No. If you don't care then you don't.

I used two cameras+lenses:

Sony 𝜶6500 with Minolta 500/8 AF Reflex (EXIF reports 496 mm = 744) The lens is fixed length.
Sony RX10 IV with 220 mm lens (EXIF reports 220 mm=600). The zoom lens is not interchangeable.

Using a tripod, I shot the same target at the same distance with the RX10 at longest setting (Minolta is a prime). The picture, exposure, etc. are not important because the dimensions of the lenses, sensors and distance to target are the only things being compared.

744 / 600 = 1.24 so if the equivalent focal length were really only about the physical size of the sensor, the displayed image from the 𝜶6500 would be 1.24 times the size of the one from the RX10 IV.

Skip the math. The screenshot shown here tells me that in order to make the shot taken with the RX10 IV as large as the one taken with the 𝜶6500 + Minolta 500 it was necessary to increase the smaller image by 49%.

If we care about what the equivalent focal length means then either the 𝜶6500 is 894 or the RX10 is 499. Of course, the truth could be some mixture/hybrid of the two discrepancies.

It's a shame there is no standard to use for pixels per mm on the sensor so all we can do is compare lens and sensor combinations to each other. The discrepancy here appears to be the difference in pixels per mm in the horizontal dimension of the sensor.

The second screenshot that I added as an edit shows the RX10 shot with one using the 𝜶6500 with a Sony 70-400 on which the EXIF says 400=600. Same two cameras, supposed to be the same equivalent length. Twelve % difference.

(Download)


(Download)

Au contraire, you can see a raw file if you use software designed for that. FastRawViewer and RawDigger can and to accomplish that. So does "Raw Photo Processor 64" which only runs on Mac.

There is no accessible raw file for the Nikon because it was shot in "bird mode". The JPG from the RX10 was as close to SOOC as possible.

But even a casual look at the two shots of the osprey will show you that the SOOC from the Nikon is better by so much that equal post processing would not change anything.

I am probably wasting my time with you but here are 4 screen prints from Sony Edit which can read Sony raw files. it is the same Sony raw file I already provided in a previous post. Three images are from the raw Sony file and the reason I am showing you the screen prints is so that you can see what the camera settings were. One is using the same software to look at the Nikon JPG, also with settings shown. The three Sony views are at 100%, 200% and 300%. I stopped there because of the pixellation. The Nikon shot is at 50%. All of this can be seen on the screen prints. You can see the severe pixellation better if you download the screenprint so you can see it full size on your own monitor. Note that in the upper right of the display is an indicator of the cropping being done by the app.

Some comparisons are too easy and obvious to justify all this silly conversation.

As for "winner". I leave that up to the viewer. All I wanted to do was offer consumer level information on an assertion that I knew to be unsupportable. The guy who said it has not chimed in on this thread. Some folks would not want to frustrate themselves with post processing other than perhaps cropping. This should be enough for them.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

For those of you who prefer the expert stuff:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx10-iii/FULLRES/RX10M3hSLI00100NR2D.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-p1000/FULLRES/P1000hSLI0100NR2D.HTM

I used the RX10M3 in this case because the "4" apparently had not been tested in this way and to the best of my knowledge (have owned both) the lens and sensor are the same.

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)

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.

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".

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.

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)

Another UHHer said I was wrong about the RX10 not being as good at focal lengths beyond its equivalent 600 mm. He also said he did not believe the Nikon Coolpix could be better at longer distances, smaller sizes.

If you look at the equal sized images you will see that the Nikon is the only one that can clearly show the screen's squares.

All the other criticisms are off the point.

What makes sense is to compare what cameras do. Two of those cameras have non-interchangeable lenses. The one with interchangeable lens uses the best I had for that. It happens to be very good. It would make no sense to use an inferior lens.

See for yourself if the comparison is useful for some people.

Here are the 4 shots. I changed my mind and did not try to fix the exposures. All but the BirdMode shot were taken in raw and converted to JPG using Pixelmator Pro on my Mac via a "shortcut" that does no modification, just converts to maximum quality JPG. The Nikon does JPG only in BirdMode. Since different cameras modify the internal raw to JPG in too many ways, I shoot raw and convert to best JPG. That keeps the sharpening out of the test.

In the size equalized view I made the RX10's 100% and made the others smaller as needed. The sizes are indicated in each of the frames.

The screen on the target is, I think, 1/20" squares. The distance is over 400' according to Google Maps.

RX10m4 22o mm (600 mm equivalent)

(Download)

𝜶6500 500 mm (750 equivalent)

(Download)

Nikon Coolpix P1000 manual exposure 540 mm (3000 equivalent)

(Download)

Nikon Coolpix P1000 in BirdMode (JPG only) 540mm (3000 equivalent)

(Download)

Screenshot 4-up with sizes equalized

(Download)

Screenshot 4-up all at 100%

(Download)

Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens
Sony RX10 m4
Nikon Coolpix P1000

Image quality is more than sharpness. And sharpness is different at different distances and lens lengths.

In the next post, below, I will provide actual JPGs that I took using my favorite target for sharpness and more.

For the Nikon and the RX10 I used F8 at 1/800 or 1/1000 with ISO 100. The Nikon was 1/1000 because it would not do 1/800.

I also took one with the Nikon in Bird Mode and it turned out the best. That's the one my wife always uses.

These are not really lab quality comparisons but I think it will be obvious what some of the differences are.

I will also provide screenshot(s) where I attempted to equalize the image size in pixels. That would matter in printing. In those screenshot(s) I had to make some minor exposure corrections.

[quote=imagemeister]

I will stop hijacking this thread and post some comparisons so you can find it less difficult to believe.

BTW. The Nikon Coolpix P1000 when shooting at equivalent zoom beyond 2000 mm gets shots that can be printed well up to 8x20, sometimes 11x14 that the RX10 can’t come close on. I’ve tried many times.

The tiny sensor isn’t good but the 540 mm lens makes it 3000.

My wife’s shot shown. She uses it like binoculars for identification of 🦅. We printed this with excellent results.

(Download)