Would CoolPix P-950 offer a great improvement over Lumix FZ82? (1 Viewer)

[Oregon John]

Sorry if this might require knowledge of both cameras.....
I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ82 which is fine but slow zoom, slow and frequently confused autofocus, and quite low IQ in low light are frustrating.
I like the portabiity of a bridge camera for birding, because I hike a lot, and I'm wondering if the P-950 is significantly better in these specific respects. The P-950's greater reach is nice, of course, but I'm most interested in improving the things that limit the camera I have.

 

[Richard D]

They both use similar sensors so IQ isn't likely to be dramatically different - the Nikon isn't at it's best in low light. The Nikon isn't super fast to zoom and autofocus is only adequate for a budget camera. I've not tried the FZ82, but used the FZ72 and based on that I wouldn't expect the Nikon to be a significant upgrade in performance beyond the longer range.

 

[Oregon John]

They both use similar sensors so IQ isn't likely to be dramatically different - the Nikon isn't at it's best in low light. The Nikon isn't super fast to zoom and autofocus is only adequate for a budget camera. I've not tried the FZ82, but used the FZ72 and based on that I wouldn't expect the Nikon to be a significant upgrade in performance beyond the longer range.

That's sort of what I suspected. Thanks for the confirmation, Richard.

 

[Richard D]

That's sort of what I suspected. Thanks for the confirmation, Richard.

I think to get much better performance you'd need to go for a bigger sensor camera - 1" or M4/3, but getting the same sort of magnification with a larger sensor makes a much bulkier and costlier set up. In good light these bridge cameras can give surprisingly good results and I'm pretty happy with the Nikon, but it has it's limitations.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Sorry if this might require knowledge of both cameras.....
I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ82 which is fine but slow zoom, slow and frequently confused autofocus, and quite low IQ in low light are frustrating.
I like the portabiity of a bridge camera for birding, because I hike a lot, and I'm wondering if the P-950 is significantly better in these specific respects. The P-950's greater reach is nice, of course, but I'm most interested in improving the things that limit the camera I have.

I have the P950 and I don't consider the focus to be a problem. Having said that, I've never owned DSLR set up and so I have no comparison.

Aye, in low light these cameras struggle. I've attached two pictures taken over the last week. They are both taken at 400 ISO and from a similar distance. The kestrel no light whatsoever; the sandpiper not a brilliant sunny day but the sun is getting through the clouds. The kestrel SS is 1/160; I can't remember exactly what the sandpiper is but I think around 800/1000. It's obvious the kestrel was taken in poor light, colours washed out and so on. I never go higher than 400 ISO with this camera but I'd imagine that some other people can get more out of this camera at a higher ISO than I can.

There are ways 'round this. What I do is use the cloudy days for doing chores or scouting locations for interesting birds. I've just had a look at the general weather in Oregon and it states: Oregon tends to be thought of as a cloudy and rainy state because of Portland. The majority of the state is high desert with lots of sun though. At a guess, I'd imagine you have more sunny days than North East England. I'm often glad for clouds and rain as the temptation is to be out with my camera all of the time and that would mean getting nothing else done.

The other consideration is: how do the more expensive cameras perform in low light. There are a lot of posts on this without accompanying pictures and details. Perceived wisdom is that these are magical cameras that can perform broadly similar in any light. I for one was sucked into that train of thought after reading such posts on here. When you actually see the pictures from these cameras, in good light versus bad light, you see that there is equally a stark difference.

There is absolutely no doubt that 800 quid's worth of P950 is no match for the more expensive equipment, but, as you say, you lose that portability/flexibility.

Once a upon time, I believed everything I read on here but these days I would not be taking anyone's word for granted until I've seen pictures from the same hand. It is important that you see pictures from the same hand when comparing. There are boatloads of other considerations but I'll leave it there in the interests of relevance to the OP.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

'Thought I'd add this one also. I think the SS here is very low, something like 1/80, maybe 1/100 at the most, 400 ISO, no sun whatsoever/dark clouds. Similar distance to the other two pictures. There is very little editing done to this photo as it's in the days when my editing skills were extremely basic, although it is cropped. 'Wish I'd kept the original now as I could make it look much better these days.

'Doesn't look bad at all considering the conditions, although zoom in and you'll find faults. 'Solution to taking pictures on a dark, cloudy day? Find yourself something bright as background to add a bit of contrast. Taking pictures into trees and water on a gloomy day is going to be a problem for most cameras (many of them more expensive than the P950).

 

[Oregon John]

I think to get much better performance you'd need to go for a bigger sensor camera - 1" or M4/3, but getting the same sort of magnification with a larger sensor makes a much bulkier and costlier set up. In good light these bridge cameras can give surprisingly good results and I'm pretty happy with the Nikon, but it has it's limitations.

I agree. I can get good pictures in good light, certainly good enough for ID and for simply keeping record of my outings. It's true I miss a number of opportunities due to the slow zoom and the slow and sometimes flaky autofocus, but given I spent less than $500 for the camera, I guess that's to be expected.

 

[Owene]

I've had the nikon for a year used only in basic auto mode and got nice results in sunshine on still birds and decent record shots at distance. I'll often use it to check out stuff thats well out of bins range and avoid wasting time getting closer to things that turn out to be totally misidentified.

I've recently (in the last week) switched to bird mode with bursts and am finding that it is very good for focus (if only on a few out of the bursts) but i'm still needing to improve exposure on those.

All the photos in my year list thread were taken with it

Owen's wildlife for 2023

I really enjoyed writing up my list here last year so I think I'll start fresh for 2023, I've a feeling the first few months might be quite similar to last year and to be honest I'm more looking forward to expanding on my growing interest in botany and entomology than anything else but I guess...

www.birdforum.net

It's definitely not a DSLR and you're probably a better photographer than me, I'm still very much a record shot guy. But those are a bunch of photos from regular birding in the UK in january light and weather. Quite often cropped quite hard.

 

[Oregon John]

I've had the nikon for a year used only in basic auto mode and got nice results in sunshine on still birds and decent record shots at distance. I'll often use it to check out stuff thats well out of bins range and avoid wasting time getting closer to things that turn out to be totally misidentified.

I've recently (in the last week) switched to bird mode with bursts and am finding that it is very good for focus (if only on a few out of the bursts) but i'm still needing to improve exposure on those.

All the photos in my year list thread were taken with it

Owen's wildlife for 2023

I really enjoyed writing up my list here last year so I think I'll start fresh for 2023, I've a feeling the first few months might be quite similar to last year and to be honest I'm more looking forward to expanding on my growing interest in botany and entomology than anything else but I guess...

www.birdforum.net

It's definitely not a DSLR and you're probably a better photographer than me, I'm still very much a record shot guy. But those are a bunch of photos from regular birding in the UK in january light and weather. Quite often cropped quite hard.

Thanks for the input, Owen. The Lumix doesn't have a bird mode, so that may be a plus for the Nikon. Your photos look good. At least for the sort of ID and record-keeping I'm interested in.