A Bridge too far?...i doubt it.Nikon P1000.

normhead · 07-10-2018, 11:35 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by reh321

F/8 at long end with this camera is like f/32 with my K-30 {yes, some of my lenses go that far!}; it is there, but nobody demands that you use it.

And these lenses are seriously diffraction limited by ƒ8

A K-3 image at 500mm f8 (35mm equivalent 750mm)

An XG-1 image. 224 mm (1248 equivalent mm) ƒ6.4

K-3 and DA 55-300 PLM and 1.4 TC. You can do worse with an APS-c camera just by going cheap and expecting too much of your gear. This image taken with $2000 worth of gear on APS_c. The larger the format, the more you pay for less.

You can see that the XG-1 has more diffraction than the others, but does that even matter? It's personal decision. It doesn't matter to me, in any case. Just not as good as the APS_c image. If you aren't directly comparing you can still enjoy the image. Especially considering one was taken with a $1300 camera 1 $3000 lens and $300 adapter, that's $4600, and one was taken with a bridge camera that cost me $250. You might like the APS_c on, but are you wiling to pay $4300 for it?

If you think you might like to get into birding, a P1000 is cheaper than a DA*300 and gives you more reach. Personally I just love that my XG-1 gives me a chance at shots like this without carrying a lot of weight. The Nikon with a tripod would be a lot better.

Last edited by normhead; 07-11-2018 at 10:55 AM.

surfar · 07-10-2018, 05:04 PM

Youtu.be

Another shortish look.

reh321 · 07-10-2018, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by normhead

And these lenses are seriously diffraction limited by ƒ8

A K-3 image at 500mm f8 (35mm equivalent 750mm)

An XG-1 image. 224 mm (1248 equivalent mm) ƒ6.4

You can see that has more diffraction than the other, but does that even matter? It doesn't matter to me, in any case. Just not as good as the APS_c image. If you aren't directly comparing you can still enjoy the image. Especially considering one was taken with a $1300 camera 1 $300 lens and $300 adapter, that's $4600, and one was taken with a bridge camera that cost me $250. You might like the APS_c on, but are you wiling to pay $4300 for it?

If you think you might like to get into birding, a P1000 is cheaper than a DA*300 and gives you more reach. Personally I just love that my XG-1 gives me a chance at shots like this without carrying a lot of weight. The Nikon with a tripod would be a lot better.

I asked a lot of questions at another forum before I decided not to pick up an SX-50, and go with my Q-7 solution instead. The people who were using the SX-50 told me that they seldom needed a tripod; I've found that I need to use a monopod / walking stick with my Q-7 solution because of my need to stay on-target for manual focusing. Four years ago there was a market; presumably Nikon has some reason for feeling there is still a market today.

surfar · 07-10-2018, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I decided not to pick up an SX-50, and go with my Q-7 solution instead.

Yes, ive always maintained that the Q series is the best teleconverter invented,espescially with high quality glass.

I,personally didnt buy the P900 after i tested it...preferring to stick with using Qs and having the Raw option.Now with the P1000 creating a new genre "ultra zoom" and the ability to capture Raw and 4Kmoving pictures,the game has changed.

Ofcourse, the in store test will determine my final opinion,but so far,all the Youtubes and written reviews are highly impressive for a niche device.

**Rondec** · 07-11-2018, 02:46 AM

Tough to spend that kind of money on a bridge camera. I imagine you would get significantly better image quality with a D5300 and a Sigma 150-500 or Tamron 150-600. The zoom on this camera at its max is only going to be useful in stellar light or maybe on a tripod.

I'm sure there will be some folks who get it thinking that they are beating the system and getting several thousand dollars worth of gear for only one grand.

**savoche** · 07-11-2018, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by reh321

Detail is not the end-all and be-all of photography.

Last year my family was at a county park when my wife could just barely see a bird out on the water, but the view she got through her binoculars was insufficient for her to identify it right away. It was close to sunset on a cloudy day, but I got out my birding kit, a Sigma 70-300mm mounted on a Q-7; in my rush, I incorrectly set the focal length to something over 400mm, so the IBIS was working against me, and the ISO value needed was much higher than I usually go with that camera, but I did get a photo that enabled a friend of hers to identify this bird as a "double crested cormorant", which is usually seen a short flight away on Lake Michigan Usually the photos I take with this kit are better; still not as good as I get with a 300mm mounted on my K-30, but better than nothing. If you're like me and will never fit an expensive long lens + TC into the budget, there is a real attraction to something like this

Yep, my wife's Sony something-something has a 24-1200mm equiv lens, and it has been useful for this kind of "binocular work" more than once. In good light it can even give you usable images, and certainly good enough for web use and small print. What's more, with today's stabilising technology it's perfectly hand-holdable at 1200mm.

She's also the perfect audience for this kind of camera, although the P1000 would be overkill even for her. But something going from wide to extreme tele, as well as having a 1cm MFD, is perfect for a botanist with an interest for birds. And the GPS is brilliant for field work.

reh321 · 07-11-2018, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by surfar

Yes, ive always maintained that the Q series is the best teleconverter invented,espescially with high quality glass.

I,personally didnt buy the P900 after i tested it...preferring to stick with using Qs and having the Raw option.Now with the P1000 creating a new genre "ultra zoom" and the ability to capture Raw and 4Kmoving pictures,the game has changed.

Of course, the in store test will determine my final opinion,but so far,all the Youtubes and written reviews are highly impressive for a niche device.

I believe there is a place for the P1000, but where that place is won't be determined until it is in general circulation in a few months. We'll need to have real people taking real photos and then real pixel peepers viewing them, A really long zoom lens is very difficult to design "right", with no serious issues, no serious compromises. Lens turned out to be the reason the SX-60 has been less successful that the SX-50 was; only time will tell if Nikon has produced two acceptable lenses in a row.

Back when the D850 was announced, Nikon supporters crowed far and wide about the perfect camera for professionals. They remain happy, but their delirium lasted only about a month when Sony demonstrated that they could produce real competition. November will be a good time to evaluate this camera.

surfar · 07-21-2018, 03:54 PM

Youtu.be

Originally posted by reh321

I believe there is a place for the P1000, but where that place is won't be determined until

The long end wont be fantastic but you dont need to go THAT far in plenty of circumstances.

The "place" for me is whale watching and surfers on reefs a long way out.

My friends P900 images are quite good for a tiny sensor,i expect this body to be popular for "bridgys".

Bird mode/Moon mode ...thats funny![COLOR="Silver"]

cupic · 07-22-2018, 12:19 AM

The P1000 will be attractive to user who want a all in one setup...But at a cost namely weight wise ...she ain't light
cheers

surfar · 07-22-2018, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by cupic

she ain't light

Well half the weight of a K-1 with Bigma or Star 70/200.So when one is accustomed to that heft the P1000 is "relatively light".

When i tested the P900 it was the weight that turned me off,along with no Raw and ordinary video.So now i'll have another test when it shows up.

Its bridging that gap!

Death89 · 07-27-2018, 12:41 PM

I have a battered Canon Ixus 160 for work use (don't want to take my decent cameras into construction sites) and an RX100, but short of a Panasonic FZ330 I can't see me ever going back to bridge cameras. Even the FZ200 I had was poor quality compared to my K-50 and HD55-300. If the sun is shining directly on something the P1000 will likely be fine, but even the FZ200 at f2.8 struggled after 16:00 (UK Autumn/Winter/Spring time) or indoors at all.

If you've got any sort of IQ expectations I feel like the superzooms are just throwing good money after bad, especially for £1000!

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be totally negative about them, but I've yet to carry my K-50, 18-55 & 55-300 somewhere only to think "I wish I'd spent my money on a FZ82 instead." If you've only got the money for one camera then you could do a lot worse than get a bridge camera, but I'd get the FZ330/200 over any of these and use a TC if I wanted the zoom.

surfar · 08-10-2018, 01:54 AM

Youtu.be

Pretty birdie

greenbaron · 08-14-2018, 10:50 PM - **1 Like**

Here's one user who has the p1000 on order and waiting. Kind of an extreme numbers junkie and the specs of this nikon, I like them. Got a few other superzooms laying around, my most favourite allrounder is the canon sx60hs. It has the range, raw, mic input and good video controls. Also own the p900 and it's pretty bad for video quality, on board mic and audio processing is utter garbage with no mic input. And no raw.. The coming big brother fixes a number of these things. Managed to pull a few shots off with the p900 that I certainly couldn't have done with my pentax gear. I'm an aviation enthusiast so (lot's of) tele is always welcome; and like to record video alongside the runway. My aim with the p1000 is to get aviation photo / video, put the sun or moon behind distant architecture, put aviation in front of the moon and shoot astro. Did iss solar and lunar transitions with the p900 and it's excellent fun. Also shot some planets and though I got a few fun results like the Venus crescent, 'almost' recognisable rings of Saturn and Jupiter with some surface detail and moons, it's still pretty much toy stuff. I'd be interested to see what 1000mm more can do with raw enabled and if stacking would be an option. Couldn't stack planets with the p900, they were still simply too small, of course no tracking, no raw and extreme risk of camera shake. How awesome would it be if they threw some astro-tracer tech in there..

Iss solar transit / p900. Would love to try this with it's bigger sibling when it arrives

Iss lunar transit / p900

venus crescent / p900.

**ChipB** · 08-15-2018, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by greenbaron

Here's one user who has the p1000 on order and waiting. Kind of an extreme numbers junkie and the specs of this nikon, I like them. Got a few other superzooms laying around, my most favourite allrounder is the canon sx60hs. It has the range, raw, mic input and good video controls. Also own the p900 and it's pretty bad for video quality, on board mic and audio processing is utter garbage with no mic input. And no raw.. The coming big brother fixes a number of these things. Managed to pull a few shots off with the p900 that I certainly couldn't have done with my pentax gear. I'm an aviation enthusiast so (lot's of) tele is always welcome; and like to record video alongside the runway. My aim with the p1000 is to get aviation photo / video, put the sun or moon behind distant architecture, put aviation in front of the moon and shoot astro. Did iss solar and lunar transitions with the p900 and it's excellent fun. Also shot some planets and though I got a few fun results like the Venus crescent, 'almost' recognisable rings of Saturn and Jupiter with some surface detail and moons, it's still pretty much toy stuff. I'd be interested to see what 1000mm more can do with raw enabled and if stacking would be an option. Couldn't stack planets with the p900, they were still simply too small, of course no tracking, no raw and extreme risk of camera shake. How awesome would it be if they threw some astro-tracer tech in there..

Iss solar transit / p900. Would love to try this with it's bigger sibling when it arrives

Iss lunar transit / p900

venus crescent / p900.

Pretty amazing what can be done with a *P&S* - and, yeah, I know it's really much more than that!

rawr · 08-16-2018, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by surfar

US$ 999

Too expensive for the low-fi images it can deliver. Once the price drops by half or more, it may be handy as a spotting and identification camera though, in good light.

For some shooting scenarios where you want long distance reach, one could instead buy a drone with a 20MP sensor, 4k video and an easy 4 km flight range (like the Parrot Alafi) for much less. Even a Mavic or used or refurbed Phantom 4 Pro (both with 7km control range) would be available under $999.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape A Bridge too Far	Bob Harris	Post Your Photos!	17	07-27-2018 01:02 PM
Landscape "A Bridge Too Far"	Kerrowdown	Post Your Photos!	14	07-27-2018 01:00 PM
Landscape a bridge not too far	dcmsox2004	Post Your Photos!	2	02-12-2015 08:36 AM
Black & White a bridge too far	dcmsox2004	Post Your Photos!	6	02-01-2012 05:10 PM
Misc Too close, Too Far?	FHPhotographer	Photo Critique	3	10-18-2009 04:54 PM

07-10-2018, 11:35 AM - 2 Likes	#16
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,449	Originally posted by reh321 F/8 at long end with this camera is like f/32 with my K-30 {yes, some of my lenses go that far!}; it is there, but nobody demands that you use it. And these lenses are seriously diffraction limited by ƒ8 A K-3 image at 500mm f8 (35mm equivalent 750mm) An XG-1 image. 224 mm (1248 equivalent mm) ƒ6.4 K-3 and DA 55-300 PLM and 1.4 TC. You can do worse with an APS-c camera just by going cheap and expecting too much of your gear. This image taken with $2000 worth of gear on APS_c. The larger the format, the more you pay for less. You can see that the XG-1 has more diffraction than the others, but does that even matter? It's personal decision. It doesn't matter to me, in any case. Just not as good as the APS_c image. If you aren't directly comparing you can still enjoy the image. Especially considering one was taken with a $1300 camera 1 $3000 lens and $300 adapter, that's $4600, and one was taken with a bridge camera that cost me $250. You might like the APS_c on, but are you wiling to pay $4300 for it? If you think you might like to get into birding, a P1000 is cheaper than a DA300 and gives you more reach. Personally I just love that my XG-1 gives me a chance at shots like this without carrying a lot of weight. The Nikon with a tripod would be a lot better. Last edited by normhead; 07-11-2018 at 10:55 AM.*

07-10-2018, 05:17 PM	#18
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,175	Originally posted by normhead And these lenses are seriously diffraction limited by ƒ8 A K-3 image at 500mm f8 (35mm equivalent 750mm) An XG-1 image. 224 mm (1248 equivalent mm) ƒ6.4 You can see that has more diffraction than the other, but does that even matter? It doesn't matter to me, in any case. Just not as good as the APS_c image. If you aren't directly comparing you can still enjoy the image. Especially considering one was taken with a $1300 camera 1 $300 lens and $300 adapter, that's $4600, and one was taken with a bridge camera that cost me $250. You might like the APS_c on, but are you wiling to pay $4300 for it? If you think you might like to get into birding, a P1000 is cheaper than a DA*300 and gives you more reach. Personally I just love that my XG-1 gives me a chance at shots like this without carrying a lot of weight. The Nikon with a tripod would be a lot better. I asked a lot of questions at another forum before I decided not to pick up an SX-50, and go with my Q-7 solution instead. The people who were using the SX-50 told me that they seldom needed a tripod; I've found that I need to use a monopod / walking stick with my Q-7 solution because of my need to stay on-target for manual focusing. Four years ago there was a market; presumably Nikon has some reason for feeling there is still a market today.

07-10-2018, 07:58 PM	#19
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,137 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 I decided not to pick up an SX-50, and go with my Q-7 solution instead. Yes, ive always maintained that the Q series is the best teleconverter invented,espescially with high quality glass. I,personally didnt buy the P900 after i tested it...preferring to stick with using Qs and having the Raw option.Now with the P1000 creating a new genre "ultra zoom" and the ability to capture Raw and 4Kmoving pictures,the game has changed. Ofcourse, the in store test will determine my final opinion,but so far,all the Youtubes and written reviews are highly impressive for a niche device.

07-11-2018, 02:46 AM	#20
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Tough to spend that kind of money on a bridge camera. I imagine you would get significantly better image quality with a D5300 and a Sigma 150-500 or Tamron 150-600. The zoom on this camera at its max is only going to be useful in stellar light or maybe on a tripod. I'm sure there will be some folks who get it thinking that they are beating the system and getting several thousand dollars worth of gear for only one grand.

07-11-2018, 03:37 AM	#21
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by reh321 Detail is not the end-all and be-all of photography. Last year my family was at a county park when my wife could just barely see a bird out on the water, but the view she got through her binoculars was insufficient for her to identify it right away. It was close to sunset on a cloudy day, but I got out my birding kit, a Sigma 70-300mm mounted on a Q-7; in my rush, I incorrectly set the focal length to something over 400mm, so the IBIS was working against me, and the ISO value needed was much higher than I usually go with that camera, but I did get a photo that enabled a friend of hers to identify this bird as a "double crested cormorant", which is usually seen a short flight away on Lake Michigan Usually the photos I take with this kit are better; still not as good as I get with a 300mm mounted on my K-30, but better than nothing. If you're like me and will never fit an expensive long lens + TC into the budget, there is a real attraction to something like this Yep, my wife's Sony something-something has a 24-1200mm equiv lens, and it has been useful for this kind of "binocular work" more than once. In good light it can even give you usable images, and certainly good enough for web use and small print. What's more, with today's stabilising technology it's perfectly hand-holdable at 1200mm. She's also the perfect audience for this kind of camera, although the P1000 would be overkill even for her. But something going from wide to extreme tele, as well as having a 1cm MFD, is perfect for a botanist with an interest for birds. And the GPS is brilliant for field work.

07-11-2018, 04:17 AM	#22
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,175	Originally posted by surfar Yes, ive always maintained that the Q series is the best teleconverter invented,espescially with high quality glass. I,personally didnt buy the P900 after i tested it...preferring to stick with using Qs and having the Raw option.Now with the P1000 creating a new genre "ultra zoom" and the ability to capture Raw and 4Kmoving pictures,the game has changed. Of course, the in store test will determine my final opinion,but so far,all the Youtubes and written reviews are highly impressive for a niche device. I believe there is a place for the P1000, but where that place is won't be determined until it is in general circulation in a few months. We'll need to have real people taking real photos and then real pixel peepers viewing them, A really long zoom lens is very difficult to design "right", with no serious issues, no serious compromises. Lens turned out to be the reason the SX-60 has been less successful that the SX-50 was; only time will tell if Nikon has produced two acceptable lenses in a row. Back when the D850 was announced, Nikon supporters crowed far and wide about the perfect camera for professionals. They remain happy, but their delirium lasted only about a month when Sony demonstrated that they could produce real competition. November will be a good time to evaluate this camera.

07-22-2018, 12:19 AM	#24
cupic Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Australia-NSW Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,824	The P1000 will be attractive to user who want a all in one setup...But at a cost namely weight wise ...she ain't light cheers

07-22-2018, 01:20 AM	#25
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,137 Original Poster	Originally posted by cupic she ain't light Well half the weight of a K-1 with Bigma or Star 70/200.So when one is accustomed to that heft the P1000 is "relatively light". When i tested the P900 it was the weight that turned me off,along with no Raw and ordinary video.So now i'll have another test when it shows up. Its bridging that gap!

07-27-2018, 12:41 PM	#26
Death89 Guest	I have a battered Canon Ixus 160 for work use (don't want to take my decent cameras into construction sites) and an RX100, but short of a Panasonic FZ330 I can't see me ever going back to bridge cameras. Even the FZ200 I had was poor quality compared to my K-50 and HD55-300. If the sun is shining directly on something the P1000 will likely be fine, but even the FZ200 at f2.8 struggled after 16:00 (UK Autumn/Winter/Spring time) or indoors at all. If you've got any sort of IQ expectations I feel like the superzooms are just throwing good money after bad, especially for £1000! Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be totally negative about them, but I've yet to carry my K-50, 18-55 & 55-300 somewhere only to think "I wish I'd spent my money on a FZ82 instead." If you've only got the money for one camera then you could do a lot worse than get a bridge camera, but I'd get the FZ330/200 over any of these and use a TC if I wanted the zoom.

08-14-2018, 10:50 PM - 1 Like	#28
greenbaron Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 56	Here's one user who has the p1000 on order and waiting. Kind of an extreme numbers junkie and the specs of this nikon, I like them. Got a few other superzooms laying around, my most favourite allrounder is the canon sx60hs. It has the range, raw, mic input and good video controls. Also own the p900 and it's pretty bad for video quality, on board mic and audio processing is utter garbage with no mic input. And no raw.. The coming big brother fixes a number of these things. Managed to pull a few shots off with the p900 that I certainly couldn't have done with my pentax gear. I'm an aviation enthusiast so (lot's of) tele is always welcome; and like to record video alongside the runway. My aim with the p1000 is to get aviation photo / video, put the sun or moon behind distant architecture, put aviation in front of the moon and shoot astro. Did iss solar and lunar transitions with the p900 and it's excellent fun. Also shot some planets and though I got a few fun results like the Venus crescent, 'almost' recognisable rings of Saturn and Jupiter with some surface detail and moons, it's still pretty much toy stuff. I'd be interested to see what 1000mm more can do with raw enabled and if stacking would be an option. Couldn't stack planets with the p900, they were still simply too small, of course no tracking, no raw and extreme risk of camera shake. How awesome would it be if they threw some astro-tracer tech in there.. Iss solar transit / p900. Would love to try this with it's bigger sibling when it arrives Iss lunar transit / p900 venus crescent / p900.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-15-2018, 09:34 AM	#29
ChipB Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Eau Claire, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,701	Originally posted by greenbaron Here's one user who has the p1000 on order and waiting. Kind of an extreme numbers junkie and the specs of this nikon, I like them. Got a few other superzooms laying around, my most favourite allrounder is the canon sx60hs. It has the range, raw, mic input and good video controls. Also own the p900 and it's pretty bad for video quality, on board mic and audio processing is utter garbage with no mic input. And no raw.. The coming big brother fixes a number of these things. Managed to pull a few shots off with the p900 that I certainly couldn't have done with my pentax gear. I'm an aviation enthusiast so (lot's of) tele is always welcome; and like to record video alongside the runway. My aim with the p1000 is to get aviation photo / video, put the sun or moon behind distant architecture, put aviation in front of the moon and shoot astro. Did iss solar and lunar transitions with the p900 and it's excellent fun. Also shot some planets and though I got a few fun results like the Venus crescent, 'almost' recognisable rings of Saturn and Jupiter with some surface detail and moons, it's still pretty much toy stuff. I'd be interested to see what 1000mm more can do with raw enabled and if stacking would be an option. Couldn't stack planets with the p900, they were still simply too small, of course no tracking, no raw and extreme risk of camera shake. How awesome would it be if they threw some astro-tracer tech in there.. Iss solar transit / p900. Would love to try this with it's bigger sibling when it arrives Iss lunar transit / p900 venus crescent / p900. Pretty amazing what can be done with a P&S - and, yeah, I know it's really much more than that!

08-16-2018, 12:10 AM	#30
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by surfar US$ 999 Too expensive for the low-fi images it can deliver. Once the price drops by half or more, it may be handy as a spotting and identification camera though, in good light. For some shooting scenarios where you want long distance reach, one could instead buy a drone with a 20MP sensor, 4k video and an easy 4 km flight range (like the Parrot Alafi) for much less. Even a Mavic or used or refurbed Phantom 4 Pro (both with 7km control range) would be available under $999.