theoldman

Many excellent and long reviews aside, the bottom line is that this camera will capture images no other can. It is first and foremost a destroyer of distance. You will see what you have never seen before, if a quarter mile away, or 10 yards.

I photographed birds, deer, dew drops, apples, and kid’s playing soccer with it this week. I use my other camera with the bigger chip for landscapes and portraits. I could use the P1000 for all, but I like the weight and crisp detail of my other camera.

And those are the essential differences. Weight and crisp detail. You won’t pocket this camera, but to be honest that has not been of the slightest concern. The weight doesn’t bother me and I am 78, so I am not a young buck. I rather like the heft, and I might add that many of the best photographs ever taken were from cameras that where several times larger.

The issue of crisp detail is another matter. A 1/ 2.3 chip and some lens softness at maximum telephoto make this a consumer camera, with a consumer price. The quality is as good as any 1/ 2.3 chip, and the lens at 3000mm will astound you, your friends, and anyone on the web. It will probably make you a winner at the county fair and most on line camera contests. But National Geographic may not be publishing most of your shots.

So if you want amazing images that will please you and 99% of your viewers, buy it. If you want better, spend $15,000 or more and buy a good fixed lens and big chip for the 1%. And don’t forget the cost of a mule to carry it.

Since this is mostly a helping and sharing site, let me add a tip. The 3000mm lens has a maximum aperture of f8.0 and for practical purposes you are pushing the tolerable noise level on a 1/ 2.3 chip at ISO 400, and maybe even ISO 200. And in the Northwest, where I live, much of the year it is overcast, which can be great for some photos, but hard on apertures and shutter speeds.

I found that I can handhold this camera at full telephoto (3000mm), as low as ISO 200, and a 60th of a second!!!! Aside from a good stance, and steady grip, I use bursts. On average, out of each 7 shot burst I will get 1 to 3 sharp images. I shoot RAW, review the photos, and select the sharp ones. It takes no longer to shoot a burst than a single image and I can do several in a row…..but the wait to transfer to the memory card is longer, so a fast SD card helps. This method has made possible shots at dusk in heavy overcast.

One other hint. If I have to use a higher ISO and noise becomes a problem (and it does at 800 and above) I mask the subject and remove the noise from the background where it is usually more noticeable. Then I may selectively sharpen the subject (eg bird, animal with fur). While the noise may still be evident on close inspection in feathers and fur, it is unnoticeable to the typical viewer.

One last observation. Most of my camera acquisitions add incrementally to my image creating capacity….less noise, a sharper lens, a larger aperture, faster focus, etc. This camera shifts the paradigm, disrupts the process, breaks through the ceiling…..you get the picture. Reach out and add a new dimension to your photography.

PS. I realize this sounds like a sales pitch!! But I vacillated about spending the money, and I am really pleased that I did! It can be tough to get an old man's juices flowing for this price!!! :)

Haydon

Please be kind enough to post an image with full EXIF to support this claim. Thanks in advance.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Could you please post some unedited photos taken with the P1000. Check “store original” so the EXIF data is available.
Thanks!

theoldman

Haydon,

Show me yours!! :)

In return for my effort to support my claim for you, please post one of your RAW files taken handheld at a 60th, ISO 200, f8.0, with your 3000mm lens (or cropped equivalent for your chip size and lens) along with brief lens and camera specs. We can do a side by side. It will be informative for many, including me. Thanks in advance!!! :)

I have uploaded one of mine to the first link below. But I’m not sure why the EXIF issue. If I want to spoof you, couldn’t I use a tripod, and timer or remote? Heck, I could use a free EXIF editor and claim I took the photo at a 10th of a second while on horseback at full gallop. :)

More seriously, look at the image at 100%, and maybe 1500% and see if you can spot any motion blur, in any direction. Look at the number on the boat. The blur which is there is uniformly distributed, not skewed. I see lens blur, but no motion blur. Do you agree? If not, educate me.

For the readers who do not want to download and open a RAW file, the second link is a jpg file from the RAW image. We are not talking great pictures here (!) but whether you can handhold a P1000 3000mm zoom at a very slow shutter speed. Heavy overcast, low contrast, a boat so far across the lake I can’t make it out clearly with my naked eyes.

The last jpg is post processed in Photoshop by an amateur….me!

Since the forum will not accept the full sized RAW file, I have provided links to my server for each image below.

Http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/americanroad/DSCN1495.NRW

http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/americanroad/EvidenceDSCN1495.jpg

http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/americanroad/Evidence2DSCN1495.jpg


You may have to cut and paste the URL if the forum is super security conscious. I am brand new here so I don't know


Dave

theoldman

MadMike,

I tried to upload a RAW file to the forum, but they have a 20mb file size limit.

If you like I can upload to my server site a few shots from around the yard and our lake, and list the links But you will need to cut and paste each URL, download the files, and then open each with Photoshop. Or if you don’t use Photoshop, you may have to download the free Nikon RAW converter and use it to view the RAW files, because not all editing software has created RAW conversion profiles this soon for the P1000.

Or maybe there is another way. I am new here.

Dave

Haydon

The links worked fine oldman. Maybe I'm reading the focal length wrong on your file but I don't see indication of 3000 mm in the images. I see it registering at 539 mm equivalent.

Here's a direct paste from the EXIF reader.

Focal Length = 5390/10 mm ===> 539 mm

I'll include an image of my own but it's not from a Nikon P1000. It's from an old Canon SX50 I bought refurbished for $149.00.

Here's my direct paste from the EXIF reader.

Focal Length: 158.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 882.5 mm) F5.6 @ 1/500 second ISO 100.

IMO this image is very sharp with low grain and certainly is a match for yours. I've stored the original 4000 x 3000 12.0 megapixel image here on the direct download.

I had to steady this from a kneeling position. I'm just not good enough to handhold much above the equivalent of 500 mm even at that shutter speed without some type of support system in place let alone framing my subject matter the way I want. BTW- I still was forced to add a little shake reduction in post.

Thanks for sharing Dave. I've shown you mine after you showed me yours :)

(Download)

theoldman

Haydon,

A spectacular image!!! Wish it were mine!

Help me here.

The 539mm focal length on a 1/ 2.3 chip is 3000mm in a 35 mm equivalent...as I understand Nikon and others who state lens equivalencies. I see it all the time. For example my Lumix fz1000 next to my armchair displays a maximum 146mm zoom on the lens rim, on a 1" chip and Panasonic describes it as a 400mm equivalent in a 35 mm. If I have too, I will learn the algorithm, but for now I will trust the "experts."

Obviously, the practice is to state a 35 mm equivalent when stating focal lengths so as to have a common measure for comparison. I know you know this, but some readers may not.

Which leads me back to your wonderful image. The specs you provided say the image was taken at a 882 mm 35mm equivalent, which would say that you were hand holding at less than one third of the focal length I was using. (3000/882) and at 8 times faster a shutter speed (500/60). Sharp as a tack, a prize winning image, which I would be proud to have shot myself, but not apples to apples. Am I wrong??

So let me slightly restate my experience. I have been able to consistently get very usable images with the Nikon P1000 handheld at the 35 mm focal length equivalent of 3000mm, at a 60th of a second!!! That is amazing, and quite significant because the lens has a maximum aperture of f8.0 at that focal length, and the small chip size (and all like it) produces too much noise at high ISO's. So this would be a sunlight only camera, or tripod bound, unless you could shoot as I have found possible at slow shutter speeds in low light.

Frankly I would use my burst method hint at any shutter speed below 500 or 1000 with any long zoom, simply because it is practically fail proof. And in most cases it creates a nice choice of images at no extra cost.

I should add that I am getting shutter speeds of 500 -1600 when the sun comes out so my hint is for those who are shooting in low light as in heavy overcast, as I get much of the fall and winter.

I have added for no better reason than to share and to test the forum upload feature, a handheld 3000mm (35mm equivalent) shot in light overcast at 360 shutter speed this afternoon, post processed of course. :)

Let me close by thanking you for responding and sharing your insights.

Dave

(Download)

JoAnneK01 Loc: Lahaina, Hawaii

Fabulous photo. Mahalo for sharing.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Thanks! You're pushing me closer to the edge. : )

ELNikkor

Great shots and commentary, Dave. This is the first I've seen the capabilities of the P1000 at the long end from a regular chap, and you are right in your praise of that amazing camera. I admit that I have been a bit skeptical of its abilities at 3000mm equivalent, but you have shown that it really does make useable images in the right hands. I think your technique of shooting 7 frame bursts to get at least one sharp is one of the keys, because at least one will be between heartbeats. Happy shooting!

llamb Loc: Northeast Ohio

Nice job, Pops!

Welcome to the uglyhedgehog! I hope we see more of your results.

I, too, am in my 70's and am pleased with my P1000's results.

~Lee

TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

Thanks for the review! I think I'm going to go for it.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

We were all new here at one time. It’s not possible to upload a RAW file. Somewhere in the “fine print” there is info on the max size jpeg that can be uploaded.

Minx Loc: Vermont

Thanks a bunch for the review. I'm was in the throes of deciding, but you helped make that decision.
Looking forward to getting it and enjoying the results.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Let me throw in my support for the P1000. I enjoy mine very much. Is it a "be all " camera?? Of course not. But then what camera really is a "be all?" If you can handle the size and weight, you will enjoy your P1000. No doubt about it!