I think Brian mentioned up to 400 is fine and that's about as high as I would want to go but to get a photo I wanted if going higher was the only way then that takes priority over quality but even then the lowest I could get away with to give me a decent shot.
Exactly.
He states that because the lens is fixed it avoids the problem of dust collection because you aren't changing lenses BUT the other side of the coin is that you are stuck with it and you really need a range of lenses. I go from 100-400 (3 lenses) You can't hope that a fixed lens will cope with the varying conditions and subjects that you want to photograph.
And "superzooms" are always a compromise .... BTW dust with a fixed lens is not unknown, especially with zooms which can have a tendency to suck fine particles in - and very fine particles are enough to cause problems with a bridge/compact camera as the sensor is so small.
I see it's 6.3 mp. These days mobile phones are at that level hence the surprising quality of photos. I appreciate that mp relate to printing but it also affects quality and I think that you need at least 8mp preferably 10/12.
Depends how big you want to print. Up to postcard size, it's impossible to tell the difference between a good 2MP image and a 20MP image! The quality of the pixels is more important - a lower pixel count means bigger pixels, hence more photons & lower noise.
For web publishing, even 1MP is far more than is necessary!
