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

[mzettie]

Chris is the closeup optical only or did you go into digital range?

I sure am looking forward to getting my replacement.

Crazy, I know how much you liked the telephoto function of the SX50, and it would be great if the P900 had one too, cause it would reduce camera shake at the absurdly long focal lengths this camera's capable of.
I took a few more digital zoom shots with the P900 today and it's really not bad, even though there's no focus square available. It felt kind of silly using digital zoom in the yard, but I thought you might like to see what it can do and didn't have time to go looking for distant subjects. Will try to do that soon.

First shot's at 2850mm equivalent, the rest are 4000mm. None are cropped.

 

[Chris B.]

Chris is the closeup optical only or did you go into digital range?

I sure am looking forward to getting my replacement.

Strictly optical... I'm not a fan of using digital zooms.

Chris

 

[flossiepip]

May be a daft question as I don't use digital zoom but am looking for a little more reach than my SX50 gives me. So do you get a full 83x in optical zoom before going into digital?

 

[Chris B.]

May be a daft question as I don't use digital zoom but am looking for a little more reach than my SX50 gives me. So do you get a full 83x in optical zoom before going into digital?

Yes... 24mm - 2000mm!

Chris

 

[mzettie]

May be a daft question as I don't use digital zoom but am looking for a little more reach than my SX50 gives me. So do you get a full 83x in optical zoom before going into digital?

Of course, that's why I bought the camera, duh.

 

[John Cantelo]

Popped into Jessops for another look at this beastie and found a friend had beaten me to it. He found the camera so interesting that in ten minutes conversation about it, he never noticed that my leg was heavily strapped up and I was using a stick! The manager told us that they were now out of stock and that the 40 Jessops nationwide had ordered had sold out unbelievably quickly - many to birdwatchers. Apparently they've got 180 on order, but he wasn't sure when they'd come in.

 

[mzettie]

It occurred to me that people who pop in here only occasionally and haven't been following the thread closely, might think it's daft to take pics of yard birds at 4000mm. So, to qualify my last answer..... I did that just to demonstrate what the digital zoom is like on the P900, since many here (including me) did use DZ on the SX50 and were wondering if it's a useful function on the Nikon.

In my experience, the "photography first" people are always loathe to use digital zoom. My better half is in this camp, and he'll decline to take a shot if he doesn't feel it has the potential to be a good photo. Tiny birds high in the canopy, or those that are far away aren't subjects these folks will try to shoot.

I find the "birding first" people are more inclined to embrace digital zoom because they prioritize "getting" a shot, even if it means the resulting photo won't be stellar. Of course everyone wants to get great pics all of the time, but birds have a way of thwarting that goal, especially when it's one you really want to document. All tools that give the birder the edge are welcomed by this crowd.

Conventional wisdom is that digital zoom is nothing more than a crop, so one is better off taking a pic in optical and cropping later. With superzooms though, things aren't always so cut and dried. Many SX50 operators find the teleconverter function to be superior to "regular" digital zoom, and that using it often results in better pictures than cropping of optical ones does, although no one seems to know exactly why, or how Canon accomplishes this.

I do know that distance from the subject, and busy-ness of the background always factored into my use of digital zoom on the Canon. I found that being able to hone in on the subject with digital zoom, often allowed the camera to focus more effectively than it was able to in optical range. The resulting photo (while perhaps not pixel-peeping-worthy,) was certainly better than an out-of-focus one would have been, cropped or not.

I bought the the P900 hoping to get the reach I was getting with digital zoom on the SX50, but within optical range, and that is indeed what I'm getting. The camera auto-focuses well throughout the optical zoom range (except for BIFs, where the SX50's sports mode is far superior) so I haven't felt the need to use digital zoom. Those who have been using the SX50 though, should know that 2400mm eq. (via teleconverter) doesn't require nearly as steady a hand as 2000mm optical does on the Nikon. Tranquilizers, anyone....?

 

[crazyfingers]

It occurred to me that people who pop in here only occasionally and haven't been following the thread closely, might think it's daft to take pics of yard birds at 4000mm. So, to qualify my last answer..... I did that just to demonstrate what the digital zoom is like on the P900, since many here (including me) did use DZ on the SX50 and were wondering if it's a useful function on the Nikon.

In my experience, the "photography first" people are always loathe to use digital zoom. My better half is in this camp, and he'll decline to take a shot if he doesn't feel it has the potential to be a good photo. Tiny birds high in the canopy, or those that are far away aren't subjects these folks will try to shoot.

I find the "birding first" people are more inclined to embrace digital zoom because they prioritize "getting" a shot, even if it means the resulting photo won't be stellar. Of course everyone wants to get great pics all of the time, but birds have a way of thwarting that goal, especially when it's one you really want to document. All tools that give the birder the edge are welcomed by this crowd.

Conventional wisdom is that digital zoom is nothing more than a crop, so one is better off taking a pic in optical and cropping later. With superzooms though, things aren't always so cut and dried. Many SX50 operators find the teleconverter function to be superior to "regular" digital zoom, and that using it often results in better pictures than cropping of optical ones does, although no one seems to know exactly why, or how Canon accomplishes this.

I do know that distance from the subject, and busy-ness of the background always factored into my use of digital zoom on the Canon. I found that being able to hone in on the subject with digital zoom, often allowed the camera to focus more effectively than it was able to in optical range. The resulting photo (while perhaps not pixel-peeping-worthy,) was certainly better than an out-of-focus one would have been, cropped or not.

I bought the the P900 hoping to get the reach I was getting with digital zoom on the SX50, but within optical range, and that is indeed what I'm getting. The camera auto-focuses well throughout the optical zoom range (except for BIFs, where the SX50's sports mode is far superior) so I haven't felt the need to use digital zoom. Those who have been using the SX50 though, should know that 2400mm eq. (via teleconverter) doesn't require nearly as steady a hand as 2000mm optical does on the Nikon. Tranquilizers, anyone....?

Thanks for posting those photos mz,

Your comments are right on. I'd only add that on the SX50 the degradation of photo quality using the 2x teleconverter is so minimal that I pretty much have it on ALL THE TIME. It turns on that way and it's rare that I use the "S" button to which it's assigned to turn it off. That is of course why I'm so interested in how the P900 performs and ease of use in digital zoom territory to get at least the 2439mm range I am used to getting on the SX50.

But on your other comments, with the exception of some bird I already have a gazillion photos of (e.g. House sparrows) my first concern is not usually a beautiful photo but a good enough to ID photo. Then I start to concentrate on better and better pictures of the species over time. Which usually means finding opportunities over time to get closer to the bird in terms of feet instead of zoom.

 

[crazyfingers]

On the topic of the P900 being harder to keep steady at 2000mm than the SX50 is at 2439mm, I had noticed that before sending my unit back for exchange. I had chalked it up to the larger size and weight and started to hold the unit differently, with my left hand holding it up under the unit instead of on the side as with the SX50.

 

[mzettie]

On the topic of the P900 being harder to keep steady at 2000mm than the SX50 is at 2439mm, I had noticed that before sending my unit back for exchange. I had chalked it up to the larger size and weight and started to hold the unit differently, with my left hand holding it up under the unit instead of on the side as with the SX50.

I agree, the size of the camera dictates supporting from below, and that does help stabilize the image. Holding the barrel closer to the end can help as well, as long as you're careful not to impede it's ability to move. But the added focal length, not weight, is mostly responsible for increased shake. If you use the P900 at 1200mm you'll find it easier to stabilize. It's also easier to use the full optical zoom when a bird is fairly close. If you're at 2000mm and the subject is more than 30 yards away, it's very helpful to use a monopod or find something to support your arms or the camera.

 

[flossiepip]

Of course, that's why I bought the camera, duh.

Sorry about my daft question I,m not a photographer just a birder, a lot of the technology stuff is lost on me. But the use of duh!!!

 

[mzettie]

Sorry about my daft question I,m not a photographer just a birder, a lot of the technology stuff is lost on me. But the use of duh!!!

Flossiepip, I apologize for the use of "duh." A lot of the accomplished photographers are dismissive of the use of digital zoom, and my first reaction was to take offense at the question......thought you were asking me why the heck I didn't just use optical. I'm sorry.... |=(|

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I have a questions here.

Those currently using these camera, overall what do you think of it?

Do you think it is a good compliment as an action camera at the same time compliment the spotting scope that are used for digiscoping with other camera?

In my place, most birdwatchers carry spotting scope + camera for digiscoping and another set of camera + 300mm lens.

Hope to hear your opinions etc. Thanks

 

[crazyfingers]

I agree, the size of the camera dictates supporting from below, and that does help stabilize the image. Holding the barrel closer to the end can help as well, as long as you're careful not to impede it's ability to move. But the added focal length, not weight, is mostly responsible for increased shake. If you use the P900 at 1200mm you'll find it easier to stabilize. It's also easier to use the full optical zoom when a bird is fairly close. If you're at 2000mm and the subject is more than 30 yards away, it's very helpful to use a monopod or find something to support your arms or the camera.

Given that I almost always use the SX50 at 2439mm, other than weight and size which is an issue to work out, I don't know why the P900 at 2000mm would be harder to hold steady unless the IS is not as good as the Canon.

Or are you agreeing that it all just the weight and size that makes it harder?

 

[mzettie]

Given that I almost always use the SX50 at 2439mm, other than weight and size which is an issue to work out, I don't know why the P900 at 2000mm would be harder to hold steady unless the IS is not as good as the Canon.

Or are you agreeing that it all just the weight and size that makes it harder?

Crazy, I'll have to leave the explaining to those who understand the physics.... hopefully someone will answer your question.

 

[Neil]

Neil,

How far from the squirrel where you ?, and what settings where you using ??

These are the sort of pics I would like to replicate, so it would be a great help to me if I could stick something in a bush at the same distance and see what quality of pics I get - if we ever get any sunshine up here . . . .

Paul,
Sorry to be a bit slow getting back to you on this. The Squirrel was about 30 metres away. I use the Bird Watching Mode in in SCENE, Centre Weighted Exposure and Auto ISO.
The light was good and it will make a big difference to detail.
Neil.

 

[Neil]

I can't seem to put the P900 down and am taking it with me everywhere.
Here are some from yesterday.
This is a video of the life on the mudflats taken with the P900. I find the Video mode easy to use and exposure is spot on.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/17393643002/
Neil.

 

[pppppvvvv]

I can't seem to put the P900 down and am taking it with me everywhere.
Here are some from yesterday.
This is a video of the life on the mudflats taken with the P900. I find the Video mode easy to use and exposure is spot on.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/17393643002/
Neil.

Super video. We tried to film an apple rotting with the time lapse, but the camera was on the table with the apple, and the shutter vibrations just gradually knocked the apple over.. Fail!

 

[poledark]

I have a questions here.

Those currently using these camera, overall what do you think of it?

Do you think it is a good compliment as an action camera at the same time compliment the spotting scope that are used for digiscoping with other camera?

In my place, most birdwatchers carry spotting scope + camera for digiscoping and another set of camera + 300mm lens.

Hope to hear your opinions etc. Thanks

I am not a hardened birder, but have been using an 80mm scope with 20x lens and a video camera attached for some time now. Have got some really good long range pics. I test out on the church 600mtrs away.
The 900 is equally sharp.
I do find it a bit of a pain to carry tripod, scope, and camera (almost 80) and tend to take pics of almost anything and everything in my path 😀
So I took the plunge and went for the P900, and am very pleased that I did.
Macro shots at 1cm............birds nests at 500mtrs (a bit blurry) and like Neil, a squirrel at 30mts..........the sharpest pics I have ever taken..........just a point and shoot shot.

Now it has replaced my scope, video camera, everything in one package 😀
Looking forward to my walks, knowing I have the camera to take excellent pics of everything from bees to butterfly's and birds. I took a landscape shot a couple of days ago, and when I zoomed in to the pic, I was amazed to see sheep in the far distance, not visible with my naked eye.


Anybody want to buy my scope?
Den

 

[Chris B.]

I have a questions here.

Those currently using these camera, overall what do you think of it?

Do you think it is a good compliment as an action camera at the same time compliment the spotting scope that are used for digiscoping with other camera?

In my place, most birdwatchers carry spotting scope + camera for digiscoping and another set of camera + 300mm lens.

Hope to hear your opinions etc. Thanks

Overall, the camera is terrific but, in my opinion, it really isn't an action camera per se, although I'm sure Nikon might think it is.... Honestly I don't think it was designed for that.

The reason I bought mine is that there have been many times when it's been impossible to get a good shot of a distant bird with my regular gear, which includes a 500mm lens and converters. I had thought about investing in a high-end scope for digiscoping but would have had to pay at least $2K+ to get me something with the superb optics I'd want. When the P900 came along, I checked it out and thought "what the heck, let's give it a try!" I've been very pleasantly surprised with it: it's much cheaper than a good scope, offers AF which a scope won't, is much more portable, and delivers excellent images.

Chris