nion d750 sigma 500mm v nikon p950 for greater zoom v tc

[iwols]

been using the d750 for some time occasionally with the 150-500 sigma zoom and very happy with the results ,but if i needed more zoom would i be better with a 2x/3x tc or the p950 or would i be dissapointed with the p950 as some of the images look soft to me ,any advice comments welcome as always thanks

 

[GreenNinja67]

Chalk & cheese.

Look at the sensor sizes and decide for yourself.

 

[iwols]

thanks but just wondered if anyone had real world experiences to comment on

 

[JohnMcL7]

I think you'd be extremely disappointed with the P950. Its lens is actually a good bit shorter than your Sigma (357mm vs 500mm) so it has to use an absolutely tiny 1/2.3in sensor with a good amount of noise even at low isos and limited dynamic range, the lens is f6.5 at the long end which is going to be difficult to use due to the amount of noise. I'd rather crop the D750 images than use something like a P950.

 

[Nod]

What's the final use going to be? If it's large prints, it's possible that the superzoom bridge will do the job better but for smaller prints (A4 or smaller), I'd guess that the DSLR cropped (I wouldn't use a 2x telecon behind any zoom - even a 1.4x would need some careful thought [and experimentation!]) images would be as good and for screen use, I'm sure they would be.

 

[stickytape]

I think you'd be extremely disappointed with the P950. Its lens is actually a good bit shorter than your Sigma (357mm vs 500mm) so it has to use an absolutely tiny 1/2.3in sensor with a good amount of noise even at low isos and limited dynamic range, the lens is f6.5 at the long end which is going to be difficult to use due to the amount of noise. I'd rather crop the D750 images than use something like a P950.

It’s only shorter compared to transitional zoom in actual fact it has a 2000mm focal length. I think it’s worth a try. I had the P1000 for a while and it was great. I got rid of it in the end as I buy too much and literally can’t keep anything. I think you’d be pleasantly surprised if you shoot raw and tweak a little

 

[Ed Sutton]

if i needed more zoom would i be better with a 2x/3x tc

IIRC the 150-500 won't autofocus with a x2 teleconverter on it. A x2 is likely to cause a drop in sharpness if my experience with one on a Nikon 70-200 is anything to go by. I got some OK shots manually focusing with a x1.4 on mine on a D3s but got rid before I bought a D750 so can't give first hand comments on that.

But a lot does depend on the final use for the pictures.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

There's a chap Paul that posts occasionally on the high end bridge camera thread who shoots with a P950 - you can decide for yourself whether the results are good enough for you but they look decent to me - see here for his Flickr with plenty of examples: https://www.flickr.com/photos/199917127@N02/

 

[JohnMcL7]

It’s only shorter compared to transitional zoom in actual fact it has a 2000mm focal length. I think it’s worth a try. I had the P1000 for a while and it was great. I got rid of it in the end as I buy too much and literally can’t keep anything. I think you’d be pleasantly surprised if you shoot raw and tweak a little

No, in fact it has a 357mm lens - the 2000mm is the equivalent focal length so if you crop the 500mm lens on FF to 2000mm equivalent you're actually going to have a larger surface area captured on the FF sensor. People will always point out you get more pixels from the crop sensor but the pixels on the small sensor are in no way equivalent to the FF sensor.

Having shot with similar 1/2.3in sensors I couldn't disagree more about being 'pleasantly surprised', the noise at base iso is not good and quickly gets worse, there's almost no dynamic range to work work nor any latitude whatsoever in the raw file. Hence I'd much rather heavily crop the FF image since at least it's starting with vastly better noise control and dynamic range.

 

[stickytape]

No, in fact it has a 357mm lens - the 2000mm is the equivalent focal length so if you crop the 500mm lens on FF to 2000mm equivalent you're actually going to have a larger surface area captured on the FF sensor. People will always point out you get more pixels from the crop sensor but the pixels on the small sensor are in no way equivalent to the FF sensor.

Having shot with similar 1/2.3in sensors I couldn't disagree more about being 'pleasantly surprised', the noise at base iso is not good and quickly gets worse, there's almost no dynamic range to work work nor any latitude whatsoever in the raw file. Hence I'd much rather heavily crop the FF image since at least it's starting with vastly better noise control and dynamic range.

If you’ve got the time, I’d like to see an example of this.