olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Remember the size of the sensor, it is 28.0735mm Sqd. If you take a pic at high magnification with atmospheric/shake/vibration etc. and pack it on that sensor, then view it on a screen at say 10 x 18 sq. in. You are looking at an image magnified 4,136.6 times the sensor image (if my math is correct). When I shoot with my Fuji or Nikon bridge units, I try to remember that when I'm framing a shot. Doing this made me realize that sometimes I was just expecting a bit much from the little sensor and looooong lens. I have some very nice nature shots I wouldn't hesitate to frame, some at hi-mag and cropped, but they weren't easy to get!!

Image stabilization should be "on", tripod or sandbag/pillow can help....cutting vibration is paramount, sharp focus too.

Linda From Maine has posted some very fine shots from her bridge camera efforts, often better than efforts I've seen from big $$ large sensor equipment. I bet they took a lot of thought and effort, it can be done.

Bridge cameras have (IMO) often been expected to do miracles, and they can't. They can do a good job for their intended purpose, and can make fine photo's if we do our part.

If you have not yet spoken to the vendor, and are sure you are done with it, see if you can return it (a small restocking fee would be better than outright loss). Can't hurt to ask....maybe trade back in on something else they have that you like.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If you bought it from one of the big stores not long ago, there is a good chance they will take it back. Contact them! They might offer to give a refund or take it in exchange for something else.

The fact that a 3000mm equivalent lens shows camera shake is no surprise. It is the nature of the beast, but a pain to handle. That is what I thought ended the long zoom wars. I guess not. The P900 at 2000mm equiv is also difficult, but less $$.

There is the Canon SX60 HS or the newly announced SX70 HS to consider if they will take the P1000 back. They offer siimilar specs with not so long a lens and cost less $$. That won't offset the price of the P1000, but see what the store offers.

You still have to use proper technique when shooting with a long lens.

Bill_de Loc: US

I saw a p1000 the other day for the first time. The woman who owned it said she upgraded from a p900 and is thrilled with it. She showed me a couple of shots on the screen that looked good, although that is no real test.

Unless you can get all your money back now, another month wouldn't hurt much if you want to keep trying.

--

Bipod

Convertable racing dumptruck of a lens.
Why build such a thing?
Of course it's slow (f/2.8 - f/8), unsharp and full of flare--
it cannot be otherwise.

Shame on Nikon. And listen to their sales hype:

Yeah, it's just like the Keck or the Hubble! But the "aperture"
of a real telescope is measured in inches, feet or meters.
The aperture of the two W. M. Keck telescopes is
10 meters. That's just a tad faster than this lens.

Then there's the implication that using a 3000 mm lens is
easy and convenient.

There's nothing easy or convenient about a very long
telephoto lens! Photographers who routinely shoot them
use extremely steady tripods, sandbags, huge lens hoods,
etc. And they work in bright sun only--or they live with
noisy images. Either way, they are stuck with monstrous
foreshotening in the image. Whatever you photograph
is pressed flat, like an herbarium specimen Nikon
kinda forgot to mention all that.

Utterly shamseless: Dr. Nikon's Kickapoo Snake Oil Cure
for all your photographic ills. Good for man and beast!

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Nor will any be, when taken with that tiny sensor. Further, I was not suggesting that the P900 lens is more than "good". However, when I compare the best that I can do with a better camera and a shorter lens, the P900 usually wins. At distances where I can get a useful size image, my a6500 or my RX10 IV win. At the distances where the P900 is zoomed to maximum, there is no contest and the Nikon wins.

The attached screen capture is my full 1920 x 1200 screen viewing another P900 shot at 1:1 or 100% (terminology will vary). I don't see any motion blur. The EXIF says it was an equivalent length of 1600 mm. It was taken under the conditions and techniques I described earlier. I don't think it's particularly sharp but if you look at the reflection of the sun in the rabbit's eyes I think you will be hard pressed to see any camera motion. If there were, then there would be shape distortion (or more of it).

As a thought experiment, take the screen capture of the entire frame (it isn't cropped) and overlay a smaller rectangle representing 600 mm equivalent and see what you get. Then imagine how it would look enlarged back to the size produced by the P900. I have created a graphic to illustrate the relative size and crop. The blue background is a Full frame 8 x 6 box and the rabbit image is scaled on the wide dimension but retains its original aspect ratio. The blue area is what would have to be cropped on the full frame image taken at 600 mm. The image of the rabbit is the size you would need to crop to in order to equal the P1000's.

My view is that the P900 which costs about $600 is punching well above it's price on those long shots. As far as I know, the P1000 is as good and has the much greater reach if wanted. You can't even buy a decent 150-600 zoom for what the P1000 costs.

I'm not using a P900 and I'm willing to forgo shots that I can't get rather than accept the tiny sensor's limitations. But the image stabilization is good or better at zooms that other cameras can't produce. You can't expect that sensor to produce the sharpness we get from good cameras with APS-C or Full Frame sensors. But because of the extreme lens length, you can get good results at otherwise unworkable distances and with acceptable image stabilization.

Any camera is a set of design choices and cost-driven quality choices. This rant is just to put the P1000 in perspective and to assert that it's image stabilization is quite good for hand held shots in my experience.

(Download)


(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

f/8 is the smallest aperture on the camera and is available at all focal lengths. At the wider angles, f/8 on a bridge camera gives as much depth of field as f/16 (or more) on a FF. See:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-251193-1.html

There is really no point in comparing full frame gear with bridge cameras. They are their own world. When I purchased my first SX50, it cost $375. Believe me, I got my money's worth!

As I mentioned in my first posting to this thread, I would not want to attempt the equiv. 3,000 mm of the P1000, or anything beyond the equiv. 1,200 mm of the sx50, in fact. I was "steady" when I purchased in spring 2013, but not so good three years later.

(Download)

The nest is in the tree just to left of mid-frame.



(Download)

User ID

(if my math is correct)

But, it is not. Your arithmetic may be correct, but
your formula is off by a whole order of magnitude.
You keep squaring everything. But the issue here
is magnification, which is linear. The screen image
per your example is only about 40X ... not 4000X.


`

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I don't anyone that can hand hold a 3000mm (equivalent) lens!

grammabd Loc: Matagorda county texas

Returned from a month of visiting kids (and beautiful scenery) in Ut, WY and CO. My husband and I both took pictures of the same subjects and he has a P900 and I have a D300.
Although most of my pictures are sharper - I was surprised at how many he got that look fine. He doesn't like changing lenses and he doesn't want to figure out which aperture, shutter speed or anything else! He just uses the presets on his P900. His fireworks were really great! His shots of the running grandkids also did very well. I think you should just think of this camera as a really good point and shoot and enjoy that long zoom. He loves this camera!

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

I have a Kodak AZ901 which zooms out to 1980 mm equivalent. It fixes some diffraction at the long end and has good IS, but you can't fix everything in the processor. It's fun to use, and the lens is comically huge even fully retracted.

Bipod

Great image sensor graphic! Prior to digital cameras, nobody but 110 cartridge
camera or Minox owners had to worry about formats smaller than 35 mm.
That's progress!

But don't worry: the "high tech" digital sensor has lower resolution per
unit area than good film. More progress!

People who wouldn't have dreamt of using a 110 catridge film (13 mm x 17 mm)
camera are now using digital camers with even smaller, lower-res sensors.
Sure, the image is poor, but the camera has a computer in it. Oh boy!

And there's the tele zoom image in all its glory: flat as pancake, super-low
contrast. A scene dipped in gray paint and run over by a steamroller.

If your eye had 17 elements in 12 groups = 24 surfaces,
you wouldn't see any contrast either. But the eye if filled with
clear gel, so it has just 1 surface and can see about
10 stops of contrast at a time

And the only excuse for the long tele is to take a picture of a field
mousewithout having to figure out how to get close to it. Gee, my
cat canget close to a mouse -- close enough to bring it home and
leave it on the doorstep!

You know, there was a time when humans knew how to get close
enough to catch it for dinner. But now theyonly know how to buy
expensive lenses and cameras.

BebuLamar

I guess you're not human.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Now that’s an interesting observation! 😁

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

If you want to know the fair market value, go to KEH.com and check their pricing. But I also doubt that you will get $900.00

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

In [ https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-557305-1.html ] the shooter uses 1/640 handheld when he shot the woodpecker.

Like Linda, I love my $150 [great 14000 recalled and refurbished by Canon] Canon SX50, but only use it for special occasions. The use is limited to such things as a car show where one does not want to carry the 40#s of DSLR. Because it is a bridge camera and bulky tho light in weight it is suitable for shows and birding. Bridge cameras are not something one would carry 24/7. IMO the SX50 is a camera that does better than it should be considering the small sensor... great reach and image quality. Laszlo, Both the SX50 and your Nikon P100 have the small 1/2.3 sensor.... small indeed.

My present pocket portable 24/7 is a Panasonic TZ100 with a 1" sensor which is about 4x the area of the small sensor cameras like the SX50. The TZ100 is now in the $500 range having been superseded by the TZ200. Much more expensive is the Sony RX100, .... RX100IV because it is only available by a Doctors prescription, hopefully, the medical insurance covers part of the $1200 price tag.

[OUCH the older RX is not less than $500 on Amazon] I chose the TZ100 over the RX100 based on reach.