This is my 4th Panasonic in the FZ range, going back to the first of these "bridge" cameras. I even had a Canon DSLR in between but wasn't impressed with the image quality and sold it on. I think that there is a bit of snobbery regarding the more expensive DSLR's/mirrorless cameras, which are seen as being superior to these "lesser" bridge cameras. OK if you want to spend several £1000's on a body-only mirrorless etc. but do these produce an image quality that is so superior as to be noticed by the "casual" viewer? It is the composition etc. of the image that appeals and this FZ2000 is quite capable of producing photos of excellent quality at a fraction of the price of a DSLR etc. The capabilities of the camera are extensive and a potential purchaser can find more in-depth reviews online than can be quoted here. One review indicated that the video capability is so good as to be compared with dedicated video cameras in the $10-20k bracket. Many of the features of Panasonic "G" range are included, again, at a much lower price. So I think it is perception rather than capability that might deter some potential buyers. Recommended.