaska in August ... I hope😏