Delderby Loc: Derby UK

AH - so that's why you don't do lens tests.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Agree!

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

bwa

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

In choosing a lens it could be that the real choice is between IQ and sharpness - or going for a compromise. The easiest PP fix would be sharpness, but to fix IQ or compromise maybe not so easy, and perhaps not really successful.

MJPerini

Since these are the cameras you own, you do get SOME information from your comparison.
It is not scientific or controlled, but does compare your cameras in similar (but not identical) circumstances.
If you find it useful thats great. Realize that you haven't compared Sensors or lenses, but 3 different SYSTEMS that you own, mostly at different focal lengths.
Comparing cameras you own under similar circumstances is not worthless. You know a little more now than before you did it. That's Good (for you , because you own those cameras)
I think what most people are saying that it is not a test in any real scientific way, nor is it really useful for others, and that is also true.
I do 'Test shots' all the time, as many do, but would not think od publishing them because that are not conclusive in any way.
It is good to know your equipment, but that is different than testing.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Amateurs should not do tests?
But these are cameras designed for amateurs to use.

Lens vs. camera? These two cameras do NOT have interchangeable lenses. Each is a package deal.

RX10 is how good against Nikon P1000? In this "test" the Osprey is on the same branch for both shots. Both cameras were used on "auto" but the Nikon has a special auto setting for birds and that's what I used.
The RX10 was at full extension. The Nikon was extended to about 2800 mm equivalent where the frame was filled enough.

When the object is close/large enough then the RX10 will give better IQ. That was not the question I was trying to answer. The assertion being tested is when the RX10 is too short, so to speak. Size does matter.

OK, trolls, go for it.

RX10m4

(Download)

Nikon Coolpix P1000

(Download)

2-up with approximately equal sizes (RX10 enlarged to match)

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why not go through your own edit-to-completion exercise? One underexposed vs another better image isn't the best presentation, unless you're determined to 'prove' the armature feedback?

Canisdirus

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-to-test-your-lens

Download the chart...and follow the directions.

Polock

Anything for shintz & giggles is always 100% worth it.
Maybe a SOC jpg would be a fairer test

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I did exactly that and then also showed what happens when you try to enlarge the RX10 image. Download them and see them as you like. The RX10 image is not edited but it is converted directly from raw in order to produce a higher quality file for you.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I don't understand what "your own edit-to-completion exercise" means. I think the SOOC images demonstrate an obvious truth and don't need me to "prove" anything. The 2-up view in a view-only app is not editing but it is, I think, informative and helpful for those who don't want to go through the effort of downloading and viewing on their own.

I chose not to correct the exposures. As I pointed out, I used both on an automatic setting. The Nikon got the exposure pretty well because it metered on the bird. The rX10m4 apparently metered too much sky. That does not affect sharpness to any significant degree. I'm sure you already could figure that out yourself.

I think that you and some others are being trolls for your own amusement. I was simply showing that a camera, any camera, used far beyond its design limits will not compete well. I know that enlarging the images from the P1000 (1/2.3" sensor) gives awful results but enlarging the RX10 image beyond 100% is no good either. One should use his or her tools so as to give good results. The UHH poster who claimed that the RX10m4 images were better than specified others and denied my observation about this should be in this conversation. But he's not, so far.

It should be clear by now that I'm not trying to do professional lens tests. I am simply demonstrating that even an amateur can easily show that for birds at great distances, some cameras are a lot better than others. Denying that is not supportable by the evidence.

It's about two consumer level cameras. It's not "rocket science".

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Thanks. I was not testing lenses. I was doing a demonstration of two consumer level cameras. I can look up good lens tests on the internet. I do that a lot when considering what lens to buy.

I this case as I have said more than once, the cameras don't have interchangeable lenses.

Canisdirus

Fine...and like I have already mentioned with a link...download a chart, and actually make a repeatable test for yourself.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Your SOOC image has been processed and sharpened into an end-product JPeg. you may not understanding what you are comparing.

Not just apples and oranges, there is a whole fruit bowl of variables...

It was pointed out to you that a RAW file is the necessary baseline for any kind of credible comparisons. Asking questions, paying attention and respecting advanced member suggestions can go a long way if you want to advance your skills and knowledge.

Perhaps try to avoid the soapbox and self appointed professorship on fundamentals. Recognize that misguided enthusiasm can make oneself look foolish if relentlessly pushing the donkey over the edge of the cliff for no reason other than ego.

Lots to learn here at the hog, so please do not take offense... I have been there myself more than once...

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

imagextrordinair said:
Your SOOC image has been processed and sharpened into an end-product JPeg. you may not understanding what you are comparing.

Not just apples and oranges, there is a whole fruit bowl of variables...

It was pointed out to you that a RAW file is the necessary baseline for any kind of credible comparisons. Asking questions, paying attention and respecting advanced member suggestions can go a long way if you want to advance your skills and knowledge.

Perhaps try to avoid the soapbox and self appointed professorship on fundamentals. Recognize that misguided enthusiasm can make oneself look foolish if relentlessly pushing the donkey over the edge of the cliff for no reason other than ego.

Lots to learn here at the hog, so please do not take offense... I have been there myself more than once...(end quote)

Notwithstanding some condescending remarks, your post is obviously well intentioned but puzzling because you seem to deny my assertion that I did not process the Nikon's JPG of the bird. There was a "28%" in the filename but the file was not changed. Here is a screenshot of the original filename and that one, side by side using Mac Preview. They are identical. they are not sharpened. The osprey was shot at "equivalent" 2800mm out of a possible 3000. The original download is repeated here. Make your own comparison; view the EXIF.

Those who don't believe that the P1000 is that good should review these links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAz6jlMWbPA (or many more that are available on the internet)
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/birding-photography-tips-with-nikon-coolpix-super-zoom-digital-cameras.html

As for the shot taken with the RX10m4, it was converted directly from raw by Photomator Pro without actually opening it, let alone sharpening it. Here is the raw file; see for yourself.

Although you are suggesting about me: "self appointed professorship on fundamentals", the math can be done by anyone with a little patience and a spreadsheet. Here is bottom line that is worth considering. If the RX10 and the P1000 take the same object at the same distance and then want to print it at 300 px/in (let's not argue about px vs dpi, ok?) then the size of the print will be: P1000=13.4" but RX10=3.0" using the size and distance I picked. The ratio will hold even if you change the size and/or distance. It's more than 4X different. For anyone who wants a copy of the spreadsheet, PM me.

It's still not rocket science. The P1000 can take a useable picture well beyond the limits of the RX10, even with post processing.

This pair of Pelicans was taken with the P1000 by my wife using bird mode. It printed very well at 8x10".

I will be the first to say that the IQ of the RX10 is much better when used within its intended limits. The P1000 has very poor DR and will wash out highlights much too quickly. I've made many comparisons in real life since my wife and I were both shooting the same birds at the same time. But often, she can get good shots at distances where my RX10 or my alpha 6500 are essentially useless. I don't need professional lab testing to understand this.

(Download)

raw file from RX10
Attached file:
(Download)

pair of pelicans Nikon Coolpix P1000 1200mm equivalent

(Download)

JPG SOOC P1000

(Download)