I hope I can make this answerable & not purely opinion-based...
Amongst the things I try to shoot, birds, squirrels & other small nervous wildlife crop up relatively frequently.
I'm very happy with my existing crop-frame interchangeable lens setup, but trying to grab a fast shot of something small, fast & relatively distant proves [obviously] quite elusive.
Existing setup D5500, various lenses from 18 to 300 mm, in several steps, but including one that does all that in one go.
In the studio, under controlled conditions, I have my ever-expanding [though not yet premium] glass collection & choose to suit the shot. That wouldn't change. I fully intend to grow that glass collection & eventually move up to a better body.
I tend to, for the occasional walk in the park etc, take my entire camera bag, so if I see something stationary & deserving of a more suitable lens, I can reach for it; but otherwise I have my 'guilty pleasure' Nikkor DX 18-300mm. It's not the sharpest knife in the box... but it's 18-300 - as fast as I can twist the zoom.
I have resisted so far, very long zooms; partly from budget concerns & partly because I find it difficult to place the intended subject in frame at first go unless I start wide - so what I tend to do is have the zoom lens quite short, find the subject, then actively zoom in so I can keep it in frame. With birds etc, this gives up time, but gains eventual accuracy.
Now Nikon announces the ridiculous 24-3000mm Coolpix 1000 bridge camera.
I have a dilemma. Save for better [long] glass for my existing camera or spend less on this bridge system than even one of those lenses would cost.
I'm not a pro, none of this cost will ever be recouped. I'm not rich, I can't throw money at my [passionate] hobby.
I'm not asking anyone to make the decision for me... but how do I decide?
Is there a quick, "You don't want this new camera because..." ?
I'm not interested in any of the 'features' like scenes, wifi, bluetooth, etc, I'm only considering how much image quality I'll lose [which I know isn't an absolute] vs how much further I can be from a fleeting subject & still have a reasonable chance of getting an acceptable shot.
Factors such as noticeable & uncorrectable colour aberration would be an immediate 'turn off'. I've had lenses that do that, I don't need an entire compact system that will do it too.
I'm aware I'll 'lose pixels' going down from my existing 24mp to 16mp. I like 'sharp' so this is definitely a factor I'd need to consider.
I understand this question may not be completely answerable until the model has had some testing in the real world.