At the risk of bursting some bubbles, I want to add a post that sums up my final conclusions on the Nikon P900. Last week I went to Florida and left my Nikon D800E and Canon G-12 at home, committed to giving the P900 a thorough trial. I shot birds, landscapes, interiors, and people. Here is what I decided.

I hear what everyone is saying about the zoom capability of the P900, but what good is it as a practical matter? At full zoom 2000mm is nearly impossible to hand hold; hell, even 500mm is dicey when it's hand held.
Okay, so you use a tripod. At 2000mm tracking a large bird is extremely difficult if you're on a tripod. I know that some heads are easier to use than others, but when the smallest movement equates to the loss of target and focus it's no mean task to collect it all and recover the shot.

I hate to say it, but unless your photographic goal is to create videos of things that are far away and to feed off the "oooos" and "aahs" of others, put your $600 back in your pocket and count it as a down payment on a mirrorless camera. As a bridge camera the P900 can't keep up with my Canon G-12.

The P900 is a bold step on Nikon's part, but shooting soft images from 24 to 2000mm, frustrating the user as he desperately struggles to keep a subject in the frame as every small movement--ISO adjustment, focal length tweak, a small bit of side conversation--and the occasional lock-up make it a weak package.
So that's my take on the P900. It's over-hyped, and purchasing one was the worst photographic expenditure I've made since I bought a 43-86mm lens in 1968.

At the risk of bursting some bubbles, I want to add a post that sums up my final conclusions on the Nikon P900. Last week I went to Florida and left my Nikon D800E and Canon G-12 at home, committed to giving the P900 a thorough trial. I shot birds, landscapes, interiors, and people. Here is what I decided.

I hear what everyone is saying about the zoom capability of the P900, but what good is it as a practical matter? At full zoom 2000mm is nearly impossible to hand hold; hell, even 500mm is dicey when it's hand held.

Okay, so you use a tripod. At 2000mm tracking a large bird is extremely difficult if you're on a tripod. I know that some heads are easier to use than others, but when the smallest movement equates to the loss of target and focus it's no mean task to collect it all and recover the shot.

I hate to say it, but unless your photographic goal is to create videos of things that are far away and to feed off the "oooos" and "aahs" of others, put your $600 back in your pocket and count it as a down payment on a mirrorless camera. As a bridge camera the P900 can't keep up with my Canon G-12.

The P900 is a bold step on Nikon's part, but shooting soft images from 24 to 2000mm, frustrating the user as he desperately struggles to keep a subject in the frame as every small movement--ISO adjustment, focal length tweak, a small bit of side conversation--and the occasional lock-up make it a weak package.

So that's my take on the P900. It's over-hyped, and purchasing one was the worst photographic expenditure I've made since I bought a 43-86mm lens in 1968.

At the risk of bursting some bubbles, I want to add a post that sums up my final conclusions on the Nikon P900. Last week I went to Florida and left my Nikon D800E and Canon G-12 at home, committed to giving the P900 a thorough trial. I shot birds, landscapes, interiors, and people. Here is what I decided.

I hear what everyone is saying about the zoom capability of the P900, but what good is it as a practical matter? At full zoom 2000mm is nearly impossible to hand hold; hell, even 500mm is dicey when it's hand held.

Okay, so you use a tripod. At 2000mm tracking a large bird is extremely difficult if you're on a tripod. I know that some heads are easier to use than others, but when the smallest movement equates to the loss of target and focus it's no mean task to collect it all and recover the shot.

I hate to say it, but unless your photographic goal is to create videos of things that are far away and to feed off the "oooos" and "aahs" of others, put your $600 back in your pocket and count it as a down payment on a mirrorless camera. As a bridge camera the P900 can't keep up with my Canon G-12.

The P900 is a bold step on Nikon's part, but shooting soft images from 24 to 2000mm, frustrating the user as he desperately struggles to keep a subject in the frame as every small movement--ISO adjustment, focal length tweak, a small bit of side conversation--and the occasional lock-up make it a weak package.

So that's my take on the P900. It's over-hyped, and purchasing one was the worst photographic expenditure I've made since I bought a 43-86mm lens in 1968.

It's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way. 8-)

Seriously though it's not rocket science.

Diminishing returns applies to big numbers photographicwise in spades...
multiply that by the (lack of) cost of the unit and the only thing
that could be good about it, is the BIG numbers... on paper.

And having said all that, I have (about) a decade old 6.2 meg S6500fd
Fujifilm bridge camera, that is a useful tool. In fact I used it a couple of
hours ago while I was fixing my fridge