optical to the extent of the physical zoom

then often have a digital extension which is where the quality drops off quickly

We had a night in Tokyo where the 'supermoon' came out (when the moon is slightly closer to the earth, so looks massive) - long story short, I only had time to grab my superzoom and I was easily able to take photos of craters on the moon - and that was from a camera that cost me less than ?100

DSLRs/mirrorless (in general) are going to be better, especially as you can focus (no pun intended) on what you want to take by customising lenses, etc. - I don't know anyone who is 'into photography' who has a superzoom as their first, or even second, camera, but they don't claim to target that market.

I had a Nikon DSLR double lens kit and two toddlers and I just gave up trying to take it out with us because it was impossible to carry/use the camera and deal with two kids - we missed so many photo opportunities as a result. With a superzoom I was able to take shots of a _sufficient_ quality for keeping/posting/printing for a very low cost and with a package that I was able to keep in a jacket pocket and access instantly - and at a cost that is easily replaceable if it gets broken.

We've stuck with ours for a few years now - no idea what the market is like now but, if in doubt, in answer to your question, they make a great additional camera to shove in your bag for covering various situations when you are out and want to shoot a few.

Posted By: Jester, Jul 28, 16:23:28