Compact Camera Suggestions? Upgrading from Canon PowerShot SX720 HS (4 Viewers)

[MrYama]

Hello everyone,

I've been using the Canon PowerShot SX720 HS as my secondary camera for a while now. Its portability and whopping 40X zoom lens, equivalent to 24-960mm, make it a convenient companion that I can take with me everywhere.

However, since it was released almost 10 years ago, I've been wondering if there are any upgrades available. I'm aware of the Canon SX740 HS, but it seems to be pretty much the same camera.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

 

[etudiant]

Compact cameras are currently not getting much attention from the manufacturers, whose emphasis is very much on the big iron, full frame cameras with interchangeable lenses. So there has not been much innovation in the pocket zoom segment, even though it is a very convenient travel format. Iirc, the latest Canon compact is the SX 740, introduced in 2018, same 40x zoom lens, slightly upgraded sensor.
The major innovation in the sector has been the introduction of bigger sensors (1" format rather than the 1/2.33" size used in the Canon). That allows for better image quality, at the expense of much less zoom range. The Sony RX100 VII zoom is 24-200mm equivalent, the Panasonic ZS 200 is 24-360mm, so half or less than what you have.
It is painfully clear that this is a neglected area of the market, even though many travelers are searching for something more capable than a cell phone to capture their experiences.

 

[njlarsen]

The Sony RX100 VII zoom is 24-200mm equivalent, the Panasonic ZS 200 is 24-360mm,

Isn't the problem that top end phones have a reach in optical zoom that allows them to take images in more or less the same range as these cameras? I am not sure the quality difference between the phone and small sensor compact camera output is large enough to attract very many customers, and as such I understand why camera manufacturers do not invest in this segment.
Niels

 

[etudiant]

Isn't the problem that top end phones have a reach in optical zoom that allows them to take images in more or less the same range as these cameras? I am not sure the quality difference between the phone and small sensor compact camera output is large enough to attract very many customers, and as such I understand why camera manufacturers do not invest in this segment.
Niels

As you point out, the gap in zoom capability between cameras and phones has been shrinking, with some phones offering 10x optical zoom, although Apple is still at 5x max.
Nevertheless, the cameras have bigger lenses as well as space for larger sensors and more electronics, so they should be able to way outperform the phones.
Against that is the reality that cameras are very rarely sold even by millions, while phone sales annually are well over a billion. Much more is being spent to enhance the photographic capabilities of phones than the combined development effort budget of all camera companies together. That is why phones are closing the capability gap.
Still, firms such as Sony have a presence in both markets. It would be natural for Sony to apply the innovations it has mastered in the phone segment to create superior compact cameras. A pocket-able weatherproof long zoom with good low light performance thanks to a high ISO capable sensor should be easy for Sony to make. It would be a natural expansion of their existing franchise in high end compact and bridge cameras. I'd buy one in a flash.

 

[MrYama]

Compact cameras are currently not getting much attention from the manufacturers, (...) It is painfully clear that this is a neglected area of the market,

Yep, that's what I thought. I was just hoping that I missed some camera launch or something, but I guess not.

Thanks anyway, everyone.

 

[Gzoladz74]

Yep, that's what I thought. I was just hoping that I missed some camera launch or something, but I guess not.

Thanks anyway, everyone.

The only compacts worth considering are the Nikon P950 or the Nikon P1000 (now discontinued).

 

[MrYama]

The only compacts worth considering are the Nikon P950 or the Nikon P1000 (now discontinued).

I would also not call it a compact camera, those are bridge cameras.

 

[Gzoladz74]

I would also not call it a compact camera, those are bridge cameras.

They are called compact because of the sensor size.... Anyways, it's semantics...

 

[MrYama]

They are called compact because of the sensor size.... Anyways, it's semantics...

That's fair. I should have clarified that compact means pocketable in the original post.

 

[Gzoladz74]

That's fair. I should have clarified that compact means pocketable in the original post.

Definitely the P1000 is far from being pocketable!

 

[dakuan]

I think you are going to struggle to get a big step up in performance without a step in camera size. As already mentioned, there are bridge cameras that'll be better so still smaller than a DSLR / mirrorless setup

 

[MKinHK]

The king of bridge cameras is the Sony RX10iv.

It has a larger sensor and higher quality 28-600 zoom lens than the Nikon P900 and P1000. It is also more compact.

But it It still weights in at around 1 kilo (you'd need a big and strong pocket, but a good strap/ camera bag will enable better load bearing , so is not a pocket camera, but it will deliver significantly better performance than the Canon or Nikon bridge cameras - it certainly has for me.

Cheers
Mike

 

[Steve Babbs]

The king of bridge cameras is the Sony RX10iv.

It has a larger sensor and higher quality 28-600 zoom lens than the Nikon P900 and P1000. It is also more compact.

But it It still weights in at around 1 kilo (you'd need a big and strong pocket, but a good strap/ camera bag will enable better load bearing , so is not a pocket camera, but it will deliver significantly better performance than the Canon or Nikon bridge cameras - it certainly has for me.

Cheers
Mike

Seconded. In a different league not just image quality but the fact that it handles like a SLR.

 

[edenwatcher]

Thirded.

Rob

 

[AndyM]

Considering an (expensive) upgrade to the newly crowned 'King', namely the RX10iv. So, I started with the Canon SX40 HS, currently use the SX50 HS and wondering if anyone has moved up to the Sony from either of these cameras (or maybe the SX60) and how you cope with what appears to be a significant loss of reach.

I'm really just an ignorant point & shooter interested in getting better quality BIF shots so I'm wondering, does the larger sensor/better quality images allow for a more acceptable crop that offsets the loss? Please forgive my total ignorance. Never owned a DSLR but assume that the crop is all important when using, for example, a 600mm lens.

AndyM

 

[MalR]

Considering an (expensive) upgrade to the newly crowned 'King', namely the RX10iv. So, I started with the Canon SX40 HS, currently use the SX50 HS and wondering if anyone has moved up to the Sony from either of these cameras (or maybe the SX60) and how you cope with what appears to be a significant loss of reach.

I'm really just an ignorant point & shooter interested in getting better quality BIF shots so I'm wondering, does the larger sensor/better quality images allow for a more acceptable crop that offsets the loss? Please forgive my total ignorance. Never owned a DSLR but assume that the crop is all important when using, for example, a 600mm lens.

AndyM

Hi Andy,

I had the Canon SX50 and became very frustrated with it. I soon realised that there are more important things than just reach. The Sony is in a different league (which, to be fair, it should be, given the price.)

It's a bulkier camera, and it still struggles in low light, but its viewfinder and its auto-focus capabilities are streets ahead of the Canon. It's much, much better for birds in flight. And, as you say, the cropping ability due to the bigger sensor negates the loss of reach to some extent.

Over the years, I've also had a couple of DSLRs and micro four-thirds cameras, but the Sony is the one that I've stuck with and used the most.

I dithered for ages before taking the plunge, because I struggled to convince myself that any bridge camera could be worth that sort of money, but two and a half years on, I have no regrets about buying it.

Malcolm

 

[Steve Babbs]

Hi Andy,

I had the Canon SX50 and became very frustrated with it. I soon realised that there are more important things than just reach. The Sony is in a different league (which, to be fair, it should be, given the price.)

It's a bulkier camera, and it still struggles in low light, but its viewfinder and its auto-focus capabilities are streets ahead of the Canon. It's much, much better for birds in flight. And, as you say, the cropping ability due to the bigger sensor negates the loss of reach to some extent.

Over the years, I've also had a couple of DSLRs and micro four-thirds cameras, but the Sony is the one that I've stuck with and used the most.

I dithered for ages before taking the plunge, because I struggled to convince myself that any bridge camera could be worth that sort of money, but two and a half years on, I have no regrets about buying it.

Malcolm

What he said, although I have now switched to OM micro four-thirds. When I had a SLR and couldn't face carrying it I toyed with a number of cameras. The Canon SX50 was the best but I still missed loads of shots because of poor autofocus, delays between shots etc. Plenty of second hand Sony's around. I might even be tempted to sell mine. Otherwise it's about £500 cheaper than when I bought mine.

 

[edenwatcher]

I am still a Canon user (now mirrorless) but have also had Bridge cameras as a portable alternative. I had the SX50 which was frustrating and bought a secondhand RX10 about 3 years ago. It really is worth the money.

Rob

 

[dakuan]

Agree with the above that reach isnt everything. Once you go much beyond 600mm you'll be getting alot more haze from the air, and motion blur from wobbles - majorly so if handheld which i assume is some thing you value, given you are looking for the most portable camera possible

 

[MKinHK]

Hi Andy

It was the previous iteration of the RX10iii that was crowned king five or six years ago, and the RX10iv just made it better!

I used the Canon SX50 for three years and loved it. It was great camera to get started on bird photography when I wanted record shots of good birds, but when I started to want good shots of birds I spend a while looking around and chose the RX10iii for the larger sensor and great lens over the Nikon P950 and P1000 which had a longer reach and bulkier form, but the same small sensor as the SX50.

I upgraded to the RX10iv after falling into a fishpond and killing my RX10iii. While costly it was also secretly great because it meant I could upgrade with a clear conscience. Its improved autofocus is especially prized by BiF-ers with far more skill than me.

My transition from the Canon to the Sony can be seen on my patch thread from Hong Kong a couple of years back. These include examples of what I managed with the RX10iii (posts 181 - 197), (posts 200 - 205) and RX10iv (all posts thereafter).

It's also worth remembering that the RX10iv has a digital zoom that allows for double the reach, albeit with diminished quality, although it's still better than my SX50.

Cheers
Mike