• 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 (3 Viewers)

Do you use an UV filter to protect the lens? If you do, what kind? (I mean, which company has manufactured it.)

I've attached the very first acceptable images I made with the P900. Nothing very interesting from a birding point of view but they are pretty nice for a sensor of this size (and for the reach). The third one was shot with digital zoom (2400 mm).

Your images are excellent, and indicative of just how good the P900 is.

When I first got my P900, I put a UV filter on the front but found out quite quickly that the AF didn't focus properly with it mounted. I took it off and have never had a problem since. I have a feeling that the filter somehow confuses the AF, but that's just my experience.

Like all my cameras, my P900 stays protected when not in use, and I always keep a lens hood on it.
 
Do you use an UV filter to protect the lens? If you do, what kind? (I mean, which company has manufactured it.)

I've attached the very first acceptable images I made with the P900. Nothing very interesting from a birding point of view but they are pretty nice for a sensor of this size (and for the reach). The third one was shot with digital zoom (2400 mm).

I use a Hoya cant remember the model buts it the top end one,a sample from today with it on.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN1444.jpg
    DSCN1444.jpg
    195.5 KB · Views: 271
I found that with a filter pictures taken from close by don't show any defects even at full zoom but long distance pictures with full zoom were terrible. Wide to medium angle was not a problem but I bought the camera for it's long zoom. I returned the filter.
 
Like all my cameras, my P900 stays protected when not in use, and I always keep a lens hood on it.

I hope your camera doesn't talk to my camera - mine would be crying.
It doesn't have a lens cap - I did buy it a hood - it gets chucked in my rucksack ready to get out quickly - it gets left on rocks - gets wet.

I covered my Nikon DSLR with gaffa tape to protect it which was a pain as it took ages to clean the tape residue when I sold it.
 
I'm sorry it's not a bird but there aren't a lot here now - did see a Swallow today and Sandwich Terns.

These are our resident Dolphins going out to feed - that is a crop of about an 1/8th of the original area at probably 2-300 metres/yards - nothing done to it.

I'm more than pleased to get record shots like that and with 2 x VR I'm finding it much easier than with any other camera I've owned.
 

Attachments

  • Dolphin Isl 2.jpg
    Dolphin Isl 2.jpg
    923.7 KB · Views: 283
Thank you all! I think I'll try a higher quality filter and see what happens. Somehow it feels bad to leave such a big front lens "naked."
 
The filter I purchased is marked DIGIeye PRO UV Filter 67mm. Cost about £8 if I remember, or maybe £12 , not sure.

Tested it under cloudy/sunlight/close up and full optical zoom and can't see any difference in image quality.

Den
 
Common wood pigeon

No filter yet, just two photos. I assume the second one would be better if the P900 was capable of RAW. Still, its fun shooting bird portraits from afar ;)
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0219ed.jpg
    DSCN0219ed.jpg
    179.9 KB · Views: 191
  • DSCN0220ed.jpg
    DSCN0220ed.jpg
    175.9 KB · Views: 236
Yes, I would like to have RAW with this camera. The final product could be so much better. That is the one thing Nikon lags behind Canon with their bridge cameras.

As for your second picture above. What settings do you use in the P900? The Image Quality must be set in fine and Noise Reduction Filter must be set too NR-. If it is not set like that it can explain the lack of detail on the feathers. In Picture Control I keep the Image Sharpening at level 3. Also try to keep the ISO at lowest posible, ISO-100 if possible and obvious the Image size on 16Mb. If all this is done and there is no movement of camera or subject then the image can be much sharper. Unfortunately because of the lack of RAW you will always see the jpg effects of merging similar colored pixels next to each other.

I was wondering if it is possible for Nikon to add RAW to the P900 by means of a firmware update.
 
Last edited:
Here is one example of a Cisticola about 15 meters away at full optical zoom with settings as above. I only later saw the ring on it. I did crop to get full frame of the bird and obvious had to reduce size for uploading here.

Edit: The forum reduced the size even more so the image quality is much less than direct out of the camera.
 

Attachments

  • Tinktinkie met ring 1-1280x1221.jpg
    Tinktinkie met ring 1-1280x1221.jpg
    124.9 KB · Views: 247
Last edited:
Thank you. I have these settings set (this was the first thing I did after receiving the P900), too, but I am not sure what settings the Bird Watching scene mode uses (these pics were taken with that). But my photos above were also taken in BW mode so I am not sure. Maybe the feathers' structure was too fine and all being the same colour the JPG engine did not save enough detail. I will have to test it. Still, I like this camera very much.
 
I didn't get on with the P600 and ended up giving it to my daughter. The autofocus is way too slow and I'm not sure what you call it, but the image jumps to one side as you press the shutter. Also the images at the highest magnification are very "noisy" and this is perhaps my biggest bugbear. Far off birds, especially in shade are unacceptably "blotchy". I've gone back to my favourite Sigma 150-500 which gives me brilliant results on my new 810.
 
Ja-well - you cannot compare the P600 or P900 with the D810. It is two worlds apart. For me the advantage of the P900 is it's lower cost, I cannot afford a D810 with required long lenses otherwise I would have one, no question about that. The P900 is my "top of the range".
 
Yes, no doubt about the superiority of a good DSLR + telephoto lens combo. But if you are on a budget that option may not be valid. I did not have much money but wanted a DSLR so I bought a used Olympus DSLR with a 70-300 telezoom and a 1.4 TC (This gave me a reach equivalent to 840 mm in 35 mm format.). It was a nice camera but not exactly suitable for bird photography. So I sold it and bought the P900 instead and I'm quite satisfied with it. My main interest is in birding and this camera will help identify far away birds without the need for a heavy scope plus tripod. So, image quality and maybe speed on the one side and price, portability and reach on the other. (There are other factors to consider, I know.) But if someone gave me a few thousand dollars to spend on cameras, I would not hesitate buying a DSLR :) My 2 cents...
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would like to have RAW with this camera. The final product could be so much better. That is the one thing Nikon lags behind Canon with their bridge cameras.

As for your second picture above. What settings do you use in the P900? The Image Quality must be set in fine and Noise Reduction Filter must be set too NR-. If it is not set like that it can explain the lack of detail on the feathers. In Picture Control I keep the Image Sharpening at level 3. Also try to keep the ISO at lowest posible, ISO-100 if possible and obvious the Image size on 16Mb. If all this is done and there is no movement of camera or subject then the image can be much sharper. Unfortunately because of the lack of RAW you will always see the jpg effects of merging similar colored pixels next to each other.

I was wondering if it is possible for Nikon to add RAW to the P900 by means of a firmware update.

I think it's unlikely and/or impossible for Nikon to add Raw to the P900. Adding Raw is not just a firmware update; they'd need to address the extra processing required in the electronics. Cameras which do record in Raw have additional circuitry on the motherboard plus a heavier duty power supply to facilitate this. I suspect that Nikon's next iteration of this camera will have Raw...
 
After reading about the RAW / jpg issue I understand as follow; The camera record from the sensor the image as raw data, that is unprocessed thus meaningless to the computer screen or eye. It first needs to be converted to some format that allows the screen or printer to bring certain color information as pixels in certain order according to the information from the RAW file to form the picture we see. So, the P900 and other small camera's processors must convert the RAW information to jpg for us to see. So the processing power is to convert to jpg. As I see it, it can just as well save that RAW information so we can use a computer to convert ourselves. There is no extra hardware requirement for the camera to do that. It is a software issue.
 
Last edited:
Pleased with this photo of a White billed Diver - it had just resurfaced. Distance - about 50 metres, at full normal zoom ( not the extra blue bit . . .)
 

Attachments

  • W B Diver Herston April 2016 (Medium).jpg
    W B Diver Herston April 2016 (Medium).jpg
    161.5 KB · Views: 494
A couple of recent ones - Long-tailed tit (1200mm) and Pochard (2000mm). Both handheld.
 

Attachments

  • LTTit_2803_RJS.JPG
    LTTit_2803_RJS.JPG
    203.2 KB · Views: 424
  • malePochard_0304_RJS.JPG
    malePochard_0304_RJS.JPG
    141.7 KB · Views: 527
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