P900 and RAW
Jul 28, 2015 09:10:03 #
We all know that while the P900 is a fine camera in its own right, the more serious photographer would really prefer that he/she could shoot in RAW with it. So a question for you true techies -- could RAW be added to the P900 via a software update from Nikon? Or, would the camera circuitry prevent such an update.
Jul 28, 2015 09:39:53 #
Jul 28, 2015 12:39:09 #
insman1132 wrote:
We all know that while the P900 is a fine camera in its own right, the more serious photographer would really prefer that he/she could shoot in RAW with it. So a question for you true techies -- could RAW be added to the P900 via a software update from Nikon? Or, would the camera circuitry prevent such an update.
Great question, anxiously awaiting an answer.
Canon SX60 Bridge camera can shoot raw, an advantage over the Nikon p900 but does not have the capability of 83X zoom.
Jul 28, 2015 14:20:49 #
insman1132 wrote:
We all know that while the P900 is a fine camera in its own right, the more serious photographer would really prefer that he/she could shoot in RAW with it. So a question for you true techies -- could RAW be added to the P900 via a software update from Nikon? Or, would the camera circuitry prevent such an update.
The serious photographer wants RAW in his camera, also bigger sensor than the P900 has, more lens selection and some other stuff as well. That is why the serious photographer buys a dslr or milc or some other stuff than 1st generation bridge camera.
Jul 28, 2015 14:43:21 #
JPL wrote:
Oh, bull! Who are you, or who am I, to pontificate about what the "serious photographer" (the phrase itself smacks of arrogance) wants or needs? I've sold lots and lots of images, seen my images on over a dozen magazine covers, and had hundreds of images used in magazines; yet I own two bridge cameras, including a P900. None of us is more serious than the other; we come to UHH to share and grow, not to have some sparrow-fart tell us what camera we should own.The serious photographer wants RAW in his camera, also bigger sensor than the P900 has, more lens selection and some other stuff as well. That is why the serious photographer buys a dslr or milc or some other stuff than 1st generation bridge camera.
Jul 28, 2015 15:23:10 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
Oh, bull! Who are you, or who am I, to pontificate about what the "serious photographer" (the phrase itself smacks of arrogance) wants or needs? I've sold lots and lots of images, seen my images on over a dozen magazine covers, and had hundreds of images used in magazines; yet I own two bridge cameras, including a P900. None of us is more serious than the other; we come to UHH to share and grow, not to have some sparrow-fart tell us what camera we should own.
Never heard anyone called a sparrow-fart before. That's new.
Jul 28, 2015 15:50:37 #
Trentc wrote:
Never heard anyone called a sparrow-fart before. That's new.
I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't. It's a Kurt Vonnegut expression. Apropos, don't you think?
Jul 28, 2015 15:58:42 #
I've learned how to shoot either way (raw or jpg)...so doesn't matter to me.
Jul 28, 2015 17:03:13 #
James56 wrote:
I've learned how to shoot either way (raw or jpg)...so doesn't matter to me.
EXACTLY,
Jul 28, 2015 18:15:54 #
This does not answer the original question but I have seen some pretty impressive P900 shots. FWIW.
I like that quote. "Sparrow-fart". Hopefully I'm not one. :roll:
I like that quote. "Sparrow-fart". Hopefully I'm not one. :roll:
Jul 28, 2015 18:27:22 #
Jamers
Loc: Michigan
rdgreenwood wrote:
I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't. It's a Kurt Vonnegut expression. Apropos, don't you think?
Looked at your photo site, nice shots, appears you are a fan of HDR.
Jul 28, 2015 18:35:13 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
Oh, bull! Who are you, or who am I, to pontificate about what the "serious photographer" (the phrase itself smacks of arrogance) wants or needs? I've sold lots and lots of images, seen my images on over a dozen magazine covers, and had hundreds of images used in magazines; yet I own two bridge cameras, including a P900. None of us is more serious than the other; we come to UHH to share and grow, not to have some sparrow-fart tell us what camera we should own.
Good speech 8-) And I agree. I was only talking about serious photographer as it is written in the original topic, not a natural skilled photographer or a photographer who is less interested in technical matters and more in results. So no need to write this for me, but I am sure it may help some of the guys worried about if the P900 has RAW or not :D
Jul 28, 2015 20:06:16 #
Lots of comments, but maybe we are getting a bit off topic?? So you techies, would/could a software update add RAW to the P900?
Jul 29, 2015 06:06:25 #
insman1132 wrote:
We all know that while the P900 is a fine camera in its own right, the more serious photographer would really prefer that he/she could shoot in RAW with it. So a question for you true techies -- could RAW be added to the P900 via a software update from Nikon? Or, would the camera circuitry prevent such an update.
I believe it could be done, if Nikon wanted to, but I also feel that they have distortion control built into the the firmware that gets applied as the jpeg is created. With that in mind, I think that's why they didn't allow a RAW option.
The distortion profile of that lens at wide angle has to be different compared to the telephoto length.
I could swear that I saw evidence of such issues with the SX50 and raw files at wide angle, when I turned lens distortion on or off when viewing on the computer.
Jul 29, 2015 06:26:03 #
Trentc wrote:
Never heard anyone called a sparrow-fart before. That's new.
I really love this forum. :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.