Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
In trying figure out whether the FZ1000 would offer more reach than the FZ200 for wildlife photography, I stumbled across this thread Comparing Superzooms by a Figure of Merit: FZ1000 vs. FZ200: Panasonic Compact Camera Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review which provides a mathematical way of factoring in equivalent focal length and megapixels to compare the "reach" that cameras could have.
The calculation is explained here Figure of Merit but basically it is equivalent focal length squared multiplied by the number of megapixels.
So, for the Fz200, you get 600mm x 600mm x 12 megapixels = 4.320 million
I worked through the math for a variety of configurations, and (if I have the figures right) here are the results (the bigger the number, the better the reach):
FZ200 -- 4.320
FZ1000 -- 3.216
D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860
Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760
Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760
and the winnah and champeen of da woild:
Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300CX -- 14.580
Cheers, Jock
The calculation is explained here Figure of Merit but basically it is equivalent focal length squared multiplied by the number of megapixels.
So, for the Fz200, you get 600mm x 600mm x 12 megapixels = 4.320 million
I worked through the math for a variety of configurations, and (if I have the figures right) here are the results (the bigger the number, the better the reach):
FZ200 -- 4.320
FZ1000 -- 3.216
D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860
Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760
Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760
and the winnah and champeen of da woild:
Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300CX -- 14.580
Cheers, Jock