ppage Loc: Pittsburg, (San Francisco area)

Smiling is good but you are kidding yourself if you think you can the same image quality, dynamic range and low light performance from the tiny sensor (1-2.3) in this camera as you can from a good DSLR. When you view these images 1:1, image quality is toast. I enjoy it as a convenient way to get wildlife when I don't want to carry my heavy rig. I like the images I can get with it but at a 5.6 crop factor the pixels are already so stretched that cropping is almost out of the question. Max Aperture of 8? No sun stars, hard to get the depth of field you want for landscapes. It does not support raw so PP is severely limited. All in all the pictures are acceptable as long as you don't look too close. It wasn't "all that money" either. $650 was worth what this camera can do but doesn't come close to what a good DSLR can do.

Mr Bill 2011 Loc: southern Indiana

I have a P900, and a Canon 70D with a Tamron 18-400mm lens; when I just go out with nothing special in mind, I usually grab the P900. It's decent for a bridge camera, and I find I'm typically shooting with the lens under 400mm equiv., normally using shutter priority. Camera is good for anything I would use a DSLR for as long as light is good, but no one should expect IQ even to approach a decent DSLR. Lack of Raw hurts, and basically it's just a mediocre bridge camera with a really long lens.