RX10iii images vs P900 take two

As a follow up to a previous thread here

My Nikon P900 is back from service and working this time. Today I found a very cooperative bird that let me take photos with both the P900 and the RX10iii from the same spot for direct comparison. P900 at full zoom. RX10iii at full zoom, and RX10iii at 2x Clear Image Zoom. All hand-held. Processed in Lightroom using my standard presets for each camera.

P900 at 2000mm equivalent. Program -1/3 EV

RX10iii at 600mm. Program -1/3EV

RX10iii at 1200mm (2x Clear Image Zoom). Program -1/3EV

Pixel peep at will! Section out 100% crops. Whatever you want.

To my eye, when viewed a larger sizes, the P900 clearly shows the best feather detail, as would be expected with its higher magnification (that is a truly outstanding lens!)...but it also has the poorest image quality, especially in the background...lots of artifacts...worse even than the 2x CIZ image. At screen resolution, all three images look pretty good...with the Sony again having the edge in "attractiveness" or "beauty". Maybe that is just me...but I prefer the rendering of the Sony. It looks more real to me. Note that the depth of field of the P900 at 2000mm is about the same as the depth of field of the RX10iii at 600, since the actual focal length is within the same ball-park.

In real world applications, I would have taken this image with the P900, since I know how well it does at this distance, but I might have, in the past, passed it up with the RX10iii as just too far away for a satisfying image. Having experimented with 1200mm CIZ now, I would not hesitate to give it a try...at least for posting where I know folks don't pixel peep.

My conclusion is that if I had to, I could get by with just the RX10iii on a trip. I am going to Honduras with at Point and Shoot workshop the end of June (leading) and the jury is still out as to whether I will bring the P900 or just the Sony. ?? I will probably pack the both, as it is a P&S workshop and my students will have Canon SX50/60s and Nikon Ps mostly.

I have to keep reminding myself that I did not buy the RX10iii for birds. I bought it for landscapes and bugs!

This shot just could not have been done at all with the P900

2x CIZ. NOT for pixel peeping!

I'll have to say, that the 2,000mm P900 image at full-size, looks a bit more degraded than the RX10 III photo with CIZ at 1,200mm. But if the RX image were expanded another 66% to match that of the P900, I doubt if it would look even equal in clarity.

Based on this, I think that using a smaller frame-size (5-MP) with the RX10 III, would give better results and the same magnification-effect as CIZ at 2X. Maybe you could run a comparison test on that. In fact, using the 5-MP frame-size would give you an effective sensor size the same as that of my HX400V, but with pixels 4 times larger.

To my eyes the RX10III looks richer with more contrast and less 'artificial'.

I have a question about the CIZ on the Sony.

Is there any difference in using the CIZ versus just cropping out an equivalent view from a regular frame at full optical ?

P.S on the above shots -- The P900 might have faired better at ISO 100 as the Sony shots were taken at that ISO.

Thanx Stephen - super cool comparison!

I do prefer the Sony images - however, if I wasn't going on Safari, I would likely not drop the $$$ on the Sony.

However, since I am going on safari - I'm bringing both Maybe  owning the rx10-iii will inspire me to concentrate on photography a bit more as a hobby...

I do wish I knew when the Nikon Dl24-500 was going to be available - because then there might be an option in between the two...

doctorxring wrote:

I have a question about the CIZ on the Sony.

Is there any difference in using the CIZ versus just cropping out an equivalent view from a regular frame at full optical ?

P.S on the above shots -- The P900 might have faired better at ISO 100 as the Sony shots were taken at that ISO.

Yes, the difference is the number of pixels. CIZ is a two step in-camera process, 1st, optical sensor crop, 2nd, up-scale back to the full image size you are using, typically 20mp.

Post optical crop will be a great deal less pixels, as no up-scaling has occurred. You can use up-scaling software in post, but most examples over the years show optical crops up-scaled can match, and if better, only by a squeak.

The point of CIZ is it is EFFORTLESS.

It should be mentioned, if you drop down to 10mp image size, you get 3 kinds of zooms, progressively:

optical,

Smart Zoom: in-camera optical crop, no upscaling

CIZ, begins after Smart Zoom, in-camera crop, in-camera upscaling back to 10mp in this case.

Other Potential advantages to SZ and CIZ:

1. you can see detail when zoomed you might be unaware of

2. both focus and metering are taken using only the zoomed area.

3. you can use Manual Focus while seeing the detail in CIZ.

doctorxring wrote:

I have a question about the CIZ on the Sony.

Is there any difference in using the CIZ versus just cropping out an equivalent view from a regular frame at full optical ?

P.S on the above shots -- The P900 might have faired better at ISO 100 as the Sony shots were taken at that ISO.

I am always testing "real world performance"... how the two compare as I would actually use them... on Program, hand-held, at the exposure the camera sets.

As to CIZ vs Smart Digital Tel-converter (cropped image) you get exactly the same effect by cropping the 600mm image to 5mp. I will do that and post the results when I have a chance this morning. There is no doubt that the results would be better than CIZ from a detail respective...as Steve MacDonald says above... but I would not expect them to match the detail of the Nikon at 2000mm.

For comparison

CIZ

5 mp crop (equivalent of using the built in Smart Digital Tel-converter)

And finally the 5mp image upscaled to 20mp using ON1s Resize 10.

5mp upscaled to 20mp in ON1's Resize 10

Again, pixel peep to your heart's content.