New Camera Advice (1 Viewer)

[MikeInPA]

Thanks Niels.

Given the choice between the extra zoom and the larger sensor, I think I'm edging towards the extra zoom. The reason being most of the time I'm not in the woods and I'm happy to go out only on days with decent light. Over the last few months I've realised we get a lot more sunny days than I ever imagined and so I will have plenty of opportunities and on the days of poor weather I can get other things done, and so I'm happy with that balance.

That option of better quality images in the woods is attractive because there are birds in there I'd like to take decent pictures, but I'm rapidly coming 'round to the understanding that I can't have it all ways with the money I'm prepared to spend!

Trust me when I say you can NEVER have it always. As several have already said physics beats you every time.

 

[MikeInPA]

Actually you can achieve what you want but not in the way you want it. If you take a shot of the bird with a shallow DOF but a fast shutter speed so it's nice and sharp. Then you put your camera on a tripod and take a shot of the background with a deep depth of field and a corresponding slow shutter speed. You then import both shots into Affinity Photo and cut out the bird and place it in the shot with the nice background. Voila!

It's doable but a pain in the ass. You need to get good at post processing mate.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Posted this Sony RX10 IV review in another thread - impressive shots in there 👍

Sony RX10 Mk IV Review

Chosun 🙅

I've been thinking about how much zoom I would like, and I reckon that about 75% of the time 600mm is more than adequate but I would really like that extra zoom for the other 25% of pictures. I appreciate that with a larger sensor comes cropping advantages but my understanding is that larger sensor, shorter zoom doesn't necessarily mean better image quality. I found 600mm on the FZ330 left me short at times. With the 1.7 extender I don't need the full zoom most of the time but around 1000mm is right for me as I'll have the range I need, say 800mm at the most, without having to use full zoom. And I think more zoom equates to less post processing which is perfect for me.

I've been doing a spot of reading today as the weather is poor and I'm heading down the road of P950 so far. The other thing with the Sony is that it may be beyond my skill level and the amount of time I'd like to put into the technical aspects of a camera.

I'd imagine you can tell from my posts that my camera knowledge is marginally better than non-existent, and I don't plan on doing a couple of months intensive training and so in the end I think it will come down to looking at the pictures from the respective cameras and my intuition that 600mm will not be persuasive enough to pay twice the price, despite the larger sensor.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

Paul, It's a choice you'll have to consider if the doubling of the cost is a big factor.
Don't talk yourself out of the Sony though if it suits your usage best.

A couple of points:-

• I shoot in AUTO-ISO even on a DSLR rig for simplicity sake - you can do the same with the Sony.
• The faster Zeiss lens of the Sony is pretty much distortion free across the range.
• Those fantastic sample shots in the Rockwell review I linked are all jpegs ! The high ISO shots are very impressive. I think this demonstrates just how capable this camera is for users that want to keep it simple.
• The Sony has an in-camera crop mode of 1.5x = 900mm (@10MP) , and 2x = 1200mm (@5MP) without losing image quality. The beauty is that it will keep it's AF advantages.
• A quick check on photonstophotos.net shows that the 1" Sony sensor has as much advantage over the Nikon 950 as it gives away to the best of the APS-C sensors. This means that the Sony at ISO 800 has the same dynamic range as the Nikon at ISO 200. When you consider the faster speed of the Sony lens at the long end, that's going to be a 3 stop advantage. In practice, in UK light, this is going to be very useful.
• The phase detect (same as DSLR's and high end Mirrorless ILC's) AF of the Sony advantages over the contrast detect of the Nikon 950 is like chalk and cheese. This perhaps is the biggest difference between the two cameras.
• Both cameras have that bridge camera drawback of needing to power the zoom in and out, during which time less cooperative subjects will have flitted away. You should check into the wake up times and corresponding zoom positions of both to see if one will be quicker and less frustrating to use than the other.

Future considerations.
I don't think either of these cameras will be replaced any time soon. Sony may update with an RX10 V model next year? but it's likely to be the same zoom range, just offering even better sensor and AF performance according to rumours - it will be no cheaper though !

Have a look at the Rockwell shots again, especially if you'll very rarely be over 900mm. Decide if that image quality and the better AF performance is worth the extra cost of the Sony to you.

Good luck !

Chosun 🙅

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Paul, It's a choice you'll have to consider if the doubling of the cost is a big factor.
Don't talk yourself out of the Sony though if it suits your usage best.

A couple of points:-

• I shoot in AUTO-ISO even on a DSLR rig for simplicity sake - you can do the same with the Sony.
• The faster Zeiss lens of the Sony is pretty much distortion free across the range.
• Those fantastic sample shots in the Rockwell review I linked are all jpegs ! The high ISO shots are very impressive. I think this demonstrates just how capable this camera is for users that want to keep it simple.
• The Sony has an in-camera crop mode of 1.5x = 900mm (@10MP) , and 2x = 1200mm (@5MP) without losing image quality. The beauty is that it will keep it's AF advantages.
• A quick check on photonstophotos.net shows that the 1" Sony sensor has as much advantage over the Nikon 950 as it gives away to the best of the APS-C sensors. This means that the Sony at ISO 800 has the same dynamic range as the Nikon at ISO 200. When you consider the faster speed of the Sony lens at the long end, that's going to be a 3 stop advantage. In practice, in UK light, this is going to be very useful.
• The phase detect (same as DSLR's and high end Mirrorless ILC's) AF of the Sony advantages over the contrast detect of the Nikon 950 is like chalk and cheese. This perhaps is the biggest difference between the two cameras.
• Both cameras have that bridge camera drawback of needing to power the zoom in and out, during which time less cooperative subjects will have flitted away. You should check into the wake up times and corresponding zoom positions of both to see if one will be quicker and less frustrating to use than the other.

Future considerations.
I don't think either of these cameras will be replaced any time soon. Sony may update with an RX10 V model next year? but it's likely to be the same zoom range, just offering even better sensor and AF performance according to rumours - it will be no cheaper though !

Have a look at the Rockwell shots again, especially if you'll very rarely be over 900mm. Decide if that image quality and the better AF performance is worth the extra cost of the Sony to you.

Good luck !

Chosun 🙅

Many thanks for what is very useful information.

I hadn't thought about ISO and zoom time. The reason being that since I've gotten some sort of grip on how to use a camera, I don't find either to be an issue with the FZ330: the light here is better than many of us imagine (since owning a camera, and as a result taking more notice of the weather, I've been astounded at how many sunny days we get); in terms of zoom I've just gotten on with it, accepted it as the inevitable consequence of using/owning a bridge camera and so I've never found it frustrating. The other thing with the ISO is that a camera that works well in poor light would be dangerous for me as at weekends I'd never get anything else done!

What I would pay the extra money for, however, is image quality. This really is my number one consideration. 'Let's say I'm at a range of 900mm, will I get better image quality with the Sony when cropped (when taken in decent light and all other things being equal)? I have read that it's not necessarily the case. You're absolutely right in that one person's opinion is no good reason to write off the Sony, which is why I'd like to look at pictures from both cameras in similar situations.

900mm will in the vast, vast majority of cases be enough for me. I like to get close because it gives me a chance to watch the bird at close quarters through the camera as well as taking pictures. I can't think of any instances in the last couple of months where I've thought that the current 1,000mm I have is not sufficient: it's been the opposite really in that I've found myself experimenting with the zoom in an attempt to get sharper pictures and say 500mm with the 1.7 extender has usually been enough.

Thanks for the great advice, and each one of your points is something I'll look into during May.

 

[Chosun Juan]

You're welcome Paul.
Short of shooting the Sony and the Nikon side by side at the same time in the same conditions, it's difficult to come up with a concrete answer - some stuff will fall within a margin of error.

In general I think we can safely say that the better ISO and lens performance of the Sony will give better image quality, especially if you are not greatly reach limited. It's still only a 1" sensor so will fall short of working most miracles - time on gloomy weekends should remain intact.

Getting closer (and the light in the right way) certainly helps boost the image quality. There was a time early on in the digital Era when magazines were full of 10MP or less professional shots - so I don't think that is a concern unless you intend making wall sized prints. Personally I think those sample jpeg images in the Rockwell review are pretty darned good !

All I can say as far as first hand experience goes is that I had a friend who bought the Sony RX10 III when it first came out and was very happy for the style of photography he was doing. When the Mark IV came out - I was there with him to compare side by side. Such a big step up was the phase detect AF of the Mark IV over the contrast detect (same as the Nikon) of the Mark III, that he bought the Mark IV on the spot ! and gave the Mark III to his less photo mad missus .....

Another tip might be to get a spare battery which is easy enough to carry around in a pocket and will double the possible shooting.



Chosun 🙅

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

You're welcome Paul.
Short of shooting the Sony and the Nikon side by side at the same time in the same conditions, it's difficult to come up with a concrete answer - some stuff will fall within a margin of error.

In general I think we can safely say that the better ISO and lens performance of the Sony will give better image quality, especially if you are not greatly reach limited. It's still only a 1" sensor so will fall short of working most miracles - time on gloomy weekends should remain intact.

Getting closer (and the light in the right way) certainly helps boost the image quality. There was a time early on in the digital Era when magazines were full of 10MP or less professional shots - so I don't think that is a concern unless you intend making wall sized prints. Personally I think those sample jpeg images in the Rockwell review are pretty darned good !

All I can say as far as first hand experience goes is that I had a friend who bought the Sony RX10 III when it first came out and was very happy for the style of photography he was doing. When the Mark IV came out - I was there with him to compare side by side. Such a big step up was the phase detect AF of the Mark IV over the contrast detect (same as the Nikon) of the Mark III, that he bought the Mark IV on the spot ! and gave the Mark III to his less photo mad missus .....

Another tip might be to get a spare battery which is easy enough to carry around in a pocket and will double the possible shooting.



Chosun 🙅

The second battery is something I'll certainly look into. When the weather is decent I'm out all day, and, on Saturday, for the first time ever I ran out of battery more or less as I was heading off home. I read a post on this forum at some point last week and the poster stated: "who doesn't have his/her camera switched on when out taking pictures". I don't until I see a bird. I like the walks and the scenery, and to look around watching the birds chase one another around rather than looking to take a picture at any given minute; and I find that birds don't suddenly pop up out of nowhere 10 feet away from me with a few seconds opportunity to take a picture. More often than not I'll see them in the distance coming my way and so plenty of time to find a bit of cover and switch the camera on, or perched in a tree as I'm walking behind other trees, again with plenty of time to switch on the camera as I walk. I've found the trick for me is getting in close range without the bird knowing I'm there or being alarmed, and so I've never had issues with using one full battery during a 12 hour period. But, if I ever thought I wasn't going to get through a full day without a spare battery I would definitely buy that second one.

Your friend who bought the Sony: would you know what his broadly usual distance from birds when taking pictures is?

 

[Chosun Juan]

Good approach 👍
His use was more generalist and so distances varied, from flower close ups to landscapes to portraits to common birds that closely approach you - seagulls, pelicans etc, to distant birds, dolphins etc. Last time I saw him he was famously happy with the Mark IV.

The other thing that I should mention if I haven't already is that many of the bino nerds on the forum (myself included) would balk at having ~1.1kg (2&1/2lb) slung around the neck for the day (approx. a 50mm bin). Many use some sort of a cross shoulder side mount sling. That's how I carry my ~6lb rig - on a Black Rapid Sports Sling.

The camera hangs unobtrusively down near your hip. Super quick to use, comfortable and easy to get around. By adjusting the straps just so, you can even use it to brace and triangulate with you arms when in shooting position for a steady hold.

Camera Slings - BLACKRAPID

BlackRapid revolutionized camera straps as the original camera sling that literally turned the camera world upside down.

www.blackrapid.com

Chosun 🙅

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Good approach 👍
His use was more generalist and so distances varied, from flower close ups to landscapes to portraits to common birds that closely approach you - seagulls, pelicans etc, to distant birds, dolphins etc. Last time I saw him he was famously happy with the Mark IV.

The other thing that I should mention if I haven't already is that many of the bino nerds on the forum (myself included) would balk at having ~1.1kg (2&1/2lb) slung around the neck for the day (approx. a 50mm bin). Many use some sort of a cross shoulder side mount sling. That's how I carry my ~6lb rig - on a Black Rapid Sports Sling.

The camera hangs unobtrusively down near your hip. Super quick to use, comfortable and easy to get around. By adjusting the straps just so, you can even use it to brace and triangulate with you arms when in shooting position for a steady hold.

Camera Slings - BLACKRAPID

BlackRapid revolutionized camera straps as the original camera sling that literally turned the camera world upside down.

www.blackrapid.com

Chosun 🙅

Well, I think it's a sensible approach for me. If a bird pops up near where I'm standing it will quickly see me and be gone in a few seconds, and I really don't have anywhere remotely approaching the camera skills to be able to get a decent shot off in that space of time! And so, there's no use in having a camera turned on anticipating that moment. My much better bet is to wait for certain birds based on where they like to go, or find somewhere to walk that affords me some cover while being able to see the trees ahead and what's in them.

 

[njlarsen]

Well, I think it's a sensible approach for me. If a bird pops up near where I'm standing it will quickly see me and be gone in a few seconds, and I really don't have anywhere remotely approaching the camera skills to be able to get a decent shot off in that space of time! And so, there's no use in having a camera turned on anticipating that moment. My much better bet is to wait for certain birds based on where they like to go, or find somewhere to walk that affords me some cover while being able to see the trees ahead and what's in them.

I don't know the sony, however, on my pana G85, the on button is located so I can easily push it with the thumb while lifting the camera, which means that the camera is ready to shoot when the EVF is in front of my eye. I would be disappointed if a camera like the mk-IV was not equally fast to turn on.

Niels

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I don't know the sony, however, on my pana G85, the on button is located so I can easily push it with the thumb while lifting the camera, which means that the camera is ready to shoot when the EVF is in front of my eye. I would be disappointed if a camera like the mk-IV was not equally fast to turn on.

Niels

Thanks for the advice everyone, and I've decided the P950 is the camera for me at this stage. Main reasons being:

I've looked back through the threads from years gone by and there are seasoned photographers in there finding it difficult to get to grips with the Sony. If they've struggled, then at the very best I'll struggle just as much given they have been using cameras for years. I think I'd be getting ahead of myself with the Sony. I didn't really get to grips with the settings on the FZ330 because I just wanted to get out and take pictures. But now that I know I can get close regularly and keep a camera steady, then I will be really giving the P950 a good go in terms of learning about cameras. So, in a few years time I expect to have a much better grasp of cameras and that will set me up nicely for a step up, to something like the Sony, at that point in time.

I'll be out in decent light, rendering sensor size less of an issue.

I quite fancy the extra zoom and filling the frame in order to minimise cropping.

I've seen P950 pictures taken at various distances/zoom levels: if I can achieve them I'll be happy.

Price doesn't come into it, for the reasons mentioned I'm confident that at this stage the P950 is the camera for me.

I'm now looking at the camera's better bird settings so that when I buy I'm pretty much ready to go with decent settings as a starting point, and I'm going to get it this month: 'no reason to wait really.

 

[njlarsen]

Good luck with it!

Niels

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Good luck with it!

Niels

Cheers Niels!

 

[Chosun Juan]

Thanks for the advice everyone, and I've decided the P950 is the camera for me at this stage. Main reasons being:

I've looked back through the threads from years gone by and there are seasoned photographers in there finding it difficult to get to grips with the Sony. If they've struggled, then at the very best I'll struggle just as much given they have been using cameras for years. I think I'd be getting ahead of myself with the Sony. I didn't really get to grips with the settings on the FZ330 because I just wanted to get out and take pictures. But now that I know I can get close regularly and keep a camera steady, then I will be really giving the P950 a good go in terms of learning about cameras. So, in a few years time I expect to have a much better grasp of cameras and that will set me up nicely for a step up, to something like the Sony, at that point in time.

I'll be out in decent light, rendering sensor size less of an issue.

I quite fancy the extra zoom and filling the frame in order to minimise cropping.

I've seen P950 pictures taken at various distances/zoom levels: if I can achieve them I'll be happy.

Price doesn't come into it, for the reasons mentioned I'm confident that at this stage the P950 is the camera for me.

I'm now looking at the camera's better bird settings so that when I buy I'm pretty much ready to go with decent settings as a starting point, and I'm going to get it this month: 'no reason to wait really.

Good reasoning and good luck with it - seems like a very nice compromise for a bridge camera. I'm sure you will be able to get most of the photos you want.

By the time you run up against the limits of learning and camera there'll probably be a Sony RX-10 V on the market ! which would be a natural progression.


Chosun 👧

 

[MalR]

Interestingly, Paul, when I was deliberating which camera to get, I was torn between the Nikon P950 and the Sony RX10 IV. I opted for the Sony, but there's no doubt the P950 is a good camera. I think that, for me, the fact that the Sony had phase detect auto focus was the clincher. But you've got yourself a good camera and I look forward to seeing some of your results with it. Good luck.

Malcolm

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Good reasoning and good luck with it - seems like a very nice compromise for a bridge camera. I'm sure you will be able to get most of the photos you want.

By the time you run up against the limits of learning and camera there'll probably be a Sony RX-10 V on the market ! which would be a natural progression.


Chosun 👧

Cheers Chosun.

Aye, I've a bit to do in terms of really having a good go with the technical aspects of a camera and so there will certainly be newer versions on the market by then.

I really liked/like the FZ330. I find it pretty simple/user friendly, although I have nothing to compare it with and so it''ll be interesting to compare the P950 in that respect. For example, in the end I was very easily and quickly able to change ISO and apply EV without losing sight of the bird. From what I've read, the P950 doesn't have a shortcut button for ISO and so that will be a change, but not so much of an issue as I plan on only using 100-400 and 800 at a push and I don't really need a shortcut button as I'll know what's broadly needed and I'll change while walking. I looked at all of the Panasonic cameras, and if they bring out something approaching a large sensor, improved zoom, then that will be my brand of choice in the future.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Interestingly, Paul, when I was deliberating which camera to get, I was torn between the Nikon P950 and the Sony RX10 IV. I opted for the Sony, but there's no doubt the P950 is a good camera. I think that, for me, the fact that the Sony had phase detect auto focus was the clincher. But you've got yourself a good camera and I look forward to seeing some of your results with it. Good luck.

Malcolm

Cheers Malcolm.

Well, I'm making a big assumption that because I didn't have focusing issues with the FZ330 (at least for the last few months when I got the camera under sort of control) I'm not going to with the more expensive P950. Rightly or wrongly, that wasn't a consideration in my choice. Looking back at the last 6 months or so all of my 'issues' with the camera were self-induced.

The main thing for me now is that I feel like I cracked a few things. 'Such as being able to get close, hold the camera steady, and build up some sort of knowledge with a camera in terms of what settings are needed given the situation. So, it's a really good opportunity for me to learn about the camera, see what I can achieve with it and take some interesting pictures!

 

[vogey]

I've been using the Sony RX10 IV for about 10 months now, and I love it. I've had other bridge cameras, the last one being the Canon SX50, as well as a couple of DSLRs. I deliberated for a long time before buying the Sony, mainly because I found it hard to convince myself that such a high price for a bridge camera could be justified. However, in my opinion it can.

The Sony is actually slower at 600mm than the FZ330 (F4 compared to F2.8), but it has a bigger sensor (1 inch) with 20 megapixels (12 megapixels on the FZ330) which will allow for more cropping. Having said that, it still needs good light to be at its best, and I'm not convinced it would fit the bill for taking pictures at night.

I've never used an extender with it. It does have a feature called Clear Image Zoom, which extends the focal length to 1200mm equivalent, although I've never used it, so I don't know if it's any better than just cropping in from 600mm.

It takes a bit of getting used to (or, at least, it did for me) but once you have it set up the way you want and are comfortable using it, it's an excellent and versatile camera.

Malcolm

Hi Malcolm. I’m fairly new to birding and it looks like you know your camera stuff. I took a college course and I really took to birding. I am looking to buy a camera (either sony or nikon). Is the sony dx10 iv worth the price from the dx10 iii. Likewise is the p1000 superior to p950. It looks like those 4 cameras are the best 1 lense camera. Any recommendations?

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Hi Malcolm. I’m fairly new to birding and it looks like you know your camera stuff. I took a college course and I really took to birding. I am looking to buy a camera (either sony or nikon). Is the sony dx10 iv worth the price from the dx10 iii. Likewise is the p1000 superior to p950. It looks like those 4 cameras are the best 1 lense camera. Any recommendations?

I can't recommend, but I've done a decent amount of research that may help:

I found that the four cameras you mentioned weren't always in top 5 bridge cameras reviews. One of the canon cameras was frequently mentioned, with a zoom of around 1,400mm, and if I remember correctly around £600 brand new.

From the various reviews I read, I would say that the Sony was more often than not mentioned as the best all round camera but that gap closed when specifically reviewing bird photography and when in decent light. The Sony was generally deemed to be much more complicated to get to grips with. Overall, I didn't get the impression that the Sony was twice the proposition at not far off twice the price.

From my limited experience, I would say 600mm equivalent isn't enough but as more knowledgeable posters have stated you have the crop factor with the Sony.

I looked at pictures from the P950 both online and on this forum, well the similar P900 on this forum, and they looked pretty good to me.

 

[MalR]

Hi Malcolm. I’m fairly new to birding and it looks like you know your camera stuff. I took a college course and I really took to birding. I am looking to buy a camera (either sony or nikon). Is the sony dx10 iv worth the price from the dx10 iii. Likewise is the p1000 superior to p950. It looks like those 4 cameras are the best 1 lense camera. Any recommendations?

There's always going to be a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to cameras (or bins and scopes, come to that). What suits one person, or is most important to them, won't suit/be important to another person. That's why it's impossible to give definitive advice.

Having said that, I have owned bridge cameras and DSLRs, so I have a reasonable amount of knowledge and experience, and I can honestly say that – for me – the Sony RX10 IV is the best all-round package I've ever had. First and foremost, I'm a birder not a photographer, and from that perspective, the Sony delivers what I need.

As I said in an earlier post, I narrowed my choice down to either the Sony or the Nikon P950. I discounted the P1000 because of its size and weight, but that might not be an issue for you. Paul has opted for the Nikon; I went for the Sony. For me, the clincher was the phase detect auto focus on the Sony. The bigger sensor is nice to have as well.

Also, with cameras that have enormous reach, the temptation is to think that you can photograph birds from huge distances. The problem is, certainly at some times of the year, heat haze, dust, pollen etc in the air will degrade your image. So, if you end up having to get close anyway, to cut down that distortion, then the shorter reach of the Sony is less of an issue.

I think I paid £1,300 for the Sony. Believe me, I dithered for ages trying to convince myself that any bridge camera could be worth that sort of money. All I can say is that after 10 months of use, I do think it's worth it and I have no regrets.

Whether it's worth paying more compared with the Mark III is something only you can decide. Personally, I would say it is, again because of the vastly superior auto focus. But you won't get any improvement in image quality, as it's the same sensor.

As is often said, the perfect camera hasn't been made. The Sony has its quirks and drawbacks, but once you have it set up the way you want and you learn how to use it, it's a superb and very versatile camera.

This probably isn't much help to you because, at the end of the day, it's only my opinion. There have been posts on here by people who bought the Sony and ended up sending it back. Anyway, good luck with your choice.

Malcolm

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

There's always going to be a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to cameras (or bins and scopes, come to that). What suits one person, or is most important to them, won't suit/be important to another person. That's why it's impossible to give definitive advice.

Having said that, I have owned bridge cameras and DSLRs, so I have a reasonable amount of knowledge and experience, and I can honestly say that – for me – the Sony RX10 IV is the best all-round package I've ever had. First and foremost, I'm a birder not a photographer, and from that perspective, the Sony delivers what I need.

As I said in an earlier post, I narrowed my choice down to either the Sony or the Nikon P950. I discounted the P1000 because of its size and weight, but that might not be an issue for you. Paul has opted for the Nikon; I went for the Sony. For me, the clincher was the phase detect auto focus on the Sony. The bigger sensor is nice to have as well.

Also, with cameras that have enormous reach, the temptation is to think that you can photograph birds from huge distances. The problem is, certainly at some times of the year, heat haze, dust, pollen etc in the air will degrade your image. So, if you end up having to get close anyway, to cut down that distortion, then the shorter reach of the Sony is less of an issue.

I think I paid £1,300 for the Sony. Believe me, I dithered for ages trying to convince myself that any bridge camera could be worth that sort of money. All I can say is that after 10 months of use, I do think it's worth it and I have no regrets.

Whether it's worth paying more compared with the Mark III is something only you can decide. Personally, I would say it is, again because of the vastly superior auto focus. But you won't get any improvement in image quality, as it's the same sensor.

As is often said, the perfect camera hasn't been made. The Sony has its quirks and drawbacks, but once you have it set up the way you want and you learn how to use it, it's a superb and very versatile camera.

This probably isn't much help to you because, at the end of the day, it's only my opinion. There have been posts on here by people who bought the Sony and ended up sending it back. Anyway, good luck with your choice.

Malcolm

Malcolm,

'Just to add to your first point.

A few minutes ago I read a review of the P950 in a photography magazine. They compared it to the Canon, I think SX70, and they concluded that of the two the Canon is the better bet for bird photography. As you say, choice will depend on many factors.

One of the big factors for me had nothing to do with the quality of the camera, nor the price, but more my lack of transferrable experience/knowledge of cameras. Six months of owning a camera is not long a time when transferring to a new camera with a more complicated system, and, really, I'd have felt a bit arrogant diving into what's generally deemed to be the best bridge camera around when I'm inexperienced.

Maybe in a few years time, and thanks for replying to my posts!