MegaZoom Cameras - Canon SX vs Nikon P1000

[bigbendmarine]

Splitting this thread out of the "It's Spring!" post where questions popped up about the cameras I use to take photos/videos of wildlife at long distances using two different cameras, a Canon SX60 (max optical zoom of 65x) costing approximately $600 and a Nikon P1000 (max optical zoom of 125x) costing approximately $1,000.

In the "It's Spring!" thread I mentioned that though the P1000 has the higher zoom, that if walking (or even hunting from my stands) I tend to reach for the Canon SX60 (newer model is SX70 but has same 65x zoom). Think these pics will show why -- primarily due to both physical size of the P1000 being more cumbersome AND really big weight difference.



Before sharing pictures I took at known distances for comparison's sake, I'll also stress again that both do the same things pretty darn well -- take good long-distance shots, while they also have the same weakness with very small sensor sizes making low-light conditions their kryptonite. In dusk/dawn scenarios they struggle to focus at all in auto-setting modes, whereas the greater the light available the sharper images become.


So I'll start with the Canon SX 65x zoom.

This first picture shows the exact same view for BOTH cameras with zero zoom -- taken from a tripod in my home looking out towards a narrow mixed gravel/clover/grass road that leads to a pond with a sheltered dock 600 yards behind the house.



Next shot is actually one taken by distraction... noticed a blue bird sitting in the magnolia tree to the far left in the photo above... distance from house to the tree is approximately 45 yards.



Next shot is of a pear tree where I tried a few grafts... sure not sharing to show off the crude grafting, but more to compare images of the zip-log bags... distance of photo is 150 yards.



Next photo is of clover just in front of the start of the road down to the pond -- distance is just a couple yards shy of 200 yards.



And finally a few max range shots out between 600 yards and 800 yards.

This shot of my dock is a distance of 600 yards with the 65x optical zoom but no digital zoom -- digital zoom is basically just cropping substituted for actual optical zoom, so the greater the use of digital zoom the blurrier/less detailed photos get. While the picture is not ultra-sharp, you can still tell looking at the firepit right in front of the dock that if a buck walked out and stood still you would probably be able to ID it, and again this is at 600 yards. The lily pad field behind the dock is actually 800 yards from the camera. Look closely at the docu and though not super sharp, you can make out a tackle box to the left as well as a white bin used to hold fish food and the sliver of green visible at the end of the dock is the bottom of my canoe flipped over for storage on a step-down area at the end of the dock.



Final pictures include digital zoom ("cropping zoom") so are a bit less sharp. Still... stress again, the lily pads on the other side of the pond are 800 yards away and when taking pictures at that distance when it gets real hot, heat wave related distortion even starts to impact the quality of the photos with BOTH the Canon and Nikon cameras.





Up next photos from the Nikon P1000...

 

[bigbendmarine]

So here are shots from the P1000 using the same subjects / distances.

First, the grafts at 150 yards.



Max zoom of the bag makes even the Zip Loc logo relatively easy to see.



Now for the 200 yard clover shot... think it shows a bit more detail on the grass seed heads behind the clover, but it focused on them so specifically that the clover looks about the same as in the Canon photo or even blurrier in the forefront.



Dock photos are a bit more detailed but still slightly impacted by heat distortion common with longer distance photos in Florida. But compared to Canon shot, bit easier to see detail in rope wrapping columns, and with tackle box and white plastic bin holding fish food easier to ID. Zoom at this point is around the same optical 65x the Canon offers.



Actually then used the full 125x optical zoom the Nikon offers to make sure my 14-year-old daughter and her first boyfriend ONLY HUGGED on a walk they made down to the dock while I was doing my camera test (unbeknownst to them! ). Definitely can make out the rope, tackle box, and plastic bin holding fish food better in this photo.


And finally a shot of the lily pad field at 800 yards. Heat distortion and possibly even small movement of tripod at such extreme distance has the shot looking about the same as the Canon though just a bit more zoomed in. At 800 yards though, to be able to make out petals of a lily flower is kind of hard to complain over even if not tack sharp.

 

[bigbendmarine]

Don't have a video to share right off the bat taken with the P1000 but can share this one taken years ago with the Canon of 2 bucks I had giving each other the cold shoulder during a bit of a Mexican standoff... this shows how images get grainer with lower light / when not brighter daylight conditions, but I still enjoyed capturing it and especially so at a distance of approximately 500 yards.

 

[bigbendmarine]

Which brings me full-circle back to the $600 cost for the Canon vs the $1,000 for the Nikon, the notable size / weight difference, and the limitations both run into at substantial distances of 500+ yards when the tiniest amount of shake, heat wave distortion, and limited light can start noticeably impacting the quality of both...

I think for general grab-and-go use, the Canon is the hands-down winner and especially so at a savings of approximately $400. Only would likely recommend the Nikon to anyone bent on getting the absolute greatest detail possible on well-lit days with very long views.

That's just my take, but hopefully the shares will help y'all form your own opinions.