• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

What’s the best bridge camera for birding? (1 Viewer)

fugl

Well-known member
A friend is seeking advice on a replacement for her c. 5-year-old Canon SX60 HS. She’s dissatisfied with its performance at full zoom and is willing to sacrifice some focal length for better image sharpness at maximum extension. She uses it almost exclusively for birding and wants to stick with the bridge camera format.

So, money not necessarily being an object, what would you folks recommend? I can’t help her myself since I’ve had zero experience with bridge cameras.
 
Last edited:
Very expensive but take a look at the new Sony RX10 IV.

A friend is seeking advice on a replacement for her c. 5-year-old Canon SX60 HS. She’s dissatisfied with its performance at full zoom and is willing to sacrifice some focal length for better image sharpness at maximum extension. She uses it almost exclusively for birding and wants to stick with the bridge camera format.

So, money not necessarily being an object, what would you folks recommend? I can’t help her myself since I’ve had zero experience with bridge cameras.
 
The Canon SX60 (or perhaps the SX50) are still among the best bridge cameras for birding. Sacrificing some focal length for sharper images at full extension sounds like a good idea, and I could mention some cameras, but if you look at more detailed reviews there is often a handicap: AF not impressive, or VERY long buffer clearance times. Apparently Sony has successfully fixed most of these issues in their latest model, but $1,700 is a steep price. I had used the Canon SX50 for four years and then decided it was time for a "real" upgrade. Now I have the Nikon V2 + CX 70-300. It's not as small as bridge camera, but the weight is below 1kg and is easy to handle for birds in flight, so for me it was worth the investment of $800 (used). Thomas Stirr's website shows examples.
 
Hi Fugl,

A friend is seeking advice on a replacement for her c. 5-year-old Canon SX60 HS. She’s dissatisfied with its performance at full zoom and is willing to sacrifice some focal length for better image sharpness at maximum extension. She uses it almost exclusively for birding and wants to stick with the bridge camera format.

I'm quite happy with the Panasonic FZ1000. Since I have it, my (old) Alpha 700 + "Bigma" 50 - 500 mm tele lens rig has seen no use at all.

By the "advertising numbers", the FZ1000 only has a 400 mm equivalent focal length, but it delivers a lot of pretty sharp pixels since it has a big sensor.

Small-sensor bridge cameras might offer more attractive "advertising numbers", but I'd stay away from those anyway. My girlfriend has an FZ200 with a 600 mm equivalent focal length, but a small sensor - the FZ1000 very clearly beats it in any side-by-side comparison.

Additionally, the FZ1000 has a very fast autofocus that is as good as that of my (older) DSLR, a Sony Alpha 700. I've heard that is a problem with other bridge cameras, and I certainly know that it is one with the FZ200.

There might be other bridge cameras with the same sensor size as the FZ1000's which could be fine too, but I'd definitely stay away from cameras with a small sensor.

Regards,

Henning
 
Just as an FYI - the previous version of the Sony RX10 is still available, and is $400-500 cheaper than the newest RX10 IV version. It has the same lens and essentially the same sensor - but just doesn't have the PDAF-based focusing system so it won't be as good with tracking moving subjects. For sharpness and clarity though, it will be among the best of any fixed lens cameras.

The FZ1000 also uses a 1" sensor like the Sony RX, so is also a good consideration - slightly less reach, but still much better IQ than the small-sensor superzooms.

And Canon also makes a 1" sensor superzoom, the G3X. Like the Sony RX10III, it won't be as good for tracking moving subjects, but has the same 600mm equivalent reach and larger sensor, so like the Sony and Fuji, image quality should be solid...and it sells in the $850 range.
 
My friend has pretty much narrowed her choice to either the G3X or a replacement 60SXHS. She likes the superior IQ of the former but tends to be rough on her equipment and is worried about the durability of the optional electronic viewfinder for the G3X. Has anybody had experience with the G3X/viewfinder combo under field conditions? If so, how did it hold up? TIA for any and all replies.
 
I'm a very happy owner of a Sony RX10iii, to which I upgraded from a Canon SX50 Hs which I loved, but moved on from as it aged and I wanted better image quality.

It is considerably more expensive, but its also pretty tough - I'm also not too kind to my kit - and given the tremendous versatiliy of the 24- 600mm zoom is really a camera for all occasions. I have posted some sample shots of birds and African wildlife here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=328256

There are more pix on my two Hong kong threads and my trip reports which can be found from searching the threads I've started.

Cheers
Mike

Cheers
Mike
 
I don't have experience with the G3X, but did shoot wildlife and birds for several years with a camera that had a similar detachable EVF. I had a Sony NEX-5N with the optional EVF attached, which works exactly the same way, and I never had any issues with it. I didn't baby it, but I also didn't drop the camera in a loose bag or bounce it around where the EVF might be in danger. I had a small camera bag that fit the camera nicely with the EVF attached and lens attached...when in use, it would get bumped, sometimes I'd brush the camera against my body while hanging from the strap and the EVF would be tilted up and out all the way - and I once knocked the EVF eye hood off - but just snapped it back on. I shot that system for more than 2 years heavy use and travel and it never had any problems or reliability issues. Here was the rig, to give an idea:
https://g1.img-dpreview.com/A572058D6C634B15BD121E0A738A914D.jpg
 
I have the G3X and still use it as a backup now that I have moved on to a DSLR. It can take very good photos and the (required for birding IMO) EVF is excellent and durable. The only problem with that camera is it is slow. I am so used to being able to quickly take a photo with the DSLR now that it is hard to go back. It is especially slow with RAW photos.

Other than that drawback, it can take nice photos. It has weather sealing as well.
 
Mike, Justin, Pete, thanks for your posts. Useful info in all which I’ll pass on to my friend.
 
Last edited:
I will say, if she is getting serious, she could think about something like the Canon 400mm L lens which is getting cheap, not to mention the new Sigma and Tamron versions of the same, with a camera like a Nikon D7200 or Canon 80D or 77D. These kinds of combos can be had for well under $2K now and will take top notch photos fast.
 
I will say, if she is getting serious, she could think about something like the Canon 400mm L lens which is getting cheap, not to mention the new Sigma and Tamron versions of the same, with a camera like a Nikon D7200 or Canon 80D or 77D. These kinds of combos can be had for well under $2K now and will take top notch photos fast.

Thanks for the suggestion but she’s pretty much committed to smaller formats as she wants something small and light. I’ve tried to talk her into 4/3 or cropped-frame DSLR for months now but to no avail.
 
Does she want the superzoom/bridge class because of cost-to-weight-to-zoom factor?

I only keep at the "superzoom" thing because it's a budget-vs.-reach-vs.-weight question. DSLR with 1300+mm of reach is too heavy (an expensive) and MFT is lighter, but doesn't seem to have decent (if any?) lenses with that kind of reach. Even if they did I'd expect...heavy. Digiscoping on-the-cheap is still heavy, expensive, and awkward.

So...bridge/superzoom; and I'm eternally grateful someone pointed out this class of camera to me or I'd have missed it. And I'm still happy with my SX60 for that purpose.

By the way, a trick with probably any superzoom camera...never use the full extent of the zoom. Always back-out just a tad. I read a number of reviewers comment that the full-zoom is always a tad blurrier than one tiny bit back from it.

But if she's not looking for that kind of reach, and has a healthier budget, MFT might be the compromise she needs. I was looking at the Olympus line at the time.
 
Last edited:
Does she want the superzoom/bridge class because of cost-to-weight-to-zoom factor?

I only keep at the "superzoom" thing because it's a budget-vs.-reach-vs.-weight question. DSLR with 1300+mm of reach is too heavy (an expensive) and MFT is lighter, but doesn't seem to have decent (if any?) lenses with that kind of reach. Even if they did I'd expect...heavy. Digiscoping on-the-cheap is still heavy, expensive, and awkward.

So...bridge/superzoom; and I'm eternally grateful someone pointed out this class of camera to me or I'd have missed it. And I'm still happy with my SX60 for that purpose.

By the way, a trick with probably any superzoom camera...never use the full extent of the zoom. Always back-out just a tad. I read a number of reviewers comment that the full-zoom is always a tad blurrier than one tiny bit back from it.

But if she's not looking for that kind of reach, and has a healthier budget, MFT might be the compromise she needs. I was looking at the Olympus line at the time.

Thanks for your comments. I’ve already suggested MFT to her but she’s adamant in her desire to stay with the bridge format for its combination of light weight, very long reach, and familiarity (she’s not very technically minded). I’ve already told her that backing off a little from maximum zoom should improve IQ (as should closing down the aperture a stop or half-stop) but she’s finds this hard to keep in mind in the excitement of the chase. Given all this, I think the G3X is probably her best bet, and I suspect that’s what she’ll probably end up with. Decisions, decisions. . ..
 
I'm sure that the G3X is a good camera but personally I would hesitate to consider a camera without a built-in EVF in bright light can be tricky. You could add a EVF-DC1 Viewfinder but that's another £220. It might also be worth waiting until January when a G3X replacement is rumoured to be announced as you could either go with the newer model or hope for discounted prices for the older one.
 
Thanks for your comments. I’ve already suggested MFT to her but she’s adamant in her desire to stay with the bridge format for its combination of light weight, very long reach, and familiarity (she’s not very technically minded). I’ve already told her that backing off a little from maximum zoom should improve IQ (as should closing down the aperture a stop or half-stop) but she’s finds this hard to keep in mind in the excitement of the chase.
Yeah, that makes it tricky, I don't envy you. Even I use Shutter Priority mode for birding on the SX60, which requires at least a little bit of "fiddling." Pretty much the lower down the scale you go from DSLR the more you have to "fiddle" to maximize the camera. In my case, that's using Shutter Priority, permanent -2/3 exposure compensation, constantly fiddling with shutter speed, ISO max lockout, and probably more.

A DSLR-MFT-4/3 (or something like the Sony RX100 series) in "idiot mode" will get better photos than any bridge/superzoom. I've seen my GF's D700 in "Auto" and...jealous. Just the way it goes.

Okay, preaching to the choir...I'll just finish with...good luck with the advice!

(And I agree with the above post: get a bridge/superzoom with a high-res EVF and don't rely on the back-panel screen. I wish the SX60's EVF was even higher resolution, and I only use the back panel indoors and when shooting over people's heads in a crowd...never for birding.)
 
Hi,i owned the g3x with the viewfinder for a short while....not a bad camera if you can live with a few shortcomings,but not a great birding camera.
The first is the autofocus.......quite disappointing for a camera of this price.......its slow and worst of all innacurate in certain conditions,especially in lower light.Considering birds tend to be more active either early or later in the day,you are running into trouble already.Its fine if you are close to your subject in good light but it starts to struggle in tougher conditions.
Secondly,although the sensor in the camera is capable of some great detailed images,you really still need to be close to your subject to get those really good shots.Its no good running around with this type of camera,no matter how long the lens is,trying to get great shots of small birds that are 50 feet away.....even the larger sensor in the g3x does'nt stand too much cropping.
Overall it is a good camera for most situations but the autofocus leaves you frustrated on many occasions if you are using it primarily for birding and i would not recommend it for such.
To be honest,if your friend wishes to stick with bridge cameras,she will never get really great results from a bird photography perspective as they just have'nt got the performance that is required.
Again,don't get a g3x if birding is a main interest,the autofocus alone is reason enough to avoid it.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top