Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
My Conclusions About The Nikon P900
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
Jul 2, 2015 16:43:48   #
ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri
 
shelty wrote:
I also have purchased a Nikon P900. First of all, I'm 88 years old and have recently developed a tremor which means that my hands now shake. I took a trip over to Ashland, Oregon's Lithia park. They have a large pond there, and as I was trying to get some duck shots (two of which won me first prizes in my camera club) I hand held this shot from across the lake of this lady. Now this is just a straight shot without a lot of processing. The second shot is of a duck processed for projection. Now look at these pictures and tell me what you think about the camera.
I also have purchased a Nikon P900. First of all, ... (show quote)

Thank you for the fascinating story about a shaky hand and sharing the spectacular images of the 900. You convinced me of the high quality of the camera as well as your talent.

Reply
Jul 2, 2015 17:28:22   #
Jim Ermer
 
Good going. Good pictures and I agree fully with you on the P900. I said in an earlier quote the VR is amazing. The other feature I like is the instant wide on the side of the lens. Once you get use to it Birds in flight are so much easier to get focused.

Reply
Jul 2, 2015 18:00:37   #
Horseart Loc: Alabama
 
I wish I had time to read all the comments here, but not right now. I do hope that you know to or that someone has suggested to you that you adjust the little focus wheel to the left of your viewfinder to adjust the focus. It makes a lot of difference. Ihave the P600 and love it. I am wanting both the P900 and the Sony a6000 now.

Reply
 
 
Jul 2, 2015 18:03:51   #
DJO
 
wingclui44 wrote:
Good point! Soft image is what you get from a small size sensor and tons of glasses for the light to go through.
By the way, I had this 43-86mm Nikkor bought with my Nikon Ftn and the Nikkotmat Ftn in 1971, I do like it's softness for portrait. I now use it on my Df. Remember that this zoom was the first Nikon zoom with constant aperture a f3.5.


Even with its shortcomings, the Nikon 43-86 sold quite well. It is the only Nikon lens to ever have a 7 digit serial number. Improvements were made over the years. I have one with a serial number 998,xxx; it's not as bad as you might think. I'm sure the constant aperture played a part in its popularity; it's the reason I have one. Constant aperture is a must for shooting strobe in a studio, and befor TTL, it helped keep on camera flash exposures consistent. Think about how much you need to spend for a constant aperture zoom today. A lot, certainly when compared with a zoom lens that has a variable aperture. I know, this is a bit off the track of discussing the Nikon P900.

Reply
Jul 2, 2015 18:11:40   #
Kuzano
 
shelty wrote:
I also have purchased a Nikon P900. First of all, I'm 88 years old and have recently developed a tremor which means that my hands now shake. I took a trip over to Ashland, Oregon's Lithia park. They have a large pond there, and as I was trying to get some duck shots (two of which won me first prizes in my camera club) I hand held this shot from across the lake of this lady. Now this is just a straight shot without a lot of processing. The second shot is of a duck processed for projection. Now look at these pictures and tell me what you think about the camera.
I also have purchased a Nikon P900. First of all, ... (show quote)


Hey!!! I chased down a spare tire by wading into that pond in 1962. I visited a college friend who lived near Ashland. We were driving through the park when we had a flat. My friend opened his trunk and threw the spare tire out on the ground. It took a bad bounce and started rolling down the hill into the pond. We "fished" it out of the lake and changed tires and wandered off on our way.

Small world, innit?

Reply
Jul 2, 2015 20:23:39   #
Lee Everett
 
Thank you Wahawk... I have used a number of the Nikon P line (starting with the P80) and thought they all performed well for what they were. The P900 is not quite as sharp as my D610, but at a fraction of the price (with lenses) it does a great job and does things none of my pro cameras can't do (ie: 2000mm).

Reply
Jul 3, 2015 05:55:59   #
RGH
 
I agree, I took it back after 6 day. Very soft photos at distance shooting, Very loud zoom motor on videos. I was very disappointed.

rdgreenwood wrote:
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 ad... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jul 3, 2015 08:30:56   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
Little plastic camera.

Reply
Jul 3, 2015 08:34:14   #
Shutter Bugger
 
wingclui44 wrote:
I still have the Fujifilm S5000 with 3.1 mp. and 10X optical zoom, and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 with 10mp. and 10X optical zoom, I use this Panny quite oven because of easy of use, especially when it's zoom-in (35-420mm) the lens doesn't extend even when focusing, it's internal focusing, it uses zoom ring to do zooming not toggle switch. It's sensor is lager than most of other bridge cam. now on the market, it's 1/1.8" sensor. I once took a picture of Central Park in infra red and made a 20X30" copy and now is hung on the wall of my sitting room.
After this one, I won't consider any more bridge camera because of their small sensor and I don't care how long their zoom can be!
I still have the Fujifilm S5000 with 3.1 mp. and 1... (show quote)


Nice photo wing

:thumbup:

Reply
Jul 3, 2015 08:37:34   #
Shutter Bugger
 
Lee Everett wrote:
I disagree with the notion that the P900 is not sharp and not a good versatile bridge camera. I have had one for several months and I love it. I bring it with me everywhere and don't carry my heavy slrs with big lenses (D610 and D7000 with 80-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8). I have shot in all kinds of situations, low light (at 3200 ISO) and bright sun light, 24 wide and zoomed all the way to 2000mm.
Once you get the hang of the zoom it is quite controllable. I have captured professional performance photographs that i never could have gotten with my longest lens. See my website at: www.finelinelenox.com (under photography-performance photography-slide show) the very first Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga photographs are shot with the P900. They were zoomed in to about 1200mm, but I have some shots at 2000mm that are just as sharp. Some of the others were shot with my P510.
I disagree with the notion that the P900 is not sh... (show quote)


It's good that you have made friends with your P900. If
you want to sell your 24-70 let me know

:thumbup:

Reply
Jul 3, 2015 08:46:38   #
wingclui44 Loc: CT USA
 
Shutter Bugger wrote:
Nice photo wing

:thumbup:


Thank you, Shutter Bugger!

Reply
 
 
Jul 3, 2015 08:56:53   #
Shutter Bugger
 
DP

Reply
Jul 3, 2015 09:05:20   #
Shutter Bugger
 
WessoJPEG wrote:
Ty

You call that sharp?? :roll:


It's a hand held SOOC image
with no sharpening applied.

The threaded hole has a similar diameter
to a match stick.

Sharper than reality is what I call it... because it is. :thumbup:

Fujifilm S6500fd. A crop at full size taken from the photo on page 4 of this thread.
Fujifilm S6500fd. A crop at full size taken from t...

Reply
Jul 3, 2015 09:43:33   #
seagull5
 
Not reading every post in this thread but just to say I agree but have found on at least the Sony HX400 I can get pretty close to the 1200 and get a pretty to very good shots but very very seldom and it seems that all the variables have to line up like the song `when the moon is in the seventh house`....

Reply
Jul 3, 2015 12:39:21   #
Lee Everett
 
Thanks Shutter Bugger... but I use my big rig all the time for my real work... and the 24-70 is my favorite lens. And not only have I made friends with my P900... It's a love affair. Did you look at the shots of Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga on my wsebsite (www.finelinelenox.com under performance photography-slide show)? They were taken a couple of days ago with my P900 and are unaltered.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.