6 added 32 characters in body
source | link

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact"compact" (please see the image below!) such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

enter image description here

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

enter image description here

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom "compact" (please see the image below!) such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

enter image description here

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

5 added 87 characters in body
source | link

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

enter image description here

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

enter image description here

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

4 added 122 characters in body
source | link

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

The only real way to decide is to compare the results from each camera system and decide which set of results you find more acceptable.

Comparison can be between actual results you produce yourself with both systems, or comparing the results that are reflected in reviews and tests published by others.

What I'm hoping for... is 3000mm of 'useful' zoom. What I fear is ...2700 of those precious mm being really no better than getting up close with a phone or screwing in a cheap lens modifier.

The lens of a superzoom compact such as the Nikon CoolPix P1000 will be better for long distance shots than the lens in a phone. The sensor is 1/2.3" that is about 7.66x6.17 mm. There are a handful of the top smartphones with same sized or larger sensors, but most phone sensors are somewhere between a bit to a lot smaller.

My personal take on the CoolPix P1000:

The extra zoom over the previous CoolPix P900 (same sensor, 24-2000 mm 'equivalent' 83X ZOOM BABY!) is purely for marketing, won't be very usable by the target buyer, and might even actually reduce the quality of images it can take in the more usable 24-1000 mm 'equivalent' range due to the increased design compromises needed to extend the focal length range by 50% more. Not to mention the camera weighs about as much as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II!

Anything over about 1,000mm 'equivalent' is extremely hard to manage in terms of technique. Even with a tripod, at such narrow angles of view wobble and vibration are noticeable. Atmospheric effects also begin to be quite noticeable when using such narrow angles of view over longer distances.

If you want to try a "Superzoom", pick up a used CoolPix P900 (going for as low as $450 used), Panasonic FZ300 (25-600mm 'equivalent', constant f/2.8 lens, and 1/2.3" sensor for less than half the cost of the P1000), Panasonic FZ2500 (24-480mm 'equivalent' with f/2.8-4.5 aperture and much larger 1" sensor, can be had new for the MSRP of the P1000), Sony CyberShot RX-10 III (1" sensor, 24-600mm 'equivalent' f/2.8-4 lens, but a bit more expensive), or some such other sensibly designed "Superzoom".

A 125X superzoom will likely only be useful for bragging rights. But hey, it's got serious ZOOM, BABY!

Here's a shot of the moon from the CoolPix P1000 released by Nikon (presumably the best possible IQ the P1000 can do of the moon):

enter image description here

While it isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it:

enter image description here

3 deleted 1 character in body
source | link
2 added 4 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link