367

Nikon Coolpix P1000 First impressions review

Sample gallery

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

72
I own it
159
I want it
38
I had it
Discuss in the forums
View Comments (367)

Comments

All (367)
Most popular (15)
Editors' picks (0)
DPR staff (3)
Oldest first
MaxiMax

This camera is an absolute marvel! The image quality is very good. One could only dream about something like this a few years ago.... Imagine the size of the lens if the sensor was a FF - and the price! Thanks to nano-electronics this is possible today. Certainly an entertaining camera to have.

1 day ago*
davev8
davev8

flat earthers will love this ...so they can zoom back almost out of sight ships that are not over the horizon and prove the earth is flat

2 days ago
Jwelz

Field box lenses cover a 2/3" (11 mm diag) sensor with 2.08 times the P1000's area. Canon has a 4K version that does 122x with a 0.55 degree horizontal field of view at a true 1000 mm at F:5.0. There must be pro applications for behemoth cameras with wide to extreme telephoto zoom. Despite atmospheric heat shimmer and haze, the lens comes with a 2x extender halving the field of view at F:10. The lens weighs 56.8 lbs. You probably won't be printing 16 by 20s.

The P1000 4K output is sharper than its 1080 so I'm betting there is some computational wizardry going on in the video compression to make it appear cleaner than physics suggests. The P1000 isn't up to the standard of a newer box lens, but its output probably compares as closely as an APS sensor kit lens camera does to full frame but at a proportionately much lower cost. I'm having fun playing with stills but the camera really shines with video because the pixels change faster than the peepers can follow.

3 days ago
RickRick

A bunch of people think up something silly, then they go ahead and make it anyway, and then it actually works!

I love it, should buy it just for the fun of it and to send them a 'good for you!' message.
But I'm stingy, so I won't, but I should.

3 days ago
Arun H

Who needs a Ritchey-Chrétien imaging scope when you have one of these?

5 days ago
mosc

You really need to evaluate 3000mm capture against a cropped capture from a faster aperture but shorter lens. It's an impressive lens aperture for the price really. 539mm f8 is a 67mm aperture diameter which is large even by FF standards. At 85mm, that's f1.2, at 200mm, that's f2.8. Short of specialty FF telephoto lenses (like 200mm f2 and beyond), you can't really get many lenses with apertures bigger than 67mm.

But there are cheap FF solutions with > 67mm apertures made by Tameron and Sigma in their 150-600mm lenses. These lenses cost about the same as the P1000 and when you add an APS-C body and teleconverter that's more money but it's worth comparing (24mp 600mmx2x TC x1.5 APS x1,7 crop = 8.6mp 3000mm). A simple superzoom lens + one of these big things covers the P1000 focal range and is several stops brighter throughout.

5 days ago
Sir 7

No, the whole cheap telephoto+teleconverter on an APS-C body cropped down argument has been played out so many times on P900 threads and now on this one many times as well. Unless you're using a Nikon or Canon 800mm F5.6 on a 24MP APS-C body, you're not going to match the P1000's IQ. So if you're willing to drop around $16,000 for that lens and lug its 10 pounds around, it would be a great alternative to the P1000.

5 days ago
TylerBreeden

I don’t want to rehash a whole bunch of nons new, but as I read this I kept thinking to myself that the RX100 III sure *seems* like it’d have better image quality if cropped to a 3000mm equivalent, given it’s advantage in aperture at the same focal lengths (before reaching past 600mm), etc.

Does the P1000 at 3000mm really beat out the RX100 III cropped to a 3000mm equivalent? We’re talking less than 2MP of true resolution here anyway, right?

4 days ago
Sir 7

@Tyler:

I think you mean the RX10M3. I've tried cropping the RX10M3's 600mm equivalent to 3,000mm equivalent in the past, and no, it wasn't very impressive. The resulting image is only 0.8MP.

4 days ago
davids8560

Some of the comments about the Nikon P1000 seem far-off. Perhaps it is a harbinger of some distant technology of the future. As a superzoom many people will be somewhat removed from this camera. Without question its main focus will be on remote subjects. Clearly it possesses a uniquely outlying purpose.

5 days ago*
1971_M5
1971_M5

The heron shot @ 1700mm is pretty good.

5 days ago
herbalserpent

Looks like some aborted miscreant :(

5 days ago
Sir 7

Haha, you get a Like for using "aborted miscreant" in a sentence. :D

5 days ago
herbalserpent

First thought that popped into my mind when I saw it. Must be one of those "vivid imagination" days :)

3 days ago
Enginel

What are f-stops vs. Nikon P900 on same FL? I guess than if P900's reach is enough for you then P900 will provide faster aperture than P1000...

5 days ago
Jwelz

The chart on page 2 shows them to have similar apertures for the 900's range. The 1000 adds 4K, HDMI capture out and a mic jack +. Weight and size are OK for tripod. Canon Vixia HF G10s introduced at $1499 with a 1/3" 2.3 M pixel 1080 60i/30p capability, 10x F:2 to 2.8 lens, internal memory and 2 SD slots and cost a grand in 2014. The Canon's best data rate is 24 Mbps which is higher per pixel than the 76 Mbps the Nikon spreads over 4K. I'd have been happier with a 9 M pixel 4K sensor in the Nikon and better control over zoom speed but nevertheless found the feature mix compelling. I've shot two indoor basketball games at 1080 60p with the Nikon to see how the battery holds up, check for heat issues and general IQ in the shorter zoom ranges and to gain familiartity with the camera. The SD video holds up to some grading and I'll be testing with an HDMI recorder next time. I have other cams for indoor sports but the Nikon is more versatile than I expected.

5 days ago
Augustin Man
Augustin Man

It's easy to get the data if you want: for instance, at 2000mm, P900 has f/6.5 and P1000 f/6.3, thus P1000 is better.

4 days ago
mring1

Nobody better EVER talk to me about the size of m4/3s gear again😉

5 days ago
eilivk

Interesting, would like to try one, but doing fine with P610.
Hope buyers know what the are doing.

6 days ago
Sir 7

Maaannn... I miss my P610! I had the candy red one and that paint was awesome! It also had the best VR of any megazoom I've owned. For some reason, its successor the B700 didn't have as good VR. Nor does the P1000, which I also own. That P610 lens is fantastic too. If only it shot RAW, it'd be the best megazoom on the market. Yup, better than the P1000 due to better stabilization and substantially smaller size.

5 days ago
ANAYV

Miss my P610, too. Also had the red one.
Lens was great..as was O.I.S.

Internal buffer when taking medium fps bursts is so lame...
Caused me to try the FZ80.

Goes from 20mm to 1200mm...don't really miss the 240 extra mm on the long end, but a nice welcome of 20mm on the wide end. At 9MP it goes to 1699mm.

Not the sharpest lens at wide...but the O.I.S is also amazing...and AF way faster than P610...assignable function buttons...less menu diving. Lacks a tilt swivel LCD and no eye sensor for EVF...but I.Q...well..

https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61786618/967386b1d5344a69af5aff73e448492d

Above shot @ 1/80th 1699mm shutter speed ISO 200
-1.33 EV handheld.

5 days ago
Sir 7

Handheld at 1/80? Not bad!

Mmm, 20mm... That would be NICE! Bummer you say it's not so sharp there though.

In all honesty, I'd happily give up 1,000mm of the P1000's reach for the Canon S120's superb 12MP 1/1.7" sensor! THAT'S the next step in megazooms that I'm eagerly awaiting. But, it'll probably turn into a reach contest and the next big thing will be a 4,000mm lens on the same sensor. :(

5 days ago
eilivk

To ANAYV and Sir 7 - a red one?! Maybe get one and sell the black hmmm. - Sat with elbows on knees and shot 60 x video of a songbird (måltrost), rather steady. The noise very fine compared to SX20. Maybe buy P1000 when I get old and put it on a threepod?

3 days ago
Sir 7

Haha, sounds like a plan! That red paint can't be understated. It really is beautiful! Make sure to scrutinize the lens sharpness and AF accuracy as I've owned a P610 and 2 B700s (same lens). The P610 and first B700 had great lenses and AF accuracy. But the 2nd B700's lens just didn't get sharp at any zoom setting. So there are pretty wide manufacturing tolerances. Make sure your next copy is at least as good as the one you have now.

8 hours ago
anticipation_of
anticipation_of

Can't help but notice that we've seen a lot of First Impressions, Video Review, Studio Scene, etc. articles recently but no Full Reviews. Quantity of recently-announced cameras slowing things down, I guess?

6 days ago
Sir 7

DPR doesn't seem to do in-depth reviews very often for cameras that are not MILC or DSLR. That's really ashamed because there are some noteworthy "others" like the P1000. The RX10 and RX100 series does get some deserved attention from DPR. The megazooms should as well.

5 days ago
alandalsong

For people who hate Nikon P1000 for the right reasons, please look at this, and you may find it's your cup of tea ....and it has everything that P1000 doesn't have and more.... lols

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1038918787/photokina-2018-hands-on-with-the-leica-s3

6 days ago*
Sir 7

Lol, what I hate most about the P1000 is awful ergonomics. But you know what? The Leica S3's ergos are WORSE, LOL! :D They literally are. Freakin' Leica...

5 days ago
flip 21
flip 21

1/2.3" sensor?!?!? Are we going backwards in terms of technology evolution?!?!?

6 days ago
lomoapontaechuta

the evolution tends to get things smaller not bigger.

6 days ago
Sir 7

The Canon S120's 12MP 1/1.7" sensor would be ideal for a megazoom camera!

5 days ago
lem12

These cameras built on the least expensive components, placing 1/1.7' sensor would involve more of a lens and it's going to be bigger, having P1000 is already huge. I would think that the price of a cam based on a little bigger sensor would be twice as big as 1/2.3' and would move this cam into its own price range. Looks like the Sony drives and sets the market for innovations and others go by it. The Canon couldn't set the cams over their 1.5 sensor. Looks like the 1' is well thought strategy overall. Instead the Canon could make their own line of wide angles based on 1.5 sensor, but didn't.

5 days ago*
lem12

To: lomoapontaechuta,
Are you referring to money too?

5 days ago
lomoapontaechuta

No, after all evolution it's evolution and you always paid, pay and will pay premium for that.

5 days ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

No. The future was always supposed to deliver better performance in smaller and smaller packages (with the exception of television screen size). So if this were a perfect world we’d all be shooting 50mp pictures with the equivalent of a 5mm to 5000mm f1.4 zoom on a camera the size of a credit card. You iPhone would be the size of a postage stamp, your flying car would fit in your pocket, and your robot children would never forget your birthday.

5 days ago
lem12

I don't know about that man, I was born already small - evolved! Cute and naked, and don't remember any money.

3 days ago
GarysInSoCal
GarysInSoCal

ATTENTION sneaky private investigators... spys... married people with cheating partners... and creepy pervs 2 miles from the nudist camp... THIS is your cam! If you're a cheating spouse... MAKE SURE this camera is NOT on your partner's Christmas list... :D

6 days ago
cdembrey

The perfect camera for the convicted sex offender or pedophile who isn't allowed to be within a block of a school.

6 days ago
ottonis

ummmm...not really suitable for spying on cheating spouses, except they cheat in bright sunlight outdoors.

6 days ago
Sir 7

Doesn't everybody do it on the beach in broad daylight? What, I'm not alone, am I???

5 days ago
TylerBreeden

Did you change your profile picture to make this comment? XD

4 days ago
Sir 7

@Tyler:

Well, if you're talking to me, my profile photo used to be me doing it on the beach. But in light of apparently not everyone seeing things my way, i went incognito. ;)

3 days ago
JEROME NOLAS

For whatever it is, not bad at all...

6 days ago
BryceM
BryceM

Not my cup of tea, but I was talking to a Nikon DSLR user the other day who "hates changing lenses". He went on to describe his dream camera, and it sounded an awful lot like this one...

6 days ago
Sir 7

Haha, as a fellow Nikon DSLR shooter, I'm pretty confident saying your friend will be pretty disappointed with the P1000's ergonomics, responsiveness, AF, etc. Everybody's really got to think of the P1000 as a 600mm-3,000mm lens that can make 16MP native resolution images.

For the whole 24mm-599mm part, seriously, use a different camera.

6 days ago
BryceM
BryceM

Guess he should've been more careful what he wished for ;-)

6 days ago
Sir 7

Haha, devil's in the details... ;)

But if he really truly does care about 1,500mm-ish to 3,000mm reach and he's willing to shoot with discipline and effort, the P1000 stands alone and can actually produce some really impressive images. I was really on the fence but have decided to keep my P1000.

6 days ago
xPhoenix
xPhoenix

It may be 16MP, but due to the tiny sensor, optics and diffraction, there's no way it's going to resolve that much detail. Real-life resolving power will be a lot lower. Maybe someone with an optics background can do the math, but I guarantee you 16MP is not happening.

6 days ago
lomoapontaechuta

I guarantee, when it comes to heat, haze and all the things attached there's no difference which type of sensor and lenses you use at distance.
Better go short and stay there, using full zoom in close by subjects. or something else as long it's near.
In good weather conditions (cold and clear) the 16 mp can produce beautiful pictures, as every other lens or sensor.
I think the key it's the thinner the atmosphere is the better the pictures are, less interferences are picked up.

6 days ago
Sir 7

Please, not with the diffraction argument again... I'm begging, please...

Why bother with math? Take a look at my Gallery and decide for yourself. Do keep in mind that my 3,000mm images' imperfections really are from inadequate VR/shutter speed/support. In other words, blur because I wasn't solidly tripod-mounted. Or atmospheric conditions like in my bunker shot on a hot day from the beach, over 3 miles of open ocean, hot tarmac on the other side, then the bunker. And my big full moon photo (only 2,600mm) that suffered from inadequate support and atmosphere. But my daytime half-moon at 3,000mm (blue sky shot) had pretty good atmospheric conditions and better support.

Diffraction is just not a concern at all on the P1000. Adequate support/stability is THE concern. At 3,000mm the P1000 must be rock-steady and that's pretty inconvenient. But, it is THE concern. If you're cool shooting with a tripod and know how to shoot in Manual exposure, you can do very well with the P1000 at 3,000mm.

5 days ago
Sir 7

Oh yeah, when viewing my Gallery photos be sure to view the Original and then click the image to zoom to 100% magnification.

5 days ago
xPhoenix
xPhoenix

Of course diffraction is a concern. Like it or not, there are physical laws that dictate lens performance. Sorry, but from what I've seen in the DPR sample galleries and other places, the IQ from this camera is nothing to write home about. The sensor is too darn small. I'm not gonna pay $1K for a cell-phone sized sensor. Also, good luck getting shallow DOF with an equivalent of f/44. If it works for some of you, then that's great. Enjoy.

5 days ago*
Aroart

Wow... this will be a fun camera... yes FUN... oh I'm sure some trolling loser will argue to show us how camera smart they are and to make himself feel better..

6 days ago*
Sir 7

It's actually a real pain to shoot with from about 1,000mm and longer; which is really what this camera is all about. But that length is really cool and that length leaves it totally in a class all by itself.

For now... Hear me Canon? ;)

6 days ago
alandalsong

Please get on to this Flickr link before you make any comments.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aisse_gaertner/

Then ask yourself if you can do anything similar with your gears. I know many people can.... but with what gears....?

6 days ago
alandalsong

I know most of bird photos are 2 -3 MB in size.

6 days ago
Petak
Petak

The question is not whether I can (I can't) but whether I want to. I'm not much of a bird man and the birds around d where I live are rather plain in comparison with those in Brazil.

I'm not a voyeur either.

6 days ago
alandalsong

Petal, agreed. P1000 is not a do-it-all and do-it-all-well camera. But it is marketed as superzoom. It's not meant to be an "exceller" for lanscape, architecture, sports and a few others.

But it has been compared with other cameras which it was never ment to compete against.

If one knows cameras and their specifications, he should know its limitations and hence its best suited applications.

6 days ago
randalusa
randalusa

Some purdy pictures. But with no descriptions either on Flikr or by you here, I am left wondering how any if them relate to the discussion of the Nikon being reviewed.

5 days ago
alandalsong

Randalusa, his bird photos were shot with Nikon P900, the previous version of P1000, if you read all exit data along the photos.

4 days ago
randalusa
randalusa

Thanks for the clarification. I guess even if taken with the 900, that portends fairly well for this genre sold by Nikon.

4 days ago
Dpreviewmember
Dpreviewmember

Could you give an example of the same subject taken at : 1000, 2000 and 3000mm ?

I have a Fuji HS50 and HS20, which have great stabilization and manual zoom,
but hardly reach the 1000mm, also have a teleconverter that takes it to 1700mm. But reach seems not linear, the real zoom factor going form 500mm to 1000 (2x zoom on mm) is less noticeable than going from 1000 to 2000mm).

Moon photos that I took with the less powerfull HS20 looked better than the ones at 1000mm with the newer HS50, so more zoom isn't allways better.

It is intersting to see that they fixed Moon Mode default at 1000mm and Bird Mode at 500mm, maybe going more than 1000mm is not that practical ?

6 days ago
NCB

I've a P900, and one weakness is the poor viewfinder. The eyecup lets in light, and the EVF is difficult to see in bright conditions. The P1000 EVF of itself has a much improved spec. Any idea of whether the above weakness has also been solved? It would make a big difference to usability.

1 week ago
User4286416121

I heard it was improved! I too had the same issue. I will check mine as soon as open the box.

1 week ago
Finsbay

The comparison with a 800 F5.6 with converter is not a fair one, as this gimmick camera has I assume has a 537mm lens.
Could get a Nikon D5600 18-140mm and Tamron 150-600mm for just a little more for vastly better quality photos.

1 week ago
Jwelz

Assuming lens resol'n is engineered to match pixel density, the P1000 lens resolves 747 pixels per mm and a D850 lens might do 230. System resol'n is the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocal of the constituent elements. Cropping the 850 emphasizes the lens losses as it starts with 1/3 as many lines of lens resolution on the equivalently cropped sensor. If you only consider sensor, a 540 mm lens on full frame cropped might be near equivalent but the pixel width is only 1419 with 1419 lens lines for 710 system lines. The P1000 is 1/(1/4608 +1/4608) = 2300 lines resolved before diffraction.

1 week ago
JochenIs

And after diffraction?

6 days ago
Jwelz

Diffraction is a bit tougher to quantify but 4K video at 3000 mm equivalent on my 39" monitor clearly has more detail than at 1080 so it should definitely resolve more than 2.1 megapixels. Our weather has limited the utility of maximum zoom, both with atmospheric effects and brightness so it's difficult to be certain. I've recently shot with a Canon XF 405 at nearly twice the data rate and a 1" sensor, about 4 times the area and 1:1 4K pixels and I'm seening more noise with the P1000 unless I have a ton of light but the P1000 offers truly unique video capabilities for the price and I'd have to guess I'm getting near enough 4000 + pixels resolved on a 8.92 M pixel 3840 by 2160 screen. Pixel peeping isn't as much of a thing with video and that's my primary application for this camera. Zoomed less, the aperture is larger with less diffraction and more detail. I'm sure I get 8.92 resolved by 800 mm equivalent and my Canon video cams won't touch that.

6 days ago
Sir 7

Really? Comparing a $16,000 lens to the P1000? Let's compare a brand new La Ferrari to a brand new Honda Accord while we're at it... I'll save you the trouble. The Nikkor 800mm on a D7200 will produce better cropped 3,000mm images than the P1000. And the La Ferrari is better also.

I'll save you more trouble; the 18-140mm is a crappy lens. I have 2 of them. 1 just literally fell apart on me for no reason. The other still works, though I have never used either much at all because they both have poor optics. And Tamron? Seriously, if you'll consider a Tamron supertelephoto, the P1000's IQ is definitely good enough for you.

Get a used D7200 and 16-80mm F2.8-4E and 55-300mm F4.5-5.6G VR instead of the D5600 and 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G and ANY Tamron. Trust me, you'll thank me tremendously for that advice. Also, for anything over 1,500mm equiv. get the P1000 unless you're willing to spend at least $6,000 on NIKON glass.

And OMG, please forget about the diffraction argument. It's totally bogus.

6 days ago
Sir 7

Oh yeah, and the P1000 is not a gimmick camera. But it does require discipline, a solid tripod and photographic expertise to really take advantage of the 3,000mm end. I will admit that the 125x zoom is ridiculous. It should be a 5x zoom from 600mm to 3,000mm.

6 days ago
lomoapontaechuta

d5600+ 18-140 +150-600?
For a walk around/hike setup? Nah... it's just not very practical. And you would need more lens.
and 18-140 lens has a 40/45 cm minimal focus length, the 150-600 has a 270 cm minimal focus lens.
If I had a 150-600 lens I would leave the 18-140 at home, and bring a macro lens or a prime for LL. And even then would be too heavy to carry around.
And this kind of gear can reach very high numbers in $ and be lousy gear for exploring.
That's why there are superzooms

6 days ago
Sir 7

Get the Nikon 200mm-500mm F5.6E instead of the Tamron. You won't regret it.

5 days ago
Finsbay

I have the Nikon 18-140, and it is extremely sharp, as resolution tests, Dxomark and my photos will confirm. The Tamron lens came out favourably in a comparison with the Nikon 200-500, I don't have anything longer than the cheap Nikon 70-300 AF-P, but my moon photos are sharper than the P1000, hand held. All my D7100 kit cost much less than £1000.

"Assuming lens resol'n is engineered to match pixel density" I don't assume any such thing for this camera, iPhone lenses may be sharper than full frame lenses, as they need to be to enlarge the picture 29X as much, but the iPhone lens is definitely not 29X sharper.

As an engineering exercise, ie gimmick, the P1000 impresses, but you'll never see a professional using one.

4 days ago*
Jwelz

Finsbay: The D850 has about twice as many pixels in width and the sensor size/crop ratio is less than 6. The P1000 doesn't need to be 29 times as sharp. 3 times would more than do it. Sure it's still a big assumption but how else do you explain the vast superiority of the superzooms at extreme focal lengths over crops from larger format sensors?

4 days ago
Sir 7

500mm on FF requires a 6x crop. That's a 36x reduction (you have to square crop factor). That would leave a 1.25MP image from the D850's native 45MP.

4 days ago
Finsbay

I haven’t seen any superiority of superzooms over a full frame lens which a professional wildlife photographer would use, when even my cheap as chips 70-300 APSC, cropped to a tenth, is much sharper than a 3000mm superzoom. The sample shots above may be OK for Instagram at 1mp, (I’ve seen sharper 1mp photos) that’s as far as most photos go. But you won’t see National Geographic rare bird photos taken on a P1000.

4 days ago
Sir 7

@Finsbay:

National Geographic photographers would be closer to their subjects or they wouldn't take the shot. They don't do 6x crops. They normally don't crop at all except to straighten, or remove elements at the edge of the frame.

And they also don't use Tamron lenses. Especially with a teleconverter attached...

4 days ago*
Finsbay

My original point was that before I buy a camera, I read websites like DPReview, to compare other possibilities, and a similarly priced APSC Nikon DSLR, with 2 lenses of your choice, is a vastly better option for anyone wanting more than instagram or 6X4 prints. Even if I was happy with the terrible picture quality of the P1000, the DSLR would still be my choice.

4 days ago
Sir 7

@Finsbay:

Without any doubt whatsoever an APS-C camera will deliver better IQ (within limits described below), not to mention VASTLY superior ergonomics, AF performance/versatility, and responsiveness. But not at extreme telephoto photography.

I know, i have the kind of gear you're talking about regarding trying to equal or best the P1000's max telephoto IQ. Including the FF 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G VR, 80-400mm F4.5-5.6G ED VR, and even the Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 (which is garbage and i haven't used it since the day i bought it) and Nikkor 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. The ideal body to shoot such lenses on to crop to 3,000mm equivalent is the D7200, which i also have. I've tried what you're talking about before in real life. I'm not hypothesizing. There is SO MUCH cropping involved that the only usefulness for such images WOULD BE low-res online stuff. You mention making prints bigger than 4" x 6". 2.16MP printed at 300dpi equates to... EXACTLY 4" x 6" quite coincidentally.

Continued...

3 days ago
Sir 7

So larger than that requires extrapolation. And if you're going to extrapolate, lens doesn't matter because print quality will simply vary between poor and awful.

While the P1000's optics and VR are no match for a Nikkor 600mm F4 or 800mm F5.6, the P1000 WILL produce superior large prints than any combination of gear not using premier Nikon or Canon optics costing over $12,000 simply for the fact of substantially higher resolution. And the P1000's optics are actually quite good. Just not $16,000 good.

Since you're talking about a D5600, you're not going to buy a fixed focal length supertelephoto costing $12,000+. You want to beat the P1000's max tele on a slim budget.

That cannot happen. Simple, and sorry about that.

While the P1000 is an awful camera to choose as an only camera, at/near max tele it cannot be touched by gear not costing several to very many times what the P1000 does.

Continued...

3 days ago
Sir 7

By all means, get your D5600 and whatever lenses you feel are appropriate for your style of shooting. But get the P1000 for extreme-telephoto-shooting-only. That's the only thing the P1000 is good for, but there it will beat anything not costing well over $10,000.

Done...

3 days ago
Perokom

Please test video on something like Jupiter or Saturn :). I wonder how it look likes.

1 week ago
JochenIs

I fear you won't see them as they are pretty dark.

Edit: oh there are videos of it on yt

4 days ago*
Ridgeline Images

In the comparison table I think you'll find the Canon SX70 also has a 2.36M-dot OLED rather than a 922k-dot LCD as you listed.

1 week ago
Ridgeline Images

If you still don't believe me (or don't care if the information you present is accurate) straight from the horse's mouth... https://www.canon.com.au/-/media/images/canon/products/powershot-sx70-hs/sx70-hs-brochure.ashx

5 days ago
voronspb

By the way, is there an easy way to find the REAL focal length value on Dpreview website? Everywhere in specs tables only equivalent is stated. I had to google it.

1 week ago
xPhoenix
xPhoenix

Crop factor is about 5.57, so 3000/5.57 = 539mm. The other thing is, the equivalent aperture is 8 x 5.57 = f/45. This camera will only give decent results in full sunlight. Even then, the samples don't look very sharp.

1 week ago
KeepCalm

xPhoenix
This camera has a very large aperture of 67mm and will give at at full zoom the performance of an f/8 lens and this f/45 number is just playing a really silly numbers game detached from the real purposes and abilities of the camera.
The fact is most other kit at this price need everything to be nice and close to get similar results and cropping down to the same field of view will be getting little total light from a very narrow porthole in the lens however flattering the f number may seem at short focal lengths. Not that anyone seems to know what aperture actually is in this equivalent aperture world where f/45 number represents aperture in this case in an extremely back to front way.

1 week ago*
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

I think he meant without resorting to a calculator. One of the first rules you are taught in journalism school is "don't make your readers do math, do it for them" because a certain portion of your readers will get the answer wrong but blame you for their mistake nonetheless.
And when you calculate that f/stop are you using the number printed on the lens or the actual f/stop (some call it a T/stop) which tends to be about a third stop smaller.

1 week ago
dradis101

There is a lot of misinformation in the replies above. Multiplying the aperture by the crop factor only applies to depth of field. yes, at 3000mm equiv. this lens will have the depth of field of a 3000mm f45 on full frame. However, it does not apply to exposure. This will get the same exposure as any f8 lens. f45 would practically expose like a pinhole.

F-stops reflect the physical dimension of the aperture. While it is true that the reported and advertised values may be slightly rounded, this is not T-stops. T-stops reflect the actual amount of light that is being transmitted. This is always a bit slower (for example an f/1.8 lens may be t/1.9) because no lens is 100% efficient. T stops are generally used when discussing or marketing for video use where exact exposure is critical. F stops are generally used for photography because they better represent the characteristic look of the photo (depth of field, bokeh, etc).

1 week ago
User4286416121

Keep Calm Um... Light density didn't change did it. F45 for DOF. Perhaps diffraction issues. I love the superzoom cameras. It is what I use. Not sure if they really compare to larger format pictures.

1 week ago
xPhoenix
xPhoenix

Yeah, f/8 is f/8 as far as physical size. However, the equivalent number is f/44, DOF will look as if it were shot with an f/44 lens, which to put it bluntly, sucks.

1 week ago
xiao_xiang

If you want to state equivalent focal length, then you must state equivalent aperture.

Equivalent aperture is extremely important as it tells you the light gathering ability of the lens. Therefore, the amount of noise and hence the low light capabilities.

At f45, even bright sunlight will give noisy images.

If you don't believe me, compare your f1.7 cell phone to a full frame f1.8 set up in low light.

Then you will see f values are highly misleading when comparing relative performance across sensor sizes.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's not true.

6 days ago
JPatrick
JPatrick

"is there an easy way to find the REAL focal length value on Dpreview website? Everywhere in specs tables only equivalent is stated."

If you look at the pictures carefully you will see on the barrel that the lens has a focal length of 4.3-539mm and aperture of 1:2.8*8 - 125X.

6 days ago
Sir 7

@xiao:

"Equivalent focal length" really means "realized Angle Of View (AOV) expressed in terms of what length lens on FF would have the same AOV." 539mm on the P1000 would have the same AOV as a 3,000mm lens on a FF camera.

"Equivalent aperture" really means "realized Depth Of Field (DOF) expressed in terms of what FF aperture would produce the same DOF on an FF lens having the same AOV as this lens." F8 on the P1000 at 3,000mm produces the same DOF that an FF 3,000mm lens would produce at F44.5.

xPhoenix thinks F44 images would "suck." Well, view the work of "Group f/64." Yet another format to play math with and create conversions for. Again, it doesn't matter. At 3,000mm or its equiv., magnification is so great that DOF is naturally very shallow unless for very small aperture. You'll see in my moon images that not the whole moon is in-focus. That is because F44.5 equiv. does not provide enough DOF for the moon at 3,000mm AOV. The irony is that the P1000 needs even more DOF.

5 days ago*
Sir 7

To clarify above, since I can't edit the post anymore, when I say "P1000 3,000mm", I mean 539mm producing 3,000mm equiv. AOV.

Oh, and equivalent aperture is not about light-gathering. Because the sensor is so much smaller, light is focused on a much smaller area. Therefore, F8 actually remains F8 regardless of format.

But because AOV changes when format changes while actual focal length remains the same (i.e. 539mm (actual) on P1000 and 539mm (actual) on FF), DOF changes. THAT is "equivalent aperture."

Equivalent aperture is supposed to make it more simple to predict DOF when moving from format to format. But since nobody except astronomers shoots at 3,000mm equivalent AOV, equivalent aperture/DOF is an abstract concept on the P1000. A much better example would be shooting a 35mm lens (AOV) at F4 (DOF) on APS-C has an equivalent FF length/AOV as a 52.5mm lens with an equivalent aperture/DOF of F6.0.

5 days ago*
Sir 7

Or perhaps even more relevant/appropriate would be the P1000's 4.3mm actual length at actual F2.8 has the same AOV and DOF as an FF 24mm lens at F15.6.

5 days ago
JPatrick
JPatrick

I think the way Canon is stating these features in equivalence is confusing.

That's why I quoted the sizes shown on the lens barrel in my post above.

5 days ago
Sir 7

I'm not sure exactly how Canon is stating equivalence but I agree many will find equivalences confusing. However, uniformity in communicating lens attributes across different formats is necessary. Since 35mm film has been the photography standard for decades and all photographers were familiar with AOVs associated with 35mm lenses, it was natural for manufacturers of different formats to state what the AOV would look like on 35mm format. Hence, length "equivalence." Nowadays 35mm isn't the most-used format by a longshot. And many photographers nowadays have never shot 35mm film or FF digital. So, 35mm equivalence is obsolete. Still useful, but obsolete. AOV is really what should be conveyed as that is a universal across all formats. For instance, 4.3mm on 1/2.3" sensors like the P1000's has an AOV of 84°. 24mm on FF also has an AOV of 84°. And 539mm on the P1000 gives 0.8° AOV as does 3,000mm on FF. So, the P1000 really should be marketed as having an 84° to 0.8° zoom.

Continued...

5 days ago
Sir 7

It will take some re-calibration for photographers using the AOV° standard, but it's truly the way to go.

DOF is more difficult. There's no universal way to quantify the DOF difference between 84° F8 on a 1/2.3" sensor and 84° F8 on an FF sensor. Angles are angles. Constant, easy. DOF is so dynamic I don't know how it could be conveyed universally. Until somebody figures out some new scale for it, DOF aperture equivalence is all we have. That's too bad because I think aperture equivalence is even more confusing to even more photographers. Especially if they've never shot 35mm/FF. I learned on and spent decades with 35mm film gear so I've got all the AOV/DOF qualities burned in my head. But to many if not most nowadays, aperture equivalence is purely an abstract concept that only serves to confuse. I don't have the answer but I sure hope someone comes up with some uniform DOF measurement. Soon! :)

5 days ago*
KeepCalm

@Sir 7
A good example of the way equivalency confuses is one of the above posters wondering if this large aperture lens is going to have diffraction issues being 'f45'.
The amount of light flowing over the aperture blades is minimal compared to the area of the aperture but this description of f number as aperture especially with this fictitious number just causes confusion especially when the big sensor trolls use it as a weapon whilst cruising the bridge reviews, motivated only by a malicious intolerance to our having a variety of camera types apart from what they need.

5 days ago*
Sir 7

Ugh, the whole diffraction argument thing is such a thorn in my side. It's so weird to see so many people aggressively arguing that hypothesis instead of just looking at photos actually shot with the P1000. Whether the math is even accurate/relevant/applicable, it just simply doesn't hold up in real life. The P1000 is capable of taking great photos. Not as easy to use as it should be, but image quality is not a concern at ISO 100 or 200 at 100% magnification viewing or for making 18" x 24" maybe even 24" x 32" prints. For online photo sharing, you can shoot any ISO and be fine.

5 days ago
vhlemos

I experienced that lens power beyond 30X is useless with that kind of cameras in your hands. A tripod is needed most of the time, a strong, solid one to avoid any vibration or minimal trepidation to see in your images.

1 week ago
Jwelz

The image stabilization is better than anything I've used including Panasonic Mega OIS and Canon Powered IS. My ability to shoot long exposure stills at longer focal lengths has become markedly improved though framing is hit and miss at the extreme lengths. A handheld video pan of a city scape at 300 mm equivalent looked as though locked onto a robust fluid head tripod. The total mass plus the added inertial mass of the extended zoom weight distribution are a source of some complaints but actually appear to contribute significantly to the ability to use this camera handheld at longer focal lengths.

1 week ago
Sir 7

Sorry, Jwelz, but the P1000's VR is inadequate above around 1,200mm for handheld shooting unless you're willing to shoot at/above ISO 400 to get adequate shutter speed. But I don't suggest shooting above ISO 200 with the P1000 and you should really try very hard to stay at base ISO of 100 if at all possible. Use at least a monopod from 1,000mm to 2,000mm and a solid tripod above 2,000mm.

If you heed that advice, you can get truly impressive images from the P1000. Otherwise, you'll likely be disappointed to very disappointed. If you plan on shooting 3,000mm handheld, don't bother with the P1000 as its VR is nowhere near good enough to accommodate that length even with a monopod well enough to produce consistently sharp images.

6 days ago
NetMage

If it produces occasionally sharp images, it still beats no images.

6 days ago
Jwelz

Sir 7. I can't disagree. As primarily a Canon shooter with access to numerous IS lenses, my comment was only intended to offer a subjective comment from a non-professional that I have had a very favorable impression of the P1000's stabilization. My primary intended application is video and I am well equipped with mono and tripods. While many advocate a camera that concentrates on the longer end of the spectrum, I find the option of going wider with a continuous shot quite compelling. Last week I shot an indoor basketball game handheld at ISO 800 and don't think I ever went over 200 mm equivalent. The results were noisier than my usual efforts but not terrible and the audio worked without having first to be extracted and converted for Davinci Resolve. I'll be shooting the Nikon at 400 tonight to see the difference.

5 days ago
Jwelz

NetMage. Agreed. In testing, I shot a wall clock at 1/5 sec at 3000 eqiv indoors and the only obvious blur was the second hand. I was seated in a chair with the cam cradled and was able to get numerous clear shots at 1/15. I don't profess particular skill or ability but this Nikon has made shooting handheld up to 1000 mm better than what was previously possible for me up to 300. Maybe all new IS is this good but this is the best I've experienced.

5 days ago
Sir 7

Pretty sharp 3,000mm images at 1/15s handheld???

You must have a magical P1000 because I can't get anything sharp at 3,000mm under 1/400s on a monopod or braced really well on a railing or some other very solid object. And that's when I'm lucky. Typically I need VR and 1/640s to get blur-free images. I'm not the most steady-handed person, but I'm certainly not shaky either. You must be the calmest person on Earth! ;)

5 days ago
Jwelz

I shot a 5 cm group with a 5.7 mm rifle last summer at 200 metres on my first outing with my brother in law's gun and his ammo loads from a seated rest in the back of his pickup. It's not exceptional shooting. Both he and his daughter shoot tighter groups. No tripod or bipod. My resting pulse is about 40 and I was relaxed with the P1000.

The shooting is no worse than 1/2 a minute of arc accuracy off axis. Camera horizontal field of view is 40 minutes of arc at 3000 mm over the 4608 pixel width which is 58 pixels at the sensor at 1/2 MOA. That would be a lot of blur but that's before any stabilization. 5 stops of stabilization would be 58/2×2×2×2×2 which would be a worst case blur of 1.8 pixels.

The analogy isn't perfect as recoil and duration of time the bullet is in the barrel isn't the same as shutter speed, but the cross hairs are trained closer and longer to get the shot and you just need to hold still while the camera view encompases your subject.

5 days ago
Sir 7

One thing you'll learn about Nikon is that they may claim 5-stops of VR, in all kinds of lenses and cameras, but it's not 5 in actuality. I'd rate the P1000 at 2.5 to 3-stops of VR in actuality. Definitely helpful, but inadequate for 3,000mm shooting at F8 at ISO 100. That would necessitate 1/375 shutter for a steady hand to get a high (70%+) hit rate of "tripod-steady" shots. That's really bright light. Almost on-the-money "Sunny 16" conditions.

At 1/15 shutter, that's about 7.5-stops of stabilization for the typical "steady hand" at 3,000mm. You're like a human rock! ;)

5 days ago
Jwelz

Sir 7. It's not unknown that manufacturers make exagerrated claims to drive sales. I can only say that my experience is that the Nikon's VR is markedly superior to another mfg's claim of 4 stops IS and my best results are with the camera steadied with hands against something of great inertial mass. The reciprocal rule applies to me with non IS free standing shooting like most anyone else. I'm sure it's possible to gain a couple stops of steadiness appropriately braced and obviate a bit of dependency on stabilization. The smoothness I was able to manage with free standing hand held panning at about 300 mm equiv siggests that there is some digital stabilization augmenting the OIS. The Parrot Anafi and GoPro 7 are examples of how far the tech has come.

5 days ago
Sir 7

Oh, at 300mm the P1000 has adequate VR for most non-dim situations. Pretty much anything outside during the day or anything well-lit inside. AF is my concern inside though. There is room for AF improvement.

5 days ago
P10004K
P10004K

I had the Sony RX10 III for two years and sold it after using the P1000 because it could not match the P1000 handheld at 600mm eqiv. +.

1 week ago
Sir 7

I still have my RX10M3 and think it buries my P1000 at everything up to 600mm where the RX10M3 tops out. And I'm nooo Sony fanboy, i can tell you that. Glad you like you're P1000 though. :)

5 days ago
P10004K
P10004K

I agree up to 600mm eqiv. but the P1000 is better over 600mm handheld. I have other cameras that shoot up to 600mm eqiv. like my GH5 with 100-300 or 300mm F4.

5 days ago
Sir 7

Wait, huh? :D

The RX10M3 only goes up to 600mm equivalent. Are you talking about using digital zoom? That i don't have much experience with as i have never cared for it in the past.

5 days ago
P10004K
P10004K

The RX 10 III/IV have 2x clear zoom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-vXBsr5HQs

5 days ago
Sir 7

i don't use digital zoom. Nothing against people using it though.

4 days ago
Jwelz

Digital zoom has less impact with compressed video as it applies less compression to fewer pixels so it's not giving up quite as much information. Digital zoom for jpegs give up proportionately more sensor data since most cameras aren't as limited by data rate for video as for stills. Still, if you're zooming 2x digitally, you still throw away 1/2 the lines of lens resolution. If you did the zoom in post, you throw away both sensor and lens resolution leaving 1/4 but you don't lose nearly as much with oversampled digital video zoom.

4 days ago
chrom
chrom

It's nice to see the equivalent apertures at various focal lengths is pretty much on par with the P900. It's still extremely slow, but at least adding that extra 2000-3000mm range didn't really slow down the 24-2000.

1 week ago
cream

There is not many camera you can pick up and zoom into space station hand held.

1 week ago
JPatrick
JPatrick

It's a lot less about the camera and more about the person holding it. It would work much better if the camera was put on an astro tracking mount with the space station route programmed into the hand controller, ideally using a telescope.

I noted that the f/l he shot at was around 500mm. I think it would be nearly impossible to track it by hand at 3000mm. Heck, I have trouble tracking it with a pair of 8x42mm binoculars hand held.

1 week ago
JochenIs

539mm is equivalent to 3000mm on fullframe.

1 week ago
HenryEckstein

For about $300 U.S. and about 5-to-10 hours of build time (depending upon personal ability!), you can buy a relatively cheap 5-axis gyroscope which will TRULY keep your imagery stable at any desired angle for those super-clear and STABLE moon shots!

See this DIY (Do It Yourself) building article:
http://www.prutchi.com/2012/03/09/d-i-y-gyroscopic-camera-stabilizer-that-really-works/

You can also buy any one of the major handheld gyroscopic camera stabilizers from B&H and simply screw/tape the handle to a tripod and then attach a weight to the back of your camera to set a specific and desired viewing angle! They range from $400 to $1000+ U.S.

From there, you take some close-ups of the moon to find those secret U.S. military moonbases they built in the 1980's AND take a photo or twenty of their secret black antigravity triangle spacecraft going to and from those bases!

6 days ago
aris14
aris14

Α very very interesting, helpful and versatile tool for the purposes it was made for. Images are more than descent in the long end and quite usable for users' intended purpose. I am sure it's not easy to take the best out of this cam, but the people they 'll use it they will find their way.
I guess that this tool will constantly "be discovered" from people they did know its existence, not necessarily bird watchers or moon shooters.
A slow and sure seller for Nikon for the years to come.

1 week ago
madsgrand
madsgrand

Marry this lens with the kind of computational technology in the Pixel 3 and it could get really interesting!

1 week ago
Sir 7

Indeed, madsgrand!

6 days ago
Sharlin
Sharlin

I hereby nickname this camera ”Warthog”, after the A-10 ground attack aircraft famous for basically being a GAU-8 rotary autocannon with wings and a cockpit attached.

1 week ago
Matpan

Favourite aircraft :)

1 week ago
samfan

People who say this cam's IQ is like a phone should do the following:

1) Take a cell phone shot of something 100 meters away
2) Crop the shot to the 3000 mm equivalent
3) Enjoy the 3x3 pixels image

Let's not forget
0) Pay similar money for the phone in the first place

1 week ago
webber15

Best comment I've seen in a while!!

That comment will kill the ego of many commenters stone dead 😉

1 week ago
webber15

Best comment I've seen in a while!!

That comment will kill the ego of many commenters stone dead 😉

1 week ago
xiao_xiang

I didn't realize they were saying the zoom was the same.

I thought they were commenting on image quality.

Silly me. Time for a cup of tea.

6 days ago
NetMage

If image quality doesn't include the subject, how meaningful is the comparison?

6 days ago
hc44

9 very high quality pixels.

5 days ago
Revenant

@xiao_xiang
Image quality (at the same AOV) is exactly what the OP is talking about. You're missing the point entirely.

5 days ago
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

basically, the tinier the sensor
the greater the maximum FL on the tele end
even on a 514mm f8

the p1000 is definitely overweight for an integrated zoom 3000mm
~5.83x crop (6.17 x 4.55)

and a slow FF 500mm f8 (old Sony A-mount) is itself only 665gm

all anyone needs is a SLIGHTLY tinier sensor: 6.0mm x 4.5mm
0.17 x 0.05 mm smaller
6.0x crop
to satisfy a slow 3000mm f8 FF equivalent w/500mm (prime)

sure beats lugging 800g extra, just for the wider-angle range

1 week ago
samfan

So true, I mean this camera does nothing else compared to a fixed mirror lens anyway. It's not like it has a 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300 and 400 mm lenses also built in or anything.

1 week ago
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

unfortunately

all the in between FL
= all mostly crop-look
= context truncated

are rarely used
= much like folks carrying "extra" lenses in a bag (and using only one, or two FL, in the end)

i see such superzooms more as FL "sampler/testers", for folks just exploring what FL more suited (for discovery)

afterwards, they'd hone in to particular favorite FoV, and leave most of the rest behind

many shooting on the super-tele end
discover for moving subjects (that quickly move beyond FoV)
need optical aids to keep pace
like Optical Dot Sights
(popular with super-tele shooters, especially if only EVF is available = lag-prone)

nikon dslr users also use such optical aids w/ long tele lenses

1 week ago*
samfan

So you're saying that most people who'd buy a fixed 500mm f/8 mirror lens would never use any other lens anyway?

1 week ago
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

not at all.
just saying P1000 is overweight for its intended zoom range
lugging ~ 1.4 kg (24-3000)
maybe 4k uhd addition upped the wt? (unlikely)

the old P900 (24-2000) was ~0.9 kg
most wanting more, just added a tele-adapter (say, 2.2x)
without adding much weight, for 52.8-4400mm

both have identical sensor resolution
so crops will look same at identical FL FoV

1 week ago
Ebrahim Saadawi
Ebrahim Saadawi

Actually, as shown in the article, it's the 24-1000mm range that's used more often with 3000mm being there for special shots, so no it's NOTHING like a 500mm prime.

1 week ago
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

so basically 1001 - 3000

is a 1.4kg luggard only for the "special shot"
which MOST get over it very quickly
and REGRET
because the PAYOFF "special"
is just not worth the extra weight

and 24-1000 range can be had with EASE
never mind the fact a simple 2.2x adapter makes for a max 2200
again, of which 1001 - 2200 is rarely needed

so, one could, stick with avoiding 2.2x adapters altogether
on 24-1000 dcams

except folks with just 24-460
would ever need a 2.2x adapter for a maximum 1010+

i happen to have both 0.7x and 2.0x adapters from early years of Powershot G1 (2000) that can easily be reused on later generation Powershots
so very lightweight 24-1200 remain lightweight 48-2400
say: ~600g + 50g = 650g max

6 days ago*
Ebrahim Saadawi
Ebrahim Saadawi

How can you get a 24-3000mm range in such a compact package? You simply cannot

6 days ago
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

nothing compact about P1000

any smaller lighter superzoom need is a tele-converter
3000 / 2.2x converter = any superzoom at only 1365mm max

the old P900 has 2000
so 2.2x 2000 is already 4400mm

ditto:
other lighter superzooms (plenty to choose)

P1000 users will enjoy 3000mm, but they won't be alone
except for carrying a much bulkier superzoom than others

6 days ago
Ebrahim Saadawi
Ebrahim Saadawi

You think these huge high quality lens elements can be compensated with slapping a 2x adapter?! It just doesn't make sense and shows ignorance about optics/lenses (not in an offensive way at all sorry)

4 days ago
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

superzooms don't have high quality optics at all
only the centermost area is going to be "good"
= tele-end only (not wide-end)

when it comes to tele-converters, the "good-tele-end" optics are not compromised

this is why superzoom users buy such tele-converters

Nikon P1000 wide-end is extremely distorted (heavily pseudo-corrected = looks crappy); it's tele-end is much less distorted simply because the sensor only peers through only the smallest area of the lens optics

tacking on tele-adapter converters in front of such superzoom does not lower the IQ by much (not as much as its smaller pixels lower IQ to begin with)

4 days ago
Ebrahim Saadawi
Ebrahim Saadawi

It has a super ED element, and FIVE ED elements, all in 12 groups of 17 elements! A teleconverter is definitely no substitute for such a complicated lens set-up. And it's not peeking through a small area, the lena circle is designed to only cover the sensor dimensions, any bigger image circle and the lens would be much bigger. It's a freaking 24-3000! For example if you punch in the numbers a Full Frame lens with a 24-3000mm focal length at less than f/10, would take at least 2.5mm length and 30cm diameter, basically a car.

3 days ago
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

nope.
wrong.
the P1000 crop sensor is fully covered at the long end
by peering through much narrower tunnel of the entire set of glass elements
so all the terrible distortion that are in the wider-angle view are completely excluded

the P1000 lens distortion on the wide end is OBVIOUS in pure RAW
very little of that shows up on the tele-end, because most of it is NOT INCLUDED
a huge percentage of that outer area of the optic is AVOIDED in tele-mode

adding tele-adapter converters (easier to make "just as good") is a non-issue

good wide-angle adapter converters, on the other hand, are much harder to make (not sony, not nikon, not most 3rd party "accessories" mfrs either)
canon happens to have superb ones: wide and tele (they are not cheap, either)

3 days ago
voronspb

This camera is good as long as one understands its scope of use. It's a pure technical camera (photographic recorder if you like) made for super-long-range shooting from a sturdy tripod. The image quality or its artistic properties don't matter. Only maximum range matters, and in addition, having the ability to zoom out is very nice for aiming. (Aiming the DSLR attached to a small telescope is a real pain, unless there's a separate aiming device.)

This camera may be an extremely good solution for long-range surveillance tasks, and thus it's not as useless as it may appear from photographic point of view.

1 week ago
voronspb

Here's a rough equivalent of such camera, which I own (now with A7III body):
https://pp.userapi.com/c631123/v631123561/6d6e/p-HHE7olX74.jpg

It has 1800 mm equiv. FL and equiv. aperture F/30. But you can easily attach a larger telescope to get your 3000 mm and/or brighter aperture. Such telescopes are not super-expensive.

1 week ago*
Stephen McDonald
Stephen McDonald

Jeff, your review of the Olympus C-2100UZ 18 years ago, convinced me to buy it and go into the digital era. I really like the feature where the extending lens is entirely contained in the outer housing, so dust doesn't get pumped inside with the outside air. I'm still very pleased with some pictures I took with it, although it only had 2 Megapixels and the largest card I ever had for it, held 64 Megabytes.

Using cameras on my shoulder-mount, several times I've been reported to the police, for carrying a dangerous weapon. I'm afraid that with the P1000, people might think I had a rocket-launcher. But with this camera, I would set the lens to stop zooming at 1,500mm. That's more than enough and with 4K video, it gives the equivalent of a lot more reach, due to the 8K crop.

1 week ago*
PhozoKozmos
PhozoKozmos

so, do superzooms
as extreme as Nikon P1000
use mechanical sensor-shift based IBIS (M-SS-IBIS)
for Image Stabilization?

or is such M-SS-IBIS not up to the task?

unlikely, M-SS-IBIS of much use, especially in super-tele-lensed videocams

1 week ago*
bayindirh
bayindirh

Yes, P1000's sensor is mechanically stabilized. It's rated up to 5 stops. The review it's enough for most cases.

1 week ago
ANAYV

@ PhozoKozmos

No. they use O.I.S.

IBIS not nearly as good at telephoto end as is O.I.S.

This camera has no IBIS...not mechanical, per say...better to say ' optical Image Stabilization...or O.I.S. The sensor is fixed, and never moves. Lens element(s) inside the lens move, controlled by gyro sensors, to counter camera movement
:)

I had the Nikon P610 , and at 1440mm O.I.S. was AMAZING !
Handhold at 1/80 and sharp images!

The old reciprocal focal length rule would tell me i needed at least 1/1400th shutter speed, to avoid camera shake. Not anymore :)

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61742852/f8a51ea04f264122be756f1becabb26d

1 week ago
bob13bob

this is the kind things middle schoolers dream up with unbridled imagination. It's stupid, funny, but also pretty cool. F45 equivalent lol. 7fps for 1second LOL. has a laser pointed mounted up top to help aim the thing L- O - L

1 week ago
Sir 7

No, it's not a stupid camera. It is FAR from perfect for sure, and it's actually quite difficult to use and very limited vs. DSLRs when shooting at the long end. And a tripod really is necessary at the long end. But it's 3,000mm equivalent. Period. And the lens is actually quite sharp and colorful and image quality is actually very nice. Despite it being very difficult to use at 3,000mm, I've decided to keep my P1000. Because 3,000mm is likely never going to be easy to shoot on ANY camera. And this is just a whole other realm of photography that cannot even begin to be approached by gear not costing over $10,000.

1 week ago
NetMage

There is no laser pointer, it is a dot sight.

6 days ago
Humberto Silva
Humberto Silva

I always had a little interest on the P900. Having better cameras was enough to keep me away. The P1000 on paper is even more interesting, until you see it live. Really, most people don't realize how scary that thing is. If I had to give a name, someting like Godzilla or Super bazooka would fit OK. Honestly, I would never guess some manufacturer could be so brave to send this brick past the project phase.

I like the fact you may have a superzoom with you, but I'm not brave enough to take something like this to the street.

1 week ago
Sir 7

It's about the size of a D750 with 28-300mm lens. Given the truly extreme reach of the lens, it's actually VERY tiny and light. But you'll need a tripod to actually use the 3,000mm end. Still, incredibly compact for genuine telescope range in a camera.

1 week ago
RolliPoli

A marvelous piece of engineering but no substitute for a camera and a telephoto lens.

1 week ago*
LiOm Photography

What camera and lens gives you this reach?

1 week ago
ShatteredSky
ShatteredSky

Well, basically it IS a camera with a telephoto lens.

1 week ago
ozturert

It IS a camera with a wide-to-supertelephoto lens

1 week ago
ShatteredSky
ShatteredSky

Well, of course it’s also wide angle. I think I can guess what the OP meant, but the statement could been more specific, as in which camera with which lens.

6 days ago
fpessolano

“One last thing that I found inexcusable on a $1000 camera in 2018 is the lack of a touchscreen.”

What is happening to DPR ... amai.

1 week ago
Gal Root
Gal Root

I agree with DPR. Got to keep up with technology. It always bothered me with the FZ1000, makes you feel like your hands are tied.

1 week ago
Sir 7

The P1000 is a device that gives 16MP images at a 3,000mm equiv. length. It's difficult to use, you need a tripod, its ergonomics and Menus are horrible. For sure, there is a lot of room for improvement. But it is a unique, INEXPENSIVE, SMALL, and LIGHT device considering its truly literally extreme telephoto capability and actually very nice IQ.

1 week ago*
Jwelz

It does 3840 by 2160 at 76 mbps data rate internally and allows HDMI out to an Atomos recorder. It does a 16/9 crop of the full sensor width, less perhaps image stabilization margin, and tolerated a bit of grading plus takes an external mic. P1000 stabilization is great. The Snapbridge App only works on my oldest Android devices in WiFi live view but won't start/stop video. It can zoom and trigger a photo. No settings. Nikon sells a hardware Bluetooth remote, the app can only copy 2 megabyte images to the phones via BT but has no control capability. I find the weight gives the camera a steadying inertia but think Nikon lost the plot with the location of the tripod socket about 2 inches (5 cm) behind the center of gravity with the lens least extended. In lots of light, stills are decent if not up to dslr standards but for 4K video zoom, the P1000 is unique and a bargain.

1 week ago
MCMLXVIII
MCMLXVIII

'Absurd' just about sums it up nicely. The camera is so much larger and heavier than its predecessor the P900. Were I Nikon, I would have simply improved upon the P900 by adding a hotshoe and RAW... and a manual zoom control. Such a camera would make the P1000 unnecessary. My 2cents.

1 week ago
Gal Root
Gal Root

Raw, touchscreen, Bluetooth.. Basically build a P900 M-II.

1 week ago
samfan

"And, the size/weight of the whole package made me pause on a few occasions about whether I wanted to take it with me or use my phone."

I'm sorry but seriously? Does your phone zoom to 100 mm, much less 3000mm? Talk about apples and oranges.

1 week ago
Barry Benowitz
Barry Benowitz

Not usable except for personal use

1 week ago
Ebrahim Saadawi
Ebrahim Saadawi

I never though any 3000mm images would look this good! They actually made it usable, not just a spec tick box.

Could you please check to see if the sensor crops off 24mm when recording 4K video or is it oversampled? And is Nikon's Flat Picture Profile on-board? I can see this as an amazing video camera for documentaries.

1 week ago
Simon Says

an interesting "spy camera"?

1 week ago
LiOm Photography

Yoi have no idea. The things i got with the p900 are straight appalling

1 week ago
Frank_BR

The equivalent focal length of 3000 mm is impressive, but the actual focal length is a little over 500mm. An article comparing the performance of the Nikon P1000 with a 500mm lens mounted on a full-frame camera would be very interesting.

1 week ago
Barry Benowitz
Barry Benowitz

Not really 3000 is not usable to print period

1 week ago
quiquae

500mm on a D850 cropped to 3000mm equivalent is 1.2 megapixels.
A D500 cropped to 3000mm would be 1.3 megapixels.
It is probably not going to look that impressive.

1 week ago
LiOm Photography

Barry no again. I've seen 16x20 prints from the p900 that look amazing. Have you tried?

1 week ago
Julian

There is no magic going on here, they are still obeying the same laws of optics and electronics that they do for all other Nikon cameras. To me thats a good option if you are not a pixel peeper and you want a lot of flexibility.

1 week ago
Sir 7

@Barry:

Actually, if you shoot the P1000 on a tripod and have no vibration, the 3,000mm end is very usable and the IQ is really good at base ISO. You could definitely make great prints.

1 week ago
JochenIs

At 3000mm, f8 and 5.6x crop there is about 1.5 MP of detail remaining due to diffraction. I would like to see such a comparison too.
Could compare to 150-600 lens on aps-c to stay in the consumer bracket. 600mm on 24MP aps-c cropped to 3000mm is 2.17MP remaining. The D1000 has the advantage of oversampling and no loss of detail due to bayer array. Should be pretty close comparison.

1 week ago*
Sir 7

No offense, but this whole diffraction argument is silly. Arguing that the P1000's "remaining resolution," whatever that means, is 1.5MP "due to diffraction" just does not hold up vs. the photos made. 16MP is 16MP. Suggesting a 90%+ image degradation is something i cannot wrap my head around and it makes me wonder where people get their information from. It is simply not true.

Massive crops from bigger sensors just cannot compare, at all, to P1000 3,000mm images. A 2MP or 3MP D7200 cropped image from a 600mm-ish lens (900mm equivalent) doesn't look anywhere near as good as a 16MP P1000 3,000mm image.

Bottom line is that there is no getting around the simple fact that 3MP is simply too few pixels.

1 week ago
JochenIs

I got my information from
https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction (calculator)
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm (theory)
I have no lens which can close down to f45 or i would test the effect myself.

1 week ago
Sir 7

Again, no offense, but that calculator simply does not reflect real results. I've uploaded some P1000 images to my Gallery. Feel free to browse them. Nearly all of the imperfection in my 3,000mm shots are due to inadequate support/stabilization/shutter speed, or atmospheric conditions. The lens and sensor are actually very good.

What's missing as an example in my Gallery is a 3,000mm shot lit primarily by flash, as flash REALLY provides substantially sharper images. I suspect micro-vibrations from VR, or simply vastly-inadequate VR for 3,000mm, degrading sharpness. I'll try to upload a 3,000mm flash photo in the next few days.

1 week ago*
JochenIs

You don't loose 90% image quality due to diffraction. If you had a perfect lens, no other imperfections like air in the optical path, then yes.
But there is an imperfect lens with a huge zoom range, then you have lots of air inbetween sensor and subject and possibly vibrations.

If you want to see how much you loose due to diffraction you can compare at 24mm in good light. The effect doesn't depend on focal length but on aperture. Since you have a complex optical system other effects will also be present too.

1 week ago
JochenIs

A very nice thing you can do with the P1000 (or any other long tele lens) on a tripod: Point it at the moon and just look at the edges of the moon in live view. If it is a stable tripod you can see the edges of the moon moving due to atmospheric turbulences.

1 week ago
Sir 7

Haha, there is no prefect lens. ;)

24mm??? Lol, i refuse to shoot the P1000 at 24mm on principle alone! ;)

There will always be vibration on this camera at 3,000mm because its lens extends and therefore has some play. So long as you're touching the camera, there will be vibration at 3,000mm, unfortunately. Best thing is to set up the shot on your tripod and then use the self-timer or wireless remote to release shutter.

This lens will fringe when shooting the moon. But it's not so bad. Particularly given that it gets you so close that at 3,000mm you can't even fit the whole full moon in the frame.

I haven't had really good atmospheric conditions for lunar photography yet but will keep trying near/at full moon.

And don't let the insane zoom range prejudice you against its optics. It's a surprisingly good lens. Just as the P900's and P600/P610/B700's lenses are. Optical quality is definitely a strength of this camera, not one of its several weaknesses.

6 days ago*
JochenIs

A big beauty, i had a try at photokina :-)
I added a moonshot i took with Panasonic Gx7 at 600mm equivalent focal length to my gallery if you like to compare. Its also 16MP camera and i just cropped the hell out of it. Its about 1MP which remains. I did some Photoshop magic to decrease noise and increase resolution a bit (focus stack of 5 upscaled images). 1MP is actually alot of detail.

6 days ago*
Sir 7

Thanks for sharing/uploading. :)

Not a bad shot at all! I see you got some fringing too. That's always gonna happen though. Clean white line against a black background, it takes crazy expensive glass to not fringe. And most crazy expensive glass would still fringe with such contrast. Easy fix in post and then unnoticeable unless you're really looking for artifacts.

I'm still looking forward to the next full moon. Gonna try to get out of the city with all its light pollution and haze, and get a little elevation somewhere in the country. Fingers crossed no clouds when I finally can make that happen.

Just ordered a Benro GD3WH 3D Gear Head for my tripod also. Only $140 shipped from eBay! Glad I checked because it's $200 at Amazon. Simply having way too much trouble positioning the P1000 fully extended on a regular ball head. Really seems that for this kind of extreme magnification the precise movement of a gear head is necessary.

6 days ago
JochenIs

Once you get a clear sky your biggest enemy is disturbations in the air. So stay clear form any termal source close to your camera. Hot air from the motor of a vehicle could already disturb your image at this kind of magnification. Happy shooting! :-)

6 days ago
Sir 7

I uploaded another moon shot from October 1st. Barely more than a half moon, but I could go to 3,000mm and fit the whole moon (that was showing) in the frame. So, you can see the max detail that the P1000 can deliver purely optically. Sunrise was 31 minutes earlier, and the temperature was maybe around 82ish degrees F. I'd say the atmospheric conditions were pretty good so this photo is a decent representation of the P1000's 3,000mm optics and moon capabilities. Still, I'd like to shoot a full moon on a cool clear night from altitude...

5 days ago
JochenIs

That is a beautiful moon shot, so much detail! The moon barely fits the width must be pretty difficult to have the framing right :)

5 days ago
Sir 7

OMG, it's REALLY hard to center the moon! I had to order a gear head for my tripod because of the P1000... Benro on eBay new for $140 shipping included. Look into it.

Yeah, not a bad shot. And thanks. :) Still, atmospheric conditions could have been better and I'm looking forward to when I get the combo of full moon, time to make it out to a superior area, and good weather.

5 days ago
Prognathous

@Sir 7 - to check how 1.5 MP worth of information looks in a 16 MP image, you can probably downsample a high quality 16 MP image to 1.5 MP, then upsample back to 16 MP. I doubt it would look worse than those 3000mm-equiv images.

5 days ago
Sir 7

Lol, it will look worse.

5 days ago
Prognathous

Don't laugh before you try it, because I just tested it, and the results are as most people who are aware of diffraction would expect.

I took this image from the RX10 IV review (I hope DPR team are ok with it, I'll obviously delete the comparison image if requested):

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1816870055/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-mark-iv-samples-gallery/1238825431

I then downsized the image to two separate sizes - once to 2MP and another time to 5MP, and upsized each to P1000 file size (16MP). You can see the result here, with the P1000 3000mm-equiv image.

https://i.imgur.com/4RKEhDy.jpg

Obviously subject matter is different, but the look and level of detail of the P1000 image is much more similar to that of the RX10 image that was downsized to 2MP than to 5MP. If you're expecting the P1000 to deliver anything close to 16MP worth of resolution when in full tele (or when using the same aperture in any other focal length) you're being quite detached from reality.

5 days ago*
JochenIs

There is one flaw in the argument that the remaining detail is about 1.5MP. 1.5MP is the estimated limit for the optical signal. But the sensor needs more pixels to resolve that due to the bayer array. Also oversampling still has a benefit. So you still benefit from more pixels but to a shrinking measure.

5 days ago
samualson

Very very impressed , these are the types of things i play the lottery for , i used to never even get one number correct out of six but i have improved greatly and on occasion have nailed two out of six numbers so only a matter of time.

1 week ago
kelstertx

Nobody has ever given me a check for $1 million, but I found a nickel on the sidewalk about a week ago, and then I found a quarter on the ground a couple of days ago, so it's only a matter of time...

1 week ago
samualson

A nickel and a quarter huh , thats pretty good . I think my method will be faster though .

I'm figuring to match three numbers any day now and considering i couldn't even get one out of 6 a year ago i'm exceptionally pleased.

6 days ago
Total: 107, showing: 1 – 50
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »