Nikon Introduces Coolpix P1000 with 125x Zoom

I have three friends who shoot with Nikon long lenses on Nikon DSLRS. All three are now using the Nikon Coolpix P 900 which does not take RAW images like the new P 1000. The quality of the images taken with the P 900 that I have seen in camera club competitions and powerpoint presentations when projected is simply amazing. I cannot detect any difference from them and images taken with more expensive (and heavier) gear.

 

At birding spots and rookeries along the Texas Gulf Coast like High Island bridge DSLRs with long effective focal lengths are now being used by many to view nature and birds and take pictures. They are displacing some potting scopes, DSLRs with 70-300mm lenses and more expensive DSLRS and long tele lenses used with tripods. Many use them hand held, but others are using them with a monopod. AF acquisition is not up to the standards of cameras like the D500 and other DSLRs. And these are not the best for birds in flight..

 

The Coolpix P 900 and P 1000 are excellent choices when large file sizes are not needed for large prints and when smaller/lighter equipment is needed for traveling, hiking, birding, etc. Bridge DSLRs like these two Coolpix models are extremely popular with birders and nature enthusiasts.

 

On another site a friend of mine posted this"It's actually a 540mm f/8 lens on the long end - the rest of the effective magnification comes due to a tiny little sensor which comes out to a crop factor of around 5.6x."

 

One question for the experts. What is the difference between a NEF file and a NRW raw file?

I'm not going to argue against the merits of reach. Here's, from last September in Yellowstone, is a 1:1 crop from my D810 with a 200-500 at the long end, with a 1.4x teleconverter on it and at about f/11 to try to improve sharpness. Allowing for the resolution difference (I just stopped myself from using a calculator to divide sqrt(36) by sqrt(16)) this would be 1:1 at about 1000mm on the P1000 or P900. Of course, the atmosphere was in the way and there wasn't very much light (this was ISO450), but the compacts might have managed more detail - the wolves weren't moving much, and pixels would have been good. When I get the chance to return (hopefully next year, if I save up) I'll likely hire an 800mm and possibly a TC20 (though I know that's going to throw away some sharpness and leave manual focus), but theoretically the P1000 would still have the edge.

 

 

So for people who actually want to see something small and/or far away, it's not an unreasonable camera - and certainly a lot cheaper than a D850 and 800mm. But it feels so specialist because of its size that it may as well have had a 100-3000mm zoom and just been used for telephotos - which I have to feel ought to help the image quality. What worries me is that people will care less about 3000mm and more about the "125x", and try to buy this as a "do everything" camera. And then it'll get left on the shelf a lot, because, for that, it's enormous. I'd understand taking the P900 on a hike looking for birds (though I'd wish it shot raw). Taking the P1000 would be a photographic expedition, not a hike - which is okay so long as that's really what you want. And I speak as someone who's wandered around with a 200-500 "just in case".

One question for the experts. What is the difference between a NEF file and a NRW raw file?

Joseph, I have pretty much the same question. I searched around and there are not many concrete answers.

 

Remember this thread?

.NEF vs. .NRW

It looks like I got some of the old P900 information wrong earlier.

 

Nikon introduced the P900 on March 2, 2015, over three years ago. The initial price was $600 such that it actually hasn't dropped much after 3+ years, and the introductory price for the P1000 is a lot higher at $1000.

 

Besides price, the major differences are the longer zoom on the P1000 (3000mm equivalent vs. 2000mm). The P1000 has the RAW option and can shoot 4K video. The P1000 is also considerably bigger and heavier.

 

For demanding photographers, the tiny sensor is definitely going to be a limitation. However, as Joseph Smith points out, for projection in photo group meetings and web pages, you can get away with a lot. If you need to make prints, that is a totally different story.

Edited July 12, 2018 by ShunCheung

There are 2 Coolpixes that I like: The P340 which I have and use for bad weather or as a backup and the earlier Coolpix A with the 28 mm lens (which I recently saw on Amazon for $700+). My P340 wirth the f1.8 on the wide end is where I usually use it is really impressively built because I was carrying it in a sandwich bag on the street and when I pulled it from my pocket the plastic bag developed a hole in the bottom and mine fell about 3 feet to the concrete luckily landing on the tip of a corner which got chipped off by the impact but the P340 continued to work normally which at the time really surprised me.

I thought the moon photos were soft and lacked contrast, but liked the lion photo at 2000mm, the maximum focal length for the P900. I don't know how well the P900 performs zoomed all the way out.

 

 

 

About 28 times more significant.

 

Depending on how you count, -28 times.

Saw a side by side with the P900 on another photo site - very Large!

Looking forward to two weeks of ecological fieldwork in Eastern Europe, I am still contemplating "what to take with me", photography-wise.

D800 undoubtedly, 60mm macro lens yes, doubling as a standard, and then..?

- 15 or 20?

- 70-200/4.0.. very universal lens, most probably 'yes'

- my trusted 400/3.5.. or the (always just too short) 300/4.0 AF..?

Obviously, taking a 'supertele' in addition to the long zoom will be a regretable (sp.?) burden during those two weeks.

It is in THOSE cases that a P900 or P1000 would come to the rescue! ..But at this moment I cannot afford the expense.