Brutal Review of the P1000

Sactojim · Sep 12, 2018

I'm surprised the P1000 did not score better. Wondering if the reviewer got a bad copy or just shot in Auto mode as I've seen some very nice images posted here. They rate the image quality at 3.5 vs 4.5 for the P610 and 4 for the P900.

Nikon P1000 Review | Photography Blog

Expert review of the Nikon Coolpix P1000 super-zoom camera, which has a 3000mm lens!

www.photographyblog.com

Avian2016 · Sep 12, 2018

In some way, this article in PB reminds me to that of Kodak AZ901. :-O

Gzoladz · Sep 12, 2018

Sactojim said:
I'm surprised the P1000 did not score better. Wondering if the reviewer got a bad copy or just shot in Auto mode as I've seen some very nice images posted here. They rate the image quality at 3.5 vs 4.5 for the P610 and 4 for the P900.

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_p1000_review/conclusion/

The reviewer seems to position it as a travel camera. It is not. The P1000 is a specialist camera that excels in +1200/1500mm category.

If don't shoot most of your shots in a FL longer than that, there are better/cheaper/lighter options.

To use an analogy, the reviewer took a Scania truck and rates as if he was reviewing a Sport Car. That explains it to me.

sherman_levine · Sep 12, 2018

Sactojim said:
I'm surprised the P1000 did not score better. Wondering if the reviewer got a bad copy or just shot in Auto mode as I've seen some very nice images posted here. They rate the image quality at 3.5 vs 4.5 for the P610 and 4 for the P900.

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_p1000_review/conclusion/

Not really surprised.

I wasn't impressed by the quality of his sample images at the long end of the zoom, which is the main reason one would buy the P1000.

--

Sherm
Sherms flickr page

P900 album

Satyaa · Sep 12, 2018

Gzoladz said:
Sactojim said:

I'm surprised the P1000 did not score better. Wondering if the reviewer got a bad copy or just shot in Auto mode as I've seen some very nice images posted here. They rate the image quality at 3.5 vs 4.5 for the P610 and 4 for the P900.

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_p1000_review/conclusion/

Click to expand...

The reviewer seems to position it as a travel camera. It is not. The P1000 is a specialist camera that excels in +1200/1500mm category.

I agree on that point. During most of my travels in recent years, I found that the 400/480mm of FZ1000/FZ2500 was too much. I shot about 1% beyond 200mm.

The exception was when I went to a bird sanctuary last month and my D7200 with 70-300 was jut not sufficient but that's all I had.

Gzoladz said:
If don't shoot most of your shots in a FL longer than that, there are better/cheaper/lighter options.

To use an analogy, the reviewer took a Scania truck and rates as if he was reviewing a Sport Car. That explains it to me.

Sactojim · Sep 12, 2018

Avian2016 said:
In some way, this article in PB reminds me to that of Kodak AZ901. :-O

True as the AZ901 got hammered too. Makes me question some of these reviewers as I've seen it with cameras and lenses getting trashed and yet people post excellent images with the gear.

Here's a image I shot at ISO 800 with the AZ901 which I think is perfectly acceptable.

ratfugel · Sep 12, 2018

This guy hammers away at the sensor size. I'm not particularly surprised, I think Nikon probably rushed this camera out too soon. The size of the camera body itself, suggests that a further model is not that far away. But this time it will have a decent sized sensor, thus jacking up the image quality, which frankly, is no better than I can get with my half priced 900.

Glad I didn't jump in too soon.

I'm a patient guy myself and have no difficulty in waiting to see what happens next, whilst still enjoying my fantastic 900. Used properly it's the fastest thing since sliced bread when you are after a shot.

Ask nicely and I'll show you what I mean.

rat.

Avian2016 · Sep 12, 2018

Hi,

I/We would be pleased if you could show me/us what you have in your mind.

André BARELIER · Sep 12, 2018

Why "brutal"?

I've read the review, and I agree 100% with the reviewer's conclusion.

If you want a travel camera, there are much better choices.

If you want a wildlife dedicated camera, I think that a P900, with its 2000 mm lens is much more than enough. Not everyone wants to shoot Saturn.

Of course, YMMV.

ratfugel · Sep 12, 2018

Always pleased to put my money where my mouth is Andre. These are typical shots in which I had to get a move on to have any chance of securing an image.

The 900 was just the right tool/

Whether I could have done the same withy the big camera is at most, somewhat doubtful.

rat.

Feed me NOW !!!!

Constantly on the move.

These things don't stay forever.

He (it) was here for seconds only.

samurai7595 · Sep 12, 2018

Sactojim said:
I'm surprised the P1000 did not score better. Wondering if the reviewer got a bad copy or just shot in Auto mode as I've seen some very nice images posted here. They rate the image quality at 3.5 vs 4.5 for the P610 and 4 for the P900.

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_p1000_review/conclusion/

This review will not make me change my mind...

I own a Nikon D7500 with some good glass (as per my budget) and I will be buying the Nikon P1000 for the "fun" factor. I had a chance to play with the P900 but the fact that it does not have a hot-shoe was a turn-off for me. However, the P1000 does have a hot-shoe! The P1000 is not cheap but I bet that it will be a very fun camera to use / play with.

Just like a friend of mine who bought a used Ferrari. Our roads are crappy & our speed cops are mean so my buddy only uses it a few days a year but when he does, it's crazy fun to drive.,,

Stevan G · Sep 12, 2018

ratfugel said:
This guy hammers away at the sensor size. I'm not particularly surprised, I think Nikon probably rushed this camera out too soon. The size of the camera body itself, suggests that a further model is not that far away. But this time it will have a decent sized sensor, thus jacking up the image quality, which frankly, is no better than I can get with my half priced 900.

Glad I didn't jump in too soon.

I'm a patient guy myself and have no difficulty in waiting to see what happens next, whilst still enjoying my fantastic 900. Used properly it's the fastest thing since sliced bread when you are after a shot.

Ask nicely and I'll show you what I mean.

rat.

a "decent sized sensor" with this zoom isn't possible for this size/money, and if you want decent sensor with less zoom there are already options on the market...

Alexander Meredith · Sep 12, 2018

Excellent photos. Thanks for sharing. Now I had better go and practice.

Sactojim · Sep 12, 2018

André BARELIER said:
Why "brutal"?

I've read the review, and I agree 100% with the reviewer's conclusion.

If you want a travel camera, there are much better choices.

If you want a wildlife dedicated camera, I think that a P900, with its 2000 mm lens is much more than enough. Not everyone wants to shoot Saturn.

Of course, YMMV.

Brutal because the review person gave it such low marks when in fact I've seen some excellent looking images from it here and other places. She's labeling it as a travel camera and like you and probably most others here, that's not it's target market. I view the camera (like other power zoom cameras) as a tool for shooting at extreme distances for wildlife/birds.

Birdroyfinn · Sep 12, 2018

Sactojim said:
Brutal because the review person gave it such low marks when in fact I've seen some excellent looking images from it here and other places. She's labeling it as a travel camera and like you and probably most others here, that's not it's target market. I view the camera (like other power zoom cameras) as a tool for shooting at extreme distances for wildlife/birds.

You are very right. She says that "Even wildlife and bird photography rarely calls for such long focal lengths of 3000mm". Well, I think I take half of the photos at around 3000mm with p900 digizoom, mostly in bird identification purposes right now in autumn migration. I have been looking and taking pics for many small birds lately, and after 20 or 30 meters, they need as much zoom as possible.

jshen808 · Sep 12, 2018

Sactojim said:
Avian2016 said:

In some way, this article in PB reminds me to that of Kodak AZ901. :-O

Click to expand...

True as the AZ901 got hammered too. Makes me question some of these reviewers as I've seen it with cameras and lenses getting trashed and yet people post excellent images with the gear.

Here's a image I shot at ISO 800 with the AZ901 which I think is perfectly acceptable.

..Beautiful picture!

..the P1000 is a complex camera packed into a hand-holdable package..

..can't rush into things, there's going to be a learning curve..

..but thanks for posting this review.. whether it's good, bad or ugly.. it's good to hear everyone's points of view..

..and I truly believe we will test, experiment, and find the best settings for the P1000 camera..

..Cheers..

Intercooler2 · Sep 12, 2018

I'm also wondering if the P1000 has really passed the point where the sensor can do a good job resolving what that 3000mm sees? I think everything has a good useable limit!

André BARELIER · Sep 12, 2018

ratfugel said:
Always pleased to put my money where my mouth is Andre. These are typical shots in which I had to get a move on to have any chance of securing an image.

The 900 was just the right tool/

Whether I could have done the same withy the big camera is at most, somewhat doubtful.

rat.

Feed me NOW !!!!

Constantly on the move.

These things don't stay forever.

He (it) was here for seconds only.

Very nice shots, rat (except the last one, which looks really "digital").

You are one of those wise guys who understand that, unless for tests/reviews purposes, superzoom pictures need to be resized a bit to look perfect.

About using a 3000mm lens to identify a bird, nothing wrong with that, but we should agree that it's a very specific purpose, which has little to do with photography.

Again, just my opinion...

--
André

ratfugel · Sep 12, 2018

"Digital"? The odd looking starling was in the middle of a squabbling clutch of about ten. He was the one who got shot because of his weird head. Distance about 20 feet in my yard. Aperture probably f 6.5 and speed, if I remember rightly, would be about 1/650. Dumped the original, so no real data available.

Like everyone says, the extra length of the 1000 lens is about the only thing going for it. Plus the hot shoe, which really should have been on the 900 in the first place. An appalling omission in my view.

I STILL think it's an interim camera.

rat.

CMCM · Sep 12, 2018

Since I haven't personally seen or held the P1000, I can't say how good it is for a travel camera. However, on my recent Hawaii trip the I found the P900 to be a fantastic travel camera and I had a lot of fun shooting with it. I got a Lowepro sling bag and it easily held the P900 as well as a little Canon G7XII, and I used them both. That bag was extremely light weight to carry around all day, too. On this trip I brought along my Nikon D5600 and a couple of lenses, but most of the time I preferred to carry around the P900 because there were so many things at different distance ranges I could shoot with it, it really was a nice all-in-one solution camera. I was able to use the P900 for a lot of things besides the birds I was mainly interested in capturing. When I was in Hawaii the volcano eruption wrecked the sky (gray, overcast looking the whole time), yet the P900 actually did far better with the lousy light than I expected it to.

Brutal Review of the P1000

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

samurai7595

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts