Should I buy a Nikon Coolpix P1000 for wildlife instead of saving for a long lens on my Nikon D5500?
Asked 7/11/2018
5 views
2 answers
0
I shoot birds, squirrels, and other small wildlife with a Nikon D5500 and a set of lenses up to 300mm, including an 18-300mm superzoom. For casual walks, I like the convenience of starting wide, finding the subject, and zooming in quickly, but I often still can’t get enough reach for distant or skittish animals.
I’m considering the Nikon Coolpix P1000 because of its extreme zoom range, but I’m concerned about the trade-off in image quality versus a longer lens for my existing system. I’m not interested in scene modes or wireless features—just whether the P1000 gives genuinely useful reach for wildlife, and what I would give up in practice.
How should I evaluate a bridge superzoom like the P1000 against saving for a longer lens on my DSLR? In particular, what are the practical image-quality limits of the P1000 for distant wildlife?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
8y ago
2 Answers
8
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!
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):
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:
Originally by user15871. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user15871
8y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The practical way to decide is to compare real results from both options—ideally your own, or at least trusted review samples—and judge which compromises you can live with.
From the answers here, the P1000’s big advantage is obvious: extreme reach at a price far below long supertelephoto DSLR lenses. For amateur wildlife, it can capture distant subjects that would otherwise be impossible or very expensive to frame tightly. Users report it’s genuinely useful for “memory” shots of birds and animals at long distances, and stabilization helps.
The trade-off is image quality. Its small 1/2.3" sensor and relatively slow aperture at the long end mean you’ll need lots of light and/or high ISO, which can lead to noise and softer results. Atmospheric haze, long-distance shimmer, and the shutter-speed demands of extreme focal lengths also limit how often 3000mm is truly useful. So yes, the reach is real, but it won’t deliver DSLR-plus-good-telephoto image quality.
In short: if your priority is maximum affordable reach for record and observation shots, the P1000 can make sense. If your priority is cleaner, higher-quality files, save for better long glass on your existing system.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI8y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Should I use a teleconverter on a Canon 70-300mm, or buy a 150-500mm lens for wildlife?
What camera is better than the Nikon Coolpix P1000 for birds and flowers if I want lots of reach?
Best used Nikon-compatible lens under $1,000 for distant bird photography?
What kind of longer lens do I need on a Nikon D5000 for wildlife photography?
Is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good wildlife lens for a Canon 600D?