They are amazing little pieces of technology.
You got some great stuff with that Panasonic.
Like I said in my post, my beef with these types of posts is that there is no comparison.
I have seen guys take stunning photos with cell phone cameras.
I have seen crap photos taken with high dollar, professional DSLR systems.
I have seen a lot of great stuff taken with the bridge cameras, but??
Given those exact same conditions, from the same position, at the same time, operated by the same user, how do they stack up?
That was the question I posed.
I seriously doubt that an 800mm camera lens worth $15,000.00 attached to a $7,000.00 full frame camera body, with a 1.4 teleconveter between them, would loose to a bridge camera, or any digiscoping set up.
I have seen some amazing photos taken by bridge cameras. Example, yours.
I have also seen some amazing photos from all kids of digiscoping set ups.
I still have a lot of questions though.
So much of photography is based on shooting conditions.
Lighting, angle, air clarity.
So, unless you take an honest look by comparing photos taken under the same conditions, how can we acurately judge?
I try not to form an opinion too early.
Jury is still out for me.
I have to do some serious low light comparisons, some close range comparisons, and some ultra long range stuff.
One thing I do believe, and your photos show this, the bridge cameras are the cheapest option that are capable of producing some amazing images.
You can not buy a spotting scope, adapter and camera for less than you can buy a bridge camera.
You can not buy a traditional photography set up capable of reaching out like the bridge camera for the same amount.
They should have a huge following in the wildlife community.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad you posted and I think your stuff is great.
I hope it inspires folks to buy these things.
My intent is not to show what is capable under perfect conditions, but to compare results under all conditions.
You see this kind of thing all the time with digiscoping.
One guys perfect cell phone pic goes up against another guys perfect point and shoot pic.
The truth be told, both set ups took 9,000 crap pics to get that one stunner.
Then guys read the internet, see everyones perfect shots and can not figure out why their photos are not working like everyone else's.
As I said in my post, this is what I wanted to get around. I wanted to get around the perfect photo contest and see photos taken under exact same conditions.
Especially distance.
The only way I could figure out how to do it is to go buy one. Take it with me.
I would love to have someone like yourself go out on a few trips with me. Stand side by side with me, take the photos and see what what we get.
Not as a challenge, not to prove anything, just a scientific examination, for our own benefit.
Because, really, I don't care what you use. I only care to know what is possible for my own benefit.
From what I have seen on the internet, everything is possible of capturing fantastic images under certain conditions. The problem is, these conditions are usually unknown.
I don't like the unknown.
What I would really like to find out is, if the smaller sensors and limited ISO range of these cameras, can perform in low light at a level comparable to digiscoping set ups.
That is the next thing I would like to try.