-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Coolpix P1100 announced... Nothing changes (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Gzoladz74
- Start date
"Nikon’s target audience for the P1100 is bird watchers. To support them, the company included a selectable AF-area mode in the Bird Watching Mode where the same functions that can be assigned to the camera’s Fn button can now be assigned to the Fn1/Fn2 buttons on the optional ML-L7 Remote Control." - from Petapixel
Sounds all very nice, but I can't help myself ... poxy sensors like this 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm = 28.07 mm^2) ... they're just crap, no matter how you spin it. From 1" (13.2 x 8.8 mm = 116 mm^2) upwards things get interesting.
Sounds all very nice, but I can't help myself ... poxy sensors like this 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm = 28.07 mm^2) ... they're just crap, no matter how you spin it. From 1" (13.2 x 8.8 mm = 116 mm^2) upwards things get interesting.
A larger sensor changes the crop factor, which has an effect on the effective focal length and makes the perceived image field appear less "zoomed in". In addition, Nikon has always been concerned that a bridge camera that is "too good" might discourage people from buying their interchangeable lens camera system.
I am quite aware of what the crop factor does, having been an avid wildlife and nature photographer since about 1983. However, the image quality returned by such miniscule sensors is dismal as soon as you move up to printable sizes, such as A3 or above. For folks only looking at pix on a (phone) monitor, they are plenty big enough. Folks still living in real houses, not piled-up rabbit hutches, with real pictures on the wall, such images are useless, even if marketing tells you otherwise. I am aware that my mileage varies.
Peter.home
Well-known member
When you think the number of photos being printed at A3, or hung up on the wall versus those just posted on the internet must be 1 in 100000s, it probably makes sense to go with smaller sensors for the majority of products.
Not saying the Coolpix is the answer! They do seem to be hamstrung as suggested by Argent above.
Sorry. I was just expressing my opnion and even explaining why I hold such an opinion - as opposed to folks parroting stuff. I am glad there is a market for such sensors and hope many people buy them so Nikon shareholders are happy. If I had to buy a camera today it would be a Z8. Because independent of whether one accepts that small sensors just produce crappy images, Nikon do make some very nice toys.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I bought the Nikon P900 as I found the P1000 too unwieldy. When the P950 replaced the P900 I decided it wasn't enough of an upgrade to merit trading in my old camera. I'm not tempted by the P1100 either but I'm curious if the technically informed could tell me whether a lens like the P1000/1100's could (theoretically at least) be paired with a 1" sensor and with what result in terms of zoom range.
SimonLS
Well-known member
In the region of a 12-1465mm full frame equivalent, I think, comparing it to my RX10 iv. Can't see why it couldn't be done, though probably worth not making it quite so wide at the short end of the zoom.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
Thanks. I could cope with the beast if it had those specs (or a tad less reach if it made it appreciably smaller) particularly if it came with the sophisticated bird focus modes some cameras now sport. It's a shame there aren't more big zoom cameras with a 1" sensor.
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
This highlights something that I think all camera manufacturers have been getting away with for too long, whether Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, or anyone else.
They always quote the bridge camera zoom as being '93x', '125x', '50x', or whatever, without pointing out in large letters that that multiplication factor is simply based on how much longer the long end of the zoom is than the (usually very wide) short end and not the magnifying multiple of a 'normal' view. Thus this camera, with a full frame equivalent, according to your figure, of roughly 1465/12 (ie125x) gives no clear indication of its magnification power in the real world, as compared to a 1:1 naked eye view. Other cameras with a wide end of say 24mm equivalent, but with a zoom factor of say 65x at first glance look nowhere in the same league, but in this instance the 65x would be actually more powerful than the 125x!
In photography, the 'standard' has for decades been based on a 35mm camera with the 50mm lens giving a 'natural' view. This is which is why lenses with shorter focal lengths than this are called 'wide angle' and lenses with longer focal lengths are 'telephoto'. A 500mm lens, gives a 10 times magnification of the 50mm standard, a view similar to 10x binoculars, a 400mm givers 8X, etc. It just makes sense.
Why camera manufacturers departed from this standard when referring to compact bridge cameras is a mystery that can only be explained by their marketing department taking precedence over their optical engineers. The 1465mm long end which you refer to would therefore give a standard magnification of 30X. This is its 'true' power, but of course in the adverts, 30X doesn't look nearly as spectacular as 125x, yet in this case they are the same thing, save that 30x allows for a comparison with real life vision, rather than simply being a multiple of the wide end reach of the lens.
Last edited:
While most of your arguments make sense, the FF equivalent range you quote was for a hypothetical camera in which the sensor had been replaced with a 1-inch sensor. Nikon writes that the p1100 has a zoom range from 24 to 3000 mm equivalent. With your calculations, that would be about 60x magnification relative to the standard 50mm lens.
Niels
Niels
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Thank you for that Niels, I was simply quoting the figures used in the earlier post, although I did raise an eyebrow at the '12mm' wide end - that's super-wideness should have raised an alarm, but dinner was cooking and I didn't have time to open the spec. 60X as you say is twice the 30x I used, but it still does not give a clear description of how powerful the camera is in comparison with another model with a different wide angle length to it.
The manufacturers (they are all at it), use this 'nnn' x description as a selling point, yet they never make it clear whether their 50x is more powerful or less powerful than a competing 60x model, or even a 40x model. They just continue the confusion.
Without looking up the wide angle view on which a camera's quoted magnification is based, a potential purchaser has simply no chance of knowing how long the 'long' end is.
Using a 50mm as a datum would add clarity, but might sell fewer models in some cases.
Montereyman
Well-known member
For the average birder who wants to take an ID shot of a small bird camera like the newly announced P1100 from Nikon are ideal. Most do not want to haul around a FX camera with a 5 lb lens in the field. Most do not want to spend $3,000 or more for a camera and long focal length lens.
Nikon wisely kept the sensor at 16MP to have larger and more effective photosites. Nikon has also been introducing subject detection and even eye detection and more sophisticated light metering in its cameras. With camera the use of image stabilization is also important and especially at longer focal lengths that magnify both camera and subject movement.
I have been using cameras since 1965 when I started with a camera that used 4x5 sheet film and weighed more than 8 lbs. I have been delighted by each new generation of cameras but I also know that what I am willing to buy and carry around in the field is not typical for 99.9% of birders.
The use of XX magnification coincides with binolulars and scopes and it familiar and much easier to understand than 500mm on a APS-C or MFT or 1/2.5 or other sensor sizes. All that matters is whether the user can achieve an adequate image size in the frame and have a clear picture that is exposed well and without motion blurring.
Nikon wisely kept the sensor at 16MP to have larger and more effective photosites. Nikon has also been introducing subject detection and even eye detection and more sophisticated light metering in its cameras. With camera the use of image stabilization is also important and especially at longer focal lengths that magnify both camera and subject movement.
I have been using cameras since 1965 when I started with a camera that used 4x5 sheet film and weighed more than 8 lbs. I have been delighted by each new generation of cameras but I also know that what I am willing to buy and carry around in the field is not typical for 99.9% of birders.
The use of XX magnification coincides with binolulars and scopes and it familiar and much easier to understand than 500mm on a APS-C or MFT or 1/2.5 or other sensor sizes. All that matters is whether the user can achieve an adequate image size in the frame and have a clear picture that is exposed well and without motion blurring.
Exactly my use case...in relation to priorities for me it is: 1. Binocs, 2. Scope, 3. Camera.
I don't recall to have ever read a post from a birder getting emotional and frustrated about the binoculars that photographers use, not sure why some photographers are so concerned about the cameras that birders use...
MelospizaMelodiaFan
I photograph birds
A bridge camera with a 1/2.3 is light, compact, inexpensive, and takes shots good enough for identification and records. Forum members get quite nice shots with them.
Stating the xMagnification is just to reel in beginners, same as with telescopes and binoculars. It's an impressive optical zoom; hopefully the IS can keep up for handheld.
Stating the xMagnification is just to reel in beginners, same as with telescopes and binoculars. It's an impressive optical zoom; hopefully the IS can keep up for handheld.
That's exactly how it is. Birdwatchers use a P1100 for identification and for private photo albums and rarely for large-format canvas prints. The priority is good binoculars and spotting scopes. Most of those who want super image quality do digiscoping. The fun is much cheaper than a fast 600mm lens.
Montereyman
Well-known member
The size of the sensor and its photosites are going to reflect the needs of birders and not wildlife photographers. Smart companies like Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Olypus will have a16MP or less sensor and with better image stabilization can be used with smaller apertures and with slower shutter speeds.
A 1" sensor equates to a camera and zoom lens that weigh 5 times as much and costs 20 times as much and would not be appealing to a birder who wants an ID shot.
MiguelATF
Well-known member
I'm not the target audience for the P1100 at all - although I've seen examples of both the P900 and the P1000 from fellow birders on bird walks, and have always been pleasantly impressed with the 'reach' of their zooms. What I am the target audience for - and it would be wonderful if some Nikon marketing Execs happened to be browsing BirdForum and reading this particular thread - would be a Nikon competitor to Sony's RX10 Mark IV. Confession: I used to have an RX10.iv for awhile, and though it was capable of rather remarkably good pictures (partially due to the Zeiss lens, partially due to the f/2.8 aperture of the said lens, and partially due to the AF algorithms which Sony engineers had developed at the time), what drove me nuts was both the complicated nature of the Sony Menus (which required endless menu diving to figure out things), and the relatively unsatisfying layout of controls, buttons, etc. Nikon's recent lines of high-end mirrorless cameras (the various Z6's, Z7's, Z8's, and Zwhatever's) have featured the kind of thoughtful, logical and usable controls and menus which photographers like - and I can't help thinking that if someone at Nikon decided to make a seriously capable bridge-style camera with both a 1" sensor and a great zoom and (hopefully) a relatively fast max. aperture, it would sell like hotcakes - among both photographers and birders. Maybe it's an impossible dream, but... are you listening, Nikon?
Last edited:
I have had the Sony for a while now and felt rather lost at the onset. Read some specific books and still hardly found my way around at first. But I then found out that I could rather easily line up what I really needed under only one button, the Fn. And as the very compact RX100 has the same basic program, I now use that one as well for city visits etc,
Earnest lad
Well-known member
I started off photographing birds with a bridge camera before moving on to a crop sensor camera with a 600mm zoom lens. (five years ago)
I have found the quality of images improved.
With the bridge camera when you turned it on it took a few seconds to boot up and get to the point you could actually take pics. With the crop sensor dslr that point comes instantaneously.
With my bridge camera, zooming out was done by the motorized mechanism and it took a while to get to the point of maximum reach. This often meant the bird had often flown before you could snap it.
With the crop sensor dslr that zooming out is done manually and takes a far shorter time.
All in all, I found I was able to achieve many more shots and the quality has been better then I used to get with a bridge camera.
I do wonder how good the photographs can be from the modern bridge cameras like this coolpix 1100 though.
I have found the quality of images improved.
With the bridge camera when you turned it on it took a few seconds to boot up and get to the point you could actually take pics. With the crop sensor dslr that point comes instantaneously.
With my bridge camera, zooming out was done by the motorized mechanism and it took a while to get to the point of maximum reach. This often meant the bird had often flown before you could snap it.
With the crop sensor dslr that zooming out is done manually and takes a far shorter time.
All in all, I found I was able to achieve many more shots and the quality has been better then I used to get with a bridge camera.
I do wonder how good the photographs can be from the modern bridge cameras like this coolpix 1100 though.
