Bridge camera specs

[Journeyman]

I would like to ask about bridge camera specs. All related to 35 equivalent.
Speaking roughly rather than a specific figure.
Most crop sensor cameras vary from from 1.4 up to 2 or so. Depending on sensor size.

I don’t really take crop factor when thinking of interchangeable lens. 400 is 400, 300 is 300 etc.

My query relates to maker’s published figures, particularly for bridge cameras.
With bigger zoom cameras how are the 600 or even 2000 figures reached. My reading is that a camera with a zoom of 600 is achieved by using a 300 lens and multiplying by the sensor crop factor. eg. 300 x 2 crop sensor is a 600 lens.

Interchangeable lens crop factor of 1.6 (Canon)
400 x 1.6 is 640. I believe that to get to a genuine 600 - 300 + 2X converter

The reason I ask - does a Canon 1.6 x 400 provide the same zoom as a “super zoom” 600 set up? Are the zoom factored figures accurate in this sense.

Thinking interchangeable crop factor camera + 400 lens v’s Sony RX10.

Thank you, pardon any rambling or in accuracies, I have found it difficult to find good info on this subject. Kind regards, Journeyman

[ameerat42]

I would like to ask about bridge camera specs. All related to 35 equivalent.
Speaking roughly rather than a specific figure.
Full frame cameras have a crop factor of 0?
Other cameras vary from from 1.4 up to 2 or so. Depending on sensor size.

That is all ok so far (at least in my head). I don’t really take crop factor when thinking of interchangeable lens. 400 is 400, 300 is 300 etc.

My query relates to maker’s published figures, particularly for bridge cameras.
With bigger zoom cameras how are the 600 or even 2000 reached. My reading is that a camera with a zoom of 600 is achieved by using a 300 lens and multiplying by the sensor crop factor. eg.
300 x 2 crop factor is a 600 lens.

Interchangeable lens crop factor of 1.6 (Canon)
400 x 1.6 is 640. I believe that to get to 600. Use 300 + 2X converter

The reason I ask - does a Canon 1.6 x 400 provide the same zoom as a “super zoom” 600 set up? Are the zoom factored figures accurate in this sense.

Thinking interchangeable crop factor camera + 400 lens v’s Sony RX10.

Thank you, pardon any rambling or in accuracies, I have found it difficult to find good info on this subject. Kind regards, Journeyman

Answers (AFAIC) to main Qs in order:

1) Only if using as an adjective in speech, like "there's no crop factor", but it's fairly loose, and to say it
has a crop factor (an arithmetic multiplier) of "1" is accurate.

2) Generally, yes they should be, as it relates to field/angle of view (FOV) only - and that depending on the
aspect ratio. The FOV runs into difficulties if comparing, say, 3:2 aspect ratio with a 4:3 (16:9, etc). The likes
of 600 and 2000 [mm of focal length] are achieved is by reading the actual lens focal length usually shown on a
compact/bridge camera, and multiplying that by the [published] crop factor. The latter is usually found in user
manuals/specs, etc.

3) Yes for the arithmetic.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: The text I quoted is from your second edited version.

- - - Updated - - -

PS2: JM. At some point it would be useful to stop editing the original post as replies
can lose relevance. As an alternative, clarifications can be made in subsequent posts.

[Journeyman]

Hello Ameerat,
Sorry about the edits, a couple of errors made the question ever more confusing. I understand the reason not to edit too much.

This question is consuming far too much of my limited head space.

I am thinking of replacing my Canon gear with a bridge camera. Developing medical thing is making interchangeable lenses a little risky. Far too easy to drop a lens.

My idea is to replace my gear with a bridge camera long enough to continue with lunar photography. Quality gear such as a Sony RX10iv. 600 focal length.
Thanks for your help, kind regards JM

[ameerat42]

That's OK.

It's a pity that you are forced to consider changing your camera system.

I have this notion that if you are considering to do more of your serious lunar photography,
that you DO NOT do it with a bridge camera. WELD the lens onto your present camera
for that. Change it in controlled conditions such as indoors on a table

Ie, change your technique some, like changing your lenses less. Use your present camera
for that, and if you want, use a bridge camera for more everyday stuff, where image quality
may not be as critical.

[Journeyman]

Thank you, I feel that you are right. Watch this space I guess. My Canon lenses may have a bit of age, however they still produce high quality images. I have read that learning to use a prime lens whenever possible promotes good photography habits. Always plenty of light at least.
Kind regards, JM

[bitsnpieces]

As much as I'm hoping to get an RX10 camera, I agree with the above.

The bridge cameras will have their limits and night stuff is just that.

It doesn't mean it can't be done, but if you can find a way for your current setup to work, it'll be better in the long run.

That being said, best way to gauge is to look at some people who may have used the RX10 for lunar photography, see how the quality compares

If its equal or even just a bit better, and you're not fussed with going further in quality, maybe it could work out

[Journeyman]

Thank you all for the advice and help.

I believe that I can deal with the interchangeable part, it would be a shame to lose it all once.

I have previously asked about compact cameras. Does anyone have experience with Panasonic Lumix range please? In particular the TZ90. It has a 30x focal length lens. It would be for bird pics. Always with me walking the dog etc.

Kind regards, Journeyman.