I notice owners of P1000 always want to upgrade to an ILC

[Luis Gabriel Photography]

I have all these cameras Sony and Nikon. The rx is a great action cam with a very good lens. It’s AF and stacked sensor performance will trump any oly em1 cam like em1 m2/3 as I have one of them. Only the om1 is on par. I often take the rx over the em1 when out and about with my dog. The pcams are long zoom good light stills cams. You can crop in with the rx to 16mp maybe a little more as pcam diffraction is starting to set in around f3.9 or so. So the pcams has as advantage above about say 1000mm equiv fl for still subjects. Having a rx plus a pcam makes a very good bridge cam set that will cover most any shooting situation.

DA

I need to test mine side by side but that sounds like a good estimate for sure

 

[The Point and Shoot Pro]

I have all these cameras Sony and Nikon. The rx is a great action cam with a very good lens. It’s AF and stacked sensor performance will trump any oly em1 cam like em1 m2/3 as I have one of them. Only the om1 is on par. I often take the rx over the em1 when out and about with my dog. The pcams are long zoom good light stills cams. You can crop in with the rx to 16mp maybe a little more as pcam diffraction is starting to set in around f3.9 or so. So the pcams has as advantage above about say 1000mm equiv fl for still subjects. Having a rx plus a pcam makes a very good bridge cam set that will cover most any shooting situation.

DA

agreed 100 percent. That's the end game with me too. Get as many of the bridge and good point and shoots as I can get. My Aquisition of my P1000 is getting pushed back a week as there is a snow storm this weekend and I won't be travelling.

I will get it next weekend. CAN'T WAIT!

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I have all these cameras Sony and Nikon. The rx is a great action cam with a very good lens. It’s AF and stacked sensor performance will trump any oly em1 cam like em1 m2/3 as I have one of them. Only the om1 is on par. I often take the rx over the em1 when out and about with my dog. The pcams are long zoom good light stills cams. You can crop in with the rx to 16mp maybe a little more as pcam diffraction is starting to set in around f3.9 or so. So the pcams has as advantage above about say 1000mm equiv fl for still subjects. Having a rx plus a pcam makes a very good bridge cam set that will cover most any shooting situation.

DA

I like that 1100mm and above for Pcams.....because that is where its focal ratio focal length sweet spot is (the highest focal length where the focal ratio is f/5.6). I also think it would make for an interesting head to head comparison, Pcam at 1200mm and Olympus camera with the 75-300mm lens and x2 digital teleconverter (1200mm EFL.)

I would rather use Olympus over 1" sensor cameras though because I really dislike the 3:2 aspect ratio. However if the Sony is that good I can be convinced and just select 4:3 as my image aspect ratio. I already shoot the Pcams in 4 MP since that is their sweet spot lol.

I compiled a little list of focal lengths and focal ratios to compare, please give me your thoughts on them for resolution and image detail (and maybe you can do the comparisons too?)

Oly plus 75-300mm lens

200mm f/6.1 400mm 32.8mm

215mm f/6.2 430mm 34.7mm

221mm f/6.3 442mm 35.1mm

228mm f/6.3 456mm 36.2mm

246mm f/6.4 492mm 38.4mm

252mm f/6.5 504mm 38.8mm

252mm f/8 504mm 31.5mm

258mm f/6.5 516mm 39.7mm

300mm f/6.7 600mm 44.8mm

300mm f/8 600mm 37.5mm

300mm f/9 600mm 33.3mm

The above are the largest focal lengths that can use the corresponding focal ratio.

For the Nikon P900/P950 they are:

178mm f/5.6 1000mm 31.8mm

196mm f/5.6 1100mm 35.1mm

214mm f/6.3 1200mm 34.0mm

232mm f/6.3 1300mm 36.85mm

250mm f/6.3 1400mm 39.7mm

268mm f/6.3 1500mm 42.5mm

286mm f/6.3 1600mm 45.35mm

321mm f/6.3 1800mm 51.0mm

357mm f/6.5 2000mm 54.9mm

So theoretically at least, up to 1000mm EFL on the Nikon P900/950, the Oly 75-300mm lens should do better for lens resolution. At 1100mm the Nikons should start to edge ahead, at least compared to the Oly at 200mm f/6.1. The reason I used this focal length specifically on the 75-300mm lens is because it is listed as being a sweet spot in reviews for when the 75-300mm lens performs really well wide open, which is 200mm f/6.1 (2000 lph). Above that various reviews say it still performs well to 220mm and 250mm (1800 lph), but don't say if it is wide open (it could be it does well at f/8, where it is regularly tested.) But all reviews say it is not at its best at 300mm (1500 lph), and it needs to be stopped down to f/8 there. In my own testing, I found it does best at 300mm when stopped down to f/9, so I included those in the above tables too. So we know that this lens does well at least to 200mm f/6.1, in which case the Nikon P900/950 would not begin to edge it out for detail until at least 1100mm. If the tests for it at 220mm and 250mm are correct and it does well there at f/8 (dont know about wide open)...then it is possible the P900/P950 don't edge it out for resolution until 1400mm (1300mm if it is only good wide open to 220mm.) And if you go by the full focal length and wide open, then it is only by 1600mm that it is edged out (though obviously the 75-300mm lens is not at its best at 300mm and wide open.) Going by the reviews of that lens at 300mm f/8 being acceptably sharp, the P900/950 lens wouldn't exceed it in resolution until 1400mm.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I have all these cameras Sony and Nikon. The rx is a great action cam with a very good lens. It’s AF and stacked sensor performance will trump any oly em1 cam like em1 m2/3 as I have one of them. Only the om1 is on par. I often take the rx over the em1 when out and about with my dog. The pcams are long zoom good light stills cams. You can crop in with the rx to 16mp maybe a little more as pcam diffraction is starting to set in around f3.9 or so. So the pcams has as advantage above about say 1000mm equiv fl for still subjects. Having a rx plus a pcam makes a very good bridge cam set that will cover most any shooting situation.

DA

I need to test mine side by side but that sounds like a good estimate for sure

I would love to see the results!

Also an interesting thing to test out-- I think the Sony has digital zoom too? So you could test the Sony at 2x digital zoom (1200mm EFL) vs the Nikon P950 at 1200mm and let's see which resolves more detail at 1:1! Does the Sony also do 4x digital zoom?

I would like to see at which focal length the resolution of the Nikon beats what the Sony can do, even with digital zoom included!

I made a table for largest focal ratios that are available at a given focal length for the Oly 75-300 lens (and for the Nikon P900/950 lens) perhaps the same can be done with the Sony lens-- I heard it is very fast?

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Fujiuseruk]

*meant to make a correction-- since the mockingbird was dancing and somersaulting straight up the distance from me to the bird and me to the perch always remained approximately the same. Wider field of view was good here so I could get the whole dancing routine into one field of view.

Also, as an addendum I've seen pairs of mockingbirds hovering in the faces of crows to make them leave-- I found this amazing-- and will try to capture this too. I've seen this behavior twice already so I know it can't be rare or unique.

Also, just looking back at the pictures, all the people who say the 75-300 lens isn't sharp wide open at 300mm, to me it looks like the 300mm f/6.7 shot came out the sharpest of all-- would you concur? Is that down to the lens or the sunny conditions on that day?

My combo has been to use the P900 for BOP and EM10Mk2 with the 75-300 lens for BIF, but I want to try and see if I can use the P900 for both and get more magnification on my BIF images in so doing, since 300mm (600mm EFL) is the limit for my M43 set ups.

Spring time is the best time to capture all these birds

Looking at those images I’d say you’re wasting your time . Your P900 images are in extended zoom . They are either out of focus or you’re shooting through poor quality glass.
Images shown using the Olympus are too small to get any great detail .
You need to be a lot closer and have no glass in front of the lens .

What would you say the distance needs to be?

Half the distance?

Closer the better but as a guide your subject needs to fill the frame for best resolution without the need for extra zoom .
For me 30ft or closer or just don’t bother anymore unless it’s just a reference shot.
Always try good for light as well ( obviously)

look at differences in detail between this 2000mm shot with lots of room around the subject shot in good light . ( kingfisher )

The next is at 700mm in poor light but the subject fills the frame. (Small European robin)

And just for giggles here’s my bird shot with a iPhone

That last bird must be a giant, it looks so big at 126mm!

Do you use raw with any of your cameras?

I think you told me before but I forgot-- I think you don't use raw with any of the P series cameras?

And you don't like any digital zoom or cropping really? Those shots all look amazing and I saw that mine is good light was better than the ones when it was cloudy (unfortunately the birds like cloudy weather and they come more often when it's cloudy for some reason I don't know.)

Also were some of mine a little out of focus or was focusing on the perch not good enough because even the slight distance between the perch and the bird was enough to make it slightly out of focus?

Which of these cameras do you use for birds in flight vs perched birds? And you like 800mm EFL for birds in flight vs 2000mm EFL for perched birds?

That bird is small , very small in fact. The 126mm is the actual focal length so it’s 700mm equivalent.

Don’t shoot raw , don’t mind a little extra digital zoom but it degrades quickly.

I don’t shoot bif very often but I’d use my fz2000 for those as it has a better AF system.
This shot is 2x digital zoom plus a telephoto converter giving 2040mm equivalent just to show that will use extra when needed for reference



I’ve all but stopped using my P1000 preferring to get closer and use the larger sensor of fz2000 .

Wow the FZ330 plus TC plus digital zoom is a good combo too-- that camera has a nice AF system too?

Since you don't use your P1000 much when do you use your P950?

i traded it in for the fz2000

For the P900 and P950, I think I remember you saying you wouldn't go past 2800mm (1.4x) digital zoom, is that right?

yes that’s almost right . 2400mm (blue band on zoom scale)

That European Robin has so much feather detail-- I guess that's because you were able to get close to it-- were you less than 10 ft away from it?

it would have been around that

Thanks, I have some questions about the FZ2000. The reason I stuck with the P900 and didn't go to the P1000 (weight) or use the P950 much was because I didn't see much of an image quality difference between them. The two types of photography I predominantly do are birding and astrophotography. In spite of the extended shutter speeds you can get with the P950 (60 seconds to ISO 6400 and 30 seconds to ISO 3200), from talking to other users who tried it for astrophotography, the smaller sensor size and limited dynamic range just doesn't make it very useful for that-- in short none of these superzooms can satisfy both my requirements for birding AND astrophotography in one package, so I have to carry two cameras (which is fine since my M42 package is also quite light.) My question about the FZ2000 is, is that the rare camera that would be good for both birding AND astrophotography? I have been looking at both that and the Sony RX10Mk4 as an all-in-one package for both birding and astrophotography, but outside of being able to do both in the same camera....would it be any better for either birding or astrophotography (or both) than my EM10Mk2 and 75-300 lens? The M43 sensor is larger and so has more dynamic range (by one stop I think) and has Live View Boost 2 which lets me see star clusters in Live View even from light polluted NYC so I'm not sure that can be improved upon and at the long end, there is the 600mm EFL with full electronic shutter. One reason that I think the FZ2000 could be better for birding is the 4K movie mode from which stills can be extracted. I don't have anything better than 1080P on any of my cameras, so this would be a clear and big improvement on that. Is 4K movie mode fully manual (that is, can the aperture, shutter speed and ISO all be selected in that mode) and does it have tracking AF for BIF in that mode? I know you don't do astrophotography but if I get that camera should I use it for that too or should I leave that for my M43 bodies to do? Does it have a full electronic shutter for all shutter speeds? Thanks!

I don’t shoot Astro so can’t help you there .
The fz has both 4K movie and 4K photo mode so be careful not to get the 2 mixed up .
4K photo mode is basically capturing 30 still images a second at 8mp with high shutter speed like 1/1000 as an example compared to 4K video at 1/30 . It can do pre capture or focus stacking as well using 4K photo mode .

The Sony is the better stills camera especially for bif with 600mm f4 24fps with auto focus and 20mp

I tried the rx10 mk4 but prefer the fz for my uses .

The FZ2000 is 400mm EFL correct, while the Sony RX10Mk4 is 600mm EFL? So the Sony would be closer to what I have with my M43 kit? Do either of these cameras have PDAF or are they all CDAF only?

the 2000/2500 has 480mm DFD af . The Sony uses a hybrid phase detect.

That 4K photo mode sounds amazing, 30 fps....for how long? Unlimited length? That sounds like an electronic shutter mode-- is it?

it has several modes , one is push to start-push to stop . One is as long as you’re holding shutter down and then there’s the push the shutter and get 30 frames a second before and a second after . Couldn’t tell you if it’s electronic shutter or not but you would have thought so been video .

The Sony sounds amazing too, but does it have 4K photo mode or just the 4K movie mode? I know the P950 and P1000 both have 4K movie mode with manual controls but from what I read it wasn't too good for BIF?

no Sony is 4K video but why use that when it can capture 20mp @24fps anyway it doesn’t need 4K photo mode .

But if spending that sort of money just grab a 100-400 Olympus lens and update to the em5 mk2/3 for phase detect af as and when funds allow .

It’s nice to know that someone has an FZ2000/2500 here. I am wanting one for shooting 4k videos. I want to set it up in a rig and just keep it in there for video duties. It's a great camera for that.

Yes it’s a great hybrid camera to be fare . Fixed barrel length with internal focus and zoom mean it’s great on a gimbal along with stepless aperture and built in ND filters . Plus it can focus while zooming which is great for video .
I’ve just added the lx100ii and with my smartphone I’ve got it all covered .
I don’t use my Nikon P1000 much anymore as I’m doing less wildlife stuff due to work and family commitments.

Wow, these are all pretty interesting combos. The reason I'm indecisive is because of all the different choices here. I like the Olympus system but it doesn't have the on/off picture taking you mentioned and that's something I've wanted for a long time. Is the Sony's 20 MP at 24 fps also on/off and of unlimited length (and also electronic shutter?).

The Olympus system is great in many other ways (including electronic shutter across the full shutter speed range) but it doesn't have that on/off picture taking mode.

You mentioned this:

Fixed barrel length with internal focus and zoom mean it’s great on a gimbal along with stepless aperture and built in ND filters .

Does this mean it's good for digiscoping too? I have a few telescopes I could use with that camera!

No it’s not a good digiscoping camera it’s far to big . Good smartphones work much better or a mirrorless body with the right t-mount .

--
What’s this full frame malarkey then….

 

[Booted Cat]

Yesterday I met a woman who owns an RX10M4 among her gear and she said the RX10M4 requires a tripod in low light just like the P1000 does to eliminate camera shake.

So my impression about the RX10M4 is kind of swayed now (I don't have an RX10M4 to get hands-on experience, first of all). I now recommend going for a mirrorless with a stacked sensor for action photography.

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Yesterday I met a woman who owns an RX10M4 among her gear and she said the RX10M4 requires a tripod in low light just like the P1000 does to eliminate camera shake.

So my impression about the RX10M4 is kind of swayed now (I don't have an RX10M4 to get hands-on experience, first of all). I now recommend going for a mirrorless with a stacked sensor for action photography.

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

Which mirrorless cameras have stacked sensors?

Also, is a tripod required for the Sony because it is a heavy camera or for long exposures?

 

[Booted Cat]

Yesterday I met a woman who owns an RX10M4 among her gear and she said the RX10M4 requires a tripod in low light just like the P1000 does to eliminate camera shake.

So my impression about the RX10M4 is kind of swayed now (I don't have an RX10M4 to get hands-on experience, first of all). I now recommend going for a mirrorless with a stacked sensor for action photography.

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

Which mirrorless cameras have stacked sensors?

You can use DPReview's Camera feature search to find out. There is a "Stacked CMOS" search option in the "Sensor" tab. There are only 14 (listed from newest to oldest):

Fujifilm X-H2S
OM System OM-1
Nikon Z9
Canon EOS R3
Sony a1
Sony a9 II
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VA
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VI
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV
Sony a9
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 V
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 III
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV

Basically, they're top mirrorless cameras from each major brand, plus some RX models.

Also, is a tripod required for the Sony because it is a heavy camera or for long exposures?

No, only because shooting in low light requires slower shutter speeds that would cause motion blur when handheld.

 

[Booted Cat]

These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.

So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing no more than 1.5kg.

• The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
• The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
• The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).

Which of the above do you think is the best?

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.

So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing no more than 1.5kg.

• The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
• The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
• The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).

Which of the above do you think is the best?

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

The Canon combo might be slightly better but they are pretty close. What is the price difference between the two combos?

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

*meant to make a correction-- since the mockingbird was dancing and somersaulting straight up the distance from me to the bird and me to the perch always remained approximately the same. Wider field of view was good here so I could get the whole dancing routine into one field of view.

Also, as an addendum I've seen pairs of mockingbirds hovering in the faces of crows to make them leave-- I found this amazing-- and will try to capture this too. I've seen this behavior twice already so I know it can't be rare or unique.

Also, just looking back at the pictures, all the people who say the 75-300 lens isn't sharp wide open at 300mm, to me it looks like the 300mm f/6.7 shot came out the sharpest of all-- would you concur? Is that down to the lens or the sunny conditions on that day?

My combo has been to use the P900 for BOP and EM10Mk2 with the 75-300 lens for BIF, but I want to try and see if I can use the P900 for both and get more magnification on my BIF images in so doing, since 300mm (600mm EFL) is the limit for my M43 set ups.

Spring time is the best time to capture all these birds

Looking at those images I’d say you’re wasting your time . Your P900 images are in extended zoom . They are either out of focus or you’re shooting through poor quality glass.
Images shown using the Olympus are too small to get any great detail .
You need to be a lot closer and have no glass in front of the lens .

What would you say the distance needs to be?

Half the distance?

Closer the better but as a guide your subject needs to fill the frame for best resolution without the need for extra zoom .
For me 30ft or closer or just don’t bother anymore unless it’s just a reference shot.
Always try good for light as well ( obviously)

look at differences in detail between this 2000mm shot with lots of room around the subject shot in good light . ( kingfisher )

The next is at 700mm in poor light but the subject fills the frame. (Small European robin)

And just for giggles here’s my bird shot with a iPhone

That last bird must be a giant, it looks so big at 126mm!

Do you use raw with any of your cameras?

I think you told me before but I forgot-- I think you don't use raw with any of the P series cameras?

And you don't like any digital zoom or cropping really? Those shots all look amazing and I saw that mine is good light was better than the ones when it was cloudy (unfortunately the birds like cloudy weather and they come more often when it's cloudy for some reason I don't know.)

Also were some of mine a little out of focus or was focusing on the perch not good enough because even the slight distance between the perch and the bird was enough to make it slightly out of focus?

Which of these cameras do you use for birds in flight vs perched birds? And you like 800mm EFL for birds in flight vs 2000mm EFL for perched birds?

That bird is small , very small in fact. The 126mm is the actual focal length so it’s 700mm equivalent.

Don’t shoot raw , don’t mind a little extra digital zoom but it degrades quickly.

I don’t shoot bif very often but I’d use my fz2000 for those as it has a better AF system.
This shot is 2x digital zoom plus a telephoto converter giving 2040mm equivalent just to show that will use extra when needed for reference



I’ve all but stopped using my P1000 preferring to get closer and use the larger sensor of fz2000 .

Wow the FZ330 plus TC plus digital zoom is a good combo too-- that camera has a nice AF system too?

Since you don't use your P1000 much when do you use your P950?

i traded it in for the fz2000

For the P900 and P950, I think I remember you saying you wouldn't go past 2800mm (1.4x) digital zoom, is that right?

yes that’s almost right . 2400mm (blue band on zoom scale)

That European Robin has so much feather detail-- I guess that's because you were able to get close to it-- were you less than 10 ft away from it?

it would have been around that

Thanks, I have some questions about the FZ2000. The reason I stuck with the P900 and didn't go to the P1000 (weight) or use the P950 much was because I didn't see much of an image quality difference between them. The two types of photography I predominantly do are birding and astrophotography. In spite of the extended shutter speeds you can get with the P950 (60 seconds to ISO 6400 and 30 seconds to ISO 3200), from talking to other users who tried it for astrophotography, the smaller sensor size and limited dynamic range just doesn't make it very useful for that-- in short none of these superzooms can satisfy both my requirements for birding AND astrophotography in one package, so I have to carry two cameras (which is fine since my M42 package is also quite light.) My question about the FZ2000 is, is that the rare camera that would be good for both birding AND astrophotography? I have been looking at both that and the Sony RX10Mk4 as an all-in-one package for both birding and astrophotography, but outside of being able to do both in the same camera....would it be any better for either birding or astrophotography (or both) than my EM10Mk2 and 75-300 lens? The M43 sensor is larger and so has more dynamic range (by one stop I think) and has Live View Boost 2 which lets me see star clusters in Live View even from light polluted NYC so I'm not sure that can be improved upon and at the long end, there is the 600mm EFL with full electronic shutter. One reason that I think the FZ2000 could be better for birding is the 4K movie mode from which stills can be extracted. I don't have anything better than 1080P on any of my cameras, so this would be a clear and big improvement on that. Is 4K movie mode fully manual (that is, can the aperture, shutter speed and ISO all be selected in that mode) and does it have tracking AF for BIF in that mode? I know you don't do astrophotography but if I get that camera should I use it for that too or should I leave that for my M43 bodies to do? Does it have a full electronic shutter for all shutter speeds? Thanks!

I don’t shoot Astro so can’t help you there .
The fz has both 4K movie and 4K photo mode so be careful not to get the 2 mixed up .
4K photo mode is basically capturing 30 still images a second at 8mp with high shutter speed like 1/1000 as an example compared to 4K video at 1/30 . It can do pre capture or focus stacking as well using 4K photo mode .

The Sony is the better stills camera especially for bif with 600mm f4 24fps with auto focus and 20mp

I tried the rx10 mk4 but prefer the fz for my uses .

The FZ2000 is 400mm EFL correct, while the Sony RX10Mk4 is 600mm EFL? So the Sony would be closer to what I have with my M43 kit? Do either of these cameras have PDAF or are they all CDAF only?

the 2000/2500 has 480mm DFD af . The Sony uses a hybrid phase detect.

That 4K photo mode sounds amazing, 30 fps....for how long? Unlimited length? That sounds like an electronic shutter mode-- is it?

it has several modes , one is push to start-push to stop . One is as long as you’re holding shutter down and then there’s the push the shutter and get 30 frames a second before and a second after . Couldn’t tell you if it’s electronic shutter or not but you would have thought so been video .

The Sony sounds amazing too, but does it have 4K photo mode or just the 4K movie mode? I know the P950 and P1000 both have 4K movie mode with manual controls but from what I read it wasn't too good for BIF?

no Sony is 4K video but why use that when it can capture 20mp @24fps anyway it doesn’t need 4K photo mode .

But if spending that sort of money just grab a 100-400 Olympus lens and update to the em5 mk2/3 for phase detect af as and when funds allow .

It’s nice to know that someone has an FZ2000/2500 here. I am wanting one for shooting 4k videos. I want to set it up in a rig and just keep it in there for video duties. It's a great camera for that.

Yes it’s a great hybrid camera to be fare . Fixed barrel length with internal focus and zoom mean it’s great on a gimbal along with stepless aperture and built in ND filters . Plus it can focus while zooming which is great for video .
I’ve just added the lx100ii and with my smartphone I’ve got it all covered .
I don’t use my Nikon P1000 much anymore as I’m doing less wildlife stuff due to work and family commitments.

Wow, these are all pretty interesting combos. The reason I'm indecisive is because of all the different choices here. I like the Olympus system but it doesn't have the on/off picture taking you mentioned and that's something I've wanted for a long time. Is the Sony's 20 MP at 24 fps also on/off and of unlimited length (and also electronic shutter?).

The Olympus system is great in many other ways (including electronic shutter across the full shutter speed range) but it doesn't have that on/off picture taking mode.

You mentioned this:

Fixed barrel length with internal focus and zoom mean it’s great on a gimbal along with stepless aperture and built in ND filters .

Does this mean it's good for digiscoping too? I have a few telescopes I could use with that camera!

No it’s not a good digiscoping camera it’s far to big . Good smartphones work much better or a mirrorless body with the right t-mount .

I have the mirrorless, for digiscoping would my EM10Mk2 be just as good as the EM5Mk3....I don't think PDAF is of any value when it comes to digiscoping?

Also, going back to the Pseries, I've found that reducing the resolution to 4 MP on the P900 puts the "blue" digital zoom zone go all the full length (out to 4x), and the images do look better at 4 MP (even without digital zoom) in terms of actual resolution and very little noise all the way to ISO 1600. Have you found this to be the case to and did you ever lower the resolution to 4 MP to be able to use more digital zoom or for faster burst rates (it does 4.2 FPS at 4 MP for 48 seconds on Continuous L mode) or to be able to use ISO up to 1600?





--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Booted Cat]

These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.

So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing no more than 1.5kg.

• The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
• The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
• The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).

Which of the above do you think is the best?

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

The Canon combo might be slightly better but they are pretty close. What is the price difference between the two combos?

Here are the lowest prices on China's largest and second-largest online markets Tmall and JD:

• RX10M4: 10360 yuan (Tmall), 10050 yuan (JD)
• E-M5 III: 5599 yuan (Tmall), 8299 yuan (JD)
• Panasonic 100-400: 7498 yuan (Tmall), 7000 yuan (JD)
• R7: 8169 yuan (Tmall), 7980 yuan (JD)
• RF 100-400: 4579 yuan (Tmall), 4299 yuan (JD)

So, the lowest prices overall:

• RX10M4: 10050 yuan (JD)
• E-M5 III + Panasonic 100-400: 5599+7000=12599 yuan (Tmall+JD)
• R7 + RF 100-400: 7980+4299=12279 yuan (JD)

So the R7 combo is slightly cheaper than the E-M5 III combo.

 

[Booted Cat]

These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.

So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing no more than 1.5kg.

• The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
• The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
• The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).

Which of the above do you think is the best?

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

The Canon combo might be slightly better but they are pretty close. What is the price difference between the two combos?

Why did you say the Canon combo might be slightly better?

 

[Fujiuseruk]

Yes your em10mk2 would be a better option for digiscoping than the fz2000 .

As for using 4mp on a 16mp sensor . No I wouldn’t because basically all you’re doing is cropping the image . I print a lot so I want full sensor readout and full optical resolution.
If the subject doesn’t fill the screen then it’s to far away for any meaningful detailed image.

I’ve actually stopped using the Nikon and instead just use my fz2000 .

--
What’s this full frame malarkey then….

 

[Booted Cat]

Just google [ r7 pixel size ] and [ e-m5 iii pixel size ], you'll get 3.20 microns for the R7 and 3.36 microns for the E-M5 III. Doesn't this mean the E-M5 III has a larger pixel size and therefore more incoming light per pixel per second (which is more light signal per second)?

BTW, the RX10M4's pixel size is 2.41 microns, according to the same source, imaging-resource.com.

These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.

So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing no more than 1.5kg.

• The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
• The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
• The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).

Which of the above do you think is the best?

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

The Canon combo might be slightly better but they are pretty close. What is the price difference between the two combos?

 

[Augustin Man]

+1, my friend !

Augustin

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Yes your em10mk2 would be a better option for digiscoping than the fz2000 .

As for using 4mp on a 16mp sensor . No I wouldn’t because basically all you’re doing is cropping the image . I print a lot so I want full sensor readout and full optical resolution.
If the subject doesn’t fill the screen then it’s to far away for any meaningful detailed image.

I’ve actually stopped using the Nikon and instead just use my fz2000 .

I see what you mean but what I was actually wondering is if you can fill the screen at 4 MP (at 4000mm using 2x digital zoom) vs 2000mm at 16 MP...would that be worthwhile to do? I'm not sure I got my calculations correct.

I didn't mention 8000mm (4x digital zoom), even though at 4 MP that is also "in the blue" because my handholding is rather "shaky" at that point, even with BSS (which is what lets me handhold 4000mm at 1/30 sec shutter speeds.)

What's the largest size you print at-- 7.5x10 inches?

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.

So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing no more than 1.5kg.

• The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
• The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
• The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).

Which of the above do you think is the best?

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

The Canon combo might be slightly better but they are pretty close. What is the price difference between the two combos?

Why did you say the Canon combo might be slightly better?

The larger sensor, although they are very close.

Did you look up both camera sensors on Photonstophotos.net, they show some graphs there where you can compare different sensors for noise, DR, etc. The Olympus sensors are very good (especially the new ones) but I think they are one stop behind the APS-C sensors.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Just google [ r7 pixel size ] and [ e-m5 iii pixel size ], you'll get 3.20 microns for the R7 and 3.36 microns for the E-M5 III. Doesn't this mean the E-M5 III has a larger pixel size and therefore more incoming light per pixel per second (which is more light signal per second)?

BTW, the RX10M4's pixel size is 2.41 microns, according to the same source, imaging-resource.com.

These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.

So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing no more than 1.5kg.

• The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
• The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
• The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).

Which of the above do you think is the best?

The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.

What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.

But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here: The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.

I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?

You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.

Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.

The Canon combo might be slightly better but they are pretty close. What is the price difference between the two combos?

hmm another thing to look up on Photonstophotos.net to see how this affects DR, noise levels, etc. Larger pixel size is better so perhaps the new M43 sensor is actually better than the APS-C sensor in the Canon.

I do like Olympus systems better overall, they have many many features that other camera makers do not have and the Olympus system has been specifically built around wildlife and bird photography.

 

[Fujiuseruk]

Yes your em10mk2 would be a better option for digiscoping than the fz2000 .

As for using 4mp on a 16mp sensor . No I wouldn’t because basically all you’re doing is cropping the image . I print a lot so I want full sensor readout and full optical resolution.
If the subject doesn’t fill the screen then it’s to far away for any meaningful detailed image.

I’ve actually stopped using the Nikon and instead just use my fz2000 .

I see what you mean but what I was actually wondering is if you can fill the screen at 4 MP (at 4000mm using 2x digital zoom) vs 2000mm at 16 MP...would that be worthwhile to do? I'm not sure I got my calculations correct.

I didn't mention 8000mm (4x digital zoom), even though at 4 MP that is also "in the blue" because my handholding is rather "shaky" at that point, even with BSS (which is what lets me handhold 4000mm at 1/30 sec shutter speeds.)

only you can answer if 4mp is good enough for you but it’s not good enough for me especially on such a small sensor. The noise will be so much worse as it’s blown up .

From my own personal perspective if you can’t fill the screen at 3000mm (P1000) or 2000mm with P900/950 then the subject is simply too far away for a good quality image

on my xs1 the largest I can print without it degrading is A4 from a 6mp image but that a larger sensor (4 times crop) and my images have good detail to start with.

What's the largest size you print at-- 7.5x10 inches?

I print 13” by 19” at home and 20” by 30” via local printers even with my smartphone.