Nikon P1000
May 10, 2020 11:49:39 #
Dave Craig wrote:
Hi guys: br Im spoiled shooting with my Canon 100... (show quote)
In my opinion...I wouldn't go below a 1" sensor. More than likely, not lower than an MFT. Yes, all the electronics enhance the little guys but that's a tiny sensor on the P1000. If I went bridge it would be a Sony RX10iv with a 1" sensor. If. Currently, I'm quite happy in FF Land.
May 10, 2020 11:52:27 #
I would think that with a 3000 mm equivalent lens, you'd need a very fast shutter speed, even with stabilization.
May 10, 2020 11:59:45 #
davesit
Loc: Media, PA
steve33 wrote:
I would think that with a 3000 mm equivalent lens, you'd need a very fast shutter speed, even with stabilization.
Might be humanly impossible to hand hold. :)
May 10, 2020 12:31:29 #
I have a P900 and enjoy the camera for what it can do. I think the EVF could be better. It’s small and needs to be brighter. I believe the new P950 has addressed that, as well as adding raw capability. I’m happy with the 2000mm eq. zoom and the VR is amazing. It needs to be at those extreme focal lengths. I thought about getting the P1000, but decided that I didn’t need that much zoom or bulk. It’s not a dainty piece, for sure.
These Nikon hyper zooms are great cameras so long as one isn’t trying to use them for critical work. In my opinion, they work well outdoors in good light. Not so much indoors or in dim light. The auto focus struggles in low light, and often at the extreme zoom limit. Fortunately, Nikon thought to include manual focus ability.
Personally, were I to be looking for one of these cameras, I would still opt out the P1000, and get the P950. I think the imrovements/updates, etc., are worth the extra cost.
These Nikon hyper zooms are great cameras so long as one isn’t trying to use them for critical work. In my opinion, they work well outdoors in good light. Not so much indoors or in dim light. The auto focus struggles in low light, and often at the extreme zoom limit. Fortunately, Nikon thought to include manual focus ability.
Personally, were I to be looking for one of these cameras, I would still opt out the P1000, and get the P950. I think the imrovements/updates, etc., are worth the extra cost.
May 10, 2020 12:57:43 #
Most of my friends who use the P 1000 use a tripod when the lens is fully extended. The P 1000 is heavier than the P 900 (Jpeg only). Some prefer the P 900 as it is lighter and easier to use hand held. The latest model, P 950 is in between the two and is jpeg and raw and weighs 2.1 lbs vs 3.2 lbs for the P 1000.
May 10, 2020 13:02:22 #
I cant judge a book by it's cover so: I have to try only then will I see how great or poor the Nikon still is. Pro line Nikon is pretty good stuff...But as always Canon usually eats Nikon for breakfast at least in my world. Im not judging Oh wait yes I am and unless Nikon proves to be better I will either stick with Canon and an occasional Leica because time and again they prove to be better products why buy a Buick when for not much more you can buy a Mercedes that outperforms the Buick on a consent bases.
May 10, 2020 13:09:55 #
I've had my fair share of some disappointing Nikon gear in the past so Bashing is easy to do when your Nikon's dont live up there claims, why claim great when its only good at best. It's like photographers... I love the works of some and dislike the works of others (even shot with Canon) It's my personal experience and to be honest I have not given the newer Nikon gear a shot so until I do my trusty Canon gear my go to gear.
May 10, 2020 13:15:08 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
The area of the P1000 sensor is 1/30, approximately, of the area of the D850.
The P1000 has 16 MPx.
If the D850 had the same pixel size (or density) as the P1000 it would be about 30 x 16 = 480 max which is about 10+ time as much as it actually has.
The P1000 zoom goes to 539 mm. The high equivalent focal length (3000) is, as said above, the result of the small sensor which necessitates a angle of view of about 2/3 of a degree. But the high pixel density is the other half of the secret sauce.
If the DSLR has a 500 or even 600 mm lens then the size of the image it forms will be slightly smaller or slightly larger than on the P1000 but it will have much fewer pixels than the P1000, thus limiting the ability to enlarge/print. The P1000 lens is not as good as, for example, a 500 mm Nikon prime. So yes, the "tack sharp" award goes to the DSLR. But the end result for a tiny target at a great distance will or at least may be better with the P1000 bridge camera.
Of course, pixels that small or that dense cannot give IQ equal to ones in the 3 to 5 micron range. It is a very specialized design and it is executed very well.
BTW, we never use a tripod with our P1000 but I do sometimes brace my hand on a window frame, railing or such. My wife never does even that.
The P1000 has 16 MPx.
If the D850 had the same pixel size (or density) as the P1000 it would be about 30 x 16 = 480 max which is about 10+ time as much as it actually has.
The P1000 zoom goes to 539 mm. The high equivalent focal length (3000) is, as said above, the result of the small sensor which necessitates a angle of view of about 2/3 of a degree. But the high pixel density is the other half of the secret sauce.
If the DSLR has a 500 or even 600 mm lens then the size of the image it forms will be slightly smaller or slightly larger than on the P1000 but it will have much fewer pixels than the P1000, thus limiting the ability to enlarge/print. The P1000 lens is not as good as, for example, a 500 mm Nikon prime. So yes, the "tack sharp" award goes to the DSLR. But the end result for a tiny target at a great distance will or at least may be better with the P1000 bridge camera.
Of course, pixels that small or that dense cannot give IQ equal to ones in the 3 to 5 micron range. It is a very specialized design and it is executed very well.
BTW, we never use a tripod with our P1000 but I do sometimes brace my hand on a window frame, railing or such. My wife never does even that.
May 10, 2020 13:20:03 #
I have one and took it to France last year and the pictures were good enough for my 77 year old eyes. It can get me almost any picture I want. My biggest complaint is that sometimes when I take pictures of the sky and am focusing in on the picture I want, it tells me to turn the camera off and on again repeatedly until I give up and give up on that picture.
May 10, 2020 13:23:07 #
I am aware of the small sensor, but the history of electronics is smaller, faster, cheaper, and better.
May 10, 2020 14:39:53 #
Tuftrackguy
Loc: Seattle WA
I bought a P1000 a few months ago. I bought it so I could take the kind of shots I could not take with any of my other cameras, yet not spend a fortune on lenses. I too watched lots of videos on this camera. In my opinion, it’s a great camera at a great price. I did not expect the photo quality of my Leica Q2, Fuji X100F or Olympus PEN F. I was not disappointed. It’s all about reach. A unique feature is the custom moon setting on the top dial. How many cameras have that? But it’s not just for shooting the moon. I have been able to take shots that would have been impossible with just about any other camera, due to the location of my target and me. I can live with the other weaknesses. I like it.
May 10, 2020 15:26:20 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
steve33 wrote:
I would think that with a 3000 mm equivalent lens, you'd need a very fast shutter speed, even with stabilization.
That has not been our experience. She shoots in "Bird" mode which lets the camera make the decisions about all that stuff.
May 10, 2020 15:27:53 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
davesit wrote:
Might be humanly impossible to hand hold. :)
So my wife is an alien?
Actually, she is a very senior citizen with severe arthritis in her hands yet somehow manages to got many really good shots of birds. I think she's human, but maybe I'm easily deceived.
May 10, 2020 15:30:12 #
I tried one once, at distance of aprox. 1 kilometer I was able to take fairly sharp photos of people on an island it was very impressive for its size. I sometimes use 200 mm or t adapter with spotter scope on tripod because I cant afford the glass that I might want to but it holds me over..no stabilization in lens means tripod all the way and bulky restricted movements. The p1000 mainly impressed me with its relatively small size in comparison to my kit and similar or better performance.
May 10, 2020 15:39:36 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
drobvit wrote:
In my opinion...I wouldn't go below a 1" sensor. More than likely, not lower than an MFT. Yes, all the electronics enhance the little guys but that's a tiny sensor on the P1000. If I went bridge it would be a Sony RX10iv with a 1" sensor. If. Currently, I'm quite happy in FF Land.
For me, you are right. My second camera is the RX10iv and it is much better than I ever expected. I am willing to not get some shots so that I can have the better IQ. I am glad my wife has the P1000 but it's not for me, personally.
Here is yesterday's "session", a screenshot, not the 35mp JPG from raw. Yes, this was taken with my RX10iv. ISO 400.
I have no argument with FF for those who are willing and able to carry the gear, spend the $$, etc. When I rented a RX10iii a while back I was very skeptical. The high percentage of keepers and the excellent IQ persuaded me and I eventually upgraded to the m4 for the greatly superior phase detect focusing. FF IQ beats even crop frame and with "one-inch" it's not even close. But I can get excellent, reasonably large prints with my smaller gear and I actually don't print much anyhow. The shots look really good on my 4K monitor.
btw - both my a6500 and my RX10iv are utterly silent. Not all FF cameras have that advantage.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.