The beast is back! Nikon P1100 launches with monster 24-3000mm optical zoom, but what's changed?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
The Nikon P1100's launch sequence has begun and, in a world where the best bridge cameras are all but extinct, I'm over the moon that the Big N is keeping this unique superzoom's exceedingly long legacy alive. However, the core specs remain largely unchanged – with the same lens, sensor, burst speeds, and video capabilities.
But with the previous Nikon P1000 now discontinued and prices reaching for the stars, the Nikon P1100's small price increase of $99.95 / £49 / AU$200 on an RRP that was set 7 years ago, makes this charming oddity accessible for a whole new generation of birders and budding astrophotographers.
First, let's delve into what remains the same. The Nikon P1100 retains that monster 125x optical zoom, which is still the largest in the world. The zoom range is 4.3 to 539mm, but factor in that tiny sensor and this translates to a whopping 24-3000mm (in 35mm terms). And that's before you've digitally doubled it, via Nikon's Dynamic Fine Zoom, to a frankly ridiculous 250x (6000mm).
Optically, the lens has a variable aperture of f/2.8 to f/8 and comprises 17 elements in 12 groups, which includes 5 Extra-Low Dispersion lens elements and a Super Extra-Low Dispersion lens element. It also retains that very useful snap-back zoom button, so you can quickly widen the frame if you lose your subject.
Internally you'll find the same 1/2.3-in 16.79MP CMOS sensor, and an unchanged video spec delivering up to 4K 30p. As far as I can tell the form factor is identical, too, with the same button placement, mode dial options, 3.2-inch TFT LCD vari-angle screen and pop-up flash.
So, what's changed? Well, for starters the Nikon P1100 weighs in at 3lb 1.8oz / 1,410g, which is slightly lighter than the P1000's 3lb 2 oz / 1,415g. But the biggest differences are quality-of-life upgrades that look set to improve the camera's usability.
Image 1 of 2
Image 2 of 2
Nikon explains that the AF-area mode in Bird-Watching mode is now selectable, enabling you to cycle between Center (spot), Center (normal), and Center (wide). Nikon has also included a new Fireworks mode within the camera's multiple exposure settings, designed to mitigate blown-out highlights.
Nikon has also revealed that any function the camera's Fn button can perform can be assigned to the ML-L7 Remote Control's Fn1 / Fn2 buttons. And you'll also find a new USB-C port.
One area of interest is the image processor. Nikon hasn't disclosed exactly what generation of Expeed it is, something it repeated during the release of the P1000. However, it's since come to light that the older bridge camera used the Expeed 4 – so the P1100's could be the same or a later generation.
Image 1 of 4
Image 2 of 4
Image 3 of 4
Image 4 of 4
But perhaps the most baffling difference isn't actually a difference at all. Both the P1100 and P1000 feature Nikon's Dual Detect Optical Vibration Reduction, but the eagle-eyed will notice that the P1100 features 4 stops of VR in comparison to the P1000's superior 5 stops.
Thankfully, this perceived reduction in VR is actually to do with CIPA's new 2024 standards. Rest assured, both cameras feature the same Vibration Reduction, even if the spec sheet suggests otherwise.
The Nikon P1100 is set for release in late February and will retail for $1,099.95 / £1,049.00 / AU$1,699.95.
If you're into wildlife photography, take a look at the best lenses for bird photography. If you're a Nikon fan, here are the best Nikon cameras. And if you like the look of the P1100, I photographed the moon with a monster Nikon P1000 bridge camera – here's what I learned…
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Satellites are polluting Earth's atmosphere with heavy metals. Could refueling them in orbit help?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The world at large is working to stop the fast-progressing degradation of Earth's environment. In the space sector, however, one-use-only products still reign supreme. The advent of megaconstellations has, in fact, accelerated the rate at which the space industry burns through resources, shifting from big satellites with decades-long lifespans to cheaper birds designed to expire within a few short years. The disposable approach worries some researchers, as too much aluminum is burning up in the atmosphere these days, threatening to cause a new kind of environmental disaster in the decades to come. But what can we do? Should we roll back the space revolution and put a cap on what we can do in space? Or could a circular economy, life extension, recycling and reuse be the solution to the space industry's dirty side effects? Proponents of in-orbit servicing and refueling laud the technology's potential. But most analysts remain cautious: Without strict environmental regulations, the expected cost of in-orbit servicing may not entice satellite operators to switch to reusable technology en masse. Dave Barnhart, chief executive officer of the California-based aerospace company Arkisys, first began developing concepts of recyclable satellite technology some 15 years ago as part of a project he oversaw at DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). He and his colleagues investigated how to set up a satellite recycling facility in geostationary orbit — the region about 22,000 miles (36,000 kilometers) above Earth's surface where satellites appear fixed above one spot above the equator. "We wanted to know whether we can use parts from old geo satellites to recreate new ones, because the mass is already there," Barnhart told The geostationary ring is home to some of the largest and most expensive satellites. On top of that, the long distance between Earth and this orbit makes geo missions inherently costly, as they require the most powerful rockets with a lot of fuel to reach their destination. Yet, Arkisys, the company Barnhart cofounded in 2015, is focusing on low Earth orbit (LEO) — the buzzing region closest to Earth up to altitudes of about 1,200 miles (2,000 km). Arkisyshopes to set up an in-orbit servicing and refueling depot called the Port in LEO. The main goal is to spearhead a green revolution in this region, which gives rise to thousands of tons of dangerous space debris every year. "To date, everything we have ever designed to go into space has been one mission, one life," Barnhart told "It's sort of crazy. Every other domain on Earth, we maintain, we sustain, we grow. Not in space." In 2023, Arkisys secured a $1.6 million deal from the U.S. Space Force to test satellite assembly in orbit using the Port demo module — a basic building block of a scalable orbiting garage and gas station. The company wants to launch the first component of this orbital depot next year — a last-mile transportation device called the Cutter, which is designed to help satellites to dock with the garage. In 2027, the main Port module, a hexagonal structure about 9 feet (3 meters) wide, will join the Cutter in orbit to test how the mechanical interfaces of the two work together in space. The Port, in addition to serving as a fuel depot, will arrive with a supply of components and payloads that could be attached to worn-out satellites to give them a new lease on life. "Today, everything on a satellite is done on the ground, and the satellite is launched with an end date," Barnhart said. "We want to shift that to allow extensions of both — life and business — post-launch. We want to be able to add new revenue streams post-launch. You can do that if you can add something, change something in orbit, or even sell that satellite to somebody else who could make it part of a larger platform." Cameras or antennas could be replaced with more powerful ones once those get developed, worn-out batteries could be swapped for brand-new ones, and fuel tanks would get refilled. It all makes sense on paper, but Dafni Christodoulopoulou, space industry analyst at the consultancy company Analysis Mason, warns that whether satellite operators would be inclined to ditch their disposable ways will come down to the cost of the in-orbit maintenance services. LEO is currently dominated by small, relatively cheap satellites, she says, which can be replaced more cheaply than they can be serviced and maintained. "Right now, we expect in-orbit services to come at a cost that might be quite high for operators of small satellites," Christodoulopoulou told "The operators might not be interested in those services, because the price of building a new satellite might not be higher than that of a servicing mission." Barnhart agrees that the fledgling in-orbit servicing industry is likely to face resistance not just from operators but also from satellite manufacturers, who might feel threatened by the idea of reusability and life extension. "Every time you want to make a big shift like this, it's going to be a threat," Barnhart said. "Satellite manufacturers make money by building more satellites to throw away. It might take some time for them to see that by fitting satellites with interfaces that allow them to be serviced, they could actually add some cool functionality to them after launch." Related stories: — Kessler Syndrome and the space debris problem — Pollution from rocket launches and burning satellites could cause the next environmental emergency — 2 private satellites undock after pioneering life-extension mission Still, Christodoulopoulou thinks that in-orbit servicing will eventually make a difference to how things are done in space, and also to the state of the orbital environment. "The number of satellite launches is not expected to go down, so there will be a high need for constellation management, flexibility, disposal and life extension," she said. "I think in-orbit services can definitely help prevent the buildup of space debris and maintain long-term sustainability in orbit." The U.S. government certainly appears to think that life extension is the way forward. In addition to funding the Arkisys experiment, the Space Force also funds the Tetra-5 and Tetra-6 missions to test in-orbit refueling technologies in space. The two missions, designed to test hardware developed by Orbit Fab, Astroscale and Northrop Grumman, are set to launch in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In addition, intensifying geopolitical tensions are increasing the need for quick deployment of new systems in space, which, Barnhart says, could be more speedily addressed with servicing systems such as the Port, than by building new spacecraft from scratch on Earth. "If there is a new threat that has been identified, you might need a new type of sensor or a new payload to observe it," Barnhart said. "If we can augment the satellites that the government has already put up and provide them with a new capability, a new sensor, we can address those threats much faster." Christodoulopoulou thinks that new regulations designed to protect the environment and curb the air pollution related to satellite reentries could further help move the needle toward a less throwaway culture in space utilization. "There need to be a few changes," Christodoulopoulou said. "There needs to be more awareness among satellite operators to understand that in-orbit servicing offers a value in the long term. But also on the government side, there need to be more regulations to support the in-orbit servicing providers."
Wall Street Journal
11 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
What's Ahead for Travel
The Future of Everything looks at the innovation and technology transforming the way we live, work and play, covering health, artificial intelligence and more. Here, we look at what's ahead for travel. Companies explore new ways to navigate and pass the time in self-driving cars
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Expert asserts Mario Kart World is a 'fake HDR' Nintendo Switch 2 title — ‘Mario Kart World reveals that even the highest caliber of developers aren't taking HDR seriously'
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Mario Kart World on the Switch 2 is guilty of implementing 'fake HDR,' according to recent heated reactions by a number of TechTubers. We are well aware of social media rage farming, but a coolly considered, in-depth new technical blog by Alexander Mejia, agrees that Mario Kart World was developed using 'an SDR-first content pipeline with a last-minute HDR tonemap that limits the color and dynamic range.' Mejia is probably one of the leading authorities on creating HDR visual experiences, based on his experience in delivering 'the world-leading Dolby Vision HDR experience to Xbox Series X and Unreal Engine.' In fairness, the developers of Mario Kart World have set themselves up for this stinging criticism, as the flagship launch title is marketed with boasts of it supporting 4K resolution at 60FPS refresh with HDR visuals (4K60 HDR for short). However, 'Mario Kart World reveals that even the highest caliber of developers aren't taking HDR seriously,' reckons Mejia. That tripping up over HDR isn't uncommon, though. Rather, Mejia admits that 'If you're finding it tricky to make your game's HDR look right, you're not alone.' The most important thing to do, to make the most of the HDR capabilities present in most TVs and monitors sold in the 2020s, is 'embracing HDR from day one, not as an afterthought,' suggests the HDR pipeline consulting expert. Image 1 of 2 Image 2 of 2 If you are curious about how Mejia captured, reviewed, and assessed the Mario Kart World on Switch 2, he shares the full details of his hardware and capture path, the procedure, and tips for home users wishing to achieve similar insight. Moving on to the findings, the HDR expert's images, charts, and stats make the HDR quality deficiencies in Mario Kart World glaringly obvious. A particularly stark result comes from image brightness peak measurement. 'Nintendo's own test image peaks at only ~500 nits even if you set 10,000 nits peak brightness,' noted Mejia. 'Not a good sign that they took HDR seriously.' Also, it was observed that, even if the console brightness is cranked to 10,000 nits, 'captured peaks in game never exceed ~950 nits.' That's quite a discrepancy. It is also quite a shame, given the game art's colorful and bright style being chained to an SDR-like color space (likely Rec.709), making no use of the extended color gamut afforded by the Rec.2020 standard. Above: Both Godfall Ultimate Edition on XBOX Series X (left), and Mario Kart World on Nintendo Switch 2 (right) are captured in HDR, with 10,000 nits max brightness. To conclude, Mejia repeats the sentiment from some of the tastiest quotes we have included above. In short, it looks like even the best developers are not taking HDR seriously, seem to follow an SDR-first workflow, and are thus squandering the possibilities of modern consoles and TVs (or monitors). The HDR expert finishes up by cannily touting his studio consultancy, offering help with 'HDR first rendering pipelines, Dolby Vision integration, and dynamic tone-mapping strategies.' Keep that in mind as you ponder his findings. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
