[mlag]

Our second travel camera is a bridge Panasonic DMC FZ1000, with a 28-400mm ff equivalent range. And if I am honest, it is a strong contender for my K3-II for that ravel use case, especially if you consider the weight of the FZ1000 (@50% of my pentax with one sigma 18-250 lens!).
And if going light is really mandatory, it is a DMC TZ70 pocket camera with viewfinder & a 24-720 ff equivalent zoom range.
The fourth option is a smartphone...

But my main gear remains a backpack with my K3II and at least four lenses ( typical 10-17 17-70 55-300 and a lowlight f1.x option)...

[TaoMaas]

I started out in digital with a couple of Sony bridge cameras and really liked them. Got some great shots with them. It's not exactly a bridge camera, but these days I carry a Lumix LX-100 every day as my "walking around" camera. It's about the size of an old film P&S and takes great pics.

[lotech]

I bought the RX10MIV for travel and it served me well. I have not been disappointed by the IQ delivered at any FL. It is a three-ring system on the barrel just like old times = aperture closest to the body, then zoom (keep twisting, not like a lever that triggers a motor) and outermost a focus ring, but you can zoom with a lever at the shutter release as with virtually all fixed-lens digital cameras, and both the ring and the lever are active all the time, no need to go into the menus to shift from one to the other.....

I played with my friend's RX10 not sure which version, it does not have mechanical control, the zoom is terribly lag no matter which dial I use especially when shooting video, it may be fine if it is my first camera, but I came from D/SLR so you know... I have to admit, although I don't like Sony it does produce excellent sensor for many cameras, but there are so many feature packed onto the RX10, look at the display it's like the cockpit of a fighter jet, I know it can be customized, but I don't think it's a camera for beginner to begin with. I don't know about the Lumix I only had short time with an early P&S, so I believe the FZ300 is similar 'confusing' like the Sony, especially it's a video-centric camera and I rarely shoot video 1/3 of the features will be wasted. One thing I like Sony is the on camera USB charging, although slow it's definitely plus without the need for a dedicated charger, you know how many battery types Sony use, and that feature finally came to Pentax after a long wait.

---------- Post added 09-21-22 at 09:18 AM ----------

Another option:

https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/compact-cameras/all-compact-cameras/p/dscrx100m7-b

1" sensor, zoom lens, small, and poketable. This is the latest 7th generation, with 6 earlier versions out there. I was able to buy a like new orginal
RX100 for $100

It's a tiny mighty camera, but I want the LX100 more as I need a EVF, a must have due to my eyesight and to eliminate distraction, stray light...etc.

[Billking]

A couple of the local wildlife enthusiasts have great success with the Nikon P900 … the extra-long zoom with shake reduction really does work well if you're sensible in good light.
I doesn't have the ultra-wide capabilities of my DSLR with a 10-20mm fitted, nor the low-light capabilities, and the EVF takes some getting used to, but the results do speak for themselves!
Each of the users I've spoken to have expressed a weight (or budget) concern with carrying a fully-fledged DSLR and would rather have a "limited" bridge camera over their shoulder than a DSLR in the car

I have seen some fab photos taken with the P900. Good for birding when you want to go light.

I actually see myself adding a medium format camera to my collection before getting a bridge camera but I do think they are good.

Got my wife a canon powershot g1 x mark iii; she loves it. She uses it as a highly configurable snapshot camera. Takes great pictures.

[surfar]

A couple of the local wildlife enthusiasts have great success with the Nikon P900 … the extra-long zoom with shake reduction really does work well if you're sensible in good light.
I doesn't have the ultra-wide capabilities of my DSLR with a 10-20mm fitted, nor the low-light capabilities, and the EVF takes some getting used to, but the results do speak for themselves!
Each of the users I've spoken to have expressed a weight (or budget) concern with carrying a fully-fledged DSLR and would rather have a "limited" bridge camera over their shoulder than a DSLR in the car

My wife bought a Nikon P610 bridge camera several years ago.

I tested the P900 when it first came out and used a P610 that a friend owned.Both capable.

However, the real Nikon experience is with the 2 newer models.

The P1000 is the big boy.It superseded the P900 and came with Raw shooting,4K video and a better EVF.But the big thing was the 2000-3000mm increase in the lens.

A while later Nikon released the P950 which was the body and lens of the 900 but with the processor of the 1000.Some people prefer that size, the 1000 is big and weighty for a Bridge that goes FAR!

[Jonathan Mac]

You won't get the incredible zoom range, especially at telephoto, from anything other than a super-zoom camera. That's a real boon for certain people.

I am inclined to look toward modern smartphone which has more than one rear camera. Some of then has three lenses like 16mm, 24mm and 60..70 mm (35 film camera equivalent). If the quality of images from tele lens is the same as of my Google Pixel 3a wide lens I will be more than satisfied.

My Samsung A54s 5G has a 64MP main camera but it also has 5MP "tele" (aprox 50mm equiv) and "macro" camera modules. The sensor in the tele module is much worse than the one in the main camera and yields less detail than using the main camera and cropping, as you can imagine by the resolution of the sensors. I imagine the macro module is similar - just take the image from further away and crop. So nothing is gained except making the phone bigger and more expensive. The super-wide module is a bit better at 12MP and comes in handy very occasionally.

[reh321]

Hi there,

It may sounds silly to purchase a bridge camera if you already own a DSLR, but I want one for a reason. I do hiking and casual nature photography, a full set DSLR would be too much for me to carry. I did own couple bridge cameras before I got the DSLR, I found bridge cameras are specially good at shooting close up like flowers and bugs, also good for birding if you are not expecting too much. Bridge camera has a smaller sensor which is a definitely plus in shooting close up to get better DoF, and since it is close up you can get much of the detail without the need for a very high res. and large sensor, anything more than portrait then we better off to go with larger sensor DSLR/MILC.

There are 2 old bridge cameras on my mind, the Lumix FZ 300 and the OM Stylus 1s, why not the FZ 2000 but the old FZ 300 you may ask, the simple answer is the weather sealing that not commonly found on bridge cameras these days, it well suits the task for outdoor nature shooting despite it has a smaller sensor, and the OM is the 2nd choice since I do not shoot video often so don't need 4K.

When I joined here, I was thinking of purchasing a bridge camera, but I purchased a Pentax Q-7 instead. By using the K-mount lenses I already had, I can reach anything I want - get an incredible range - but it also provides a light kit when I need that. I have never ‘looked back’.

[martin42mm]

A few years ago I also wanted a 'bridge' camera, and ended up with a Fijifilm X-S1. The camera has the same sensor as the Fuji X10, and the lens covers the equivalent of 24mm to 624mm. It may 'only' have a 12mp 2/3" CMOS sensor, but it is capable of excellent results , as is the lens throughout its range. I once demonstrated it to a fellow passenger from an HS125 travelling in excess of 100mph , and took a photo of a moving car running parallel to us 100 yards away, in the rain, through two sheets of rather dirty glass at the full 624mm hand-held. You could read the numberplate as clear as if it had been 6 feet away! The only downside is the camera is fairly hefty because of its build quality, so is comparable to my KP with a Tamron 18-250 on it. But at least you don't need any other lenses......

[IraS]

The Panasonic Lumix LX100 II could be a good compromise. Micro 4/3, compact size, 24-75 mm lens, F1.7 at 24mm. The big treat in this small camera is that it has all of the control knobs, dials, rings that your big Pentax has in a small size. It will fit in a big jacket pocket.

[lesmore49]

I'm happy with both my Ricoh GR ll and my Canon G 12. They have all the DSLR buttons and wheels that I can use to control my shots, different choice of metering, etc.

The GR has an ASP-C sized sensor, DSLR controls, very sharp, F 2.8, moderate wide angle 28mm lens. Reminds me of my old screw mount Leica 11f, with it's 50mm Leitz Elmar....I used primarily in the film days. I kid you not, when it comes to image quality potential.

I've taken it on trips, to weddings, gatherings, events...unobtrusive to carry, very sharp, enlargeable photographs that this little camera can produce. No one notices it, even many pro photographers. It looks like some old point and shooter, but is much more capable.... rivalling the pix quality of a larger camera.

If you're going to get a bridge camera, get as much quality as you can afford. I recommend the GR series.

[martin42mm]

The biggest problem is defining a bridge camera. I've always thought of it as an SLR type camera, with a fixed wide to long tele lens. But looking at some of the answers clearly not everyone has the same view. If it is just a wide-ish to to short tele range, then there are numerous cameras to chose from, and I include my excellent Fuji X-10 with its f2 zoom. For truly pocketable ( not something I would ascribe to my own definition of bridge camera), then the Panasonic Lumix TZ70 with its 24-724mm equivalent lens takes some beating. I've just returned from a holiday in Switzerland, and although I also took my KP and 10-20 Sigma, most of the photos I took were with the Lumix simply because of convenience . The images are not as detailed as those from the KP, but the ability to photograph snow-capped vistas as well as soaring Eagles and Vultures was quite a combination in a relatively small pocket camera. It also has the advantage of a good digital finder built in, a personal plus for me since I hate composing on a rear screen, especially in bright sunlight!

[Jonathan Mac]

The biggest problem is defining a bridge camera. I've always thought of it as an SLR type camera, with a fixed wide to long tele lens. But looking at some of the answers clearly not everyone has the same view. If it is just a wide-ish to to short tele range, then there are numerous cameras to chose from, and I include my excellent Fuji X-10 with its f2 zoom. For truly pocketable ( not something I would ascribe to my own definition of bridge camera), then the Panasonic Lumix TZ70 with its 24-724mm equivalent lens takes some beating. I've just returned from a holiday in Switzerland, and although I also took my KP and 10-20 Sigma, most of the photos I took were with the Lumix simply because of convenience . The images are not as detailed as those from the KP, but the ability to photograph snow-capped vistas as well as soaring Eagles and Vultures was quite a combination in a relatively small pocket camera. It also has the advantage of a good digital finder built in, a personal plus for me since I hate composing on a rear screen, especially in bright sunlight!

In my experience when people say "bridge camera" they mean "super-zoom", which I would say is any compact with a lens that's more than a 5x zoom. That's their defining feature. Compacts with faster lenses or RAW output or more controls are high-quality compacts, not bridge cameras.

Here in Spain many people refer to bridge cameras as "semi-reflex", a phrase which I hate because it's completely untrue - a camera is either a reflex or it's not.

[martin42mm]

In my experience when people say "bridge camera" they mean "super-zoom", which I would say is any compact with a lens that's more than a 5x zoom. That's their defining feature. Compacts with faster lenses or RAW output or more controls are high-quality compacts, not bridge cameras.

Here in Spain many people refer to bridge cameras as "semi-reflex", a phrase which I hate because it's completely untrue - a camera is either a reflex or it's not.

I think the original bridge cameras were anything but compact, being SLRs with-as you say-wide-range zooms permanently attached. You only have to look at ebay and search for bridge camera, and that's what will pop up. The 'bridge' element was simply to show the camera was pitched between a full-size SLR with interchangable lenses and a compact camera. But going back to the original poster, it all depends what 'bridge ' means to him. We can only pitch recommendations when we know exactly what criteria he is using.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think the original bridge cameras were anything but compact, being SLRs with-as you say-wide-range zooms permanently attached. You only have to look at ebay and search for bridge camera, and that's what will pop up. The 'bridge' element was simply to show the camera was pitched between a full-size SLR with interchangable lenses and a compact camera. But going back to the original poster, it all depends what 'bridge ' means to him. We can only pitch recommendations when we know exactly what criteria he is using.

My first and only "bridge" camera, my second ever digital camera, was a Sony DSC-H1, their first super-zoom model with a 38mm equivalent wide-angle 12x lens. Nowadays you could never sell a camera that only went to a 38mm equivalent wide angle, or a camera of that size that had a paltry 12x zoom.