• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

83x anyone? The new Nikon P900 (1 Viewer)

Has anyone been able to compare a shot at 2000mm equivalent from the Nikon P900, and a shot at 400mm equivalent from the Panasonic FZ1000 that's been cropped to match the P900 shot?

I'm torn between the two at the moment, as they're in a 'somewhat' similar price range, the camera I've used for the past four years is the Canon PowerShot SX40 HS. I don't intend to buy a new camera until around June, so perhaps there'll be a more attractive option for me by then.
 
My wife has the SX40HS and in my opinion it's a damn fine camera! She has taken it to Alaska, Kenya, Namibia, and Australia and brought back some excellent images, some even rivaling what I get with my heavier and bulkier DSLR & lenses. That "old" technology still works quite nicely.

All that said, I would like to get her a newer camera for her to take on her next adventure to Tanzania with a slightly longer lens. I've considered giving her my P900 but frankly, I am becoming less and less enamored with it myself. My feeling is while the camera will deliver acceptable images at the extreme long end, the "sweet spot" is between 1000-1300mm equivalent.

I would recommend that you wait another few months to see if Canon does indeed release their SX70. If it came in at say 1500mm equivalent and had RAW image capture, and of course had good IQ, I'd personally lean that way...
 
My wife has the SX40HS and in my opinion it's a damn fine camera! She has taken it to Alaska, Kenya, Namibia, and Australia and brought back some excellent images, some even rivaling what I get with my heavier and bulkier DSLR & lenses. That "old" technology still works quite nicely.

All that said, I would like to get her a newer camera for her to take on her next adventure to Tanzania with a slightly longer lens. I've considered giving her my P900 but frankly, I am becoming less and less enamored with it myself. My feeling is while the camera will deliver acceptable images at the extreme long end, the "sweet spot" is between 1000-1300mm equivalent.

I would recommend that you wait another few months to see if Canon does indeed release their SX70. If it came in at say 1500mm equivalent and had RAW image capture, and of course had good IQ, I'd personally lean that way...

Thanks for the insight, I don't intend to purchase anything until the summer so we shall see.

One piece of information I've been unable to find on the P900 is how many focus points it uses. Could anyone enlighten me or is it not clear?
 
Hi all.

Great thread, albeit a bit long for a quick read, ha ha.

I have just purchased this camera after quite a bit of deliberation and will be christening it in Trinidad & Tobago shortly... I have gone through a series of Panasonics until my last, the FZ72, which really didn't cut it for me, I have to say.

Anyone know if it has issues with humidity? If so, any quick and simple ideas / tips to minimise possibility of grief? I once had a Panasonic 'die' on me during a trip in cloud forest in Ecuador, though 3h sat above the engine between driver and front passenger inside the cabin sorted that out!

E.g. when not in use store in a plastic bag containing silica gel beads?

Also, any issues with dust/water being pulled back int the lens system when retracting the lens?

Thanks in advance,

John
 
I sold my P900 a while ago...it was too heavy and expensive. The IQ wasn't that much better over my old Canon SX50 to warrant the additional expense and weight.

Been trying to find a Nikon P610 or B700 at reasonable prices but no luck so far. They're both lighter and smaller than the SX50 but have bigger zoom.
 
I sold my P900 a while ago...it was too heavy and expensive. The IQ wasn't that much better over my old Canon SX50 to warrant the additional expense and weight.

Been trying to find a Nikon P610 or B700 at reasonable prices but no luck so far. They're both lighter and smaller than the SX50 but have bigger zoom.

Interesting! I missed out this SX50/60 step and so have had to decide on what's around now. I too was impressed by a P610, seeing it just days after the "1 month no questions asked" return policy of Amazon, with a FAR better resolution than the FZ72. But the same clients that showed me that have also moved on to the P900 precisely because it's much quicker than the 610 and, I must add, that with a slightly shaky hand, the extra lens weight of the P900 actually helps me stablise shots compared to the very lightweight FX72 I had... Horses for courses!

Keep looking for offers for the others though. There were some out there I think when I looked recently, but not many.

J
 
Has anyone compared the shots from the Nikon P900 to hand drawings? ;) Ok, kidding aside, I want to thank everyone for all their comments. I'm getting back into birding after a 20 year break. It was obvious my old Minolta and zoom lens were not up to snuff. I mean, it's still film (ask your grandfather what a film camera is, kids). Had been using just my iphone and wife's Canon point and shoot for the last 15 years. I had no idea these super zoom cameras existed. It looks like I'm narrowing myself down between the Nikon P900 (I always wanted the Nikon F3, guess that won't happen now, sigh) and the Canon SX60. I'll be heading over to the Canon thread next.
 
Nikon coolpix p900.i also use a canon xl2 with adaptors and 70-300.is lens,this gives me the same 2000mm as the p900.i use a sirui 6x carbon tripod,this really essentsial for using on long reach zooms.more so on the p900,as it is a lot lighter than my xl set up.and a lot less bulky.video on the p900 is exceptional,on the optical zoom.When using digital zoom,thats when a very good tripod comes into its own.its essential for good video and stills.if set up correctly,the results are very good indeed,it will never match a slr for image quality,but p900 is all round a very good camera.it may very well replace my leica 77 scope,for distance birding.
 
After a month I have just returned my P900 and wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is looking to use it
for primarily video.
The 83x zoom is undoubtedly the star of the show however the supporting cast, in this instance the image stabilization, just isn't up to the task.
The slightest movement at the higher zoom level (and I mean slightest) on a tripod,will transfer on to the screen and ruin the shot, also it unfortunately doesn't like panning with the image stabilizing creating jumpy and jittery scenes.
The P900 was perfect in every other way and for stills is undoubtedly excellent for a bridge camera,
I believe that, certainly where the 83x zoom combined with the video is concerned, it's a case of running before being able to walk.
 
My Nikon refurbished unit is arriving later today. While I have a D90 and D7200 and a couple lenses, the P900 appeals for what it offers me - a chance to take reference shots of birds I can't identify in the field so that I can study their markings at leisure later at home. If I can take some decent images with it, so much the better. I have little interest in shooting video but I enjoy looking at the efforts of others.
 
Got it. Not sure I'm gonna be a fan. Using the longer end of the zoom really will require a mount even with aggressive VR turned on. I might be happier with a smaller zoom range for my interest. I took a few bird photos out in the yard, most of which I tossed. I did keep this one to show. It's about 425mm, handheld. If you click on the image, it should show fullsize. I'm guessing the bird (Western Meadowlark) was a couple hundred feet away, maybe a little further.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/43341060@N04/33806408332/
 
Got it. Not sure I'm gonna be a fan. Using the longer end of the zoom really will require a mount even with aggressive VR turned on. I might be happier with a smaller zoom range for my interest. I took a few bird photos out in the yard, most of which I tossed. I did keep this one to show. It's about 425mm, handheld. If you click on the image, it should show fullsize. I'm guessing the bird (Western Meadowlark) was a couple hundred feet away, maybe a little further.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/43341060@N04/33806408332/

I think you can lock it to a shorter zoom until you get used to it, i could hand hold mine at full zoom but a monopod is better.
 
As fun as this camera is, I decided I would be ahead putting the money towards a 70-300 lens for my Nikon D7200. It's not a knock on the P900, just not the camera for me.

Plus, I just ordered a Kowa TSN-883 scope. ;)
 
To get or not to get?

I am considering getting a P900. I currently use a Panasonic Lumix FZ200, but yesterday I missed out on a lifer as the FZ200 just did not have enough reach (x24).

I am reading through the thread, but am only up to page 14. Huge amount to try and absorb on this thread. This post is the equivalent of me turning to the back of the book to see how it ends. So my question is, for the money that the P900 is now (<£600), is this the bridge camera that is going to give me the best results, remembering that I am not a photographer; I just want to get some decent record shots at distance to allow later ID?

Now I'm away back to page 14 to see what happens when Crazy Fingers gets his replacement P900.
 
I am considering getting a P900. I currently use a Panasonic Lumix FZ200, but yesterday I missed out on a lifer as the FZ200 just did not have enough reach (x24).

I am reading through the thread, but am only up to page 14. Huge amount to try and absorb on this thread. This post is the equivalent of me turning to the back of the book to see how it ends. So my question is, for the money that the P900 is now (<£600), is this the bridge camera that is going to give me the best results, remembering that I am not a photographer; I just want to get some decent record shots at distance to allow later ID?

Now I'm away back to page 14 to see what happens when Crazy Fingers gets his replacement P900.

You could go through this group and look at the images and focal length

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2854501@N22/pool/page1
 
You could go through this group and look at the images and focal length

Some great bird photos there, but I'm not seeing anything past 500mm focal length. I'm not sure exactly how the focal length relates to magnification, but I'm guessing these pictures are around about the x24 I'm shooting at with the FZ200. Would that be correct, or am I misunderstanding?

If I am correct, I would again guess that at 500mm focal length is where the pictures start to lose quality, and therefore they would not be first choice for Flickr. For my own use, that does not put me off, as what I am after is extra reach at distance, but I don't particularly mind too much if I lose a bit of quality to while getting out there, as my main aim is to identify the birds later.

One thing that really impressed me about some of the photos on the link though were shots through twigs and grass where the bird is what is focused. I've not managed that of the FZ200.
 
Not sure how the lens is recorded on those, on my flickr it records the actual so full zoom is 387mm, some of those could include a digital zoom.
Most people who don't like it just can't use it,i have come across a few on other forums,the long zoom like any long lens will work better the closer you are to the subject,this is due to atmospheric conditions between the camera and subject and of course the possibility of camera shake,it would happen with any long zoom in the same conditions,even a hot clear day can cause heat distortion.

I have included some sample images i took at full zoom,you will notice the most degradation on the foxes,they where a long way off so the atmosphere has degraded the image.
 

Attachments

  • 25740542203_58f18a56df_o.jpg
    25740542203_58f18a56df_o.jpg
    336.3 KB · Views: 278
  • 26250973072_beeba7a280_o.jpg
    26250973072_beeba7a280_o.jpg
    286.6 KB · Views: 274
  • 26585291283_ea8fb00e40_o.jpg
    26585291283_ea8fb00e40_o.jpg
    147.8 KB · Views: 253
  • 26585291293_d33d011d48_o.jpg
    26585291293_d33d011d48_o.jpg
    187 KB · Views: 263
  • 27070169465_d53030d365_o.jpg
    27070169465_d53030d365_o.jpg
    389.8 KB · Views: 247
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top