• 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)

Since it seems that the "cachet" for this camera has fallen off a bit, I thought I'd bring it back with a (very lucky) shot I got with it a few days ago... I continue to be amazed with the optical quality of this lens, at least at reasonable focusing distances.

Chris

You should be very happy with that. Lovely.
Neil.
 
Hi CF, family issues have kept me from birding much since I got the P900 back from the shop. We did go to Galapagos and Tandayapa Ecuador for two weeks and I took the P900 (weight restrictions on the flight from Quito to Baltra kept me from bringing both cameras.)

The Nikon performed well, but the critters on the islands are so approachable, I really didn't need 2000mm eq......sometimes found myself wishing I had a larger sensor camera that could have handled the high dynamic range of the light there a little better.
That was especially true when we got to the Tandayapa cloud forest, where the mostly low/dappled light conditions kept the P900 from auto-focusing accurately. I know the SX50 would have struggled in those conditions too, and would really like to know how a camera like the Panasonic FZ1000 would have performed there. It's auto-focus speed and EVF are said to be superb, but it's optical zoom range only goes to 400mm eq., which is why I've never seriously considered buying it.
Canon recently released a 1 inch sensor camera (G3X) but it's optical range is still only 600mm, so I guess I'll be waiting a while longer to "have my cake and eat it too."

In the meantime, the P900's lens is super, and I've had no more freezing or other issues. If this camera was just faster, I'd be a happy camper. Maybe the SX70 will lure me away, but for now the Nikon's become my primary birding camera. Whether or not it will remain so when fall warblers start showing up is another question......

I've started a P900 Galapagos folder, will take me a while to get everything in there, but here's a link if you want to see a few;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127980272@N06/albums/72157655165823583/with/20074383624/

Great photos. It's such a great place for nature photography.
Neil.
 

That could be a year before it's readily available. I would have problems hand holding that many megs , even with good VR. The 2,000 mm of the P900 is about as far as I want to go , in fact I would like 1,600, faster AF, RAW and be able to control the zoom from my phone in both photo and video mode.
Neil.
 
That could be a year before it's readily available. I would have problems hand holding that many megs , even with good VR. The 2,000 mm of the P900 is about as far as I want to go , in fact I would like 1,600, faster AF, RAW and be able to control the zoom from my phone in both photo and video mode.
Neil.

Tend to agree but i was thinking the longer zoom used at less than full zoom (where i use my P610 most of the time) should give better IQ and i would hope for all the other items you mention.
 
Great photos. It's such a great place for nature photography.
Neil.

Thanks, Neil. It's definitely a spectacular place for nature photography. One gets spoiled quickly by the ample light and approachable wildlife. Now I'm back to reality....sneaky little birds lurking in the shadows, peeps a hundred yards away....well, you know.... |:d|
 

Personally, I'd give up some of the P900's zoom range for faster performance and better ergonomics. If the next Nikon doesn't have MUCH faster buffering, better tracking AF, two custom settings and and quickly accessed exp. compensation, I won't even consider it.....no matter how much zoom it has or how good the glass.

The company that gives me 1000mm equivalent or better, along with quickness and decent IQ in low light conditions, will get my business. And it's not looking like Nikon or Canon are heading in that direction.
 
P900 Cooper's Hawk...

There I was, trying to photograph some hummingbirds with the P900 (NOT an easy task!) when all the other birds in the area scattered, and there was this huge clatter. Peering up from behind the bushes where I was, a juvenile Cooper's Hawk had landed, evidently looking for a quick snack. He/she didn't see me as I was able to get a couple of shots off before it took off.

Had I had my rig DSLR rig, I could have never pulled it off...

Chris
 

Attachments

  • PP9-2_1580sm.jpg
    PP9-2_1580sm.jpg
    197.1 KB · Views: 3,667
Personally, I'd give up some of the P900's zoom range for faster performance and better ergonomics. If the next Nikon doesn't have MUCH faster buffering, better tracking AF, two custom settings and and quickly accessed exp. compensation, I won't even consider it.....no matter how much zoom it has or how good the glass.

The company that gives me 1000mm equivalent or better, along with quickness and decent IQ in low light conditions, will get my business. And it's not looking like Nikon or Canon are heading in that direction.

I suspect that now that Canon and Panasonic and other makers have seen just how popular the P900 has been, their designers are already at their computers designing the next iterations... Although I doubt I'll buy another super-zoom for myself, I could be tempted if it had all of the features you mention plus RAW shooting, and a reliable high-speed advance... oh, and a sharp EVF!

Chris
 
I've read this whole thread and have enjoyed the great discussion about the Nikon p900 and it's abilities, as well as it's limitations. I believe it suits my needs perfectly. I am not a photographer but a birder who wants to take decent photos to illustrate my birding and for record shots whenever they are needed. I would also like to take videos, from what I have seen the P900 does a great job at that. I don't have a camera useful for birding at all.

I have been using my iPhone and Opticron MM3 60ED (owned for 6 months) for long distance record shots and long range IDs of shorebirds and such. The maximum magnification of my scope is 46x I believe. Obviously digiscoping with a setup like that is inconvenient and not at all useful for anything but the most lethargic songbirds. Also a camera (even on a monopod as I would like) is much easier to carry around than a scope on a tripod.

Now, ideally I would like to have both a Superzoom camera and the scope but at this point I can only afford one. I am perfectly willing to sell the scope to fund the purchase of the P900. I'm just racking my brain on whether or not the camera will be able to do what my scope can do, so that I'm not wishing I had a scope in some circumstances.


Seems like a pretty straight forward decision but I'd like to hear what others think.
 
Just for the record, even it if was able to match the image quality I get from the Canon SX50 at even closer zoom, which it is not able to do by a wide margin, I hated the P900 for its lack of usability features. In my opinion, it's a piece of crap camera.
 
I've read this whole thread and have enjoyed the great discussion about the Nikon p900 and it's abilities, as well as it's limitations. I believe it suits my needs perfectly. I am not a photographer but a birder who wants to take decent photos to illustrate my birding and for record shots whenever they are needed. I would also like to take videos, from what I have seen the P900 does a great job at that. I don't have a camera useful for birding at all.

I have been using my iPhone and Opticron MM3 60ED (owned for 6 months) for long distance record shots and long range IDs of shorebirds and such. The maximum magnification of my scope is 46x I believe. Obviously digiscoping with a setup like that is inconvenient and not at all useful for anything but the most lethargic songbirds. Also a camera (even on a monopod as I would like) is much easier to carry around than a scope on a tripod.

Now, ideally I would like to have both a Superzoom camera and the scope but at this point I can only afford one. I am perfectly willing to sell the scope to fund the purchase of the P900. I'm just racking my brain on whether or not the camera will be able to do what my scope can do, so that I'm not wishing I had a scope in some circumstances.


Seems like a pretty straight forward decision but I'd like to hear what others think.

To me it sounds like you might well be very happy with the P900, "PROVIDED" you're willing to use it with a tripod for those distant shorebird shots.
My husband normally uses a monopod, but on a recent trip to Galapagos (where we were transported back and forth to the islands on Zodiacs twice a day) he took a backpack/camera case instead. This particular pack has a frame that allows it to be used in place of a monopod; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXcXSywPYQw
He ended up really liking it, and felt it worked as well as the MP for his 70 - 400mm lens and camera, so when we got home I tried it with the P900. Unfortunately, 2000mm at really long distances is a lot different than 400mm at medium distances, and I didn't find it to be an improvement over good hand-held technique. So I'm thinking you'd be happier with the stability of a good tripod. Maybe Neil will weigh in, he shoots in the conditions you're describing a lot.

One advantage of the camera over scope and iphone is it's usefulness in close and medium distances, where the phone probably won't get you anything.
Would it be possible to buy the P900 before you sell the scope? If you order from Amazon, B&H, Adorama, etc., you'd have 30 days to trial it, and return if it didn't cut the mustard.
 
To me it sounds like you might well be very happy with the P900, "PROVIDED" you're willing to use it with a tripod for those distant shorebird shots.
My husband normally uses a monopod, but on a recent trip to Galapagos (where we were transported back and forth to the islands on Zodiacs twice a day) he took a backpack/camera case instead. This particular pack has a frame that allows it to be used in place of a monopod; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXcXSywPYQw
He ended up really liking it, and felt it worked as well as the MP for his 70 - 400mm lens and camera, so when we got home I tried it with the P900. Unfortunately, 2000mm at really long distances is a lot different than 400mm at medium distances, and I didn't find it to be an improvement over good hand-held technique. So I'm thinking you'd be happier with the stability of a good tripod. Maybe Neil will weigh in, he shoots in the conditions you're describing a lot.

One advantage of the camera over scope and iphone is it's usefulness in close and medium distances, where the phone probably won't get you anything.
Would it be possible to buy the P900 before you sell the scope? If you order from Amazon, B&H, Adorama, etc., you'd have 30 days to trial it, and return if it didn't cut the mustard.

I'm planning to keep the tripod that I already use for my scope for when I'm expecting shorebirds, video ops, perched birds of prey etc, and to have a monopod for when I'm doing lots of walking and hiking. That is a pretty neat case though. It might be tough to use that case and use binos at the same time?

I have been grateful for all the footage and insight Neil has provided about using the camera in those situations but I can't recall him saying he would take the P900 over a scope if he could only pick one.

I'm not real considered about needing to return the camera, but if I did it would probably be to get a different camera. It wouldn't be easy for me to buy the camera first though.
 
There I was, trying to photograph some hummingbirds with the P900 (NOT an easy task!) when all the other birds in the area scattered, and there was this huge clatter. Peering up from behind the bushes where I was, a juvenile Cooper's Hawk had landed, evidently looking for a quick snack. He/she didn't see me as I was able to get a couple of shots off before it took off.

Had I had my rig DSLR rig, I could have never pulled it off...

Chris

Oh yeah, I can relate on both fronts!
With migrant activity picking up, I'll look out the window and there will be a little mixed flock jumping around in the birdbaths and surrounding shrubs. I still find it easier to grab my SX50 and fire off a few shots than to deal with the slow zoom of the P900.

BUT, when a Selasphorus hummingbird showed up a couple days ago I was happy to have 2000 mm available. In this shot I can tell she's wearing a band, so is probably a returnee from previous years. And when light is better I'll probably be able to read enough numbers to know where and when she was banded.

Much as we'd like it, there's no one camera right for all situations. Maybe the camera companies should be working on a personal robot that would follow us around with all our gear!
 

Attachments

  • DSCN5502.jpg
    DSCN5502.jpg
    120.4 KB · Views: 394
Just for the record, even it if was able to match the image quality I get from the Canon SX50 at even closer zoom, which it is not able to do by a wide margin, I hated the P900 for its lack of usability features. In my opinion, it's a piece of crap camera.

Interesting comment, I use very few features; the zoom as a scope, several times I have been asked by other birders to "check out" a distant bird, actually getting to be quite a regular occurrence.

I have adjusted the exposure a couple of times when the light was poor, purely to see just what little bird was skulking in the shrubbery.

I set the scene to bird watching and AF infinity for the chance of a quick (very) shot of a bird whizzing past, and also to help wth focussing at long range across water or a grassy field,

And the wifi with my iPad for "set and wait" shots.

Not a lot else really, for me, the whole point of the camera is the usability. Simple point, zoom in or out, gentle press and focus and burst depending on how long I hold down the button. In between shots I can have a look around using the zoom as a scope.

I have made a little slide on sun shade for the screen and now use that coupled with the ability to turn the screen off to save battery power (another feature) but usually only on a tripod, but am beginning to realise that I don't have to keep taking my glasses on an off if I use the screen all the time.

As for image quality I can't comment, I get plenty that look ok to me, loads that are not quite good enough,to win a prize, but that has always been the case whatever camera and whatever setup I have owned..........and that has ranged from a Sony FD85 (floppy disc) up to the 900.

Sorry mate, the camera is not crap. It does the job it was designed to do.

Den (happy snapper)
 
I'm planning to keep the tripod that I already use for my scope for when I'm expecting shorebirds, video ops, perched birds of prey etc, and to have a monopod for when I'm doing lots of walking and hiking. That is a pretty neat case though. It might be tough to use that case and use binos at the same time?

I have been grateful for all the footage and insight Neil has provided about using the camera in those situations but I can't recall him saying he would take the P900 over a scope if he could only pick one.

I'm not real considered about needing to return the camera, but if I did it would probably be to get a different camera. It wouldn't be easy for me to buy the camera first though.

Yeah, the bins compatability was a concern of mine...hubby didn't carry any. I was thinking of using the case more as a traditional backpack in place of the fanny pack that carries my bluetooth, water, raincoat ,etc.... but swinging it around to use as camera support when needed.
 
Yeah, the bins compatability was a concern of mine...hubby didn't carry any. I was thinking of using the case more as a traditional backpack in place of the fanny pack that carries my bluetooth, water, raincoat ,etc.... but swinging it around to use as camera support when needed.

That's a good point.
 
Interesting comment, I use very few features; the zoom as a scope, several times I have been asked by other birders to "check out" a distant bird, actually getting to be quite a regular occurrence.

I have adjusted the exposure a couple of times when the light was poor, purely to see just what little bird was skulking in the shrubbery.

I set the scene to bird watching and AF infinity for the chance of a quick (very) shot of a bird whizzing past, and also to help wth focussing at long range across water or a grassy field,

And the wifi with my iPad for "set and wait" shots.

Not a lot else really, for me, the whole point of the camera is the usability. Simple point, zoom in or out, gentle press and focus and burst depending on how long I hold down the button. In between shots I can have a look around using the zoom as a scope.

I have made a little slide on sun shade for the screen and now use that coupled with the ability to turn the screen off to save battery power (another feature) but usually only on a tripod, but am beginning to realise that I don't have to keep taking my glasses on an off if I use the screen all the time.

As for image quality I can't comment, I get plenty that look ok to me, loads that are not quite good enough,to win a prize, but that has always been the case whatever camera and whatever setup I have owned..........and that has ranged from a Sony FD85 (floppy disc) up to the 900.

Sorry mate, the camera is not crap. It does the job it was designed to do.

Den (happy snapper)

Sorry but I have to disagree. It's no replacement for the SX50. This is my review that I posted on Amazon after returning the second P900 that I got.

My experience with the P900 is colored by my intent for it to replace my Canon SX50 as my primary camera for wildlife photography. In that instance it failed resoundingly. It failed in terms of image quality next to the smaller and less expensive SX50 and it failed in terms of ease of use and user customizable features.

I purchased a P900 in April 2015 and did side by side comparison shots between the P900 and the SX50. I took photos with the P900 at it's maximum optical range of 2000mm and took photos with the SX50 at 2439mm where half of that is optical and half was in the digital zoom range using the Canon 2x Digital Teleconverter. In every single case the Canon produced much sharper photos and got closer to the subject. The Canon was released in 2012 and has been available for roughly $400 while the P900 costs $600. I returned my first purchase to Amazon thinking that perhaps I had a lemon. The replacement came a few weeks later as stocks were filled but unfortunately the replacement compared just as poorly. I took photos of static objects to simulate what a wildlife photo would be like and the Canon still outperformed the Nikon.

The Nikon was set to save the jpg at lowest compression while the Canon was only set to normal and could have produced better photos had I set it to do so. The Nikon was less focused and had an unacceptably narrow Depth of Field when compared with the Canon. I've attached one example of this comparison. The Photo that appears closer is taken by the Canon at 2439mm using digital zoom. The other photo is less focused and has less depth of field. These two photos are consistent with all comparison photos I took.

So the image quality was poor when compared to a less expensive and significantly smaller camera.

In terms of ease of use and user customizable features, the Nikon also compares poorly to the SX50. There is only one custom setting for the Nikon while Canon has two. The Nikon wildcard button lacks access to settings what one might actually use while the Canon gives access to far more settings set to the wildcard.

Two issues in terms of usability truly fail on the Nikon. Both cameras have a button that when zoomed out all the way will retract the lens to re-locate a subject if it has moved out of field. The Canon will retract nicely at all zoom ranges. The Nikon only does this when in optical zoom. Once you are in digital zoom, it only retracts to the end of optical zoom so if you are zooming to 2001mm using only a tiny bit of digital zoom, it only retracts to 2000mm. The feature becomes useless.

Second, when in digital zoom, the focus rectangle goes away. One can only guess where the camera is actually focusing and if you're trying to get through the twigs to a bird, this is serious.

Nikon compounds this problem by not inserting in the firmware a stop at 2000mm. It's extremely easy to go beyond optical zoom of 83x. It's too easy when zooming onto a bird in a tree to move into digital zoom range and be in Nikon's no-mans-land of lack of usability. A second lost and the bird is gone.

I have sent two of the P900's back because they both could not produce image quality next to the smaller and less expensive Canon SX50. Nikon has produced a lemon for anyone who is currently using the Canon SX50 for wildlife photography.


I've posted many examples in this thread showing that the SX50 was providing significantly better quality photos than the P900 was able to produce and the SX50 was at the disadvantage of only saking to normal JPG while the Nikon was saving to fine and creating files over twice the size as the Canon.
 
Sorry but I have to disagree. It's no replacement for the SX50. This is my review that I posted on Amazon after returning the second P900 that I got.

Did you read the replies to your Amazon review? Scathing to say the least.
But then again, opinions are like assholes... Everybody has one and no-one thinks their own stinks ;)
 
Did you read the replies to your Amazon review? Scathing to say the least.
But then again, opinions are like assholes... Everybody has one and no-one thinks their own stinks ;)

I looked at some. I suspect few had an SX50 to compare it to. The P900's ease of use features are exceptionally poor when compared to the SX50.

I stand by my experience having owned two P900's that could not produce a photo as good as the SX50 that the P900 is very badly thought out in terms of usability.

Snap back zoom only goes back to 2000mm if you are using only a tiny bit of digital zoom. Useless. Can't produce a photo at 2000mm that matches the quality of a photo on the SX50 at 2239mm? Poor.
 
Last edited:
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