I hope I can make this answerable and not purely opinion-based...
Amongst the things I try to shoot, birds, squirrels and other small nervous wildlife crop up relatively frequently.
I'm very happy with my existing crop-frame interchangeable lens setup, but trying to grab a fast shot of something small, fast and relatively distant proves [obviously] quite elusive. My existing setup is a Nikon D5500, with various lenses from 18 to 300 mm in several steps, but including one that does all that in one go.
In the studio, under controlled conditions, I have my ever-expanding [though not yet premium] glass collection and choose the lens to suit the shot. That wouldn't change. I fully intend to grow that glass collection and eventually move up to a better body.
I tend to, for the occasional walk in the park etc., take my entire camera bag, so if I see something stationary and deserving of a more suitable lens, I can reach for it; but otherwise I have my 'guilty pleasure' Nikkor DX 18-300mm. It's not the sharpest knife in the box... but it's 18-300 - as fast as I can twist the zoom.
I have resisted so far, very long supertelephoto zooms; partly from budget concerns and partly because I find it difficult to place the intended subject in the frame on the first go unless I start wide. What I tend to do is set the zoom lens quite short, find the subject, then actively zoom in so I can keep it in frame. With birds etc., this gives up time, but gains eventual accuracy.
Now Nikon announces the ridiculous 24-3000mm Coolpix P1000 bridge camera.
I have a dilemma. Save for better [long] glass for my existing camera or spend less on this bridge system than even one of those lenses would cost. I'm not a pro, none of this cost will ever be recouped. I'm not rich, I can't throw money at my [passionate] hobby.
I'm not asking anyone to make the decision for me...but how do I decide? Is there a quick, "You don't want this new camera because..." ?
I'm not interested in any of the 'features' like scenes, wifi, bluetooth, etc. I'm only considering how much image quality I'll lose [which I know isn't an absolute] vs. how much further I can be from a fleeting subject and still have a reasonable chance of getting an acceptable shot.
Factors such as noticeable and uncorrectable colour aberration would be an immediate 'turn off'. I've had lenses that do that, I don't need an entire compact system that will do it too. I'm aware I'll 'lose pixels' going down from my existing 24mp to 16mp. I like 'sharp' so this is definitely a factor I'd need to consider.
I understand this question may not be completely answerable until the model has had some testing in the real world.