You don't need the insane zoom that camera makers are shilling

[tandeejay]

Just came across this interesting article on Gizmodo about cameras with super zoom capabilities:

http://reframe.gizmodo.com/you-dont-need-the-insane-zoom-that-camera-makers-are-sh-1689268277

love the pic of the 2000mm DSLR lens

[ameerat42]

What!?!?! A bit early for an April Fool's story.

He's right, though. A lens/camera/gizmo that's all things to all people.

[bowjac]

24-2000 zoom!!!! There better be some mind blowing Image Stabilisation on that.

[macmich]

pretty strong flash setup

[tandeejay]

I've got the P520 and with its 24 - 1000mm equiv I find the long end of the zoom soft. Would hate to see what the longer P900 is like...

[arthurking83]

Just came across this interesting article on Gizmodo about cameras with super zoom capabilities ......

Errr .. I dunno about the article being interesting!

The author of the article is making an assessment based purely on a hypothesis .. and (basically) a negatively biased one at that too!

While it may transpire that (as is expected) that the camera may underperform at the long end of the focal length range .. it's not always a given that it WILL(as he speculates it will).

There is a difference between will and could.
So, he really should make a point to specify that his comments are based purely on an expectation .. and not simply make statements that the camera has shown not to be sharp and clean at making images!

And I'm curious as to what he means when he says:

"what you end up with are foggy-looking photos with high levels of smeary refraction, and low levels of detail and contrast"

Is he saying that the Nikon P900 produces some weird distorted images due to refraction or something?
We all know that refraction is the 'bending' of light into it's individual wavelength components.
(I guess he means diffraction .. not refraction)

Anyhow ... my overall assessment of this specific article is ... KR v2.0