83x anyone? The new Nikon P900 (2 Viewers)

ChrisKten · May 17, 2015

crazyfingers said:
Well I am giving up. Unless someone has a suggestion to get the Nikon performing significantly better, I'll be sending it back.

I've posted so many comparisons. Nothing is changing.

The first two are the Nikon and the second two are the Canon.
These are from probably 30 feet abouts.

Nikon is 2000mm
Canon is 2439mm using the 2x digital teleconverter.

And the Canon is not on fine mode or whatever Canon calls it. It's only on normal JPG and so the Canon photos could be even better than the Nikons.

The Nikon is saving on Fine mode.

And it kills me that on average the original Nikon files are about 6mb and the Canon's are 3mb.

I'm surprised that nobody has explained the file size difference:

The Nikon P900 has a 16.0mp sensor and images are 4608 x 3456

The Canon SX50 only has a 12.1mp sensor and images are 4000 x 3000

So (all else being equal) more info is recorded and saved by the Nikon. None of this really matters at web size images, as you'll have reduced the resolution for upload anyway. And unless you're going to print large posters, 4mp extra detail won't matter much to you.

So higher resolution image = more data = larger file size

crazyfingers · May 17, 2015

ChrisKten said:
I'm surprised that nobody has explained the file size difference:

The Nikon P900 has a 16.0mp sensor and images are 4608 x 3456

The Canon SX50 only has a 12.1mp sensor and images are 4000 x 3000

So (all else being equal) more info is recorded and saved by the Nikon. None of this really matters at web size images, as you'll have reduced the resolution for upload anyway. And unless you're going to print large posters, 4mp extra detail won't matter much to you.

So higher resolution image = more data = larger file size

I know why it's larger. The Nikon is also allegedly compressing the JPG less than the Canon as it's saving to Fine and the Canon is only saving to it's version of normal and not fine. The point is that the Canon files are smaller but also significantly better.

mzettie · May 17, 2015

Neil said:
A lot a talk about the pros and cons of Nikon P900 v Canon SX series cameras so I thought I would do a quick check at distance ( 150 - 500 metres)
Cloudy today , just after some rain. Set the cameras at iso 100 and WB cloudy. Difficult to get the zooms the same but got close. Used the 2x teleconverter on the SX60. Here are a couple of comparisons. Nikon on top, before on left , adjusted on right ( Contrast,Smart Sharpen).
If anything the SX60 jpegs looked a little better before adjustment , but similar after. I'm not seeing much difference ( if any) between them. Certainly not enough to justify the money. The SX50 would also produce similar results from memory ( I don't have mine anymore), but I can arrange a test next week with a friend.
These are at or close to full zoom .If anyone wants to see bigger files or other magnifications let me know.
Neil.
Hong Kong,China.
May 2015

Interesting. I haven't used the P900 much at 150+ yards, too much atmospheric distortion here, unless I'm just trying to get a record shot.
My impression is that at moderately long (30 to 100 yards) distances, the Nikon retains more detail than the SX50. Unfortunately, I have to wait for my P900 to be repaired before exploring this further.

mzettie · May 17, 2015

crazyfingers said:
Well I am giving up. Unless someone has a suggestion to get the Nikon performing significantly better, I'll be sending it back.
.

Crazy, after having totally lost patience with the SX60 and sending two back, I can certainly relate to your frustration. Seems both camera companies need to work on QC.
Only advice I can offer at this point is....send it back and get on with your life.

crazyfingers · May 17, 2015

mzettie said:
Crazy, after having totally lost patience with the SX60 and sending two back, I can certainly relate to your frustration. Seems both camera companies need to work on QC.
Only advice I can offer at this point is....send it back and get on with your life.

Yes I agree that it's time to stop obsessing and just send it back.

Though I noted your comment above about photos of objects at much greater distance than I have been testing on and took a few shots. The Nikon was able to get much closer to the quality of the SX50 (SX50 still on normal and not fine mode) on things very far away.

Just went out in the yard. It's a lot more fun taking photos of cute critters than rocks and leaves.

Neil · May 18, 2015

Chris B. said:
Nice test, Neil!

Since I am a photographer first, birder second, my personal feeling is that the Canon white balance shows slightly truer colors than the Nikon. Whites especially, but that's an easy fix in post-processing...

Chris

Thanks Chris. I've noticed over the years with Canons that the Jpegs out of the camera need very little , if any adjustment. If you run an Auto Contrast over them you won't see any change, whereas with the Nikons you will. The G1X was very good with jpegs straight out of the camera.
Anyway I'm not going to worry too much and I'm taking the P900 to Sabah tomorrow for a week so we'll see how it performs as a main camera.
Neil.

pppppvvvv · May 18, 2015

No worries here either! Taking mine to Lapland for a week, where photos will come 2nd to looking for birds, but it will be there when needed.

And I won't be "blaming" the camera either.

Peter

HermitIbis · May 18, 2015

Still undecided, I keep looking for reviews.

http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.de/2015/05/nikon-p900-review-part-5-summary-and.html
is worth reading, as (a) the author makes a real effort to assess the P900 fairly, and (b) shows lots of bird photos.

Unfortunately, it compares the P900 to the SX60, not the SX50. Still, the conclusions and suggestions for possible improvements are interesting.

wotcha · May 18, 2015

Would be interested to learn user's verdict on the P900 when used almost exclusively for filming birds at range. My main interest is in simply identyfing blobs in the distance! I'm no photographer and whilst marvelling at the work of others I find average quality snaps perfectly acceptable.

I already own an SX50 which has just gone in for repair (genuine accident, don't ask!) and am generally happy with it overall. But I increasingly hanker after a camera that will give me even better video performance at range.

I do not own a scope partly because I baulk at the price of a decent one, but mainly because I'm not keen on fiddling around with lenses nor the extra bulk and weight on my back.

For video I find the SX50 generally acceptable for middling distances but beyond say 150 yards / metres it's somewhat inadequate. Whereas going by test videos on YouTube I have been super impressed with the clarity of detail at long range of test videos of the P900.

Having read some of the criticisms on here over the last few days about the inadequacy of the P900 for photography am wondering to what extent I should allow these comments to put me off getting one for video use only?

Lumalee · May 18, 2015

I am sold !!, however trying to get one here in UK might as well be trying to buy a box of moondust. Not a single one to be had anywhere. One company was showing them as in stock, took my money last night and even gave me shipping confirmation, then they call me today saying they dont actually have any yet but they will keep my payment and reserve me one, yup right !. no thanks I will have the refund please.

Really want one of these, and just need to be more patient I guess.

mzettie · May 19, 2015

HermitIbis said:
Still undecided, I keep looking for reviews.

http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.de/2015/05/nikon-p900-review-part-5-summary-and.html
is worth reading, as (a) the author makes a real effort to assess the P900 fairly, and (b) shows lots of bird photos.

Unfortunately, it compares the P900 to the SX60, not the SX50. Still, the conclusions and suggestions for possible improvements are interesting.

Hi HermitIbis, thanks for the link, great review. I don't disagree with anything he said, just wonder if he'll continue using the P900.

mzettie · May 19, 2015

wotcha said:
Would be interested to learn user's verdict on the P900 when used almost exclusively for filming birds at range. My main interest is in simply identyfing blobs in the distance! I'm no photographer and whilst marvelling at the work of others I find average quality snaps perfectly acceptable.

I already own an SX50 which has just gone in for repair (genuine accident, don't ask!) and am generally happy with it overall. But I increasingly hanker after a camera that will give me even better video performance at range.

I do not own a scope partly because I baulk at the price of a decent one, but mainly because I'm not keen on fiddling around with lenses nor the extra bulk and weight on my back.

For video I find the SX50 generally acceptable for middling distances but beyond say 150 yards / metres it's somewhat inadequate. Whereas going by test videos on YouTube I have been super impressed with the clarity of detail at long range of test videos of the P900.

Having read some of the criticisms on here over the last few days about the inadequacy of the P900 for photography am wondering to what extent I should allow these comments to put me off getting one for video use only?

Wish I could help but I haven't used video much. Neil would probably be the best one to ask, since he also has the SX60. It's my understanding the video on that camera's very good.

pppppvvvv · May 19, 2015

wotcha said:
Would be interested to learn user's verdict on the P900 when used almost exclusively for filming birds at range. My main interest is in simply identyfing blobs in the distance! I'm no photographer and whilst marvelling at the work of others I find average quality snaps perfectly acceptable.

I already own an SX50 which has just gone in for repair (genuine accident, don't ask!) and am generally happy with it overall. But I increasingly hanker after a camera that will give me even better video performance at range.

I do not own a scope partly because I baulk at the price of a decent one, but mainly because I'm not keen on fiddling around with lenses nor the extra bulk and weight on my back.

For video I find the SX50 generally acceptable for middling distances but beyond say 150 yards / metres it's somewhat inadequate. Whereas going by test videos on YouTube I have been super impressed with the clarity of detail at long range of test videos of the P900.

Having read some of the criticisms on here over the last few days about the inadequacy of the P900 for photography am wondering to what extent I should allow these comments to put me off getting one for video use only?

I can't really help, but its a pity the whinchat below flew so quick. it was extremely far away, to the point I missed it with my bins, and only picked it up in the scope. Camera was on tripod, not sure if I had gone into digital zoom

https://youtu.be/mKxkKS1n_Og
quality can be changed to 720p

Peter

poledark · May 19, 2015

The video is excellent, I have been using a top quality 80mm scope with video camera attached for a few years, and the P900 is as good. Most of my pics are at 10-30mtrs, and I take stills from the video.

I get varied results at long range (300mtrs or more) but this is almost certainly due to the clarity of the air and light levels, not been able to match some of the reviewers shots though.

Den

wotcha · May 19, 2015

peter.jones said:
I can't really help, but its a pity the whinchat below flew so quick. it was extremely far away, to the point I missed it with my bins, and only picked it up in the scope. Camera was on tripod, not sure if I had gone into digital zoom

https://youtu.be/mKxkKS1n_Og
quality can be changed to 720p

Peter

What a great little bird. Digital or no, given the distance I'd be pretty ecstatic with a result like that.

Thanks for your help.

wotcha · May 19, 2015

poledark said:
The video is excellent, I have been using a top quality 80mm scope with video camera attached for a few years, and the P900 is as good. Most of my pics are at 10-30mtrs, and I take stills from the video.

I get varied results at long range (300mtrs or more) but this is almost certainly due to the clarity of the air and light levels, not been able to match some of the reviewers shots though.

Den

Very helpful feedback, thanks.

bobhandal · May 19, 2015

hello everyone, very happy with my new P900, many times we do not notice the ridiculous shutter speeds that we try to use and expect clear photos, at 2000 mm one should use 1/2000 shutter speed and yet, with this camera I have used super slow shutter speeds for the focal length with good handling techniques. Highly recommended for birders. (I currently have a Sony hvx400 and owned a sx40 previously)

pppppvvvv · May 19, 2015

bobhandal said:
hello everyone, very happy with my new P900, many times we do not notice the ridiculous shutter speeds that we try to use and expect clear photos, at 2000 mm one should use 1/2000 shutter speed and yet, with this camera I have used super slow shutter speeds for the focal length with good handling techniques. Highly recommended for birders. (I currently have a Sony hvx400 and owned a sx40 previously)

They are superb pics

crazyfingers · May 19, 2015

bobhandal said:
hello everyone, very happy with my new P900, many times we do not notice the ridiculous shutter speeds that we try to use and expect clear photos, at 2000 mm one should use 1/2000 shutter speed and yet, with this camera I have used super slow shutter speeds for the focal length with good handling techniques. Highly recommended for birders. (I currently have a Sony hvx400 and owned a sx40 previously)

Makes me wonder if I did get two duds. But not willing to try again just yet.

POIUYTREWQ · May 19, 2015

Yep, CF, I think you DID strike out twice with the P900.

And, I also think those initial release 'bad units' are going to be circulating in the system for quite awhile - even after Nikon resume production. So unless you 'try before you buy' at a local shop I'd be leery.

Another option: there is availability in Romania apparently.

83x anyone? The new Nikon P900 (2 Viewers)

It's true, I quite like Pigeons

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Attachments

Well-known member

Newbie

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Newbie

Newbie

Active member

Attachments

Guest

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread