I hope I can make this answerable & not purely opinion-based...

Amongst the things I try to shoot, birds, squirrels & other small nervous wildlife crop up relatively frequently.
I'm very happy with my existing crop-frame interchangeable lens setup, but trying to grab a fast shot of something small, fast & relatively distant proves [obviously] quite elusive.
Existing setup D5500, various lenses from 18 to 300 mm, in several steps, but including one that does all that in one go.

In the studio, under controlled conditions, I have my ever-expanding [though not yet premium] glass collection & choose to suit the shot. That wouldn't change. I fully intend to grow that glass collection & eventually move up to a better body.
I tend to, for the occasional walk in the park etc, take my entire camera bag, so if I see something stationary & deserving of a more suitable lens, I can reach for it; but otherwise I have my 'guilty pleasure' Nikkor DX 18-300mm. It's not the sharpest knife in the box... but it's 18-300 - as fast as I can twist the zoom.
I have resisted so far, very long zooms; partly from budget concerns & partly because I find it difficult to place the intended subject in frame at first go unless I start wide - so what I tend to do is have the zoom lens quite short, find the subject, then actively zoom in so I can keep it in frame. With birds etc, this gives up time, but gains eventual accuracy.

Now Nikon announces the ridiculous 24-3000mm Coolpix 1000 bridge camera.

I have a dilemma. Save for better [long] glass for my existing camera or spend less on this bridge system than even one of those lenses would cost.
I'm not a pro, none of this cost will ever be recouped. I'm not rich, I can't throw money at my [passionate] hobby.

I'm not asking anyone to make the decision for me... but how do I decide?
Is there a quick, "You don't want this new camera because..." ?

I'm not interested in any of the 'features' like scenes, wifi, bluetooth, etc, I'm only considering how much image quality I'll lose [which I know isn't an absolute] vs how much further I can be from a fleeting subject & still have a reasonable chance of getting an acceptable shot.
Factors such as noticeable & uncorrectable colour aberration would be an immediate 'turn off'. I've had lenses that do that, I don't need an entire compact system that will do it too.
I'm aware I'll 'lose pixels' going down from my existing 24mp to 16mp. I like 'sharp' so this is definitely a factor I'd need to consider.

I understand this question may not be completely answerable until the model has had some testing in the real world.

  • How do you feel about the fact that at 3000, it's f/8? I wonder how the AF will play at that point?
    – OnBreak.
    Jul 11 '18 at 18:24
  • I'm assuming the AF can work at f8... otherwise how could they sell the camera to anyone [especially as this is nowhere near 'pro' territory;) I'm using my existing 'walkabout' 18-300 as a benchmark for this, because that is also down to F6 before you've hardly touched the zoom ring - yet is surprisingly quick even then, so long as you've some [unqualified] 'decent light'. Out at 200mm+ it beats my sharper, larger aperture but unstabilised Tamron hands down. It can get 5 shots while the Tamron is still hunting for something to focus on.
    – Tetsujin
    Jul 11 '18 at 18:31
  • 4
    At 3000 mm on a tripod, if someone coughs in the neighboring town the image will be blurry.
    – Andreas
    Jul 11 '18 at 21:10
  • 3
    Possible duplicate of How do I decide on a camera/lens with high zoom range?
    – mattdm
    Jul 12 '18 at 12:11
  • 1

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
    The P1000 photograph of the moon is a lot less impressive when you put it next to one taken with an X-T1.
    – xiota
    Jul 12 '18 at 7:19
  • 1
    @MichaelClark, Panasonic FZ2500 do not have constant F2.8. It is F2.8-4.5 Jul 12 '18 at 17:17
  • 1
    Shame on you, Adorama! That's false advertising!
    – Michael C
    Jul 12 '18 at 17:24
  • 1
    @MichaelClark, the site you mention in comment point to FZ300, which is F2.8 (but with 1/2.3" sensor, which make possible to have F2.8 at 600mm in those dimensions) Jul 12 '18 at 20:07
  • 1
    You're right. Shame on you, google! Giving a link to a used FZ300 when I searched for an FZ2500!
    – Michael C
    Jul 12 '18 at 21:21

I would like to mention one more point why P1000 is just marketing product

When we select shutter speed we use the rule shutter speed=1/focal length. Based on this (w/o getting in consideration image stabilization, Nikon do not mention it in sense of stops) on 3000mm we should shoot with 1/3000s.

Based on Sunny 16 rule and having F8 on 3000mm we should set camera to 1/3000, F8, ISO 1500. I have serious doubts with such ISO you will get reasonably good image w/o much noise (sensor is 1/2.3" ...)

And all this in sunny day...


If I were you, I'd take my existing Nikon/Lens kit to a camera shop and do a comparison with the P1000. Compare uncroped P1000 images to cropped images taken with your DSLR. Then you'll know for certain which option is best for you.

As another option, have you considered using a spotting scope?


The P1000 is a fun camera. See https://www.boomer.org/zoo/ for some animals...some images may be iPhone ;-) but no this one https://www.boomer.org/zoo/Sep16_2018/images/7.html. All hand held. Low light is an issue beyond wide angle.


This is actually a response to Michael C, but I needed images so it's not a comment.

Your example comparison of the Nikon provided P1000 to your heavily cropped XT-1 suggests this is the best the P1000 could do. But this is likely out of the camera and not post processed, where your crop is heavily post processed.

It seems clear to me that there is more detail in the P1000 than your XT-1 crop, so I took the posted image and applied sharpening and contrast to see if the additional detail could be brought out better in some post process.

P1000 sharpened with more contrast

And here is your XT-1 again XT-1 repeat

Definitely more detail in the P1000.

  • I'm not sure why you keep calling it "your" XT-1. If I recall correctly from the time I wrote that answer over two years ago, both the Nikon and Fuji images were taken from their respective manufacturers' marketing materials. I didn't process either one in any way.
    – Michael C
    Jul 17 '20 at 6:13
  • Did you apply the same amount of sharpening and other processing to both shots? Or just the one you wanted to look better?
    – Michael C
    Jul 17 '20 at 6:18
  • 1
    I disagree. Notwithstanding the JPG compression artifacts, the picture from the Nikon P1000 has much more posterization and noise. A nauseating amount of sharpening artifacts is present, too. IMHO, the sensor of the Nikon P1000 is nowhere near as capable as that of the XT-1. Jul 17 '20 at 6:39
  • @Michael C - In your original post you carefully attributed the the P1000 shot as Nikon sourced but referred to the XT-1 shot as "Here's a shot from a Fuji XT-1 using a 100-400mm zoom that had the snot cropped out of it". This clearly showed post process and implied it was yours, hence the reference to to "your". No, I did nothing to the XT-1 shot since it was already post processed. Jul 17 '20 at 14:25
  • 1
    And since "that shot" is two different shots at different times from different places on earth then the comparison is not very good. It's like saying "this pear tastes better than that orange". Well... Take two different pears and oranges and it may be the other way around. But sure I can see there can be a (very) few cases where a superzoom has an advantage, but overall I believe you will be more pleased with the average DSLR image vs superzoom image.
    – Andreas
    Jul 19 '20 at 15:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.