I just got back from a month on safari in Africa with this camera. I was very very happy with the quality of the images, and the super zoom capability was very handy and performed well. In-situ, I compared shots taken of the same safari scenes with guys carrying a lot of long, heavy glass and there was little difference. In fact, Nikon ought to pay me because I probably converted half a dozen to a dozen photographers to the P900 when considering I shot handheld, and they had to steady their telescopes. Fast glass, electronically stabilized zoom - a good combination. On the down side, I wish I could have shot RAW. This is a serious drawback. What were they thinking?

I have it, its a fun little thing, the photos and videos are OK but not great.

You're really buying it for its monster zoom, which quite simply can get you shots you won't really get with any other camera.

That is the only reason why I tolerate it because no matter how much better the other cameras are for photos and videos, when you show people a video of you zooming into the moon, or a lighthouse several miles away, they are blown away and that is what photography is about, capturing things people want to see.

If Nikon release an update with 100x zoom I will update.
Until then I will never sell this camera, its too much fun.

The p610 been ignored as well has equal iq of the 900 what's the point of these reviews when when they leave half the contenders out?

I want to buy ultra zoom camera .pls give a good suggestion for me. My budget $350 below

Why such massive zooms?
Like 1000+mm

I've seen a number of shots taken with these cameras at 800+mm and honestly none of these long-reach photos have much to offer, aside from the massive zoom-reach.

Just look at The P900 2000mm House-Photo here - the lines are all wobbly, jittery, details are completely smeared.
it looks VERY artificial.

Even the "cat" at 1200mm, much closer up than the houses - details are oddly lacking, painted over look.

I completely get the appeal of say anything up to 400mm...
I can fully understand a good 200mm in a "compact" camera...

but IS or not - beyond 200-400mm it just becomes a gimmick with rather bad photographic results... so why bother at all?

I mean there's bound to be a reason, why you'd need 12'0000$+ for that 600mm Nikkor F/4... and a massive tripod to actually make use of it.

Consider that at f/6.5 and it's tiny 1/2.3 sensor - it behaves like a f/36 lens on full frame... useless.

Why SONY HX400V was not included in this roundup???

These giant camera makers are exploiting consumers' pocket. They can make bridge camera with bigger sensor and zoom like a superzoom but if its done, who will buy dslr?

i own the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000, DPreview gave it an 82% rating. In my opinion has awesome image quality of just about all my photos! I am a big superzoom fan and this by far is the happiest i've been with one. I see that DigitalJerry is happy with his as well.

Sizewise and specwise, how would a Canon 100d with Tamron 16-300 be?

If cam makers got really serious and put in dslr sized sensors, raw and other dslr options into these cameras then who then needs a DSLR? Some are at 7 fps now. That's almost my 7D! 24 to 2000 mm's without swapping glass? Amazing stuff and it's only going to get better.

The Panasonic Lumix FZ200, althoiugh several years old and more modest in terms of zoom range, can stand comparison with these in terms of image quality and overall utility. Its 2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range is a tremendous advantage.

Pity the Nikon P610 wasn't included in the main review. It would have been worthwhile seeing how it stacked up against the Canon SX60S, on paper a very similar camera, and indeed against the Nikon's own P900, offering much the same but in a distinctly more portable body.

I own the P900 and just love it. I also own the D800e and all the best glass I can afford. If you are taking serious pics use your best camera. If your bird hunting the p900 is just fun. I carry it around on my dirt bike to get way up in the hills, and get wonderful shots of birds and animals that would be very hard with my big camera and tripod. the camera has its draw backs for sure but it has made me excited to take pictures again. The pictures I get are pretty good with alittle work before and after taking them.

as others have suggested - the inclusion/exclusion of brands would helped by some transparency..
I don't mind if DPReview is used as Amazon's camera selling platform as long as I know which bits of editorial are affected by the sites ownership..

First point: It's a pity Canon went the specs-race route from the SX50, because all the comparisons I've seen also show a huge backward step in image quality from that model. Second point - a suggestion for dpr. I'd love to see a "reach-resolution index" based on a long telephoto test scene so that we can compare different options for getting detail and contrast of distant subjects. P900 versus 5DS-R with 600m cropped - versus 760D with 600 - versus Nikon J5 with CX 70-300, M43 with 300 etc etc. In general longer lens with smaller sensor seems to beat cropping larger sensor. It would be fascinating to see a thorough test of exactly where the crossover occurs. My guess is that currently a 760D with a Sigma 150-600 sport would yield the most detailed shot of a subject filling a 2.5 degree field of view, but maybe a P900 would beat that now. Of course background separation is another matter. A benchmark combo could be chosen and a "reach index" based on that.

It would be most helpful if DRReview would post their criteria for including or excluding cameras. Could it be somehow related to how well you are rewarded for including or excluding certain manufacturers? Both Sony and Panasonic have cameras that compete well, perhaps a bit too well with the cameras you did include. Many of my students, all of whom are over 60 years of age since I teach at a community college designed for seniors, like and use those cameras as well as ones from the companies you decided did not match your criterion what ever that may be. I guess your moderator can use similar criteria to not include my comments. Be interesting to see what happens.

For those that don't rate bridge cameras - they have their place:-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alvarocolombo/18471992323/

I used to tote my Canon Rebel with standard lens, and a 75 to 300MM zoom lens along with me in one camera bag when I traveled to Europe or on cruises. The bag weighed a ton compared to the much smaller one I have for my Canon Powerrshot SX50 HS. As for steadiness in telephoto shots, I use a monopod "walking stick" to steady my shots,. I suggest this as a possible solution to all who have a super-zoom camera. I get amazing bird shots with it.

I am surprised that Sony (such as its highzoom HX400 with 20.4 MP sensor and F1.8 50x zoom has not been included in review !!!
I carry this highzoom camera in a small shoulder bad along with my full frame mirrorless. While I use my full frame for 90% to 95% situations where the subject is with in its range (closer). I use the HX50 for super zoom situations such as sports (I took some beautiful action shots at a recent Blue Jays game) and for bird photos. I do not like to carry a heavy super tele lens (apart from its high cost). The HX50 is much lower in cost in comparison and weighs a fraction only and it adds to my fun (also, avoids need for lens change in field).

Thanks a lot for the Superzoom Roundup. It is quite interesting for me to read about the news. I still own a Canon Powershot SX50 HX.
For me this kind of cameras are very attractice because of their big zooms. I like to hike and to take pictures in nature. So I appreciate the possibility of getting pictures of animals or plants. Even if only a part of them is working out there are always chances. One has to be patient. It was not mentioned that you can get pretty good closeups withs these kind of lenses too. So it is good for insects, especially butterflies or dragonflies. Also for frogs or reptiles. Keep in mind that you are staying away eg. about 2m and still can use 1200mm focal length. The other possibiltiy is to go very close to the object using the macro function. As it is mentioned too: If you like the night sky this kind of camera can be used quite well for pictures of the Moon, the "big" planets and of the Sun (only with sunfilter) and for some double stars.

Gerhard

Who is actually still BUYING useless garbage-cams like these, my, my?

Also in normal circumstances would we ever need to zoom in excess of 600/800 mm (35 mm eqv) ?

Camera Manufacturer, please try to put Bigger sensor on Superzoom.
Don't say it is impossible. everything is possible, find the way.

Dpreview, next maybe the Prosumer testing is good

When the term "superzoom" was first coined, it meant cameras with a zoom range of 12X or greater.

But today you are reviewing camers that range from 50X to 83.3X zoom range.

Isn't it time to give these cameras a new name, to set them apart from what we used to call superzoom cameras?

Ultrazoom? Megazoom?

Wish DPR had included the tried and true Fuji X-S1, Fuji S1, Kodak AZ522, Kodak AZ651 (65x), Panasonic FZ70, Panasonic FZ200, and the Oly SP100. I've shot most of these and they are all contenders with various trade offs. The IQ "sleeper" cam is the Kodak AZ522 IMO.

Does the older Panasonic FZ200 stand up to this competition. It does have strong points including low price. The sensor is not big. I use a Nikon D5200/18-140 but for for my telephoto shots of 250-500 mm range I am pondering to buy the FZ200 (or the FX1000 if it gets cheaper) instead of my Nikkor 70/300.

List price and sensor size on the specs chart would be appreciated...

I suspect that the days of the small sensor superzoom cameras are numbered. Many people I know who purchased one were disappointed by the poor IQ, terrible low light performance and mediocre AF speed.

EDIT:
after reading the DPR reactions I was ready to rewrite my earlier remarks.
I won't, it's not worth it. FZ200 too short ? Hilarious! Why name the Stylus 28-300 then? And what about too expensive? Factor 4 (FOUR!) IS acceptable?

Please be a BIT more correct.

>>The Lumix FZ1000 continues to be our favorite superzoom. Its F2.8, 25-400mm equiv. lens>>> its 2.8 to 4.0 and if Fl is eq WHY Fstop is NOT???

Im outta here. ;((

rant on:

Come on guys. Get serious. This is, by far the weirdest group test I've seen from you.

Excluding the HX400v says a lot. And there are others that do sunstantial FIELDTESTING (IR !) with these long zooms. As in real-world. So DPR are you framing yourself for labtest measurebaters and pixelpeepers only, not real field users?
In most legible tests the SX60HS scores clear WORST. Only in this test it appears as BEST.

BTW have you actually checked your own "gear in this story"? Ooops there is the FZ1000. And there are 3 times more "I want it's" than the others combined.

BTW a spread from 165 to 596 ?!? You're serious about GROUP testing?

BTW calling the stylus 1 superzoom is hilarious in this context. (it's a very fine cam for what it is though)

BTW the softness in some camera's/lenses is already widely documented as sample problems. Just do a q search and there are many hits on this.

rant off

I expected more from DPR.

I can understand not including the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10 due to their larger sensors that belong in a higher class. But, how can DPR leave out the FZ200 and HX400???

Those are certainly in the same class as the ones in this review. And, from all accounts, are quite good in this segment.

The FZ200 also outsells all of the above models, while the HX400 outsells the Pentax, Fuji, and Samsung models, at least at B&H. (Amazon doesn't list superzooms separately.)

For some reason the final results don't sit too well with me...

Very strange conclusions about detailization. As I can see, Canon does the best work at all conditions, Pentax makes less detailed but fair images. Nikon produces attractive but quite unnatural images looked like strongly blurred and then sharpened on edges. Nikon delivers a little bit more details at telephoto end than Canon does, despite of much longer focal distance. Fujifilm and Samsung give significantly less details than peers.