Maximum Zoom Needed,.....FZ80 w/IZ?

Hi Folks,

I spend a couple of months a year in Sun Valley, Idaho, where I'm treated daily to great views of large groups of deer and elk from my patio deck.. Trouble is, 99% of the time, these animals are at extreme distance, making photography very difficult.

In June, I tried a Nikon P900 with it's 2000mm optical zoom. Frankly, though a fun camera to use, the results on animals at full zoom were very disappointing. When full zoom was used, all the shots were very soft, though I used 1/1000th of a second and used a sand bag rest.

I realize that the FZ80 is "only" 1200mm zoom but I'm wondering how the IZ results are. I'd appreciate any comments. I have the FZ300 and find the results of IZ at 1200mm to be pretty good.

If anyone has tried IZ on the FZ80, I'd appreciate comments.

Thanks,...Jack

Jack,

They shouldn't be soft, even when viewed at 100%, unless you're using digital zoom to go above 2000 mm EFL.

I wonder if the very high shutter speed is forcing you to use a high ISO and consequently getting a less sharp, noisier image.

Before switching cameras, I'd suggest posting some problem images straight from the camera on the Nikon forum.

--

Sherm
Sherms flickr page

Setter Dog said:

Hi Folks,
...If anyone has tried IZ on the FZ80, I'd appreciate comments.
Thanks,...Jack

Click to expand...

Hi Jack

I don't use i.zoom tried it..didn't like it. Too many artifacts as the camera tries to process the image, and most likely uses interpolation to scale back up to original size .

But...i do use EX zoom.

This basically lowers the resolution and gives an in camera crop.

WYSIWYG

Metering can be better ( most times)

AF can at times be more accurate (less misfocus on subject)

No other in camera processing like interpolation , sharpening, etc happens.

Just a loss of resolution. For small prints and posting on the web...not a problem

For poster prints and absolute highest resolution...just because you can..maybe neither i.Zoom or EX zoom will benefit you.



Here's a few at 1700mm, lowering the resolution to 9MP:




This was cropped a bit.














This one also cropped a bit



How about lowering resolution to 4.5MP:

That would give a view of a 2446mm lens:







Here's a before and after...from 20mm to 1699mm:






20mm




1699mm EX Zoom ( MP



ANAYV

Inconsistent results. I think that is the best way to summarize. In general - I had an FZ80 and returned it, totally unhappy. Others have gotten good results. Do you want to post process every image? Sharpening and noise reduction required on jpegs. Didn't and don't do RAW so can't say much about that but jpegs were totally inconsistent in focus and noise.

As far as iZoom goes, 2400mm sounded good but didn't work too well. Pics looked better if taken at 1200, processed and then cropped and upsized to same size as 2400 iZoom image.

Just my opinion mind you. Your results may differ, as have others. In general I would say that trying to cram 18 megapixels onto a 12 megapixel size sensor doesn't work well, regardless of how the software may have improved.


-- Mark --
Flickr page https://www.flickr.com/photos/70985317@N02/sets/with/72157649372884488

Setter Dog said:

Hi Folks,

I spend a couple of months a year in Sun Valley, Idaho, where I'm treated daily to great views of large groups of deer and elk from my patio deck.. Trouble is, 99% of the time, these animals are at extreme distance, making photography very difficult.

In June, I tried a Nikon P900 with it's 2000mm optical zoom. Frankly, though a fun camera to use, the results on animals at full zoom were very disappointing. When full zoom was used, all the shots were very soft, though I used 1/1000th of a second and used a sand bag rest.

I realize that the FZ80 is "only" 1200mm zoom but I'm wondering how the IZ results are. I'd appreciate any comments. I have the FZ300 and find the results of IZ at 1200mm to be pretty good.

If anyone has tried IZ on the FZ80, I'd appreciate comments.

Thanks,...Jack

Click to expand...

There`s a good chance the P900 looks soft due to the shear distance of the subject . Atmospherics play hell with optical quality .

Now I`ve not used the 80/82 but did try the fz70/72 and even adding the lt55 teleconvertor my P900 was sharper.

but the la8 adaptor and lt55 will give you 2040mm without using izoom. so could be worth a try.

I've been using my FZ80 for a couple of months now, exclusively for nature photographs. It's a really feature packed fun camera, a pleasure to use.

In perfect light at moderate/short distances the results can be great.


Full optical zoom

However, at full zoom with subjects far away I am consistently disappointed with the results. Be it the lens, the stabilization, the JPEG rendering or the high noise (or the photographer!), I've found that the images are always very flat, without detail. I haven't seriously tried the IZ but my assumption is that the images will suffer even more.


Deer @ 100+meters, full optical zoom. Standard photo style.

I took a dozen pictures of this deer, this is probably the best result. Keep in mind that this is SOOC in the "standard" picture style. This was my first time out with the camera, I now use the "natural" style with noise reduction and sharpening dialed back. I have this picture in RAW as well.

YMMV. Try before you buy

Thanks to all for the thoughtful responses,.......and for the excellent examples posted.

I think I've learned something from these posts and from going through the P900 shots I retained, some good, some bad. My problem on the long deer shots is very likely the extreme distance I'm shooting, probably 400 yards plus. My results at shorter ranges are totally satisfactory, even at 2000mm focal length.

Also, EX seems to be a better option than IZ for bumping up the zoom.

Jack

Setter Dog said:

Thanks to all for the thoughtful responses,.......and for the excellent examples posted.

I think I've learned something from these posts and from going through the P900 shots I retained, some good, some bad. My problem on the long deer shots is very likely the extreme distance I'm shooting, probably 400 yards plus. My results at shorter ranges are totally satisfactory, even at 2000mm focal length.

Also, EX seems to be a better option than IZ for bumping up the zoom.

Jack

Click to expand...

400+ yards is a long distance for any camera!


-- Mark --
Flickr page https://www.flickr.com/photos/70985317@N02/sets/with/72157649372884488

Go to the Nikon P900 facebook group and ask for help there. I don't think the the FZ80 can compete with the OIS and the lens of the Nikon.
If you don't need RAW or post focus or 4K..then stay with the Nikon.

A couple of thoughts: the fuzziness could be from atmospheric distortion. At a very long distance, everything can get fuzzy no matter how good the optics -- it can depend on the weather though.

One other possible culprit, the P900 does JPG only, so smaller subject at a great distance are going to be manifesting artifacts. On a camera like the FZ80 that supports RAW, you might get a better result.

(Why did Nikon not support RAW on the P900? That will always mystify me.)

Rob G Porter said:

A couple of thoughts: the fuzziness could be from atmospheric distortion. At a very long distance, everything can get fuzzy no matter how good the optics -- it can depend on the weather though.

One other possible culprit, the P900 does JPG only, so smaller subject at a great distance are going to be manifesting artifacts. On a camera like the FZ80 that supports RAW, you might get a better result.

(Why did Nikon not support RAW on the P900? That will always mystify me.)

Click to expand...

the Nikon jpegs are more than good enough to be fair. I`d say the main reason for lack of raw would be the amount of lens correction used on such a zoom range.

Not all of us are paranoid about image quality.

















--

labe said:

Rob G Porter said:

A couple of thoughts: the fuzziness could be from atmospheric distortion. At a very long distance, everything can get fuzzy no matter how good the optics -- it can depend on the weather though.

One other possible culprit, the P900 does JPG only, so smaller subject at a great distance are going to be manifesting artifacts. On a camera like the FZ80 that supports RAW, you might get a better result.

(Why did Nikon not support RAW on the P900? That will always mystify me.)

Click to expand...

the Nikon jpegs are more than good enough to be fair. I`d say the main reason for lack of raw would be the amount of lens correction used on such a zoom range.

Not all of us are paranoid about image quality.







--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/p-labe/albums

Click to expand...

Well, not paranoid, just picky as the price on the Nikon is quite a bit higher as well. For myself, I'll pay more for more optionality, not having raw removes quite a bit for me -- but I do use my camera as much as a tool as a naturalist as much as I do for taking nice pictures -- for me the minute details are often what I like to see moreso than the overall photo. I'm sure there are many who never use raw anyways so it won't matter.

I didn't realize there's more "physical" machinery needed for raw. That would explain why something like that would be not included -- I had thought it was just more of a software/firmware decision for features than a hardware one.

I had a Nikon P900 and in good light at 2000M EQ images were crisp and sharp. Shoot wide open, keep the ISO down (no more than 800) if you can.

The stabilisation is superb and copes with ridiculous hand held slow shutter speeds very well - but note that if you were using a support - like a sand bag - turn off IS or else you will get softer images.

If atmospherics are poor then you will always get hazy soft images.

Fire in short bursts too, better than single shot when pushing the envelope.

I also have a FZ300 with the LT55 and that is fine at 1100 EQ - again, best in decent light.