rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I understand what you're saying about uploading both file types; however, the platform we are working with precluded that. What I uploaded showed linear post processing, so while you may have done a better job than I did, the range of difference would have been negligible. It was an interesting exercise. I'm still befuddled by Nikon's decision to offer both file types.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

I wasn't going to try and do a better job than you, (who says I can anyway), my thoughts were more on analysis and comparism of the two images, and a basic raw file. It may well be that raw files are excluded from the P900 simply because it is more cost effective to leave the output at 8 bits instead of 12 or 14 bits as used in most raw images.

2th Loc: Tehran

Thanks for reading opinions here and there I was going to buy 600 mm F5.6 Nikon. but what a heck p900 s saved me from five figures .

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Here's a post comparing the P900 against the Canon SX50. There is a picture of a roof vent stack taken at full zoom with both the Canon SX50 and the Nikon P900.

If you magnify the images to max, you will see a problem with the SX50 JPEG rendition that makes it look sort of like looking through frosted glass. The Nikon P900 does not have that problem.

I too have a Canon SX50, and have come to realize that it is far better to shoot RAW in that I don't have that JPEG look in RAW that I see here in JPEG.

Here is an example that I took using the Canon SX50 at full zoom and then used DxO Optics Pro for noise reduction and micro contrast adjust. Then a trip to Photoshop for Anti-shake reduction and high pass sharpening. These seals where quite far away and the 1200mm equiv reach was needed to bring them in.

I wish I could compare this to what the Nikon P900 can do. Since it doesn't have RAW, it would be fun to compare SX50 RAW to P900 JPEG.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-321259-1.html

(Download)