So a 125 times optical zoom is equivalent to a 12,000 mm lens and has optical stabilization to boot.

While the Coolpix P900 83X was a dismal camera and could not shoot in RAW, the P1000 does include RAW (finally). So even with poor color balance and white balance of the Nikon processor in JPEG, RAW will make editing much easier. Maybe Nikon built a better camera with the P1000. (?)

https://newatlas.com/nikon-coolpix-p1000/55387/

One initial reviewer impresssion, based on specs, is "wait and see":

http://www.dslrbodies.com/news...tyranny-of-math.html

As for RAW files, they aren't the high end Nikon 14 bit NEF files, they are NRW files which in the past were only 9 or 10 bit and only used on low end Nikons. I don't know if the majority of RAW processors (other than Nikon's NX-D which one would hope) will even be able to open them. I have my doubts about Capture One or DxO Photolab rushing to add this file format to their capabilities. Adobe Camera Raw, assuming you have a subscription, might though. The point of this camera obviously isn't high quality images. IF you can find one for less than $400 it could be fun for shits and giggles. But $1,000? I don't think so.

Preliminary report show a better quality photos than the P900.

I am getting very good results from the Canon SX60.

But that is only 60X.

You can see the bird photos in my post on the photo a;bum forum about Sweden.

Personally, the race for extreme optical zoom is a bit silly. How many pictures of moon craters do you really need?

50 to 60 times zoom with more than 16 megapixels covers 99% of any scene you want to take. And with the ability to shoot in RAW, that pretty much covers the bases for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Personally, the race for extreme optical zoom is a bit silly. How many pictures of moon craters do you really need?

50 to 60 times zoom with more than 16 megapixels covers 99% of any scene you want to take. And with the ability to shoot in RAW, that pretty much covers the bases for me.

That is not strictly true.

Despite the not so good quality of the Nikon P900, We have taken photos of far away objects and animals that we would not have had the chance otherwise.

And as long as you accept the lower quality, the photos are great.

I am looking forward to trying the new P1000.

I am anxiously awaiting the P-1000. I haven't pre-ordered it, but I am on notification for when it becomes in stock at B&H photo. For filming and photographing wildlife here in the west, there is no such thing as too much zoom. The fact that it has an audio jack and this will make a great b-roll camera for me. It should do well as a spotting scope substitute also.

We have two P1000 going to to Africa.

I was not able to take any long distance photos with it, due to high humidity and dust making that impossible.

Photos taken at lower magnification here in our backyard were not as good as other taken with other cameras.

So I would say the biggest complaint about the P900 is still true of the P1000.

That is image quality.

And one most definitely need a good tripod for photos at 125X zoom

Saeed will you please report back to me on the camera after your Africa trip. I am mostly interested in the zoom and video quality. I haven't seen video specs on how long it can record in one shot.

I am used to high zoom with a good fluid-head tripod. I wish it had an option for a lanc controller. Wondering also how the remote works for zooming while shooting video. I am sure the image quality will suffice for my needs. I would also expect the high end zoom to be pretty worthless in lower light conditions.

Will do.

If you are interested in video, stay away from the Sony RX100 series cameras.

Picture quality and video quality is great.

But they conveniently forget to mention - except in the operating manual, by which time you have already bought it.

That it gets over heated when taking videos, and shuts down for sometime before you can start again.

I discovered this on a diving trip, and was most annoyed about it.

Even underwater in a housing, we could not take any 5 minute video.

Thank You. I most always use Canon cameras so this Nikon is going to have to be quite the game changer or I will just get the Power Shot sx65 or 70. Very interested in how it pans out for you.

I do not stick to one make, as I have found that tend to vary in their models quite a bit.

In SLR, I use both Canon and Nikon, and frankly, apart from various functions which are peculiar to each make, the quality is outstanding on both.

I have started using some of the Sony cameras, and I am very impressed with them.

Now, when it comes to bridge or pocket cameras, all makers tend to have s sort of hit or miss thing going.

Personally, I have not found any of the Nikon small cameras as good as small cameras from Canon, Panasonic and Sony.

For a few years we have been using the Panasonic TZ series of pocket cameras, but for the past couple of years, they seem to have slipped in quality. Both in results and break downs.

I like to have a pocket camera that has a long zoom, and these Panasonics were the best we could find.

I tried the Canon SX60 and found it great, so we decided to use Canon pocket cameras on our hunt this year.

Sorry I did not get back on this thread earlier.

The Nikon P1000 was great.

A lot better in quality than the P900.

I am taking it to the Swiss Alps next week, and will post some pictures.

Other cameras in my bag are a Sony RX10III - fantastic bridge camera.
Sony HX99 pocket camera
Sony a7sII for indoor low light photos
Sony AX700 video camera.

The kids all have GoPro 7 Black action cameras.

I will post photos when we are back in early January.

Will check back in to see!

Best,

GWB

Saeed, are you still liking the P1000?

Yes I do.

A while back a friend called in the evening to tell me the big moon was coming up.

I put the camera on a tripod and went out.

I saw a plane going to pass by the moon, and had no time to set up the tripod.

So just put the ends on the ground and took quick shots of the plane superimposed on the moon.

Not extremely clear, but clear enough.

I tried it in the Alps, but was not very successful with it, as I could not find a suitable tripod.

Properly set on a stable tripod, it is great.