Originally Posted by Jim M.
FYI: You cannot use figures such as "60x" to compare magifications of lenses in different cameras. 60x wrt a superzoom means the highest magnification is 60 times more than the lowest magnification. All superzooms have lower magnifications that are less than the human eye, so 60x does not mean 60 times what your eye would see. With binoculars and other optics, 60x does mean 60 times what the eye sees, however. With micro 4/3 cameras, magnification is usually specified in terms of mm of focal length for a 35mm camera.
Having gone through the "SuperZoom vs. MFT" debate myself, +1 to Jim's comments. Always use "35mm equivalent" as your comparison for long-distance photography. The "x60" and "x50" and such numbers are...pretty much useless.
Even "actual focal length" is fairly useless unless you wade through the math for crop factors of various sensors. Camera makers list "35mm equivalent" and that is the best number to work with.
There are a couple lenses as I recall (or lens plus teleconverter) for the MFT system to get you way, way out there, but not as far as available DLSR lens.
In my case budget + distance trumped perfectionist quality, so I went with the superzoom. I keep looking at MFT, but keep having to walk away. And DSLR will likely forever be a non-starter.
I hope you
find what best suits you though!