• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

The new Nikon is here (1 Viewer)

nikonmike

Well-known member
Thats a disappointment the 500mm is the converted focal length its actually a 185mm times 2.7,nikon think it will make a wildlife camera.what planet are they on.
 

Telephoto Paul

Well-known member
I wouldn't discount it yet, a lot of world class wildlife photography is done at or around 500mm...

If you're after long-range shots of birds in the distance, something like the P900 will probably still be more useful. But for working on closer subjects, the step up in quality from a 1" sensor should be worthwhile. The other area where bridge cameras have been weaker has been performance in terms of speed and responsiveness - if they've managed to bring across some of that magic from the 1 series it could be massive factor in it's favour (I've not found a UK RRP yet but it looks to be a step up in price so the economics might have allowed them the processing power to do that).

I could see this being one of the better options for taking on safari for those who don't/can't do a DSLR + long telephoto.
 

nikonmike

Well-known member
I wouldn't discount it yet, a lot of world class wildlife photography is done at or around 500mm...

If you're after long-range shots of birds in the distance, something like the P900 will probably still be more useful. But for working on closer subjects, the step up in quality from a 1" sensor should be worthwhile. The other area where bridge cameras have been weaker has been performance in terms of speed and responsiveness - if they've managed to bring across some of that magic from the 1 series it could be massive factor in it's favour (I've not found a UK RRP yet but it looks to be a step up in price so the economics might have allowed them the processing power to do that).

I could see this being one of the better options for taking on safari for those who don't/can't do a DSLR + long telephoto.

I have a D7200 and 150-600 and also a P900 i use for my longer walks,i really wanted something long and lighter than the DX to replace the P900 with a better sensor,obviously not the new Nikon.
 

Telephoto Paul

Well-known member
The problem is there's no way around the fact that longer physical focal lengths increase weight. (Fresnel lenses aside). You need it to be f/5.6 at worst and there's little gained by the reduction in image circle size, so of they made it with an actual 500mm lens, it'd be barely any lighter than your DSLR lens. 'Faking' focal length by using 35mm equivalent and accepting the trade-off of smaller sensor is the only way; this new camera has a larger sensor as a starting point, so it can only go so far with equivalent focal length.
 
Last edited:

nikonmike

Well-known member
The problem is there's no way around the fact that longer physical focal lengths increase weight. (Fresnel lenses aside). You need it to be f/5.6 at worst and there's little gained by the reduction in image circle size, so of they made it with an actual 500mm lens, it'd be barely any lighter than your DSLR lens. 'Faking' focal length by using 35mm equivalent and accepting the trade-off of smaller sensor is the only way; this new camera has a larger sensor as a starting point, so it can only go so far with equivalent focal length.

Correct but the 1 inch sensor does allow for some reduction in lens size,i have a V2 and the 30-110 is small,i can put my 70-300 on the V2 and get longer than the new one but from experience i really need longer for the areas i walk.
May have to look elsewhere,i have a feeling the new Panasonic 100-400 could be a compromise just not checked size ect yet.
The other solution to get me close to what i want would be the new 300 and 1.4 on a 1 series but i would want to upgrade my V2 for a later sensor.
If the new Nikon had met my needs it would have been a cheap answer.
 

PeteQuad

Well-known member
I have a D7200 and 150-600 and also a P900 i use for my longer walks,i really wanted something long and lighter than the DX to replace the P900 with a better sensor,obviously not the new Nikon.

Why do you say that? Is the focal length just not long enough? I was just in the middle of taking a serious look at the Canon G3 X when this was announced and I'm not sure if this could be a better option if the AF is faster/better. If the reach on this isn't enough, do you think the 600mm of the Canon would be? Before all this I was thinking about picking up a new camera body and a Tamron 150-600 but decided I didn't want to invest in all that right now.
 

nikonmike

Well-known member
Why do you say that? Is the focal length just not long enough? I was just in the middle of taking a serious look at the Canon G3 X when this was announced and I'm not sure if this could be a better option if the AF is faster/better. If the reach on this isn't enough, do you think the 600mm of the Canon would be? Before all this I was thinking about picking up a new camera body and a Tamron 150-600 but decided I didn't want to invest in all that right now.

Not sure which part your asking about so will break it down a bit more,the 150-600 is long enough but too heavy for me on long walks,the P900 is light enough and has enough reach but would have liked the something close in reach and weight to the P900 on a larger sensor
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
Not sure which part your asking about so will break it down a bit more,the 150-600 is long enough but too heavy for me on long walks,the P900 is light enough and has enough reach but would have liked the something close in reach and weight to the P900 on a larger sensor

Proportionately bigger optics are required for a larger sensor, so a lightweight optics breakthrough is needed allow a big sensor P900 that remains portable. Alas, no such breakthrough is imminent afaik.
 

pe'rigin

Well-known member
I think with any of these optics it’s a compromise between weight and quality.

I wouldn’t dismiss the new 1” sensor just yet and hopefully it will be a lot better than those in the V range.

The one problem I have with this type of camera is the optical range of the lens. Nikon have tried to make an all-in-one zoom type lens, I think that’s a bad design based on compromise.

Yet it’s lighter than lugging around a hefty 600mm lens. I have the Fuji XT-1 and the images are excellent, but you have dedicated lenses, again it’s not light to carry all the kit around but compared to my Nikon it does save my back.

I would look at this camera when it becomes available, test it on full zoom against the AF and see if it fits the bill.

But with any results it breaks down to what you have achieved in the past and your expectations for the future. I’ve been disappointed with Nikons efforts so far; maybe for once they’ve got it right?
 

PeteQuad

Well-known member
OK I got you. I don't mind the weight of the Nikon DL24-500 or Canon G3 X since compared to something like the Tamron 150-600 lens (which I was considering) they are very small.

From what I am reading the Canon G3 X takes nice pictures but has downsides in that the autofocus is not great at 600mm and the burst rate is very slow. The specs on the Nikon DL24-500 suggest the autofocus and burst rate will be much better than the Canon. My only concern is whether the 500mm will be enough reach (and obviously what the pictures look like).
 

Brin

Well-known member
Out of reach for most us, I know, but lots of pros and semi pros now who take wildlife are using the Canon 200-400 with built-in 1.4 extender/teleconverter rather than the prime lenses. It's still pretty big, though.
If I wasn't tied to Nikon lenses I'd do the same I think
 

Chris B.

Well-known member
OK I got you. I don't mind the weight of the Nikon DL24-500 or Canon G3 X since compared to something like the Tamron 150-600 lens (which I was considering) they are very small.

From what I am reading the Canon G3 X takes nice pictures but has downsides in that the autofocus is not great at 600mm and the burst rate is very slow. The specs on the Nikon DL24-500 suggest the autofocus and burst rate will be much better than the Canon. My only concern is whether the 500mm will be enough reach (and obviously what the pictures look like).

I own the P900 for shooting when it's inconvenient to take my Canon "big rig" (1D4 and 500). Although I've enjoyed using the exceptional zoom, in many cases, the ponderously slow burst speed, EVF and lack of RAW capability has been disappointing. I'm willing to give up that long zoom in favor of getting a much larger sensor, raw, and a fast burst rate with the DL24-500. Guess I'll have to wait until June though...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top