I went to my local park to shoot (photographically speaking) some herons. I took to following shots under very similar conditions - same weather, similar distance(about 100m) etc. One was taken with the Canon SX60HS bridge camera, and the other was taken with the Canon EOS 7DMkII + 100-400 MkII EF-L + 1.4 Mk III extender. Both shots were hand held.
In Canada, where I am, the SX60HS was selling for around $560 and the Canon EOS 7D set cost around $5,600, so roughly 10 times the price.
WITHOUT PIXEP PEEPING or looking up the properties, which do you think was taken by the more expensive camera?
Vote:
A The first imge
B The second image
C Too close to call
Both images have been cropped slightly in Lightroom so you have a closer comparison.
I shall post the answer on Friday. 
With more alternatives to producing output, photographers are taking photos for the Web (social media etc.), to show on screens and monitors and of course for the traditional print. These images would probably print on something up to 8x10 without any real difference. One would expect the better quality gear would handle big blow-ups better, but for the average shooter considering an investment it's an interesting comparison, especially when i see aspiring wildlife photographers scared off by the cost of equipment. I think for many newbies, the bridge camera is a great way to explore, experiment and decide if photography is something they would aspire to pursue without taking out a mortgage. They are small and lightweight (the best camera is the one you carry), the have all the main controls of their bigger DSLR cousins and they have an enormous zoom range, so a newbie can dabble in all sorts of photographic styles.
My other point is that given enough light, the smaller sensor can do a good job on these shots, obviously there are issues when the light becomes less than optimal.
@Tronhard wrote:You have obviously researched this extensively and I have not. The main thing is I am glad you have what works for you!
Thank you for setting up the comparison.
And I agree the SX40/50/60 HS are great cameras for birders on a budget. They excel for the types of photos posted (birds in trees).
Where they are inferior to a dSLR is birds in flight, birds behind branches, and marginal light conditions.
@TTMartin wrote:
@Tronhard wrote:You have obviously researched this extensively and I have not. The main thing is I am glad you have what works for you!
Thank you for setting up the comparison.
And I agree the SX40/50/60 HS are great cameras for birders on a budget. They excel for the types of photos posted (birds in trees).
Where they are inferior to a dSLR is birds in flight, birds behind branches, and marginal light conditions.
Thanks for your comment.
I actually made the comparison after hearing another photographer responding to a question from someone showing interest in photography and asking what they would need to get started. The photographer answered by listing what HE had (which was similar to my expensive kit) and proudly listed how much it cost. I could see the inquirer's enthusiasm wilt visibly as the price rose well into the thousands. This was totally wrong, because it was all about the experienced photographer and did not address the agenda of the person making the inquiry.
Time and time again I see someone ask what gear they should get, but giving minimal explanations as to their situation. Then a bunch of experienced photographers push the gear that they like, and often starting technical arguments among themselves. This is not helpful: the person asking wants an answer to what will work for THEM, not the people answering them. There is a lot of gear snobbery in the photographic community and that can be very off-putting to people just starting and still tentative about what they are going to do, and how committed they are to the activity.
As I have posed elsewhere answering such a question actually begins with many more questions:
1. What is the budget? That answer alone limits a lot of options for many
2. What is the user's level of experience and how far do they aspire to go? If they are just starting and not sure about their future, pushing expensive gear will scare many of them off. If they are more experienced the other questions are still valid.
3. What do they see themselves photographing - general stuff, family, portraiture, scenic, wildlife or travel? Each has different demands in terms of gear.
4. What are they prepared to carry? The best camera is the one we will have. No point pushing a heavy camera at someone who will not carry it.
5. VERY important, what kind of output do they want? Thumbnails for social media, posting to web pages, displaying on screens, small prints, large format prints. The more one demands in terms of output the better quality of the image required. There is no point pushing a hugely expensive camera at someone who just puts stuff on small format, low-resolution web pages for example.
When we get inquiries from newbies we are essentially embassadors for photography. We are not there to push gear, we are there to welcome them into the great community of photographers and hopefully encourage them to explore within their limits and asperations.
Well... As promised for those who did not find out the answers before I changed the file names 
The expensive camera was Photograph A
Canon 7D MkII + 100-400 EF-L MkII + 1.4 Extender Mk III investment cost $5600(Can)+taxes
The inexpensive camera was Photograph B
Canon PowerShot SX60HS, investment cost $560(Can)+taxes
For a beginner, seeking to learn technique and not planning to do any major printing, it seems to me that the value lies with the cheaper camera. The SX has all the basic controls of a DSLR, is easy to carry and has an amazing range of focal lengths. It all depends on what you want the thing to do, and in particular what will be the final output.
If they decided they wanted to pursue photography, and found they wanted better results than this rendered, they could then fork out more moneyand move to a DSLR or MILC . I have a huge investment in gear, but there are times when I take the Powershot out with me when that's all I want to carry. As contributors have noted, under the right conditions it takes great pictures.
Anyway for those who looked, thanks for doing so and I hope you found this little experiment interesting.
@Tronhard wrote:Well... As promised for those who did not find out the answers before I changed the file names
The expensive camera was Photograph A
Canon 7D MkII + 100-400 EF-L MkII + 1.4 Extender Mk III investment cost $5600(Can)+taxes
The inexpensive camera was Photograph B
Canon PowerShot SX60HS, investment cost $560(Can)+taxes
For a beginner, seeking to learn technique and not planning to do any major printing, it seems to me that the value lies with the cheaper camera. The SX has all the basic controls of a DSLR, is easy to carry and has an amazing range of focal lengths. It all depends on what you want the thing to do, and in particular what will be the final output.
If they decided they wanted to pursue photography, and found they wanted better results than this rendered, they could then fork out more moneyand move to a DSLR or MILC . I have a huge investment in gear, but there are times when I take the Powershot out with me when that's all I want to carry. As contributors have noted, under the right conditions it takes great pictures.
Anyway for those who looked, thanks for doing so and I hope you found this little experiment interesting.
I kept silent, because Tom's note had tipped me off to which was which before you changed the file names.
I think the greatest difference between the two shots is that the colors (especially the sky and the branch) look much more natural in the picture taken with the 7D2. Obviously colors are among the easiest parameters to tune in post; but in terms of unassisted representation of reality, I think the 7D2 wins. Both cameras produced a very sharp image, though, which does make the Powershot seem a very good value.
