Nikon Coolpix P900

[MadMax1412]

Hi Guys,

I saw this article about the - - - Updated - - -[/COLOR]

Oops, I can't edit my posts so here's the link - Nikon Coolpix P900 (http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/401157,nikon-coolpix-p900-comes-with-83x-lens.aspx"Nikon Coolpix P900 which is about to be released for the price of about $990.

I like how GPS is built in (as the add-on GPS unit on my D90 is annoying).

What are your thoughts based on the article?

[COLOR="silver)

[swifty]

I don't know how good the camera would be, especially at the long end. I wonder how long it takes to zoom from 24-2000mm since its a power zoom and not mechanical.
But it would certainly be fun to play with.

[MadMax1412]

My posted price of $990 was based on today's conversion rate for the UK pound. This article (http://www.cnet.com/products/nikon-coolpix-p900/) says
...about $600 in April and in the UK in April for £500. It will also arrive in Australia in March and while pricing wasn't announced it converts directly to about AU$770.. Looks like the English are getting ripped off as the $US600 equates to about 390 Pound.

[ameerat42]

OK, so you're just asking about that camera.

Based on the article in your link, there's not enough info to go on, so I looked up some specs here. (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/COOLPIX-P900.html)

The first thing I saw was the very small sensor size - 1/2.3 in - and I thought, whatever else it has, what would the image quality be like?

As for the exchange rates, they're not the only thing that determines camera - or anything - prices between currency market locations (roughly, countries).

That greater-than-usual zoom range would not be hard to get for such a small sensor, but I can imagine some little gear wearing out fast:o
I would have to wonder about the consistency of the IQ from the lens over such a large range - quite apart from the intrinsic IQ capability of the sensor.

From DPR here (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2417488569/a-closer-look-at-the-nikon-coolpix-p900-megazoom?slide=7) there is not yet a full review (I haven't looked for any others), but the only
semi-evaluative comment they make is by way of an aside in the 2nd paragraph there. - Of course you'd need some sort of a tripod!!

Just my thoughts.
Am.

[tandeejay]

I have a Nikon P520. It only has a 42x zoom 35mm equiv 24 - 1000mm. I find mine soft at the long end of the zoom. The small sensor makes for poor low light performance, (400 and above you start to get noticable noise) and the 3.5 - 5.6 max aperture range makes it not the fastest lens on the block. I have missed heaps of good photo ops due to the length of time the autofocus can take to lock onto something, and the lag between reality and the electronic view finder makes it dificult to track fast moving subjects. I would imagine that the longer focal lengths on the P900 would make that problem worse.

Having said all that, the P900 is several years later than my P520, so they may have made some improvements.

[MadMax1412]

I have a Nikon P520. I have missed heaps of good photo ops due to the length of time the autofocus can take to lock onto something, and the lag between reality and the electronic view finder makes it dificult to track fast moving subjects. I would imagine that the longer focal lengths on the P900 would make that problem worse.



This review (http://www.cnet.com/au/products/nikon-coolpix-p900/) says telephoto autofocus speeds haven't been the best with Nikon's other extreme megazoom cameras, but the company says the P900's lag when fully zoomed in should be 0.75 seconds in overcast conditions. So as long as you're not too tight on your subject and they aren't moving fast (or you're very good at predicting movement) you should be able to get a clean shot.

Probably wouldn't be a bad camera for someone who wanted something cheap and still be able to do some zoom without carrying additional lenses.

[ameerat42]

Probably wouldn't be a bad camera for someone who wanted something cheap and still be able to do some zoom without carrying additional lenses.

Is that all? Does IQ not matter? It has been brought into question in other Nikon superzooms with the same sensor.

[tandeejay]

This review (http://www.cnet.com/au/products/nikon-coolpix-p900/) says telephoto autofocus speeds haven't been the best with Nikon's other extreme megazoom cameras, but the company says the P900's lag when fully zoomed in should be 0.75 seconds in overcast conditions. So as long as you're not too tight on your subject and they aren't moving fast (or you're very good at predicting movement) you should be able to get a clean shot.



Thats considerably better than the P520 where it can hunt around for a couple of seconds before failing to lock on what your pointing at. But that could be because I'm not holding the camera steady enough at full zoom... would be even worse for me on the P900 with the long end being twice as long as the long end of the p520. And with the P520, fast moving objects at full zoom? forget it!

[MadMax1412]

Is that all? Does IQ not matter?

All I meant was that it would be good for the amateur who might want the luxury of zooming in but without the need for carrying multiple lens.

What did you mean by IQ? Are you saying that only people with low IQ should buy this? I'm not being smart, I'm trying to understand what you meant by this comment. Perhaps a lot of people aren't interested in knowing about F-stops, ISO, etc (I'm not one of them, I'm trying to learn). All I said was it would be a simple camera for someone who wanted zoom capabilities without the need for other lens. If, by talking about low IQ, you mean it wouldn't be good for those that want to delve into all the settings etc of taking a photograph, then those people would also not be interested in anything other than an SLR where they could put on a lens suitable to the situation they are taking photos with.

[tandeejay]

I think in this context IQ=image quality

[ricktas]

What did you mean by IQ? Are you saying that only people with low IQ should buy this?

IQ = Image Quality!

[ameerat42]

Yes, IQ is the usual abbreviation for Image Quality. Sorry for the confusion about that.

You will probably divine that you may take for granted that we do not attack the person on AP but do sometimes robustly question what they say.
In my longer post above I made mention to the rather small sensor in this camera. Although there may be some convenience of such a large zoom range,
coupled with the sensor, and the present generally accepted state of sensor technology, the user of such a camera may well be disappointed with
the quality of the resulting images. Yes, this is a forecast, but based on present knowledge. I can't imagine Nikon suddenly shot light-years ahead
with their sensor technology to make it otherwise.

Am.

[MadMax1412]

Yes, IQ is the usual abbreviation for Image Quality. Sorry for the confusion about that.



Now don't I feel like a fool :lol:

[tandeejay]

Is there a thread somewhere defining all the abbreviations that get used? Like DOF, IQ, etc... When I first joined a photo forum, I was confused by all the acronyms that everyone seemed to assume everyone else knew what they meant...

[thegrump]

Anything new on this camera. I have been hunting for a macro but. This camera was on expo channel last night on NIKON, I think it is in the low $600 mark. Probably cheaper in the long run than buying a macro for my D3100. The advantages would be no changing of the lenses ( dust ) - all in one. etc. I am not a pro far from it. has any one got an opinion on this camera.

[ameerat42]

Anything new on this camera. I have been hunting for a macro but. This camera was on expo channel last night on NIKON, I think it is in the low $600 mark. Probably cheaper in the long run than buying a macro for my D3100. The advantages would be no changing of the lenses ( dust ) - all in one. etc. I am not a pro far from it. has any one got an opinion on this camera.

I am still of the same opinion as in post #4, above. I'd hate to see you :( at the drop in image quality (IQ) for the sake of
a bit of convenience.:D

[Hawthy]

I am still of the same opinion as in post #4, above. I'd hate to see you :( at the drop in image quality (IQ) for the sake of
a bit of convenience.:D

I agree. I bought a Panasonic Lumix TZ30 travel zoom to take on a trip to Alaska. It has a similar sized sensor to the Nikon P900 but nothing like the zoom capabilities - only 24mm to 480mm. Nice small compact camera to travel with. It certainly was convenient. And the snaps were just that - snaps. After you have been using a DSLR, the image quality on these small sensor cameras just doesn't compare when you get home and start processing them. They are great if you just want some snaps of places you are visiting. It was useful for some work purposes too. But if you are a semi-serious hobbyist you really appreciate a DSLR.

[deepend]

I have both ends of the spectrum in terms of sensor size and IQ, in the P900 as well as a couple of Sony FFs. The reason for getting the P900 was solely for the purpose of imaging birds in the distance, and the occasional moon.

It's all about compromises I believe where you certainly can't have your cake and eat it. In the past with a Canon APS-C and a Tamron 150-600mm, certain birds couldn't be approached due to say, a chasm or a river in between us, and it'd appear as only a smidgen in the picture. The P900 lets me get up close to ensure correct focus and better ID. In post-processing even in full crop, the subject from the APS-C sensor would still be too small for ID purposes sometimes. The hope is that the bird fills up enough of the sensor area in the P900 such that you don't even need to crop.

Of course the other downturn is that the P900 is really slow in terms of AF, especially when trying to do birds in flight or in low light, and there's not a whole lot we can do about this.