-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Lightest sports/action/BIF long zooms to complement your P950/P1000
- Thread starter Booted Cat
- Start date
J
jackwelch
Guest
This model without viewfinder right? Don't forget you also need to fork out nearly $300 for that EVF-DC2 viewfinder unless it's bundled.
Last edited:
J
jackwelch
Guest
I can understand why Booted Cat might be hesitant to go with the RX10iv.
Yesterday I was trying to shoot some small birds and at 600mm, it felt like I was actually standing next to it. So one probably wants the most reached with fast focus when he/she is spending a bomb.
Last edited:
Fujiuseruk
Veteran Member
Another thing to consider is battery life , that sigma is going to hammer the battery moving all that glass and why I opted for a Nikon dslr D7200 with its good battery life and 51 AF points and the twin card slot is an added bonus for redundancy and back up add a battery grip for extra power and grab a good quality monopod with a nice fluid head .
J
jackwelch
Guest
One thing needs to be said about teleconverters though, I won't lie, I have been tempted to buy one especially that LT55 for my FZ300 for quite a while now.
My point is, you might want to consider a system that doesn't implement a teleconverter.
Why? Here is Graham mentioning how the iZoom is good enough for the FZ300:
And then you have these YouTubers talking about how teleconverters are not worth it:
And not only that, there is a chance for the teleconverter to mess up your autofocus:
And there was this interesting comment, do you get longer focal length than the stated FF focal length if used on smaller sensor cameras? (For example am I right in saying that 600mm full frame lens on an apsc camera would give me 960mm focal length?)
My point is, you might want to consider a system that doesn't implement a teleconverter.
Why? Here is Graham mentioning how the iZoom is good enough for the FZ300:
And then you have these YouTubers talking about how teleconverters are not worth it:
And not only that, there is a chance for the teleconverter to mess up your autofocus:
And there was this interesting comment, do you get longer focal length than the stated FF focal length if used on smaller sensor cameras? (For example am I right in saying that 600mm full frame lens on an apsc camera would give me 960mm focal length?)
Last edited:
Fujiuseruk
Veteran Member
Jack Graham simply says it may work out ok
Take a look at my thread here
www.dpreview.com
I’ve tested 600 plus izoom, 600 plus lt55 and then 600 plus lt55 plus izoom
hope this helps . I preferred the lt55 over izoom but it was then longer than my Nikon and less convenient to use if wanting to use the whole focal range .
I’m just trying out izoom on my fz2000 just out of curiosity as well.
Take a look at my thread here
Fz330, izoom +lt55 vs Nikon p950
Some may find these none scientific tests interesting. I was checking a Nikon p950 out for my local camera shop as it’s owner was struggling to get sharp images from it and I thought why not shoot my fz330 back to back to it testing izoom and a teleconverter just out of curiosity. so here’s...
I’ve tested 600 plus izoom, 600 plus lt55 and then 600 plus lt55 plus izoom
hope this helps . I preferred the lt55 over izoom but it was then longer than my Nikon and less convenient to use if wanting to use the whole focal range .
I’m just trying out izoom on my fz2000 just out of curiosity as well.
J
jackwelch
Guest
Thank you so much, I enjoy these types of comparisons in your thread!
OutsideTheMatrix
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,161
- Reaction score
- 3,378
Thanks, that would be an interesting comparison! Please keep me posted.
OutsideTheMatrix
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,161
- Reaction score
- 3,378
I saw that-- the P950 images look cleaner and also the image scale seems larger with the P950 (I assume the P900 would be identical in both low noise and image scale)? Maybe the LT-55 is more like 1.5x rather than 1.7x?Jack Graham simply says it may work out ok
Take a look at my thread here
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65708007
I’ve tested 600 plus izoom, 600 plus lt55 and then 600 plus lt55 plus izoom
hope this helps . I preferred the lt55 over izoom but it was then longer than my Nikon and less convenient to use if wanting to use the whole focal range .
I’m just trying out izoom on my fz2000 just out of curiosity as well.
--
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
Veteran Member
No it’s not like that , a lot is down to design and distance.I saw that-- the P950 images look cleaner and also the image scale seems larger with the P950 (I assume the P900 would be identical in both low noise and image scale)? Maybe the LT-55 is more like 1.5x rather than 1.7x?Jack Graham simply says it may work out ok
Take a look at my thread here
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65708007
I’ve tested 600 plus izoom, 600 plus lt55 and then 600 plus lt55 plus izoom
hope this helps . I preferred the lt55 over izoom but it was then longer than my Nikon and less convenient to use if wanting to use the whole focal range .
I’m just trying out izoom on my fz2000 just out of curiosity as well.
optics are very complex and the field of view can vary simply due to the distance between the lens and subject , it’s called focus breathing.
And there is a good chance that the P950 will have better noise control compared to the P900 as Nikon improved the processor within the camera as well as autofocus speed .
What you need to remember is that the P950 also does 4k hence the more powerful processor.
OutsideTheMatrix
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,161
- Reaction score
- 3,378
But from what I saw in a head to head comparison there was no way to tell them apart. The P950 is subject to the same noise smearing as the P900 in jpgs, it only gets better in RAW and even then only at higher ISO (above 400.)No it’s not like that , a lot is down to design and distance.I saw that-- the P950 images look cleaner and also the image scale seems larger with the P950 (I assume the P900 would be identical in both low noise and image scale)? Maybe the LT-55 is more like 1.5x rather than 1.7x?Jack Graham simply says it may work out ok
Take a look at my thread here
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65708007
I’ve tested 600 plus izoom, 600 plus lt55 and then 600 plus lt55 plus izoom
hope this helps . I preferred the lt55 over izoom but it was then longer than my Nikon and less convenient to use if wanting to use the whole focal range .
I’m just trying out izoom on my fz2000 just out of curiosity as well.
optics are very complex and the field of view can vary simply due to the distance between the lens and subject , it’s called focus breathing.
And there is a good chance that the P950 will have better noise control compared to the P900 as Nikon improved the processor within the camera as well as autofocus speed .
What you need to remember is that the P950 also does 4k hence the more powerful processor.
The focus breathing issue makes sense. I think if you do full moon shots with each camera that resolves that issue, because of how far away the moon is?
--
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
Veteran Member
so why keep asking me about . I don’t have the 900 to do side by side .But from what I saw in a head to head comparison there was no way to tell them apart. The P950 is subject to the same noise smearing as the P900 in jpgs, it only gets better in RAW and even then only at higher ISO (above 400.)No it’s not like that , a lot is down to design and distance.I saw that-- the P950 images look cleaner and also the image scale seems larger with the P950 (I assume the P900 would be identical in both low noise and image scale)? Maybe the LT-55 is more like 1.5x rather than 1.7x?Jack Graham simply says it may work out ok
Take a look at my thread here
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65708007
I’ve tested 600 plus izoom, 600 plus lt55 and then 600 plus lt55 plus izoom
hope this helps . I preferred the lt55 over izoom but it was then longer than my Nikon and less convenient to use if wanting to use the whole focal range .
I’m just trying out izoom on my fz2000 just out of curiosity as well.
optics are very complex and the field of view can vary simply due to the distance between the lens and subject , it’s called focus breathing.
And there is a good chance that the P950 will have better noise control compared to the P900 as Nikon improved the processor within the camera as well as autofocus speed .
What you need to remember is that the P950 also does 4k hence the more powerful processor.
I didn’t even bother taking moon shots with the Panasonic as it didn’t have much reach as my Nikon cameras .
J
jackwelch
Guest
@Fzuseruk just want to reiterate, I enjoy your insights. Your thread was invaluable and I'm sure also to other superzoom afficianados.
The same with @Booted Cat here. His thread are probably going to dictate my buying decisions.
The same with @Booted Cat here. His thread are probably going to dictate my buying decisions.
OutsideTheMatrix
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,161
- Reaction score
- 3,378
I don't know-- I just find very limited usage for these super duper zoom cameras with micro sized sensors. Last year I did a comparison with my P900 at 2000mm EFL vs my EM10 Mk 2 with the 75-300 lens with 2x DTC teleconverter and the amount of detail rendered seemed almost exactly the same (bird feathers, flowers and on moon craters.)so why keep asking me about . I don’t have the 900 to do side by side .But from what I saw in a head to head comparison there was no way to tell them apart. The P950 is subject to the same noise smearing as the P900 in jpgs, it only gets better in RAW and even then only at higher ISO (above 400.)No it’s not like that , a lot is down to design and distance.I saw that-- the P950 images look cleaner and also the image scale seems larger with the P950 (I assume the P900 would be identical in both low noise and image scale)? Maybe the LT-55 is more like 1.5x rather than 1.7x?Jack Graham simply says it may work out ok
Take a look at my thread here
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65708007
I’ve tested 600 plus izoom, 600 plus lt55 and then 600 plus lt55 plus izoom
hope this helps . I preferred the lt55 over izoom but it was then longer than my Nikon and less convenient to use if wanting to use the whole focal range .
I’m just trying out izoom on my fz2000 just out of curiosity as well.
optics are very complex and the field of view can vary simply due to the distance between the lens and subject , it’s called focus breathing.
And there is a good chance that the P950 will have better noise control compared to the P900 as Nikon improved the processor within the camera as well as autofocus speed .
What you need to remember is that the P950 also does 4k hence the more powerful processor.
I didn’t even bother taking moon shots with the Panasonic as it didn’t have much reach as my Nikon cameras .
I basically wanted to have a second camera to go beyond what I could get with my M4/3 combos but haven't seen a large improvement in the amount of detail rendered.
And high ISO, features, etc.-- there really is no comparison. I wouldn't get the P950 because it is extremely overpriced (it should be half the price of the P1000). I have no use for 4K video because 1) I dont even have a 4K screen and 2) 1080P60 is far better for handheld videos. On top of that all my cards are class 10 and I have no desire for anything faster since I can already do 8 fps until my 32 GB cards are full with the combo I have now (granted it's in jpg only mode.)
--
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
Last edited:
Fujiuseruk
Veteran Member
But it’s a known fact these bridge cameras are basically designed as an all in one and only any good for daytime use .
The whole idea behind them is been able to take a landscape, a family group shot , a macro and zoom across the bay and have images that are good enough for social media , keepsakes without lens swapping and a big heavy bag.
Your m4/3 set up is to restrictive for my needs with only telephoto and a converter, I’d be constantly swapping lens back and forth on my short walks .
An all in one is never going to replace dedicated kit .
In your case either get higher spec body and 100-400 or the 300mm prime or get an apsc with the 150-600 or a full frame with 800mm prime etc ,
that is the only way you will get a good leg up .
As for SD cards , they are so cheap now that I don’t see it as reason not to update gear.
Your comment on 4K video I found so untrue .
It’s easy to use and converted back to HD makes for much better quality output .
The ability to shoot at 30 fps and save 8mp stills is great . Panasonic will even let you do this at high shutter speeds making it great for these less capable cameras capture action .
Some even record a second before and a second after when you press the shutter down.
The P950 price is simply because it has no competition, it is smaller and lighter than P1000 but is actually easier to use handheld at least for me anyway.
I found I have to use much higher shutter speeds to get a sharp image or a tripod which again defeats the object for me .
The whole idea behind them is been able to take a landscape, a family group shot , a macro and zoom across the bay and have images that are good enough for social media , keepsakes without lens swapping and a big heavy bag.
Your m4/3 set up is to restrictive for my needs with only telephoto and a converter, I’d be constantly swapping lens back and forth on my short walks .
An all in one is never going to replace dedicated kit .
In your case either get higher spec body and 100-400 or the 300mm prime or get an apsc with the 150-600 or a full frame with 800mm prime etc ,
that is the only way you will get a good leg up .
As for SD cards , they are so cheap now that I don’t see it as reason not to update gear.
Your comment on 4K video I found so untrue .
It’s easy to use and converted back to HD makes for much better quality output .
The ability to shoot at 30 fps and save 8mp stills is great . Panasonic will even let you do this at high shutter speeds making it great for these less capable cameras capture action .
Some even record a second before and a second after when you press the shutter down.
The P950 price is simply because it has no competition, it is smaller and lighter than P1000 but is actually easier to use handheld at least for me anyway.
I found I have to use much higher shutter speeds to get a sharp image or a tripod which again defeats the object for me .
OutsideTheMatrix
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,161
- Reaction score
- 3,378
Oh that is a great feature of the Fuji HS series (to record both before and after the shutter is pressed), I wasn't sure if the Nikon P series had this (900 onwards), as I hadn't deeply into the features. Is 4K30 handholdable? I had read that 60 fps produces silky smooth video while 30 fps requires tripod use?
With the P900 I have been using BSS (which the newer cameras dont have) and I have found that I can do 1/30 sec shutter speed handheld at 2000mm.
I found I have a weight limit of 1 kg, I get hand cramps if I try to shoot with any combo that weighs above that limit for an extended length of time. So basically, it's either the P900/P950, OM-D set up with the 75-300mm lens or Sony Aseries with the 70-350mm lens. I have not found anything else within my weight requirements.
You're right about the M4/3 set up, what I have done instead is fit 3 lenses and 2 bodies inside one camera bag. I could actually have 3 lenses and 3 bodies and thus never swap lenses, but I hadn't gotten round to getting that 3rd body yet lol. They all use the same battery so it works without having to swap lenses. I have 14-42 and 75-300 covered I just have the 40-150 lens not on a body yet.
The FZ300/330 lets you capture BIF with 4K mode, Paul? So you could extract each file as a separate image?
Fujiuseruk
Veteran Member
I have used the fz330 and the fz1000 that way in the past but AF speed is hit and miss and why I don’t even bother anymore. Both those cameras have now gone.
OutsideTheMatrix
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,161
- Reaction score
- 3,378
What cameras do you use now for 4K image extraction and what cameras do you use that have the pre-shutter press picture taking function? As I recall the Fuji HS series was the best in that regard.
Fujiuseruk
Veteran Member
A Panasonic fz2000 and it’s way better than the hs series as it uses 4K .
Not that I’ve done much in the last in two years lol.
I have the RX10mk2 with its 24-200 f2.8 for lowlight stills and video.
The p950 for birding.
the is1 for infrared
fz2000 as my alrounder for video and stills .
I have a RX10 mk4 on back order .
Not that I’ve done much in the last in two years lol.
I have the RX10mk2 with its 24-200 f2.8 for lowlight stills and video.
The p950 for birding.
the is1 for infrared
fz2000 as my alrounder for video and stills .
I have a RX10 mk4 on back order .
Booted Cat
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,028
- Reaction score
- 2,943
It looks like from the list, at the high end of focal range (1600-2000mm), the Olympus solutions are the way to go. The only competitor seems to be the R5 + RF 800 F11 + RF 1.4 or 2x Extender (at over 2kg, R5 + RF 800 F11 + RF 2x Extender can reach 2400mm when cropped to 20MP).
What's Updated
Applications
- The max aperture numbers for "Fujifilm X-T30 + Fujifilm XF 70-300mm + Fujinon XF2X TC" are now corrected.
- A new solution, "Fujifilm X-T30 + Fujifilm XF 100-400mm + Fujinon XF2X TC", is added.
- "BIF solutions" in the title is changed to "fast shooters" to better indicate my applications. A new section "Applications" is added.
I think a lightweight long-zoom fast shooter (e.g. Canon R5 + RF 800mm F11 which at 2.0kg can reach 1200mm EFL when cropped to 20MP) can find 3 applications:
A list of the lightest long-zoom fast shooters
- BIF, but not small bird in flight: Small birds like the kingfisher fly fast and generally I won't try to follow them in flight even with a long-zoom fast shooter. Most people's reflexes simply can't catch up with them.
- In-place fast action: Imagine a kingfisher is eating a fish while perching on a branch. The eating process takes merely seconds if it's a small fish, and every second in this process the beak and fish are constantly moving. So aiming and AF won't be a problem (as the bird perches in the same place) but a high shutter speed is essential. This is when the solutions greater than 1000mm on the list below can come into play.
- Handheld shooting of "in-place fast action" or a stationary target: Imagine a kingfisher is eating a fish while perching on a branch, or is simply perching still on a branch, and you want to take a handheld snapshot. Likewise, aiming and AF won't be a problem as the bird stays in the same place, but a high shutter speed is required to reduce/eliminate camera shake caused by shaky hands.
All focal lengths below are adjusted as if cropped to 20MP.
600mm+
800mm+
- Sony RX10M4 (1.1kg, 24-600mm, F2.4-4)
- Sony a6600 + Sony E 70-350mm (1.1kg, 115-575mm, F4.5-6.3)
Some people regard this as the successor to the RX10M4, with the new Real-time Tracking autofocus technology which can "seamlessly and reliably transition from subject tracking to face detection and finally to eye detection".- There are other approaches to reach 600mm with a light weight, for example: Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 75-300mm II (0.8kg, 150-600mm, F4.8–6.7)
1000mm+
- Olympus E-M5 III + Panasonic Leica 100-400mm (1.4kg, 200-800mm, F4.0-6.3)
- Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 100-400mm (1.5kg, 200-800mm, F5.0-6.3)
- (Discontinued) A Nikon 1 series camera (here represented by Nikon 1 J5 as it's the only one in the series with >=20MP) + Nikon 1 70-300mm (0.8kg, 194-830mm, F4.5-5.6)
1120mm+
- Fujifilm X-T30 + Fujifilm XF 70-300mm + Fujinon XF2X TC (1.1kg, 239-1026mm, F8-11)
Courtesy of Fzuseruk (Labe) and Martin_99. This article has more information on the mentioned lens and teleconverter.
1600mm+
- Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 100-400mm + Olympus MC-14 1.4x Teleconverter (1.6kg, 280-1120mm, F7.1-9.0)
- Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 300mm F4 Pro + Olympus MC-20 2x Teleconverter (1.8kg, 1200mm, F8.0)
- Canon EOS R5 + Canon RF 800mm F11 (2.0kg, 1200mm, F11)
- Fujifilm X-T30 + Fujifilm XF 100-400mm + Fujinon XF2X TC (1.9kg, 342-1368mm, F9-11)
Courtesy of Fzuseruk (Labe) and Martin_99. This article has more information on the mentioned lens and teleconverter.
2000mm+
- Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 100-400mm + Olympus MC-20 2x Teleconverter (1.7kg, 400-1600mm, F10-13)
- Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x Pro + Olympus MC-20 2x Teleconverter (without using the internal 1.25x TC: 2.4kg, 600-1600mm, F9.0)
- Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x Pro + Olympus MC-20 2x Teleconverter (using the internal 1.25x TC: 2.4kg, 750-2000mm, F11)
The P950 and P1000 are ultrazoom slow shooters that work best on a tripod:
Nikon P1000, 2000mm, 1/15s, own work
So naturally their owners here may want long-zoom snapshooters for sports, action and BIF to complement these ultrazoom slow shooters, and wise, lazy people want solutions that are as light as possible.
Sony RX10M4, 600mm, 1/2500s, an official sample photo from Sony
I just completed an exhaustive study on lightweight long-zoom snapshooters and actually I didn't find anything new. The usual 3 lightest solutions are:
* F7.1-9.0 (with TC) is according to this YouTube video at 2:46.
- Sony RX10M4 (1.1kg, 24-600mm, F2.4-4)
- Olympus E-M5 III + Panasonic Leica 100-400mm (1.4kg, 200-800mm, F4.0-6.3)
- Olympus E-M5 III + Olympus 100-400mm + Olympus MC-14 1.4x Teleconverter (1.5kg (without TC) / 1.6kg (with TC), 200-800mm (without TC) / 280-1120mm (with TC), F5.0-6.3 (without TC) / F7.1-9.0 (with TC)*)
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum