• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

What Superzoom? Dissatisfied with the Nikon P100 (2 Viewers)

Hi Niels,
I will try that. I have been looking through the manual for my best options.

The manual is not very good. They do a terrible job explaining the "U" setting.

Even when there is nothing in the way, the Nikon images are not sharp.
Thanks.
Sue

My Canon pocket camera takes better pictures than the Nikon for anything that doesn't need much zoom.
 
I thought I'd put up a few examples.
These are shot with the Sony Dsc H5. I'm sure they were shot on automatic because I rarely changed the settings unless I shot macro. These were shot through limbs and even though they're not the best, they are very clear in comparison to the Nikon. On the Rufous-crowned Sparrow, I've posted a re-sized (800x600)and the same photo cropped and resized. The others I won't crop, but they could easily be done and be fairly clear. I am going to follow this posting with samples of the Nikon.
Sue
 

Attachments

  • rcsparrow2.jpg
    rcsparrow2.jpg
    263.2 KB · Views: 59
  • rcsp2.jpg
    rcsp2.jpg
    217.6 KB · Views: 64
  • roadrunner.jpg
    roadrunner.jpg
    260.6 KB · Views: 58
  • spotted towhee.jpg
    spotted towhee.jpg
    322.8 KB · Views: 61
Last edited:
These were taken on the shutter priorty of the Nikon because the auto doesn't work at all. (Neils, I can't seem to find a menu for the 'A' setting--still messing. I did give the 'A' a try before with no luck, but I'll try to configure as you suggested.)

So, the first bird--the Gray-headed Tanager was not far and obviously doesn't have the tangle that some of my Sony examples did. I don't know how many photos I shot of this patient bird and these were the best.
In the last two of the Fulvous-vented Euphonia, the first photo doesn't look all that bad, but you can see that when it's cropped it is very fuzzy. This would have been a piece of cake with the Sony--I used it for four years and I know this would have been a great shot.
I guess I'm trying to say that I still think the Nikon should do better even on auto setting and I would be happy with the same kind of ease and quality I had with the H5.
Sue
 

Attachments

  • ght1.jpg
    ght1.jpg
    298.6 KB · Views: 56
  • ght2.jpg
    ght2.jpg
    305.1 KB · Views: 48
  • ght3.jpg
    ght3.jpg
    253.6 KB · Views: 66
  • fve.jpg
    fve.jpg
    268.9 KB · Views: 64
  • fve2.jpg
    fve2.jpg
    250 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:
Sorry, two more from the Sony--I just had too.;) This Dusky-headed Flycatcher was not only a pretty good distance, but as you can see, he's buried. This was really asking a lot of the camera and it's not great but I could ID this bird and sometimes I really need the help. I can't get this from the Nikon. I hope Niels suggestion works and I can somehow get this camera to work for me but I have serious doubts. And that still wouldn't address the lens getting stuck.
Sue
 

Attachments

  • dhfly1.jpg
    dhfly1.jpg
    320 KB · Views: 58
  • dhfly2.jpg
    dhfly2.jpg
    183.3 KB · Views: 63
Sue, from looking at your blog I see you are cruising the world on a sailboat. I think your husband is right and you should get a dslr. I say this because the build quality of ALL current superzooms is just not very robust IMO, and they certainly won't live long in a "wet" environment.

My ~2yr old Canon SX1 had a lens motor failure within a day of me taking it to the shore for a windsurfing competion last year and now, after a month at beach in Hawaii photographing humpback whales, two buttons that control ISO and the Trash have stopped working.

Yes you will have to carry more weight and bulk, but with the right strap (Sunsniper or Black Rapid) those issues can be mitigated. In exchange you will get MUCH better photos with far less frustations in focusing in all light conditions. The only real issue will be cost I guess since you will need to spend ~US$2000 for the camera and lens.

I am a Nikon shooter, but in your case I would give serious consideration to the Pentax K-5. It is the smallest of the prosumer bodies that is fully weather resistant/sealed. With this body I recommend you get their 300mm F4 lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. This will give a nice long effective 630mm focal length and a very Hi Rez sensor that performs well in low light situations with pics that will take heavy cropping. For "normal" pics you should also get a ~35mm F1.8-ish prime from Pentax or Sigma and you will be set.

Most folks that shoot dlsrs for wildlife also carry a small pocket cam for those times when you encounter something really close or for macro. The Canon S95 seems to be the current camera to beat.
 
Last edited:
My proposals seems to be limited by the cameras that I have used ;) you may be better off on the nikon with using the S mode and choose a rather short shutter time, because the camera seems to default to 1/125s shutter time which is a little low for the max zoom. That probably explains the problems with most of the tanager shots. The shots of the Euphonia seems to suffer from the tendency for nikon cameras to choose the nearest object in the area and to choose an oval or whatever the camera thinks is face-shaped, which is default behavior for full automatic.

That again means that you should go into the menu and try to look for the smallest possible focusing area (spot focusing).

All this based on my incomplete understanding of your situation, it would be easier if I had access to your camera or one identical to it.

Niels
 
Sue, from looking at your blog I see you are cruising the world on a sailboat. I think your husband is right and you should get a dslr. I say this because the build quality of ALL current superzooms is just not very robust IMO, and they certainly won't live long in a "wet" environment.

My ~2yr old Canon SX1 had a lens motor failure within a day of me taking it to the shore for a windsurfing competion last year and now, after a month at beach in Hawaii photographing humpback whales, two buttons that control ISO and the Trash have stopped working.

Yes you will have to carry more weight and bulk, but with the right strap (Sunsniper or Black Rapid) those issues can be mitigated. In exchange you will get MUCH better photos with far less frustations in focusing in all light conditions. The only real issue will be cost I guess since you will need to spend ~US$2000 for the camera and lens.

I am a Nikon shooter, but in your case I would give serious consideration to the Pentax K-5. It is the smallest of the prosumer bodies that is fully weather resistant/sealed. With this body I recommend you get their 300mm F4 lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. This will give a nice long effective 630mm focal length and a very Hi Rez sensor that performs well in low light situations with pics that will take heavy cropping. For "normal" pics you should also get a ~35mm F1.8-ish prime from Pentax or Sigma and you will be set.

Most folks that shoot dlsrs for wildlife also carry a small pocket cam for those times when you encounter something really close or for macro. The Canon S95 seems to be the current camera to beat.

Hi RJM,
Thanks a lot for your input. Are you trying to put me back to square one again? ;)
It sounds a bit much to have to carry two cameras, an extra lens and my bins. If I were home, I wouldn’t mind so much because I take my backpack and carrying the extra things wouldn’t be too much. Here, it is too hot and steamy for my backpack. I put my water and bug spray in a bum bag because it’s much cooler.
I guess I could go without taking macro, but just the last two days I got a baby tarantula and a beautiful caterpillar. It was nice to be able to get photos.
My daughter has a dslr and I’m going home in May. I think I may take hers out with me a few times and see what it’s like. I don’t know what, if any, lenses they have, but that could be a good experiment.
So the newer superzooms must not be as good as my old one. I was careful with it and I had it for four years—from Turkey on. The only reason it broke is because I dropped it on a tile floor. We are on our last leg of the trip so it wouldn’t have to last forever. We were going to go through the Panama Canal this year, but I am enjoying this place too much to leave. What’s another year of camping in a hole in the water?
I have time to try things and think about things. Thanks for the suggestions of what to look into. I think my sister-in-law has a fancy camera too—I may be able to check out a few options while I’m home. I just wish I didn’t have a few months of frustration now. Oh well, I am supposed to be birding and not photographing, right?
Sue
 
My proposals seems to be limited by the cameras that I have used ;) you may be better off on the nikon with using the S mode and choose a rather short shutter time, because the camera seems to default to 1/125s shutter time which is a little low for the max zoom. That probably explains the problems with most of the tanager shots. The shots of the Euphonia seems to suffer from the tendency for nikon cameras to choose the nearest object in the area and to choose an oval or whatever the camera thinks is face-shaped, which is default behavior for full automatic.

That again means that you should go into the menu and try to look for the smallest possible focusing area (spot focusing).

All this based on my incomplete understanding of your situation, it would be easier if I had access to your camera or one identical to it.

Niels

I'll read things again. Maybe armed with the proper verbage I can find something. I'm just not a techy. I go brain dead when I start hearing the 'how it works' lingo.;)
Sue
 
I see two problems with the mink photo, poor focus and motion blur.

Looking at the Exif info in the photo, it used "AF Area Mode = single area (0) AF Point (Area Selected) = center (0)",which is exactly what you'd want, yet it focused on the background. I'm wondering if all that happened is that you missed, and the animal wasn't in the AF frame, or it moved.

With a lively subject around vegetation, sometimes it's better to focus on something at a similar distance, and lock the focus before taking the shot. Sometimes only manual focus will get a decent result, which was my main motivation for getting an SLR. MF can be very fiddly on compact cameras. It doesn't have to be, but that's how they design them.

It was taken at 1/60, which is too slow at what it says is equivalent to a 678mm focal length. It had the aperture wide open, so no improvement is possible there. It used ISO 259, so I guess if you use something other than auto mode you could have raised that. I'm not sure how grainy the higher settings are on that camera, but grainy is better than blurry.

It looks like a fairly dark place. As I walk around, I occasionally adjust the ISO up or down so it's ready. Still, if the focus was right, it would have been way better than it is even with the ISO as it was.

As others have suggested, I also use Aperture priority, and leave the lens wide open most of the time. I want it to use the fastest speed possible.

The bird photo was taken with "Scene Capture Type = landscape (1)", which means it was told to ignore close objects.
 
Last edited:
As others have suggested, I also use Aperture priority, and leave the lens wide open most of the time. I want it to use the fastest speed possible.

AP is a useless setting for all practicle purposes on variable aperture zoom lens, especially on a superzoom camera. The camera's exposure program software will always keep the lens as wide as possible for that particular zoom focal length as diffraction is a real problem with small sensors beyond f5.6. Only when shooting directly into the sun will see a superzoom stop down, and seldom beyond f8 as long as there is sufficient shutter speed and a lower ISO available to it.

With a superzoom, Shutter Priority is usually a better choice over AP, but now most cameras let you limit ISO within a min-max range while also setting a shutter speed floor. And because the image stabilization is so good on these new cameras you can usually ignore the old rule "shutter speed = 1/focal length" and go 2 or more stops lower. So with the current cameras a shutter speed between 1/125sec -1/250sec is usually fast enough for relatively still targets at max zoom.

Generally, Program mode is the mode to use in most scenarios. Manual is also usefull in difficult lighting and when you are looking to create a certain effect.
 
I see two problems with the mink photo, poor focus and motion blur.

Looking at the Exif info in the photo, it used "AF Area Mode = single area (0) AF Point (Area Selected) = center (0)",which is exactly what you'd want, yet it focused on the background. I'm wondering if all that happened is that you missed, and the animal wasn't in the AF frame, or it moved.

With a lively subject around vegetation, sometimes it's better to focus on something at a similar distance, and lock the focus before taking the shot. Sometimes only manual focus will get a decent result, which was my main motivation for getting an SLR. MF can be very fiddly on compact cameras. It doesn't have to be, but that's how they design them.

It was taken at 1/60, which is too slow at what it says is equivalent to a 678mm focal length. It had the aperture wide open, so no improvement is possible there. It used ISO 259, so I guess if you use something other than auto mode you could have raised that. I'm not sure how grainy the higher settings are on that camera, but grainy is better than blurry.

It looks like a fairly dark place. As I walk around, I occasionally adjust the ISO up or down so it's ready. Still, if the focus was right, it would have been way better than it is even with the ISO as it was.

It was a cloudy afternoon in late November. US Thanksgiving actually. In the woods where the beavers are making a new pond.

As others have suggested, I also use Aperture priority, and leave the lens wide open most of the time. I want it to use the fastest speed possible.

The bird photo was taken with "Scene Capture Type = landscape (1)", which means it was told to ignore close objects.

Most likely that was set for the camera to select the scene to use.
 
RJM,
Gene was on the net this a.m. reading Pentax stuff.:-O He is a Pentax fan. We have an old slr Pentax (I think it might still be on board in the aft-cabin.) I used it in Mexico and the South Pacific. I've got beautiful pictures of baby blue-footed Boobies on Isla Isabella, Mexico.
Sue
 
Sue if you are confident in you skills, that old slr and a nice lens is all you need. 35mm film is making a comeback among pros. Those "old" 35mm film cameras are smaller/lighter/cheaper and more reliable than today's digital behemoths. Moreover, they still have higher resolution than their current digital equivalent format and produce better colors. And since most film processors can also provide your prints on CD you now have the ultimate digital "RAW" file that you can play with in software to hearts content. Ironically, digital photographers spend hundreds if not thousands more $$$ on digital gear than they would on film INCLUDING the processing thus foregoing the remaing digital advantage.

Really the only thing digital brings to the table is immediate metering/exposure/sharpness feedback via a tiny low rez LCD screen and high sensitivity in poor light allowing faster shutter speeds in handheld shots.
 
Last edited:
Sue if you are confident in you skills, that old slr and a nice lens is all you need. 35mm film is making a comeback among pros. Those "old" 35mm film cameras are smaller/lighter/cheaper and more reliable than today's digital behemoths. Moreover, they still have higher resolution than their current digital equivalent format and produce better colors. And since most film processors can also provide your prints on CD you now have the ultimate digital "RAW" file that you can play with in software to hearts content. Ironically, digital photographers spend hundreds if not thousands more $$$ on digital gear than they would on film INCLUDING the processing thus foregoing the remaing digital advantage.

Really the only thing digital brings to the table is immediate metering/exposure/sharpness feedback via a tiny low rez LCD screen and high sensitivity in poor light allowing faster shutter speeds in handheld shots.

These statements are probably true everywhere except here where I live; there is no facility that can develop any decent film anymore! That also means that for a traveling person, this strategy should be considered more than once, what level of service will there be in your port of call?

Niels
 
Really the only thing digital brings to the table is immediate metering/exposure/sharpness feedback via a tiny low rez LCD screen and high sensitivity in poor light allowing faster shutter speeds in handheld shots.

I couldn't disagree more. Digital means almost free archive of one's live. Birds, wildlife, places and experiences, the kids and family all almost free. Several hundred thousand photos of one's life experiences on a $120 terabite USB drive is almost free and easily managed.

Film is over for 99.999% of people who take pictures going forward. Film is a barrier to the use of photos. Film is a dead end.
 
Sue if you are confident in you skills, that old slr and a nice lens is all you need. 35mm film is making a comeback among pros. Those "old" 35mm film cameras are smaller/lighter/cheaper and more reliable than today's digital behemoths. Moreover, they still have higher resolution than their current digital equivalent format and produce better colors. And since most film processors can also provide your prints on CD you now have the ultimate digital "RAW" file that you can play with in software to hearts content. Ironically, digital photographers spend hundreds if not thousands more $$$ on digital gear than they would on film INCLUDING the processing thus foregoing the remaing digital advantage.

Really the only thing digital brings to the table is immediate metering/exposure/sharpness feedback via a tiny low rez LCD screen and high sensitivity in poor light allowing faster shutter speeds in handheld shots.
RJM,
I didn't realize that film processors could put prints on CD. Well, I guess I did. People put their old stuff on CD, don't they? I just never thought about it. I have some problems though. First, we are sort of isolated and finding a place to develop might be a challenge. We can check at the mall we take the shuttle to. Also, I go through hundreds of shots and I couldn't be so profligate if I had to pay for every image. I rarely come back from a day with less than 50 shots.
I did like the old camera better than the digitals. I liked that I could turn the lens to focus, and I found most shots came out because you saw exactly what you got. (Although I guess I can do all that with dslrs?) One of the last times I used it was in New Zealand. I went on a trip to the South Island and shot two long (36?) rolls of slides. I took them to the processor in Opua and they processed them as prints and screwed up all my shots! Wekas, bungy jumpers and Yellow-eyed Penguins were all yellow negative strips.:-C
I'll break out the camera and see what we've got. It may be rusty!
Thanks!
 
My experience is that film to CD is low resolution and small file size unless you go though a lot of effort and unnecessary cost.
 
These statements are probably true everywhere except here where I live; there is no facility that can develop any decent film anymore! That also means that for a traveling person, this strategy should be considered more than once, what level of service will there be in your port of call?

Niels
With making coffee and messing about, it took me so long to post my answer that you posted this before I finished mine. As you will read, I make these exact points.;)
But maybe there is a place near the grocery. I could try a few rolls, at least I'd have a camera that gives clear images! I've even thought of getting out my old 2 megapixel canon.;)
Sue
EDIT: Same with yours Crazyfingers.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't disagree more. Digital means almost free archive of one's live. Birds, wildlife, places and experiences, the kids and family all almost free. Several hundred thousand photos of one's life experiences on a $120 terabite USB drive is almost free and easily managed.

Film is over for 99.999% of people who take pictures going forward. Film is a barrier to the use of photos. Film is a dead end.

Ha far from it my friend! Film is making a comeback as more and more pros get fed up with digital merry-go-round.

I'll wager USB as a storage format won't even exist in 10yrs. The same way tape was eclipsed by the floppy that was eclipsed by the cd that was ecliped the DVD-R/RW that has been eclipsed by Blue Ray, all within the last 20yrs. Good luck to your grandkids when they find that old USB drive in the attic and want to retrieve the data!

And who enjoys shooting "RAW", a non-standard format that even the camera OEMs can't keep straight within their own lineup!!! Thousands of manhours are wasted post processing at home.

Then there is the camera. Film cameras came with a 10 page manual. Now even the smallest digicams have a 100 page manual! Digital promises to be easier/idiot proof but it isn't!

Prints are also an important part of photography. No one goes to a photo gallery to stare at an LCD monitor. If you spent $$$ on a dslr just to look at 100% crops on a low rez LCD and never print you pissed off your money.
 
Last edited:
I'll wager USB as a storage format won't even exist in 10yrs. The same way tape was eclipsed by the floppy that was eclipsed by the cd that was ecliped the DVD-R/RW that has been eclipsed by Blue Ray, all within the last 20yrs. Good luck to your grandkids when they find that old USB drive in the attic and want to retrieve the data!

Prints are still an important part of photography. No one goes to a photo gallery to stare at an LCD monitor. If you spent $$$ on a dslr and never print you pissed off your money.

It takes a very small effort to move digital files to any new digital storage format when technology suggests.

It takes very small effort to convert one digital file format to another with free online file conversion utilities.

If the only enduring result of a photo is film or paper, the vast majority of photos are DEAD to posterity and to re-use without lots of time and/or cost to retrieve them.

Analog is dead as a storage medium. Digital needs to be maintained and moved and converted over time but the cost to keep 100% of the photos is close to zero while the time and cost of preserving analog photos in any quantity is orders of magnitude greater if one wishes to preserve any quality.

Prints are easy with a home inkjet. If you want better or larger there are services that will print permanently and in larger format the 1% of photos that really need to be printed.

Analog is dead because of the cost and time put them into the only manageable an assessable medium going forwards and that's digital.

Analog is a dead-end. Digital moves forward with ease and low to no cost.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top