Just ordered my first p1100 superzoom. What should I expect? Will my new zoom addiction be satisfied?
>>4526896I don't see the point since you'll rapidly get blocked by atmospheric aberrations and vibrations anyway. Past 300mm it's almost impossible to get a good pic without a tripod
>>4526896>what should I expectregret
>>4526896Are you going to prove the earth is flat with that badboy?
>>4526896With plenty of light you'll be fine. It's BIS for atmospheric aberrations like mirages and green flash which are well lit, tiny and already fuzzy. And given enough light you can use it to take creepshots of birbs daytime. Best results shooting from as near as practical.
>>4527046My phone takes 12mpix images so I believe 16mpix will actually be enough and won't rape my drive space.Don't they have filters to reduce chromatic aberration?
>>4527048Didn't you read the reference guide before ordering?(Search for Nikon Download Center if the link below doesn't work for you.)https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/644/COOLPIX_P1100.html
>>4527048MP is only one metric of many which helps determine image quality. Not going to get into it because I would need to effortpost on a phone. Tl;dr, it'll be somewhat better than a phone in very good lighting conditions, but struggle in many scenarios where a bigger sensor camera would not.
>>4527051Bigger sensor has no reach.
>>4526896maybe. what's the eta on some sweet sweet high magnification pics?
>>4527063I should get the camera tomorrow or Saturday.
>>4526896Phone camera size sensor on a dark superzoom lens. Expect mushy noisy mess.
>>4527056>muh reechAs other anon pointed out, beyond typical telephoto / super telephoto distances you're going to get fucked by atmospheric distortion, heat haze, and the fact you're trying to hand hold some moron-tier focal lengths (which means your shutter speed will be very high). Bigger sensor cameras can handle these distances just fine.Longer telephotos are for small subjects, not far subjects.The P1100 is scarcely smaller than a full frame like an R6 with a 100-500mm lens. Going APS-C like an R10 + 100-400mm lens would net you a far better setup than any bridge camera will. The only saving grace is the P1100 is cheap... uhhh>... googles pricesNevermind, OP literally spent about the same to get a 1/2.3" (phone sized) sensor strapped to a sizable piece of glass. Not terrible per se, but I have no idea why you wouldn't just get a crop ILC then.
>>4527069Crops won't give me detail when the object is literally kilometers away.
>>4527072Why would you try to photograph something kms away? Wildlife and birding is about getting close, long telephoto is for smaller subjects not for shooting far away. If your subject is more than 20m away your results will be shit and no amount of crop will save it. The only thing this bridge shitter is good for is literally perving on the beach. Nothing else.
>>4527073Becayse that nigga sits on a clif/mountain.
>>4527075You need to get closer
>>4527076It sits hundreds of meters away over a hole.
>>4527077Climb a tree then. Or climb a mountain.
>>4527077LOL skill issue
>>4527078https://cdn.galleries.smcloud.net/t/galleries/gf-11np-jtZs-gfAQ_tatry-orla-perc-994x828.webp
>>4527072Nigga nothing is going to give you detail when shit is miles away. You are quite literally going to be taking photos of haze and sun bleed.Go ahead. Sit a mile down the road and use your expensive underperforming camera to take photos. Dissapoint yourself then sell it.
>>4527095This one will.https://youtu.be/rRrqH8N67tk
>>4527095Depends on the weather really. The Norwood duo did a fine demo of its capabilities a while ago. In a really hot day you won't be able to read license plates as reliably from 2km away but other than that it's fine. This is a good demo too:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=js5aCB1Q3kI
>>4527100https://youtu.be/mikru00gin4
>>4527100>woah 170mm that's impossible to do with an ILC>Here's a moon shot in broad daylight with visible heat shimmer waow>Enjoy this zero detail silhouette of birds >Shaky video of helicopter (with more heat shimmer again lol)>Low detail turtle>Haze and shimmer, the video reveal
>>4527103
>>4527103Maybe this is what I want to see? Your camera can't see that far.
https://youtu.be/Xky4d24xC0s
>>4527100>>4527102>>4527107Those are small res sampling. In thelow probability that you are not trolling (like Ambush did with the P900) , for a good photo you will want the megapickles and the fine detail. You won't have any fine detail when everything is mush from haze and atmospheric effects. I have been chasing this shit for a decade and no matter how big of a lens you go you cannot rule out the physics and atmosphere
>>4527125I used to make pictures with a 10Mpix Canon camera. You don't need more really.
>>4527126Not with that price. That same 10MP camera costs about $40-100 today depending if it comes with a kit lens or not.
>>4527129You pay for the 3000mm lens.
>>4527259You're supposed to take photos with the camera, not of the camera, anon. We expect beach creep shots tomorrow.
>>4526896no u didnt
>>4527324I did. Shut the fuck up. I'm making breakfast for my gf before I can unpack the Nikon.
>>4527328Have fun unpacking your new camera anon. I hope you take some coolpix with it. :D Get it?
>>4527329It's great! I can read newspaper of my neighbour in another building!
>>4527348Wow based spy anon. You should try doing street photography with it.
>>4527350I'm going to the lake park today to snap that heron hiding in the acorus "just out of reach".
>>4527348I wish they made a similar camera that starts at 100mm equivalent and keeps the lens sharp on the long end. Of course, nobody would buy such a specialized tool.
The day was dark as shit. Very cloudy.
top of a tower
more zoom!
IMO if you want crisper results than this can produce with the same level of zoom, I would suggest OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 IS with 2x teleconverter. It's only really viable in good light, but it would be a hell of a lot better when paired with an olympus body that can utilize the sync IS between the lens and body.
diffraction at all apertures :-O
This thread has nothing to do with photography and belongs on /g/, where are the mods.
>>4527460>>4527462>>4527463>>4527464>>4527465I actually threw up. This is awful, has to be a troll
>>4527514
>>4527517?
>>4527514/g/ told me to come here?
>>4527576Gearfags are always like that when someone makes effort to to take photos with the one they have. Now find good light and get your subjects in focus and properly exoused. Consider getting a sturdy tripod next. Have fun!
>>4527578The weather was literally the worst for this camera. 100% clouds, no sun and afternoon. Today will also bad and probably rain.
>>4527576Yes unfortunately the mods have left this place to die and are not enforcing the rules that should make this thread instant deleted. This should be at most 1 post in the gear thread.>>4527578>makes effort to to take photos >effort lmao what effort these are just underexposed snapshots>with the one they have This thread is litteraly about someone buying a camera. What are you talking about.>Now find good light and get your subjects in focus and properly exoused. Yes that would be great? So, you agree with me actually?
>>4527589>This thread is litteraly about someone buying a cameraOn a dead board like /p/? You should thank me for posting here.
>>4527599>you should be happy to be given shit and thank us for itno
>>4527460Wow this is bad. It is true that you can't beat physics. Thanks for reminding me to snap out of it every time I think getting a superzoom could be fun. I'll stick to my 55-250 and cropping.
>>4527599You want gratitude? Here? Fuck off!
Are you compensating?
>>4527460Just return it lol
>>4527715Why? Without huge zoom I would have no picture at all. The fox was far away and just for a couple of seconds.
>>4527723Nta. Man idk, it just seems like if you wanted shitty pictures you can hardly see any detail of you could just google shit. Plenty of phone snapshits that have been cropped to hell that would be about the same, and the fact there's no actual detail means you can pretend they're yours.What do you actually intend to do with pic rel? It's a blurry snapshit; more akin to a mosaic of smeared paint than a photo. If that was your intention then okay, but are you gonna frame this? Send it to your friends and family? Look back upon it fondly? Even the background is harsh to look at because of how strong the aberrations are on the gravel and grass.
>>4527726I spotted a fox in a distance and took a picture with maximum zoom before it got away. This is great even if the quality is not top quality.
>>4527726Also, it was late afternoon with next to no light. There will be sun on Tuesday and then I'll post better pics.
>>4527723Only based zoomer on the forum.
>>4527073>hurrrr just get closer!Yeah, like the sun and moon - just get closer to those. That works.Want me to cut out a photo of that $5000 fixed-lens Leica and paste it onto some cardboard, so you can carry it around like a retard and feel special? It's not like you're going to take photos anyway, or leave your mom's basement.
>>4527806> He doesn't take snaps of the moon from 20m awayNGMI
>>4527723Just fuck my shit up, the thread
>>4527025A Samuel Hyde connoisseur?
Literally the most embarrassing think Nikon has ever done.>>4527125I fessed up too quickly, a proper troll would have waited for people to buy it and get past the return window.
>>4527888Show me another camera with a 3000mm lens?
>>4527906>3000mm lensThe fact you believe what the marketing team slapped on the side of it is embarassing frankly.
>>4527727Imagine if you bought a gun with some kind of telescope mounted to it, you could have killed that fox and turned it into a hat
>>4527928It was a gun free zone.
>>4527948It was also an LGBT-free zone, and yet you were there
>>4527906The iceberg goes deep bro.
>>4526896has any based chad fashion photographer used a p1X00 for an editorial shoot? i bet it would rock
>>4527906He can show you much better photos with 300 mm lens
>>4528100a picture > no picture
>>4527906>3000mmEquivalent
>>4528186It's 125x zoom.
>>4527906> 1/2.3-in. type CMOS (crop 5.60)Total pixels: approx. 16.79 million> 4.3-539 mm (angle of view equivalent to that of 24-3000 mm lens in 35mm [135] format)> f/ 2.8-8
>>4528190That's just the ratio between the shortest and longest focal lengths it has. It's cool for its size sure but let's avoid delusions.
>>4528190125x what?
>>4528118You just defined you and him
>>4526896Seems like a good format for going to the park and taking photos of people's... Dogs.
>>4528781Or asses, or birds. You can litetally stand hundreds of meters away.
>>4528784It's also more concealable that an SLR with a big telephoto lens
>>4528794Not really. Anything above pocketable size sticks out like a sore thumb especially that big bulk of the P1100 not to mention when OP extends all his girth
>>4528794For hiding get tz99.
Can someone tell OP that "hadn't I bought <insert piece of gear> I would have never taken <insert photo>" only works if the photo doesn't suck shit?
Max zoom 3000mm other side of the lake ofc.
>>4528956is your objective to document stuff or to take good photos? because I tell you son, that camera is shit for the latter
>>4528958I'm training myself to notice things better.
I'm thinking about buying a pocketable superzoom, used or new, preferably under $500. what should I pay attention to? any recommendations?
>>4528974Panazonic tz99 has usb-c charging but no viewfinder and 30x zoom. Earlier model has the same sensor and zoom with viewfinder but no usb-c. It does RAW. If you give zero fucks about raw and usb-c Canon has a 40x zoom conpact. They are not water resistant like wg-8 and tg-7 btw.
>>4526896based creeper
>>4528974Canon PowerShot SX740 HS.The "Lite edition" is gay and removes usb-c charging for no reason. No raw support.
>>4528978>>4528981thanks. do they have an option to disable the fake pointless digital zoom entirely that a lot of these cameras have once you reach the optical tele length?
>>4529002In Panasonic you can just disable it. When RAW is enabled it disables digital zoom. Also disabled in P mode. 720mm wasn't enough zoom for me but hey, it fits into a pocket.
>>4531064yeah that's what it's all about
>>4531064Okay this is admittedly not bad. There's not much fine detail, and it took a very bright day to pull it off, but this is boomer birdography 101. Genuinely good enough to land yourself in a scarcely read photo magazine.
