It's generally a trade-off with lens design. The 3-4x zoom will be lower f#, more compact and have better image quality or larger sensors. An f/5.6 40x zoom lens with small sensor isn't necessarily larger or more complex than an f/2 lens on a large sensor.

It really comes down to what photos you're looking to take.

One of the main reasons why the SLR will never die. No other style camera becomes a part of your body; something that any good tool does. And no other camera can do all the things an SLR can do.

Sometimes. Not always. One reason why the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 remains a best buy is because it combines 16x optical zoom with a fast f/2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range in a reasonably compact size.

That's due in part to using the 1-inch sensor. Larger sensors, even the Micro 4:3, demand bigger glass for faster lenses, especially zooms. Even a teensy sensor digicam with a long, fast continuous zoom will have a relatively larger lens. The only way the Olympus Tough Cam I'm using can cram an optical zoom into that flat design is by using a slow variable aperture design.

For low light shooting sometimes a relatively modest superzoom like the Lumix' fast 16x can be more effective than a 32x variable aperture zoom. In dim light the variable aperture zoom will force a higher ISO. More noise, more noise reduction, which obscures fine detail. In some scenarios a shorter tele that enables shooting at a lower ISO may deliver a better photo, even if it means cropping or upsampling.

Unfortunately Nikon never delivered on the potential for its 1 Series with 1-inch CX sensor. We never got that fast f/2.8 zoom. So I just use mine for candid snaps. It's adequate at ISOs above 800 -- not great, but good enough for my casual snaps of people.

For a bicycle camera, ideally I'd want something flat and compact -- no telescoping lens protruding beyond the body -- with a fast lens and very modest focal range zoom. But that's tough to do without a lens protruding beyond the front face of the camera, even in a teensy sensor digicam.

The laws of physics impose limitations. Stuff takes room. Zooming involves moving a prism inside an optical structure. People don't just want zoom, they want a usable camera, too, which means decent apertures, which means more glass. On the other hand, people want their phones slim and sleek. Cell phones can take good pictures in the right circumstances but those are limited and will always be compared to larger cameras with more technical capabilities. And we haven't even got into filters.

As a general rule lenses with narrower zoom range are sharper and have less unpleasantness like flare, chromatic aberration, coma, etc. The world's best lenses don't zoom (at all). It's easier to optimize a stack of glass for the 70 to 200 mm range than it is to optimize it for 14 to 480 mm.

Yep - agree. I get it. I'm an engineer.

But I guess from a market perspective, users don't see it that way. That's why p&s sales volumes are cratering at the expense of smartphones. It's true that p&s have better optical quality in zooming and generally have better sensors too. But in the wide middle spot of use of a p&s there is pretty solid convergence with smartphone use.

P&s cameras are getting squeezed pretty hard on both ends. On the low end by smartphones and on the high end by mirrorless cameras. If you don't have either, that's pretty much your p&s market. Not many people who don't have a smartphone these days.

I used to do semi-pro sports photography so I have all the high end Canon stuff. When I wanted to take a quick picture I'd reach for the p&s camera. Now? I use my smartphone. And I'm moving over to mirrorless to cover my higher end needs. The two losers in the camera business are going to be P&S cameras and DSLRs from a
mass market perspective.

I have an SLR. Beth has a smart phone and is pleased with its camera. The last time we went over Washington Pass we stopped and both got a photo. When we looked at the two of them on the computer - shot in day light, pretty "easy" scene for a camera - she immediately understood why people still use cameras in the era of phones.

thanks for the recommendation! I just ordered one for my little Canon Elph350.

My previous p&s was an older, bulkier Canon that had a large bulge on the right side of the body that made it very easy to grasp securely with one hand. I like the Elph350 and its small size, but I do miss the bulge. The Flipbac should help!


Steve in Peoria

Yep, the Flipbac stick-on grips can turn a metallic compact camera from a slippery bar of soap back into a camera.

[MENTION=418370]canklecat[/MENTION], thank you for your expertise.

Sure. Of course.

Smartphones are for snapshots. "Cameras" are for something more important than that. The lines, however, are getting blurry between them - especially when the lighting is good.

But I think we're going to see the P&S camera, as we've known it, market implosion accelerate. There is shortly going to be insufficient profit and volume to maintain the development on such a rapidly dropping market. So, I guess if the OP wants a P&S, don't put it off until next year. ;)

J.