Looking for help on new equipment choice

[scania144420]

Hi

I am looking to buy either a mirrorless or bridge camera and have roughly £600 to spend. I have been looking at the following cameras but completely lost on which is the best value and best features, or is there any others that the members think would be much better than any of these. Thanks for any help

1. PANASONIC Lumix DMC-G7EB-K Mirrorless Camera

2. PANASONIC Lumix FZ1000EB

3. NIKON COOLPIX P900

My main photography interests are family photos when on holidays or day trips, railways, aeroplanes, trucks and general transport photography. This is my smugmug site to see the photos I do
https://anthonyduncan.smugmug.com/

 

[Solarflare]

If you buy a "mirrorless" camera then thats a system camera which in itself is useless, unless you also buy lenses for it.

System camera = a camera thats part of a camera system, which means theres a lens mount and many lenses belonging to the system that all can be mounted on this camera as well as its predecessors, successors, and probably also other camera lines inside the same system.

This specific camera is a Micro Four Thirds. Micro Four Thirds is one of two camera systems thats offered by more than one company. Specifically MFT is offered by both Panasonic and Olympus. Both companies provide lenses one can also use on the cameras of the other company. And theres third party lenses for Micro Four Thirds, too.

The main reason why Micro Four Thirds even still exist is because of historical deveopment. In the past the next bigger size, APS-C, was really expensive. Nowadays however APS-C sensors are dirt cheap, substantly below $100, so you gain absolutely nothing from using an even smaller sensor (APS-C ~ 24x16mm, Micro Four Thirds ~ 13x17.3mm) in respect to cheaper prices, but lose performance.

Micro Four Thirds is interesting if you want IBIS (In Body Image Stablization, which is much easier to implement with smaller sensors), a very lightweight system (especially the lenses), and video (IBIS is very useful for amateur video, since amateurs cant affort the rigs professional video shooters use to stabilize their cameras).

Since it is a system camera, Micro Four Thirds doesnt use full frame equivalents on their lenses. They do however have the very convenient crop factor of 2, which means you can just divide the full frame focal length by 2 to get the focal length for Micro Four Thirds. So the typical normal lens, a 50mm equiv, will be 25mm for Micro Four Thirds, thus your lens that reads 25mm will be your normal lens. Likewise a 24mm equiv (traditional landscape ultra wide) will read 12mm, the classic 85mm (portrait lens) will read 42.5mm, etc.


The Panasonic FZ1000 is a classic of sorts. It should be much, much less than 600 pound on the used market though. It has a 1" sensor (13.2x8.8mm), which is quite a bit smaller than even Micro Four Thirds. Its image quality is correspondingly even lower than that of Micro Four Thirds. It has a huge zoom range of 24-400mm (small format equivalent).


The Nikon P900 is a superzoom specialist for the lazy. Dont expect much image quality out of it. Its sensor is really tiny (1/2,3 inch = 6.2x4.6mm). For tolerable IQ, you'll need best light. Theres no RAW and you cannot post process much, either.

 

[JonFZ300]

I don't know about the other choices but if you're considering a FZ1000, you should look at the FZ300. I have one and love it. It's a constant f2.8 through the full zoom range of 25-600mm. It shoots raw and jpeg. It's weathersealed and the fz1000 isn't. You can click on my name and see the stuff I've posted. It's a really nice all around shooter for me. In the UK, I think it's called FZ330. The 1000 has more megapixels but for what you shoot, 12 is plenty.

 

[ac12]

. . .

The main reason why Micro Four Thirds even still exist is because of historical deveopment. In the past the next bigger size, APS-C, was really expensive. Nowadays however APS-C sensors are dirt cheap, substantly below $100, so you gain absolutely nothing from using an even smaller sensor (APS-C ~ 24x16mm, Micro Four Thirds ~ 13x17.3mm) in respect to cheaper prices, but lose performance.
. . .

You missed the benefit of reduced size and weight. And this can be SIGNIFICANT.
Even though APS-C/DX sensor is only a bit bigger than m4/3, some of the lenses are bigger, much bigger.
This difference is most dramatic in the LONG lenses where you have to use FF lenses (there are no LONG APS-C/DX lenses).

The m4/3 Olympus 75-300 weighs 423 grams.
The FF Sigma 150-600 weighs 2,860 grams.

6-3/4 times the weight of the Olympus 75-300.​

And if you want GOOD lenses, forget the APS-C/DX lenses, you have to get the FF/FX lenses, at least for Nikon, and likely also for Canon. So bigger, heavier and more expensive.

The m4/3 Panasonic 35-100/2.8 weighs 360 grams, and lists for $1,098
The FF/FX Nikon 70-200/2.8 weighs 1,430 grams, and lists for $2,796

Almost 4 x the weight and 2-1/2 x the cost of the Panasonic lens.​

In both examples, the lenses are equivalent, after adjusting for 2x crop factor.

75-300 x 2 = 150-600
35-100 x 2 = 70-200​

The m4/3 camera itself is also smaller and lighter, making for a lighter kit.

When I switched from a Nikon D7200 + 18-14o (1,165 grams) to an Olympus EM1 + Panasonic 12-60 (653 grams), the carry weight went down about 45%.​