Nikon P950 sample gallery

So, is it good enough to be the new standard camera for UFO believers, bigfoot hunters and flat-earthers?

Apr 20, 2020permalink

The number of occasions when it's possible to take a decent image with a 2000mm equiv lens are extremely limited, due to heat shimmer, atmospheric haze, camera shake, limitations of sensor in low light etc etc.

And once you've taken a couple of boring done-a-thousand-times-before moon snaps, what else is left? Images of distant birds, animals, surfers, planes etc will always disappoint. Better to use skill and patience and get closer to the subject.

Far better IMO to spend a bit more and get a Sony RX10V with 24-600mm F2.4-4 and a 20MP, 1" sensor. A 600mm lens should enable you to fill the frame with almost anything, and you can always crop it down to get 2000mm equiv if you absolutely have to, and still get a result that matches or beats the Nikon.

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

armin304

Birds come in all sizes. Most of the birds are not that far away, they are just small. The birdfeeder isn't that far away, but the usual little Finches and Robins won't fill the frame by far at the distance with a RX10III or IV and every now and then, there will be some uncommon visitors.

At the moment I would be happy to have my P900 here instead of the RX10III and the Z6 with the 50-500, since there is some unexpected activity in the top of a high tree in the garden. A falcon isn't that small, but with the RX10III it only fills a square with 600x600 pixel at the distance. I don't have to leave the garden to appreciate the long reach of my P900.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

zzzxtreme

it is all about the experience

Apr 20, 2020permalink

A camera that costs twice as much takes better pictures? You don't say!

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

kkoba - That isn't necessarily the case. There are plenty of budget cameras that can equal or beat more expensive ones in terms of image quality.

My post was to express my opinion that it's worth spending 40% more in this particular instance, to get a camera that will be used a lot more often.

The NIkon may be cheaper, but spending more on the Sony is IMO a much better long term option.

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

Sony RX10 IV is $1698, Nikon P950 is $797 (current B&H prices). So it's 113% more, not 40%.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

kkoba - Correct, the difference is greater than I believed. I should have checked. But I know which of those cameras I'd choose, if I was in the market for a hybrid megazoom. I'm not a fan of Sony generally, but in this case I'd definitely pay more and get the RX10iv (or the cheaper RX10iii, which I think may be still available).

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

But the P950 is attractive *because* it's only $800. At $1700 there are many other alternatives that need to be considered. A Sigma 150-600 lens + DSLR body of your choice, for example.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

kkoba - That would depend on the degree to which economy was the motivating factor. For many people $1700 isn't expensive, especially when considering the tremendous versatility of the camera and the saving in space and weight compared to the other alternatives you suggest.

The main reason why megazoom cameras appeal is not IMO because of their price, but because they offer so much versatility in a single product. So it would be fair to compare a P950 with a RX10iv or a Panasonic FZ1000ii, or Canon FX70HS, but not with a DSLR setup.

I don't think a buyer of a hybrid megazoom would be looking at a Sigma 150-600 and DSLR as an alternative, although I dare say a few DSLR owners would consider one as an *addition*, purely as a means of photographing birds (etc) without the considerable weight of a DSLR and monster zoom.

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

(unknown member)

@entoman:
Heheheh, I've tried that cropping down with my RX10M3. No dice. Remember, a 2x crop to 1,200mm means a drop to 5MP. That's already pretty light on resolution. At 2,400mm, you're down to 1.25MP. Nope.

The closest i got was putting my 200-500mm f5.6E + TC2E on my Nikon AW1 via FT1 adapter. The AW1 and P1000 have the same number of horizontal pixels; convenient. It was pretty close, but the P1000 still won.

Oh, and yes, for shooting up to 600mm equiv, the RX10M3 and M4 are FAR better choices! In pretty much every way. And boy, I'm no fan of Sony! No contest there though.

But if you really need 2,000mm or 3,000mm equiv, the P950 and P1000 really are the way to go.

And moon shots are cool. 🙂

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

digiart

Disappointing results. All the long focal length shots are blurry. Either no tripod or proper support was used or the lens simply lacks sharpness.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

https://www.instagram.com/p/B-_KHiegUuC/?igshid=14ofvgznjo915

No tripod needed with this camera.
I have shots at 1600mm to 2000mm...shutter speeds as low as 1/80th...and the VR in this camera is A M A Z I N G .

Lens is sharp at 2000mm. Fine feather details my D7500 with 70 to 300mm AF-P lens cant get....simply because subject is too far...too small.

See my recent threads on Nikon Coolpix forum.here...for images showing details.

P950 is no toy....thats why I no longer need to buy Tamron/ Sigma bazooka lens :)

11 months agopermalink

zzzxtreme

come on guys
there's no other cameras that lets you take macro to 2000mm in one package under $800
the only thing that comes close is the excellent nikon 1 70-300mm with olympus tcon 1.7x or c210 1.9x , but incredibly shake-y and also dead system and definitely no close-ups

compromises has to be made

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Jon Stern

It has very bad "petal flare" in the images with the sun in the field of view. This is caused by diffraction off the image sensor bouncing back down off the IR cut filter.

Tip to Nikon engineers: use a blue glass (hybrid filter). It'll add maybe $0.50 to the COGS, but will improve this issue.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

BrentSchumer

Chris is using his DPReview assignments to stealthily assemble the coffee table book "Trash of Calgary." We're on to you, Niccolls!

Apr 19, 2020permalink

BrentSchumer

No, the P950 isn't perfect image quality. But it's a lot cheaper than trying to get 2,000mm equivalent with perfect image quality. Every camera and lens purchase involves size, weight, and price trade-offs.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

adengappasami

Those commenting phone like quality...

Impossible to get this on any phone. Except if you Google for the picture and watch it in YouTube or just in NASA sites.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/134241879@N02/albums/72157701648748034

Some pictures sitting at where you are but still scoring some wildlife.

It's a great travel camera if we anyway are going to share picture in WhatsApp and insta which is what we do 99% of the time.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

Boss of Sony

Who’s “we”? I like my images to look perfect to my eyes, so I shoot in RAW and spend a lot of time post-processing. Small sensor images don’t stand up to as much post-processing so generally don’t enable me to obtain an image I’m happy with. That is a great capture of Saturn though. And I think cameras like this can be fun. I would love to own the P1000 but a bit heavy for me.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

adengappasami

Thanks. It is fun with specific purpose aka planets and far away subjects and decent output.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

@BOS:
I hear what you're saying about RAW-processing. We're in the same boat there. And as an owner of a Nikon D800E, Sony 7RM2, and Nikon P1000, among many other cameras, I'm pretty familiar with how a lot of sensors push and pull in Post.

I don't know if the P950 has the same sensor as the P1000, but it appears to. I used to own a Nikon P610 and Canon SX60HS and I'm pretty sure all these cameras have the same sensor. I've done amazing lifts from the P1000 and SX60HS RAWs, albeit resulting in some grain. But the shadow detail and color that can be recovered is pretty amazing. I don't hesitate to lift 3-stops with my P1000. I also have a Nikon B700 and it has a different sensor with 20MP. It's an awful sensor and does not do well in Post. Unfortunately a lot of 1/2.3" cameras have adopted this sensor. Namely the Canon SX70HS. It sucks, and Nikon was very wise to avoid it with the P1000 and P950.

Continued...

Apr 19, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

Bottom line, the P1000 and P950 RAWs do quite well in Post. Obviously not like the a7R line does. But you cannot crop FF down to 2,000mm equiv and have any resolution left for under around $20,000...

Apr 19, 2020permalink

Boss of Sony

I’m doing ok with my GX85 with the Olympus 75-300. It gets me to 600mm, and I can crop to about 1200mm while still having enough detail to fill the computer screen. This is using DXO Photolab’s excellent sensor/lens profiles and prime noise reduction, which increase detail while reducing noise. This combination works even better for videos. Panasonic’s Ex Tele Conv function crops the sensor to 1080p resolution, which gives you stunningly sharp 1080p video with a 2.6X crop. The result with my 75-300mm lens is an effective focal length of 1560mm. With the GX85’s IBIS, I can shoot at this focal length handheld. Here’s a sample: https://youtu.be/iMZia429RYo

Apr 19, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

@BOS:
Wow, I JUST got a GX85! Seriously, like less than a week ago. Now I keep seeing this model pop up in discussions and around the web. I'm still really getting acquainted with it and initially was flipping out because I could not get a sharp shot with it no matter which of my few lenses I shot with, at any aperture, at any subject distance. Namely the 20mm f1.7 shocked me. But I was viewing on the camera where everything looked horrible. Once I got the stuff on my computer it looked way way better. I just played with the 12-32mm kit lens today and will see how it did once LR restores my Catalog, which it somehow just totally screwed up. Geez, I hate so much about LR...

Anyhoo, I watched your video. Pretty impressive you could do that handheld. But I will tell you point blank, no offense intended in the slightest, that a P1000 will smoke that IQ. Not to mention it will do it at 3,000mm equiv, and with full 16MP resolution. But the P1000 is a difficult camera to shoot at 3,000mm.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

@BOS:
Check out some P1000 pix here with explanations behind the shots, and comparison shots:

https://www.dpreview.com/members/7527689089/galleries

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Boss of Sony

I don’t doubt the P1000’s video will smoke the GX85 at longer focal lengths since it can shoot 4k right up to 3000mm. But I doubt you could do it handheld beyond 1000mm.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

@BOS:
Well, i really don't shoot video. I guess i could dust off the ol' P1000 and give 1,000mm handheld video a shot.

My observation is that P1000 VR is weak. But i almost exclusively shoot it at 3,000mm. I'll try to get around to it in the next week or so...

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Terrible Photographer

Oh my god the image quality is so bad! WOWZA People buy these things? My iPhone looks better!

Apr 19, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

Lol. Shoot a P950 or P1000 at full tele, in RAW at ISO 200 or lower, post-process to taste, and then tell me you can beat those results for under $15,000 in gear, then name the gear.

I've been through this whole thing regarding my P1000 in the past. When you do it right, the P1000 makes awesome images that can't be approached by anything short of a D850 with 800mm f5.6; for around $20,000.

While the P1000 goes to 3,000mm equiv and the P950 "only" goes to 2,000mm equiv, it appears the P950 has substantially superior VR to the P1000 and will likely outperform the P1000 in typical use. The key is low ISO and RAW-processing. And of course if you're not shooting at the longest end of this lens, what's the point? Shoot at 1,000mm+ or shoot a different camera. The whole 24mm (or even 300mm or 500mm) equiv end of this lens is a waste of time.

Cameras like these do things other gear cannot.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

Oh yeah, let's see your iPhone fill a TV screen with the moon. Then compare to a P950 moon shot filling the screen. Lol, then you'll understand... 😉

Apr 19, 2020permalink

Hunter_C

Why compare cameras with iPhones? iPhones don't even provide manual settings!

Apr 19, 2020permalink

Terrible Photographer

What's with people obsessed about shooting the moon? It literally never changes, you've seen one shot you've seen them all. Literally the most uncreative thing you can shoot in existence. At least brick walls can change depending on time of day and season

Apr 19, 2020permalink

Revenant

The moon itself may not change, but its appearance certainly changes depending on time of day, day of the month, atmospheric conditions etc. And there are many ways you can shoot the moon as part of a landscape, and I've seen some pretty creative examples of that.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

@TP:
Clearly you don't see the moon in different phases, times of year, above/behind different landscapes/landmarks. Not to mention daytime moon vs nighttime moon. Atmospheric haze or no haze. Rings/rainbows around the moon or not, etc.

You're clearly not a moon guy, so shooting the moon clearly is not for you. But it doesn't have to be the moon. Anything far away gets A LOT closer when you're shooting it with 2,000mm or 3,000mm equiv!

You clearly do not grasp what megazoom cameras are about. The P950, and even more so the P1000, clearly is/are not for you. And there's nothing wrong with that. If your iPhone is all the photo gear you will ever need, that's pretty convenient and I'm glad you'll always have all the gear you ever need with you all the time right in your pocket. Me, I bought a $1,000 P1000 and special tripod head just to shoot the moon a few times a year. And I have all kinds of other gear to shoot all kinds of other things. Meh. Different strokes...

Apr 19, 2020permalink

BfSkinner

Yes, I'm always amazed that people care to take YET ANOTHER photo of the moon, that same waterfall, that same sunset, another tiger, etc. etc.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

jerste

It is stupid to say the lens is 2000mm, in fact it is 357mm on high density sensor, that's all.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

2,000mm equiv...

Apr 19, 2020permalink

jerste - Not stupid at all. We all need to standardise on something that is independent of sensor format, in order to understand the effects of a lens.

It would have been wiser if decades ago we had standardised on *angle of view*, as that would be easier to visualise than focal length, but the entire industry long ago decided to standardise on focal length, so we just have to live with that.

... and if we going to continue using focal length, then it makes sense to base it on a format that everyone understands, i.e. FF or 35mm equivalent.

Apr 19, 2020*permalink

(unknown member)

Yeah, I've bemoaned not having AOV as the standard for a long time. I think it's time for all lenses to list AOV next to focal length.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

jerste

Angle of view makes much more sense.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

jerste - Yes it does, but unfortunately the camera industry isn't likely to change the habits of a lifetime. 😔

Bernie - that's an excellent suggestion, to have angle of view indicated *conspicuously* in advertisements and in specification sheets.

I'd also find it extremely useful myself if they indicated the *field of view at minimum focusing distance*, in centimeters. Or at the very least, to indicate the reproduction ratio at MFD. This means much more than knowing the MFD itself. With zoom lenses, this should be shown for wide, intermediate and maximum focal lengths too.

Apr 19, 2020*permalink

Great video review guys, and nice to see it shot at long focal lengths, which works really well. And thanks especially to Chris for the humour - just what we need right now to brighten our days!

Apr 18, 2020permalink

They're essentially cell-phone-quality images, but with a massive 2000mm eq zoom. So, I guess if you're OK with cell phone quality, it might be worth a shot.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

photofan1986

Well, actually most decent cell phone camera beat this by quite a bit...

Apr 18, 2020permalink

But they can't zoom like this...then again, who really needs 2000mm zoom. It would be great for wildlife if the IQ were at least as good as APS-C, but alas....

Apr 18, 2020permalink

Karroly

At least as good as M4/3 would be already great for many, IMHO...

Apr 18, 2020permalink

rgs_45

Even the BEST cell phone now and even 5 years from now cannot beat the quality of the P950 between 1500 mm - 2000 mm (FF equivalent))

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Simon97

At full zoom, the aperture would be like that of a FF camera shooting at f/36, so the image can never be sharp. Also at such a focal length on a small sensor, atmospheric distortion will play havoc with the image, kind of like looking through the glass of an 1800's window - all rippled.

With these small sensors, sharpness is diffraction limited at around f/2.5. This is one reason why smart phones with their faster than f/2 lenses can look so nice.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4473915

I disagree. One needs to spend some time with these small sensored superzooms to see what their limitations are.

Don't forget their ability to shoot handheld at lower shutter speeds (1/60th to 1/250th)

Diffraction softness is very gradual..nothing easy to see.

Plenty of fine feather detail can be obtained from this camera, IMHO:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4474354

What lens can I put on my D7500 to match the details in these (after cropping) ?. Handheld a plus :)

My AF-P 70 to 300 is no match, due to only 450mm reach.
These images at least 4x the zoom reach of that!

Apr 18, 2020permalink

rgs_45

@Simon97...Show me a smartphone, any smartphone ,photos taken at anywhere from 500 mm to 2000 mm FF equivalent to see if they are any better than this Nikon P950. I would really love to see them, not just me but also a lot of people that are into birding but can't afford $$$$$.$$ of equipments.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

Gawd... not this stupid diffraction argument again. That's a myth. If it had any truth to it, it would be impossible, literally impossible, for the P950 or P1000 to take a sharp photo. Ever. Yet, there are tons and tons of really sharp photos shot by these cameras. Are they as sharp as images shot by $15,000 lenses on $4,000 bodies up to about 1,500mm equiv? No. But if you're griping that $1,000 gear isn't as sharp as $19,000 gear, that's not much of a gripe. Go to the 3,000mm equiv end of the P1000, and that $1,000 camera will actually best gear that costs over $10,000. To me, that's impressive.

Apr 19, 2020*permalink

Simon97

Diffraction isn't a myth, it is a physical fact. The P950 can certainly take decent shots at shorter focal lengths where the max aperture is larger thus diffraction effects are less. Even if it had a theoretical perfect lens, it could never deliver sharp images at the extreme of its zoom due to diffraction.

These 1/2.3" sensor super zoom cameras are a trade off in quality vs quantity. No kidding the expensive gear will do better because it will have a larger sensor and larger pixel pitch in which the blurring effects of diffraction is less evident.

Do these superzoom cameras have a place in photography? Certainly Yes. For the money you get the reach that other gear can't easily provide. Just don't expect sharp photos at the extreme of the zoom.

Apr 19, 2020permalink

At the tele end, the actual focal length is 357mm, which means the physical aperture is 357mm/6.5=54mm. Which means the diffraction limit (Rayleigh criterion) is 1.22*(550nm)/(54mm)=2.6 arcsecond. I can't imagine any situation where that becomes the limiting factor, can you?

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Simon97

Yes. Shoot any 16+ mp 1/2.3 sensor at those apertures and you can see the softness. It depends on what you consider to be passable sharpness. For example, I have a micro 4/3rds camera and I do not use a smaller aperture than f11 because the images become too soft. They can certainly be passable for small prints or down scaled images, but at full size they are soft.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

At shorter focal lengths, sure, diffraction can be the limiting factor. But at 2000mm focal length equivalent? This camera has a 2.5 arcsecond diffraction limit. The giant astronomical telescopes on mountaintops only have ~1 arcsecond resolution, because even on those mountains, the atmospheric disturbances limit the resolution to ~1 arcsecond.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

arra

What is that? Nikon it's 2020, why IQ is so damn bad :(

Apr 18, 2020permalink

It's still a tiny sensor, and there's only so much IQ that can be squeezed out of it. From what I see nowadays, sensor tech has peaked. We know what to expect from a tiny sensor, APS-C, FF, etc.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

The P1000 is a little more perfect...

Apr 18, 2020*permalink

And 40% heavier. But if you don't mind carrying a 3-pound camera, sure.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

It's not a camera. It's a lens. And when the name of the game is megatele, well... 😉

But honestly, the P1000's VR is almost useless at 3,000mm, whereas it appears the P950's VR at 2,000mm is really good. So it depends on whether you want easy 2,000mm, or are willing to work for 3,000mm.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Absolutely amazing - a razor sharp hand-held shot at 2000mm equivalent focal length and a shutter speed of 1/20th. Seriously impressed.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

MMC12

Now I'll read the usual attack to this kind of bridge regarding the IQ in the comments. But please, first take one of these camera, take pics with the right parameters, use it only in good light condition and last but not least use the RAW format!
With a fast, but good PP you can have VERY GOOD results!
Please see the section "Nikon Coolpix Talk" here in the Dpreview forum for more sample and great results!
Here only one mine sample pic with the P950, as you can see the image quality surely is not bad and with a good detail for to be a so tiny sensor ;)
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/63672689/4e5a11f640254a578e9ee051661c4819

Apr 18, 2020permalink

Very impressive sharpness.
What ISO, shutter speed and aperture were used?

Apr 18, 2020permalink

MMC12

Thank you for your comment ;) EXIF: ISO-100 f/4.5 1/250s -0.3EV 220mm equivalent

Apr 18, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

I'll 2nd what MMC12 said. I have a P1000 and have taken great photos with it. But you have to know how to shoot such a camera. If somebody thinks they're going to shoot in full Auto at 3,000mm and wave the camera around like they do a phone and expect to have Hubble-caliber images, that ain't Nikon's fault.

2nd, these cameras aren't "all-arounders". They're not travel cameras. They are super-long (equiv) lenses... that have cameras attached to them. Why they go down to 24mm equiv is pure marketing and stupid. The P1000 should be designed with a 600-3,000mm lens. Shoot a different camera below 600mm, as the P1000 is a total pain to use for general shooting. It's a very purpose-oriented mega-telephoto and really should only be used that way. Accommodating all the silly consumer crap dilutes the P1000's usefulness.

Continued...

Apr 18, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

When one has the skill and discipline to use a camera like this properly, the results will best gear that costs 10x as much and rival gear that costs 20x as much. Plus, the P1000 only weighs 3 pounds total.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

Jon555

How fast can this shoot (fps), I read the spec but couldn't see it?
(Just curious, I think the 1Kg weight plus the image quality would rule it out for me. I'll stick with a 100-400 and 1.4x... err...)

Apr 18, 2020permalink

I think it's 7fps..but not for too long.
Internal buffer also limited :(

Apr 18, 2020permalink

SETI

8 grands for such image quality! It could be great 1-st April joke =)

Apr 18, 2020permalink

sbansban

Cetи - Восемь "гранд" означает восемь тысяч на английском языке. Seti - eight "grand" means eight thousand in the English language...

Apr 20, 2020permalink

AdamT

I`d suggest Keeping the ISO at base as much as possible Chris , some of the samples are at ISO400 with 1000th to 1600th sec !! those shutter speeds are simply not needed - Fine for APS-C but these tiny sensors get very noisy very fast and the resultant NR is killing the images (thinking the Gopher ones) ..

Apr 18, 2020*permalink

Chris Niccolls

I totally agree with you, however we like to get samples from different ISO ratings so one can evaluate the quality at various levels. Otherwise I wouldn't do it, especially with this cameras excellent stabilizer. That being said, in bright light I might push it higher than normal to keep the shutter speeds insanely fast for bird or wildlife shooting just in case I did have to move the camera to track or follow with the full telephoto range.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

AdamT

Hey no probs, I`d really like to have seen those ground squirrels at base ISO to see how good the lens is at closer range. as you said in the review, the atmospherics were killing the long range shots . the 950 treads a careful path between the insane reach (and size and slowness) of the P1000 and the likes of the RX10 Mk4`s far cleaner 20mp 600mm and is affordable & small enough for tourists .

Apr 18, 2020permalink

h2k

"the perfect camera for social distancing thanks to its 24-2000mm equiv. zoom lens"
---
Always good advice @ DPR 😃 !

Apr 18, 2020permalink

bizi clop

Maybe someone could suggest a matching microphone to be used for social distanced chats at 2000mm. :)

Apr 18, 2020permalink

They should do some portrait sessions at 2000mm from across town, LOL

Apr 18, 2020permalink

Karroly

bizi clop,
You do not need a special microphone, but a 2km boom pole...

Apr 19, 2020permalink

TOMSDPR

As long as i am able to walk I will stick to my 10 year old Powershot SX 240.
Pocketable, better IQ, zero cost and some health contribution. Sorry Nikon.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

Duh. Try that shooting birds !
No way to get close enough.
this camera great for wildlife that don't let us get too close.

Plus I.Q. is better with this P950 than your SX240.
Of course I use another camera for pocketable (ZS60/S95/GX200/LX3)

Apr 18, 2020permalink

TOMSDPR

Easy fix - shoot bigger birds!

Just joking - I don't shoot wildlife or anything that doesn't smile, runs or fly away at all ; )

p.s.
I also love my S 95/XZ 1 and GM 1
As a true fun shooter i never needed such professional gear like a Nikon.

Apr 18, 2020*permalink

Henry McA

Huge zoom range, ok but if the image quality is so bad, it defeats the purpose. Who would use such a camera?

Apr 18, 2020permalink

I'd guess that 99.99% of the people who buy cameras such as this, never make a print larger than postcard size, and most likely only use their images on social media. So the relatively poor image quality simply wouldn't be noticed.

People who buy these won't be "serious" photographers, so they'll be far less critical of the results than most dpr readers.

Many non-photographers just want a camera for "spotting" things, including animals, birds, surfers, ships, footballers, cricketers etc, and they'll be seriously impressed to be able to get a sharp image of a distant subject.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

Lol, you snooty dudes. 😄

I'll have you both know that i have a P1000. It actually has surprisingly good optics. And RAW-processing improves IQ even further.

The problem with the P1000 is that the VR is simply inadequate beyond about 1,500mm-ish. It is a very difficult camera to shoot at 3,000mm. It requires a tripod with gear head, VR turned off and a shutter speed of around 1/500 and really wants to be shot at base ISO. So basically either you shoot the moon or static objects in bright daylight.

I'll end the "I'll just crop an image from a bigger sensor camera" argument right now. I've done all that testing. It's no contest. Like none. At all. The only combo with a chance, maybe, is a D850 with 800mm f5.6. Then realize you're comparing a gigantic heavy $20,000 rig vs a $1,000 3-pound camera.

View Sir7's Gallery for sample P1000 pix.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

Bernie 7 - you are clearly one of the 0.01% exceptions that I mentioned! 😄

Just out of interest, apart from the moon shots that you allude to, what else do you use the P1000 for, in preference to your other gear?

... and how come that Chris Niccolls can manage to successfully hand-hold at 1/20th at 2000mm equivalent, when you need a tripod and 1/500th....

Apr 18, 2020*permalink

(unknown member)

@entoman:
I honestly haven't shot with it for quite awhile. And truly, almost exclusively moon shots. It's tough to shoot anything during the day when there's enough light because at 3,000mm your subject is probably far away, and therefore suffering too much atmospheric shimmer. But on a monopod you could shoot still animals 50m away. But any movement at all with that kind of length is very tough to deal with. And honestly, the AF ain't great. Even Sonys can focus better.

Chris was shooting a P950, i shoot a P1000. I made a lot of noise about inadequate VR as soon as the P1000 released. Perhaps Nikon listened and fixed that on the P950. I don't normally shoot at anything other than 3,000mm but I'll try again at 2,000mm too see how slow i can go. 1/20 at 2,000mm is no way truly handheld. He's probably bracing on a railing or against a wall or something, if not actually using a monopod. Either that or the P950's VR is way way way better than the P1000's.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4473915

I would :)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4482429

For wildlife...along with my D7500 and 70 to 300mm lens for much closer subjects

Apr 18, 2020permalink

(unknown member)

@ANAYV:
Very nice stuff!

I'm viewing on my phone and will check on computer later. But it appears your shots are quite sharp. Are those JPEGs SOOC or RAW-processed output?

Are you shooting at max length handheld with no bracing (i.e. using a branch or tree trunk, etc.)? If so, my P1000 may very likely be getting replaced by a P950 asap. Haha, even though i pretty much never use my P1000. 🙂

Apr 18, 2020permalink

An excessive zoom range doubled by very pour image quality in a big sized camera at a huge price. Thank you but NO thank you! I'm better served by a smartphone with a larger sensor, a decent zoom range at a lower price point.

Apr 18, 2020*permalink

NAG3LT

With the default wide angle (not ultra-wide), modern smartphones can give you impressive quality for their size. However, the sensors they use for extra zoom usually are very small with tiny pixels. So their telephoto quality falls much faster than dedicated optical zoom lens in bridge cameras.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

@NAG3LT

This high zoom bridge camera produces crappy images at all focal lengths, thank you but NO thank you! I'm better served by a smaller zoom range and better image quality. :)

Apr 18, 2020permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4482429

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4481541
How do you know for sure images are crappy?

Apr 18, 2020permalink

@ANAYV

Cause I looked at them with my own eyes. :)

Apr 18, 2020permalink

Check my links I posted. Folk on Forums here think the details are fine.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

@ANAYV

The images quality looks worst than most mainstream (cheep) smartphones.

Apr 18, 2020permalink

rgs_45

@ eno2...if you can recommend a smartphone that can take same quality photos as ANAYV can take with the with the P950 at 1500 - 2000 mm FF equivalent, I will be glad to add it to my collection.

Also, I would like to see you take similar photos with your Z6 and will see if it's good enough to compare. I will put a dollar on ANAYV's photos.

Apr 20, 2020*permalink