Super Zoom (Page 4): If you insist on getting something like the Nikon P1000 for astrophotography...get the Sony RX10IV instead. Bigger sensor (important), and more AF points...and the...

Canisdirus

If you insist on getting something like the Nikon P1000 for astrophotography...get the Sony RX10IV instead.
Bigger sensor (important), and more AF points...and the real difference...bright monitoring capability.
BMC lets you literally see in the dark. You can light up the heart of the Milky way in real time with it.
No one else has that little gem feature...and it will make life easier on those cold nights.
It's the better camera for astro work...but still not optimal.
Large sensors own the Astro world.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Harold Stetson wrote:

I think the P1000 is what I want but I am kind of choking on a grand for it. I found a RX10 for 550 and am giving some thought to buying it to see if I like the zoom camera thing. I am also wondering if the better sensor would allow electronic enlargement to somewhere close to the P1000 with the longer lens.

Yes, the RX10m3 or m4 with 600 mm "equivalent" lens takes a better image than the P900 or P1000. I have had both, still have the m4. The linear dimensions of the sensor are 2x that of the P1000 (4X by area) and somewhat more Mpx, too. But there is NO WAY that the RX10 can compete with the P900/1000 when the subject is too far away. I use the RX10 and my wife uses the P900/1000. Many times the bird is simply too far away to get a decent size image from my RX10 and the P1000 is just getting going.

So yes, the RX10 makes a much better enlargement but only within its limits. 3000/600=5. No, you don't get a 5X better picture. I have done careful experimentation to satisfy myself on this point. Field experience agrees, too.

I like that we have both cameras available at the same time but if I had only one camera it would be the RX10m4.

aginzu

Ric711 wrote:

I have a P900 and I like it just fine. I'm sure there are better like the P1000 but it is just a little too much for me right now. I did use it for the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. Here are some moon shots as well. You tell me how it did

Beautiful composite!

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Canisdirus wrote:

The point is the P1000 is 4 times darker than the Celestron...which is fairly important in astrophotography.

Sorry, but I haven't found that to be the case. Same camera settings with a C11 as a P1000.

bwa

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

a6k wrote:

Yes, the RX10m3 or m4 with 600 mm "equivalent... (show quote)

Totally agree! I also have both the RX10 IV and P1000, and both get used depending upon the circumstances. But as you say, if I had to choose between the two, the Sony would be the one I keep! And if I needed great low light performance I would keep my full frame A7S and A7 III.

bwa
bwa

Canisdirus

bwana wrote:

Sorry, but I haven't found that to be the case. Same camera settings with a C11 as a P1000.

bwa

Well then... physics no longer applies to optics...better call NASA.

Ahem, it's the same settings because the f/8 on the Nikon is adjusted for the sensor.
But it's not an f/8 3000mm lens. It can't be.
Once again, the marketing department strikes.
Nikon multiplies the focal length but leaves off the aperture multiplication.
Many fall for it.
Neither the Sony RX10IV or the Nikon P1000 are good for low light situations.
But the Sony is clearly better than the Nikon...why I recommended it IF the poster still wants to go that route.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Canisdirus wrote:

Well then... physics no longer applies to optics..... (show quote)

I recommend the RX10 IV over the P1000 for low light as well but simply because of the larger sensor and photosites. Move to a APS-C or full frame sensor if you want even better low light performance BUT a 3,000mm 'lens' on either of these is probably the equivalent of a Celestron C11 at 35+/- lbs.

Canisdirus

bwana wrote:

I recommend the RX10 IV over the P1000 for low light as well but simply because of the larger sensor and photosites. Move to a APS-C or full frame sensor if you want even better low light performance BUT a 3,000mm 'lens' on either of these is probably the equivalent of a Celestron C11 at 35+/- lbs.

Lol..no. It is not the equivalent of a Celestron C11.
Holy smokes...
One is a light bucket...one is a small beach pail for kids.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Please, if this applies to you, stop calling it a 3000 mm lens. It is a 539 mm zoom lens. The tiny sensor has 16Mpx. The sensor is only showing the center of the image. The 3000 mm equivalent is a way to describe the angle of view. The idea of a F stop equivalence is an error based on an erroneous understanding. It’s a F8 lens at full zoom. The maximum aperture at 539 mm is therefore 539/8=67. If it were really a 3000 mm lens then the F would be 3000/67=45. That is just silly. You can use F8 at 1/400 sec. at ISO 100 in normal daylight like any other camera.

Using the commonly accepted rule the magnification is 539/50=10.8. In other words it is slightly more magnifying than a good pair of binocs and weaker than a spotting scope in most cases. Notice that this applies to any 539 mm lens.

The spectacular performance is because of the combination of long lens and very, very small photo sites aka high pixel density. That is also why it is not good for low light.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Canisdirus wrote:

Lol..no. It is not the equivalent of a Celestron C11.
Holy smokes...
One is a light bucket...one is a small beach pail for kids.

What are you talking about now!? You're saying a C11 is not a 3000mm lens? A C11 is NOT a 'small beach pail for kids'!!

Any 3000mm (f/8 or f/10) (refractor) lens that can illuminate a 42mm light circle is going to be big and probably the equivalent of a C11, if not heavier! Whereas at 3000mm the lens on the P1000 only has to illuminate a 7.7mm light circle (~3.4% the area of a full frame sensor) and can be considerably smaller than an equivalent full frame lens. Of course the 1.34 micron photosites of the P1000 sensor are not a match for those in say a Sony A7S or A7 III WRT photon capture, i.e.: low light performance.

bwa

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

a6k wrote:

Please, if this applies to you, stop calling it a ... (show quote)

bwa

Canisdirus

bwana wrote:

What are you talking about now!? You're saying a ... (show quote)

You are thoroughly confused.
The C11 is the light bucket.
The P1000 is the kids beach pail.
Your specs explain why that is.

Neither the Sony nor the Nikon is preferable for anything other than the moon or the sun...period.
If you want to get serious astro photos, you need a FF and a star tracker and/or a telescope with tracker and a full frame attached to the viewer

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Canisdirus wrote:

You are thoroughly confused.
The C11 is the light bucket.
The P1000 is the kids beach pail.
Your specs explain why that is.

Neither the Sony nor the Nikon is preferable for anything other than the moon or the sun...period.
If you want to get serious astro photos, you need a FF and a star tracker and/or a telescope with tracker and a full frame attached to the viewer

I understand that fully. I have three tracking mounts, one on a pier in an observatory, one on my deck and one for grab 'n go shooting. I also have three cooled astro-cameras (and too many telescopes) for serious shooting of deep sky objects (DSO's); however, the P1000 works very nicely for Planetary, Lunar and (White Light) Solar, and is very easy to setup and use. The full spectrum A7S is also a great camera and the stock A7 III is almost as good. I also have a mono A6000 which I primarily use for Ha imaging but it works nicely with Hb, Oiii and Sii filters if I decide to put the effort into shooting full narrowband and I like the fact it uses the sweet spot of my full frame lenses.

I'm a KISS astrophotographer, the simpler the better.

bwa

Misty Valley Ranch Observatory

(Download)

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I have a roll off roof observatory with a CPC Celestron 11"
remember for light gathering use pie R squared for total area. with my portable c 8 I forced to use 6.3 reducer to get full moon on a crop sensor camera. I've taken hundreds if moon photos with film no sensor needed. Not going full frame route have enough cameras and glass now

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I have a roll off roof observatory with a CPC Celestron 11"
remember for light gathering use pie R squared for total area. with my portable c 8 I forced to use 6.3 reducer to get full moon on a crop sensor camera. I've taken hundreds if moon photos with film no sensor needed. Not going full frame route have enough cameras and glass now

Same here! Actually too many cameras and 'glass' but that is sorta like having too much fun...

Anyway, I think we should get back to Harold's Super Zoom question. I opt for the Nikon P1000 or P950, although the image quality of the P1000 at 2000mm might be better than the P950 wide open??

Otherwise, if he is going after Jupiter, Saturn and their Moons, consider something like a Celestron C8 or C11. But if going this route, a good solid tracking mount would almost certainly be required. Another option along this same line would be a light reflector scope like the Bresser 100 (1400mm) with a 2x or 2.5x Barlow (2800-3500mm). I've used this combo with a Sony A6100 on Jupiter, Saturn and Mars with reasonable results.

Even a 600mm lens with a 1.4x Teleconverter (840mm) can yield reasonable results, per the attached.

Good luck!

bwa

(Download)