GED Loc: North central Pa

Ditto

josephl1331

Great point. I am not a pro but one thing I have come to realize is that the greatest shots come unexpectedly and all that is needed is to have a camera with you, any camera. I now carry a Transcend body camera clipped to my belt. I can trigger it without looking and take pretty good videos and stills in a hurry. I can't compose or view the shots until I load the work onto a computer, but not every shot needs to be entered into competition.

10MPlayer Loc: California

Try posting some examples in the Photo Analysis section and click the (store original) box. Then the experts here can tell you what you need to do to get better pics.

Kiriakos

I disagree with most if not all the answers given to the above post. Case of point, I have a Lumix ZS15 with a small 2/3 sensor. I decided to upgrade to a larger APS-C sensor for obvious better results. Got the very well accepted and much heralded Sony a6000. Placed both of them side by side and used the fully automatic mode for comparison reasons. Believe it or not the pics of Sony were not better than Lumix. So prcb1949 is not wrong being disappointed. You compare two cameras using the same auto mode and surely you perform a simple and rude comparison. For the purpose, Sony with the bigger and better sensor according to reviews should blow the Lumix out. It did not.
Now you can manipulate the settings and get better images sure, but this is different game from what prcb1949 is saying. You almost suggested to him to go in the University and study nuclear science, in order to make a simple test. That's where I disagree with you. If you knew the answer, you just should answer his reasonable question straight to the point and not suggesting obvious but later in the course advanced procedures.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

What makes you think that the Auto setting for the P900, the Nikon D3300, the Lumia ZS15, and the Sony A6000 are the same? None of those cameras share the same algorithms let alone the the same inputs for focus and exposure from the sensors. And the D3300 and A6000 have totally different markets from the ZS15 and the P900 and will, therefore, have algorithms designed only for those markets. Once the OP learns the new camera's ins and outs, I personally think they will be elated with the D3300.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Whats's going on here is all too prevalent on this forum. There is a "problem to be solved".

So..imagine- you contact the doctor and ask him or her "what's wrong with me" with no symptomatology- you don't say exactly where it hurts, what functions are impaired,if you have a fever etc.- you just say you are dissatisfied with your health- you don't feel good. Oh, and by the way, this "condition" has been going on for the last 6 years! Then you won't submit to an examination- the doctor can't poke and prod, listen to you heart, take you blood pressure and there is no imaging- X-Rays, ultrasound etc. OK, doc- give me a diagnosis and a remedy- write me a prescription!

Then to exacerbate the scenario the "doctors" )us) tell the guy or gal to go online, Google "sick", read a book, or go find another doctor or a specialist at some place else? Perhaps a referral to a psychologist?

Sorry for the lame analogy- just thank goodness that the OP's heath is not in jeopardy!

So...no pictures from both cameras in question, no specifics, and all kinds of opinions based on what?

Kiriakos

Remember CRUDE not scientific comparison is what we are talking about here. When you understand that then you will understand OP point of view. Of course each camera is different from the other. Who cares at this point? In auto mode his D3300 does not take better pics fron his P900 regardless of algorithms and other scientific words,which costs double and has better and larger sensor. It's that simple.

Kiriakos

You are also quite far away with your assumptions. Not to mention your outrageous parallelism.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

It’s also common that many of us (myself included!) don’t always read previous replies. The OP posted a picture in the Gallery 2 days ago, and has gotten some helpful comments. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-528612-1.html

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Of course, in good light there is no inherent reason for sensor size to matter.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Exactly! Thing is, he posted the image in another section, he made no reference to it and provide no link and he could have re-posted that or other images of the 400 he was not pleased with.

I looked at the bird image he supplied. On quick examination it looks like a number of photographer's errors. There is a classic case of "subject failure" were the camera exposed for the bright yellow background and underexposed the subject. That could also be the case of poor focus. Even with automatic metering and focus, the photographer needs to make certain the the camera is sampling form the right place, hopefully on the main subject. There may have been insufficient camera support which can add to the blur and sometimes makes precise metering and focusing cumbersome. A tripod, mono-pod or other means of support would have helped. With longer focal lengths, faster shutter speeds are advisable, solid camera support is required and even poking at the shutter release rather than gently depressing it can cause vibration issues. Camera and lens stabilization features should be used judiciously and shut off wehn not required.

I am not personally familiar with any of the cameras mentioned in the thread in that I have not had the opportunity to handle or use those models. I somehow, however, doubt if there is some intrinsic defect or shortcoming in the cameras or lenses whereby there would be seriously unsatisfactory results if careful technique was applied.

Before making 400 exposures, I would advise folks to test out their new equipment, make sure there IS no defect or unexpected glitch, get used to handling the camera and lenses and check out the test results by zooming in on details on the camera's screen or on their computer monitor.