Is an interchangeable lens camera and lens comparable to a particular fixed lens bridge camera necessarily more expensive?

Question

When considering a particular fixed lens bridge camera, is a comparable kit with an interchangeable lens camera and lens necessarily going to be more expensive? Or going to have some other disadvantages? I’m in particular considering the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000.

I currently only own a Canon PowerShot SX230 HS and am looking to get a camera with a larger sensor to get better image quality. The Panasonic sprung out because it also offers a zoom level that’s at least as good as what I’m used to, has been well-reviewed and is well within my budget.

I haven't looked into interchangeable lens cameras much because it’s not a feature I’m particularly looking for at the moment, and I figure the added flexibility will come at an added expense. Or is that a mistaken assumption? It might still be nice to have the option to try other lenses later on, especially if getting a comparable camera and starter lens is not going to be that much more expensive. Concrete suggestions for a comparable kit are more than welcome.

Answer 1

It will always be more expensive to go the interchangeable lens route vs. a superzoom bridge camera, because larger sensors mean larger glass to get field of view equivalence.

For example. The FZ1000 has a 9.12-146mm lens to get 27-432mm equivalence, because of the 3x crop factor of its 1"-format sensor. Most ILC mounts have a 28-300 equivalent superzoom in the $600 price range. But it will be shorter and more expensive than the bridge camera.

Most folks compromise on how much reach they need, and go for a less expensive lens. Twin kits of a 28-75 equivalent zoom and telephoto zoom that goes to 300mm or 400mm equivalence may only add $200-$300 to the price of a body+kit. At this point if you shop the ILC and lenses used, the expense could be roughly equivalent to the new bridge camera, but again, the overall cost will rise quickly above that of a bridge camera when additional lenses (or other gear such as flashes, tripods, filters, etc.) are added.

So, yes, you're quite correct that the added flexibility of being able to choose a lens specifically to match the subject you're shooting makes an ILC a much more expensive proposition. But part of this is also that most ILCs come with larger sensors than bridge cameras do and the range of a "accessories" is much deeper and wider.

Answer 2

There is no way to answer that because comparable is subjective and depend a particular metric or set of criteria.

A 1" sensor is much better than what a typical compact camera used but it is one of the smallest for interchangeable lens cameras. Rumours even say that those cameras are no longer in production, so any ILC with have a larger sensor and necessarily better image quality, lower image noise and clearly better low-light performance.

When it comes to flexibility, smaller sensor allow more zoom in a single lens while maintaining a lens which is compact. It sounds like you do not want to let go of such a focal-range, so there is no way to get a camera and anything comparable in an ILC for a similar price.

Answer 3

I think rather than in terms of price you should think more generally in terms of what you want to do. I also own a "superzoom bridge" (Sony RX10M3), and I got it for one reason: to have some fun photographing sports without the size, weight, and price of a larger sensor system. Mission accomplished; I'm having a lot of fun.

Yeah, obviously the images are not the best: they get noisy in low light at ISO 3200 (though this is much less visible in print), the autofocus isn't the best, etc. But I'm not a buff for image cleanliness, so it works for me; I like them and can show them with pride.