Looking for a good super zoom compact camera (3 Viewers)

[PaulCountyDurham]

Like record shots, you also can't wait around for perfect conditions for travel photography. Attached are some unprocessed photos from my Borneo trip. The processed versions are here:

Whitehead's Trogon

Bornean Green-Magpie

The processing transformed both shots into keepers for me–indeed they are some of my favorite shots of the trip. (Both were shot raw at iso 6400 at max zoom (800mm equivalent (400mm actual)) with my Olympus EM1 mkii and Panasonic-Leica100-400mm lens. The Bornean Green Magpie was taken just after dawn and I set my iso limit at 6400, so there wasn't enough light to expose properly. Processed with lightroom and sharpening and noise reduction plug-ins).

Aye, the Whitehead's Trogan in particular has been turned 'round through editing.

As ever with this type of thread, an OP asks a question and it turns into a discussion between other posters which aren't really tailored to the OP's question. It seems you and I take pictures with a different mindset and that's understandable given that everyone has their own way of doing things.

The limitation with this type of thread and request, is that there is never enough information in the OP to give a tailored response. How much time does the OP have to edit pictures? I work full time and in my spare time would rather be out in nature and limit editing to the bare minimum, the OP may be similar. What exactly does the OP mean when he says: 'hoping for better image quality'? A picture with his acceptable quality would be useful in order to get a tailored response. How does the OP take his pictures? The means of doing that is important in terms of what he can hope to achieve with a superzoom. How much time does he spend out in nature trying to photograph birds? That type of information will get him a tailored response. Without that information, it's going to be a case of regurgitating manuals: 'need a big sensor' so on and so forth, with very little practical application to help him on his way.

The OP does state that he wants something more portable, e.g. a superzoom, but with 'better quality' than his previous camera. Well, we don't know the quality of his pictures with that camera and we don't know the quality of picture that is acceptable to him with the next camera. I reckon I've demonstrated that superzooms can perform in poor light, as evidenced by the pictures with very little photo editing and low shutter speeds in low light. They're not pictures I'd ever want to put in a portfolio but I get the impression they may meet the needs of the OP.

The OP states that cost isn't an issue. On that basis, I'd go for one of the lightweight mirrorless cameras. I've seen pictures taken by somebody who bought a pretty standard mirrorless body and banged an old lens on it. 'Tell you what, some of those pictures are astonishing considering the poor light. Then again, he knows what he's doing with his camera and he puts a lot of effort in to get his rewards.

Long story short: there isn't enough information in the OP for anybody to give him a tailored response. Then again, my point remains: don't automatically write off a superzoom in poor light.

 

[MikeInPA]

Like record shots, you also can't wait around for perfect conditions for travel photography. Attached are some unprocessed photos from my Borneo trip. The processed versions are here:

Whitehead's Trogon

Bornean Green-Magpie

The processing transformed both shots into keepers for me–indeed they are some of my favorite shots of the trip. (Both were shot raw at iso 6400 at max zoom (800mm equivalent (400mm actual)) with my Olympus EM1 mkii and Panasonic-Leica100-400mm lens. The Bornean Green Magpie was taken just after dawn and I set my iso limit at 6400, so there wasn't enough light to expose properly. Processed with lightroom and sharpening and noise reduction plug-ins).

Excellent bit of post processing on those shots

Those who can, do. Those who can't, miss out on shots of a lifetime.

 

[PNW Jack]

My Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 bite the dust after only three years of use so I’m in the market for a new, compact super zoom. I’m not a photographer per se but carry a camera for doc shots as well as macro use for bugs, herps and plants. I have a small case that clips to my belt, so it doesn’t need to actually fit into my pocket but it needs to be thin and easy to tote…maybe max 2”x 5”. Bigger than that stays in the car, so only of limited use.

I’m hoping for better image quality than the Lumix - it was very poor in bad light or birds in flight, and fully zoomed images were very noisy. So hoping for some suggestions here for a small camera with good zoom, low noise that stands up to cropping etc., with emphasis on superior image quality. There are dozens of like models out there but hope to get some first hand accounts and recommendation. If an upgrade is worth it, cost isn’t an issue.

Thanks.

Here's my two cents. It sounds like you want a camera that will be successful in getting good images of birds while doing fieldwork in a variety of environmental and lighting conditions. I was thinking about the Sony RX10 IV. It has some great positives and a couple of very big negatives for what you're looking for. It has a large one inch sensor that will pull out the detail in shadowed areas that your previous camera missed. It's lens has a 24-600mm equivalent. It has phase detect auto focus so you've got a much better chance of getting those birds in flight in focus (it's not at the level of some higher end DSLR and mirrorless cameras though). It is weather sealed, has image stabilization, and produces excellent images. The downside is that in order to pack all those features it's big, somewhat heavy, and expensive. I bought mine used and it still wasn't cheap. You'd have to carry it around in a larger holster style case on your belt which could be cumbersome.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Having gone from tiny P&S, to aps-C, to FF (admittedly I did skip 4/3 but that's too similar to aps-C in terms of cost etc.?), I agree with the RX10 suggestion. A super-zoom will get you reasonable pics and is actually a good deal compared to anything mirrorless when you factor everything in.

As to post-processing: I can't imagine NOT spending some time doing PP. Granted, I started out semi-profesionally working with 35mm and in some cases large format, so the 'darkroom' end of things is actually something I really enjoy. But if you are seeking good pics, I can't understand how you would not want to 'help' the camera by tweaking after the fact.

ymmv of course!

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

Late to this great discussion here.

Post processing a RAW image is like developing film in a darkroom. There are all the decisions you make before pressing the shutter, and all the processing you will do afterward. Photography has always been a two-sided art. I always shoot in RAW and process, because we can't always choose where a bird will present itself, and what the light will be. My goal is to create pretty images, and it might be different than someone else's.

A camera is a tool, and all tools have learning curves. I am not sure how far along the OP is, but I was able to take better photos after graduating from the "Auto" preset and using shutter priority. Once I learned how to tweak the settings to a certain situation, I created custom pre-sets, which further refined my results.

In low light with my Panasonic FZ150, I was using 1/30 shutter speed and hoping that the bird would stay still. Indoors, I was practicing with 1/15 and 1/10. Most cameras nowadays have good image stabilization, so if you lean against something, or practice your handholding technique, good results are possible.

On a recent trip to the park, the most common bridge cameras I saw were the Sony RX-10IV and the Nikon P-series. Good luck and have fun!

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

A camera is a tool, and all tools have learning curves. I am not sure how far along the OP is, but I was able to take better photos after graduating from the "Auto" preset and using shutter priority. Once I learned how to tweak the settings to a certain situation, I created custom pre-sets, which further refined my results.

'Absolutely right, MM, it's a learning process and a person has to go through that organic process for themselves and work it out from his/her experience. I'm similar in that incremental steps. I've stagnated for a while now but it's time to start researching and practicing again!

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

'Absolutely right, MM, it's a learning process and a person has to go through that organic process for themselves and work it out from his/her experience. I'm similar in that incremental steps. I've stagnated for a while now but it's time to start researching and practicing again!

You are getting excellent results, though. I'm very impressed with what you can achieve with a bridge camera!

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

You are getting excellent results, though. I'm very impressed with what you can achieve with a bridge camera!

I reckon the only thing I do a bit different to some other people is wait. That Kestrel was in the trees but there was always the chance he'd land on the wall. Aiming up into the sky on a cloudy day is not going to produce much of a picture, and even on a sunny day there's a decent chance there'll be a branch in the way of the bird. Better to wait and hope he comes onto the wall rather than scare him off by trying to take pictures of him with a background that means you don't really want the picture anyway, is my philosophy: sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Either way, like you MM, trying to improve bit by bit is the main thing. I was looking through my pictures last night and it was pretty obvious that some of them would have benefited from a smaller aperture. As you say, it's a learning curve.