I was recently asked to provide advice for a teenager with a $600 budget for a camera to take pictures of horses at horse nerd events. This girl is not interested in photography as a gadget fondling activity, but she needs a lens with a reasonably long reach. It’s the same situation as a soccer parent. There used to a category called bridge camera, in which a single high-quality lens was mated to a reasonably large sensor. Olympus was a pioneer in this area with the beautiful E-10 back in 2000, which had a 35-140mm/2-2.4 (35mm equivalent) lens and a camera built around it. I wrote a review of the E-10 in 2001. This category flourished for a while, but seems to have died in favor of absurdly long-range zooms in front of tiny mobile phone-sized sensors (i.e., probably worse image quality than an iPhone 16 for most images because Apple’s camera software is superior to what the camera companies themselves have made) or massive overkill on both sensor size (“full-frame” or at least four-thirds) and system complexity (interchangeable lenses for people who want just one lens). The problem with a sensor that is too big is that it forces the lenses to be too big and heavy. The problem with a sensor that is too small is that image quality is compromised, especially in lower light conditions.
Here’s what I wrote…
There is no point in carrying a camera with a less than “1 inch” sensor (nowhere near one inch in size!). Most of the cheap point and shoot cameras have sensors that are the same size as mobile phones so the image quality isn’t any better than on a phone. The compact cameras that offer insane telephoto limits, e.g., 3000mm, have these tiny sensors and, therefore, a tiny lens will yield a high 35mm equivalent focal length.
Your friend needs at least a 200mm equivalent telephoto. The best current camera that meets these specs is the Sony RX10 IV, but it costs $1700 (35mm equivalent: 25-600/2.4-4). The original RX10 (original review), which doesn’t have as long a telephoto reach, is available for $469 used in excellent condition from MPB, which is a reputable company. So your friend should probably get this. When it is time to move on, the camera can likely be sold for at least $400 (It was $1300 when originally sold).
You can see that the latest cameras with 1″ sensors and the same equivalent focal length have very small apertures extended (f/16 vs. f/8 for the RX10). From https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs100-tz100
At f/16, the sensor won’t be getting much light so the ISO has to be cranked way up unless it is very sunny out.
I can’t figure out why the 25-year-old Olympus concept is carried on by just one company (Sony). Why isn’t the market crowded with $600 1″-sensor bridge cameras wrapped around high quality 24-200mm lenses? They could be branded “SoccerCams”. Is it because the average consumer can’t be educated into realizing that sensor size is relevant? A camera with a reasonable size sensor will never be able to offer “83x optical zoom” the way the Nikon P950 does (can it be that the 1/2.3″ sensor, mobile phone size, of this camera actually produces great pictures somehow?).
Maybe this is just another data point to support the rule “If Philip likes the idea it will be a business disaster”?
Separately, at least once every year I have to publicly beg Apple to make a camera or two! So let this post be the 2025 request. A Sony RX10-spec camera with iPhone software and interfaces for direct uploading to social media would be amazing. Also, perhaps, a pocket-sized one-inch sensor camera like the Sony RX100 (latest version has a somewhat crazy 24-200mm lens that is f/16 maximum aperture at 200mm; maybe a very high quality 24-105 would be better).
What was the advice you gave to the girl with a $600 budget?
Phil would recommend she mary an anesthesiologist!
Dave: A used RX10 for $469.
Toucan Sam: She’s probably 15-16, which is a bit young to marry an anesthesiologist and, of course, the big profits are in collecting child support from an anesthesiologist who is already married. http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ChildSupportLitigationWithoutMarriage
Why isn’t the market crowded with $600 1″-sensor bridge cameras wrapped around high quality 24-200mm lenses? Nobody cares.
Is it because the average consumer can’t be educated into realizing that sensor size is relevant? Yes.
(can it be that the 1/2.3″ sensor, mobile phone size, of this camera actually produces great pictures somehow?). No.
Maybe this is just another data point to support the rule “If Philip likes the idea it will be a business disaster”? Yes!
600 would have to be in different units than doll hairs. The Nikon P1xxx series produces much better zoom results than I ever could with interchangeable systems. Tiny sensors aren’t the disaster they were. They’re all optically stabilized now, allowing insanely long shutter speeds & low ISO. The key enabler of optical stabilization was mems gyros after 2007.
There is this market phenomenon called the death of the mid-market where the middle goes away, when it used to be the majority of sales. People will get the $400 Panasonic FZ80D with its tiny sensor, or a $2000+ mirrorless with tele zoom, but nothing in-between.
How about a Panasonic FZ-1000. An older model but 25-400mm f2.8-4 on a 1 inch sensor and $425 at MPB (the newer FZ-1000 II is around $640 at MPB). Part of the problem is the younger generation’s demand for yesteryear’s cameras has pushed prices way up. For example, compacts like a ZS100 or ZS200 are running 50% more used than couple of years ago.
Bridge cameras can’t compete with existing mirrorless systems now that digital has shaken out. People preferred interchangeable lens cameras given a choice, going back to the SLR and previous. There are so many great system options right now. Pick any contemporary mirrorless camera and kit telephoto lens if your phone won’t do. In terms of technology, cost or physics, there may be no practical benefit in controlling and designing the all in-one camera today. You’d have to overcome the perceived value of interchangeable lenses and bodies. Any sensor(made by Sony) you’d want to use in a clean sheet camera probably already has an existing system built around it. And, the only thing you might be able to omit to reduce cost in a bridge vs. system camera are the lens mount flanges.
In the time frame when that Olympus came out, all of the modern tech was in flux and changing/advancing rapidly: digital sensors, lens focus motors, stabilization, LCD viewfinders/screens, batteries, etc. so there was likely some flexibility/advantage in being able to control the whole package and not be locked into your own spec., that isn’t really applicable today. Large sensors were insanely expensive at that time, so even Nikon and Canon weren’t able to elegantly transition their existing systems to digital, having to settle for crop sensors which skewed existing lens collections. I think it was a relatively small period of digital transition where a few bridge cameras made sense, especially when everyone didn’t have an amazing general purpose camera/phone with them at all times, which covers 95% of what most people want at zero incremental expense.
A used Olympus OM-D E-M10 (I-IV) and 40-150 f4-5.6 might be an interesting option for your friends application. Maybe $350 or so.
60x zoom Minolta MN67Z is available new for around $350
Thanks, P. That camera has a smaller sensor (1/2.5″) than a phone (which is why they can advertise the 60X zoom). Apparently, there are quite a few smartphones with full 1″ sensors! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sensor_camera_phones (maybe it is time for me to abandon the iPhone!)
https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera/segments-%5B%22ultra%22%5D/device-Xiaomi%2015%20Ultra lists one of them as its #1 phone for image quality, albeit not that much better than my iPhone 16 Pro Max (supposedly 1/1.28″ sensor)
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4159871805/making-sensor-sizes-less-misleading
points out that it would be better to publish sensor area in mm. So my iPhone has a 75 square mm sensor while the camera you mention has about 24 square mm and the best phones have roughly 128 square mm.
Philip, I thought that the pricing looks way too good, but it advertises 20Mp image. It is more then I need or can use for facebook posts or printing.
If 24 sq mm can produce 20Mb images then who cares about censor size?
It is a real question, not rhetorical. Back in the day I was even making my own photos in the dark room but in the last decades I rarely reach for my DSLR and forgot most of photo related staff, just use my mobile phone’s camera. Also, what do you think is the best option for astronomical photography using telescopes with photo mounts? iPhone? Since telescope is the glass?
By the way, Minolta MN67Z’s sensor is 1/.2.3.
perplexed: Resolution beyond 200-300 dpi in the final print isn’t very useful. So if the goal is to print 11×14, the sensor should be 3300×4200 = 15 megapixels. If it is a severe clear day at noon, the small sensor might be okay. If the light is dim, though, the small pixels of the small sensor will generate a high-noise image that looks terrible when enlarged. If the 48 megapixel iPhone sensor were actually good there would be almost no market for full-frame cameras. Almost nobody needs more than 48 megapixels.
meant to write Sensor size, not Censor size and 1/2.3, not 1/.2.3. sorry for the typos I have not noticed yet as well
I am asking because I had excellent results with small sensor relatively cheap Sony digital camcorder with 70x optical zoom and fixed glass, for long distance recording. Sony DCR-SX85 for example. I sat on upper tribune or far seats in large auditorium and recorded what happened on field / scene as it were next to me. Of course scene that I could capture was not as wide as it could be, but it was sufficient to ficus on my subjects and their immediate environment. I think this would serve equestrian photography goals well.
@Philip, This is off topic, but still about imaging.
I have 35mm slides [1] of paintings I created a long time ago. In a past life, I was an artist, and these slides — taken between 1986 and 1990 — are the only records I have of my work, as most of the original paintings were sold. I wanted to create high-quality prints from these slides to enjoy them and share them with family.
I took the slides to Digital Silver Imaging (DSI) [2] for scanning and printing, but the scanned images turned out blurry. Despite this, I proceeded with a test print, only to find that the final print was just as blurry as the scan.
The scanned image resolution is 96 DPI, and the final print size is 34 × 25 inches (matching the original painting size). DSI claims the issue lies with my slides, suggesting they were taken at low resolution. However, I remember projecting these same slides back in the 1980s, enlarging them 10 times their original size, and the image quality remained sharp and clear. Sadly, I don’t have a project anymore.
When I asked why they couldn’t scan at 300 DPI, they said that because the original slide quality is poor, a higher-resolution scan would make it look even worse.
Assuming you know about slides, does this explanation make sense? If you have experience with this, I would love to hear your insights and suggestions!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_projector#Mechanical
[2] https://digitalsilverimaging.com/