Does anyone here have experience with the Nikon Coolpix p900? I'm intrigued by the ridiculous zoom feature they advertise. Is it real? What kind of image quality do you get?
Nikon Coolpix p900 I
- Thread starter Ron G
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I don't have a lot of experience with bridge cameras, but my experience has been that they take nice photos, but cropping isn't much of an option. That may have changed since I last used one.
I had one for a while, its one of the things that sparked my interest in wildlife photography. You can get some decent shots out of the camera, but like Icarus said, cropping is definitely not an option. If I'm not mistaken its also JPEG only, no RAW option.
I have extensive experience with Canon bridge cameras and they take some really nice photos. They are great as an everyday camera and when you travel but don’t wish to drag your DSLR stuff with you. The last one I purchased was a Canon SX40. That was 9 years ago and I still use it . It takes great video as well. Just JPEG but they are editable in Apple Photo app.
Warren D
Well-known member
They are ok for a walk around however if you are used to the quality of a dslr, you're probably not going to be happy. The zooms are usually part optical and part digital, the spec will tell you what is what. They aren't good for action, af is way too slow. In dslr terms, think of an f5.6-8 lens on a dark, overcast day and you'll have about the best they will do. There might be an exception but in general, they are a compromise.
My wife shot with one for a few years. She got a lot of really nice photos. She now uses a Sony RX10-iv. The Sony is light years ahead of the P900. Faster focus, far better image quality. It "only" goes out to 600mm but, honestly, with the P900, she rarely got decent shots out much past that anyway. She used the long end of the P900's range more as a spotting scope than a photographic tool.
I believe the P900 has been replaced with the P950 which has some improvements including the ability to shoot RAW.
My wife is an incredible photographer but she is not the least bit into technology nor does she want to carry around a camera body and multiple lenses. Bridge cameras suit her perfectly (and to be honest, she's had several published). If you want a bridge camera that can give excellent results, I'd suggest looking into the Sony RX10-iv. The P900/P950 can also give good results but the image quality is not on par with the Sony.
I have no experience with the Canon offerings so I won't comment on them.
I believe the P900 has been replaced with the P950 which has some improvements including the ability to shoot RAW.
My wife is an incredible photographer but she is not the least bit into technology nor does she want to carry around a camera body and multiple lenses. Bridge cameras suit her perfectly (and to be honest, she's had several published). If you want a bridge camera that can give excellent results, I'd suggest looking into the Sony RX10-iv. The P900/P950 can also give good results but the image quality is not on par with the Sony.
I have no experience with the Canon offerings so I won't comment on them.
The P900 was replaced by the P950 in 2020. There is also a P1000.
Nikon P1000 Review
Nikon out-zooms the competition again with the 125x Nikon P1000 megazoom, adding 4K video, a hotshoe and RAW capture as well. Read our Nikon P1000 review for all the details!
www.imaging-resource.com
It really does have an 83x optical zoom, and doubles that digitally (essentially a crop). I have a friend with the P1000. It's a pretty good camera - especially for bird photography. The catch is you need enough light and stability to handle a 2000mm equivalent. Most people struggle with 600mm, so it's going to push you on your technique.
A slow aperture and long focal length are unlikely to work well for birds in flight but will work for perched subjects or feeding wading birds.
Image quality is pretty good - I've seen images as 16x24 prints. That's up to the photographer. Resolution does not match a top DSLR and lens, but it is capable.
One comment I had after handling it is that it is a lot bigger and heavier than I expected. You have a 77mm filter size for the lens, and it does extend in front of the camera quite a bit. It feels a lot like a 24-70 f/2.8 mounted on a D850 - maybe a little heavier.
Personally, I don't want to need that much zoom. It's very hard to handle. But for a birding solution, it is a good camera.
joe43
Well-known member
I have lots of friends who own either the P 900, P 950 or P1000. I have seen pictures from all three win in digital image competitions. If I were buying one of these tofay, I would get the P950 as it takes both RAW and Jpeg. They all have a small sensor so making large prints might not be an option.
Apart from my D 850 and D 500 paired with 500 pf we also carry a Sony RX 10 Iv.While it is only a 1 inch bridge camera it had a fantastic AF system and it's BIF is 98 to 99 % keepers .It has a FPS of 25 and with a fast card buffer is really great.
The lens is a carl Zeiss lens and is a really fabulous lens.
It weighs only 1 kgs and we normally use it for video though it is no slouch for stills specially action.
It has raw as well as jpg and the camera is weather sealed .It is pricey though for the features provided it is worth it
If Sony brings out a Apc camera with a fixed zoom telephoto lens( even weighing 2 kgs) based on RX 10 iv it would be a hit
Much the same here. My wife has the Sony RX10-iv as her primary camera. I carry a D500 and our spare Sony RX10-iv (it is a long story how we ended up with 2 of them). These days I primarily shoot video on the Sony because the D500 is worse than terrible for video. But some days when I just don't feel like carrying a heavy lens, a wide angle lens and a camera body around I'll just grab the RX10 and hit the trail.
We have printed up to 16X20 with ours and, honestly, I'd challenge anyone to tell me which 16X20 was with the D500 and which was with the Sony.
What I find is the DSLR does better at the extremes (either end of the lenses and especially extreme challenging lighting conditions) but even then it's not as much difference as one may think. Cropping does become challenging with the 1" sensor if the scene or animal occupies a small percentage of the frame.
joe43
Well-known member
A 1 inch sensor is about 4 times larger than the 1/2.3 sensor that is in the Nikon Coolpix. But both are smaller than sensors in full frame and crop sensor cameras. Just buy what you need and make sure you know the tradeoffs of one vs another.
www.dpreview.com
1" sensors could save the compact camera says Aptina's Sandor Barna
Following the announcement of its 1" sensor, we spoke to Aptina's Sandor Barna, who believes these larger sensors could save the compact camera by offering a leap in quality that smartphones can't compete with. Barna, the Vice President and General Manager of Aptina's Consumer Camera Business...
www.dpreview.com
Thanks to all of you for your comments. I knew there had to be some reason more people weren't using this camera. I'll stick with my D750 and Z6.
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
I use a Canon SX70 when I'm hiking or don't want to carry something larger and heavier. It's capable of taking good photos but I've never printed larger than 8x10, but have had photos from that camera published. My bum back and legs that are giving out after more than 55 years of daily walking in the woods precludes me from carrying FF and a bunch of lenses for any distance. My mirrorless and it's lenses are relegated to shooting from a vehicle, blind or after a short walk.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Replacing the discontinued P1000, an upgraded bridge camera with the Z9 autofocusing engine could interest some birders and travellers
nikonrumors.com
Rumors: the next two cameras Nikon will replace are... - Nikon Rumors
The next two cameras Nikon is rumored to replace are: Nikon Z50 (Z50 II?): announced in October 2019 Nikon Coolpix P1000 (P1100?): announced in July 2018, already discontinued (that model is extremely popular with bird photographers) The two new cameras are expected to be announced in 2024, but...
nikonrumors.com
I use the P1000 for helping my wife ID the birds that are too far away to ID using binoculars, we got it to replace her Nikon Prostaff 82mm scope which was a beast to lug around and required a heavy tripod.
Check out the Nikon Coolpix forum at DPREVIEW for example photos.
www.dpreview.com
Check out the Nikon Coolpix forum at DPREVIEW for example photos.
Nikon Coolpix Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
This rumor has sparked my occasional curiosity to understand something about these bridge cameras which even the comments above in this thread don't make me feel like I really have a clear answer to: what is the bottom line advantage of using a full DSLR/MILC over one of these bridge cameras for something like birds or wildlife? On the surface it would seem like something which gives thousands of mm of focal length would outpace the more "serious" options, and most of the disadvantages listed above don't seem particular to bridge cameras.
I see people saying that you can't really crop because of the sensor size, but with that much focal length why would you really need to? It's still much more than the focal length you would get on a Z9 or something of that sort and which you're already trying not to crop.
I see people saying that it's hard to handle that long a focal length, but it's hard to handle longer focal lengths on the better cameras, too.
The image quality is good, I see people say.
Yet you don't see many professionals choosing these cameras. Why? What's the advantage to a Z9 or a D850 or a Sony a7 or whatever? What makes those better?
I see people saying that you can't really crop because of the sensor size, but with that much focal length why would you really need to? It's still much more than the focal length you would get on a Z9 or something of that sort and which you're already trying not to crop.
I see people saying that it's hard to handle that long a focal length, but it's hard to handle longer focal lengths on the better cameras, too.
The image quality is good, I see people say.
Yet you don't see many professionals choosing these cameras. Why? What's the advantage to a Z9 or a D850 or a Sony a7 or whatever? What makes those better?
Have you seen a single example of a photo from this camera that YOU would find acceptable?
I've not used one or seen a lot of examples from them, but I have read a lot of reports like what I see above: they produce good pictures, photos from them are published, etc., and what examples I have seen look very similar to what I see from higher end cameras. For instance, a lot of the examples in this gallery are more snapshots than anything, but several of the wildlife shots (the heron, for instance) look a lot better than a lot of the examples I see from people shooting with 500 or 600mm mirrorless or DSLR lenses and having to crop: https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7312703274/nikon-coolpix-p1000-sample-gallery
Meanwhile some in this gallery look really quite good when not pixel peeping: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-p1000/nikon-p1000GALLERY.HTM
Some of these look pretty great even when you are pixel peeping: https://explorecams.com/photos/Xgw2fJMCu9?model=coolpix-p1000
The sensor is about 1/30 the size of a full frame (6x crop factor) and has essentially no dynamic range. Like all cameras, with the perfect bright light, exposure and no crop it will produce nice photos.
I don’t know what your purchase time line is but today Nikon Rumors said that Nikon will soon announce a replacement for the P1000. I have no personal experience witb these cameras but my serious birding frineds use them to take ID shots to support their siting of rare or unusual birds. They find the quality is quite good enougn for that purpose.
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
For a number of years I've had a succession of Canon bridge cameras that I've used when carrying a DSLR or, later, my Olympus cameras and lenses would be too much for my poor back. Those bridge cameras produced some very good images, but there's no question that under similar conditions with similar subjects the better cameras produce better photos. The Canons are both smaller and lighter than the Nikon bridge cameras. With the 100-400mm lens, a 1.4x TC and the camera's 2x digital zoom I can push my Olympus to the equivalent of 2240mm but, even with Olympus' great stabilization, I can't hand-hold that combination and doubt I could hand-hold any of the Nikon bridge cameras and get an even remotely acceptable image.
The old saying about there being no such thing as a free lunch applies. First of all, the old Coolpix P900 did not shoot raw, which in this day and age of ever-improving raw conversion software is a real drawback. The P1000 does/did shoot raw, but truth be told one can't do all that much meaningful postprocessing with raw using a camera with such a small sensor.
Small sensor cameras have much higher noise levels at relatively low ISO levels. With the P1000 ISO 400 is about as high as you can get without serious noise issues, and yet remedies for this via noise reduction software are limited. Eliminating the noise generally leaves a pretty unsharp image.
There are some photographers who have become very skilled with these do-it-all bridge cameras like the P900 and P1000. If you look at the Flickr pages dedicated to these cameras there are some excellent shots to be found. But having owned both of them for a time, I found that getting optimal photos using them hand-held is very difficult, and putting the camera on a tripod kind of defeats the purpose of carrying a "do it all" bridge camera. As previous posters have indicated, the photos are good for ID purposes and for "record shots" generally, but one's interest is first-rate bird images there are too many compromises. I actually looked at the linked pages for the P1000 provided by a previous comment and I would offer that those photos do not stand up to serious pixel-peeping. They tend to have a certain "jpg artifacts" look. They are ok but not really close to the quality one can get even with a one-inch or M43 sensor.
The reality is that these bridge cameras can produce "gee whiz" high magnification largely because the sensors are so small. If the sensor is bigger, the level of magnification is reduced. The Sony RX10IV remains the best bridge-type camera yet made, as far as I know. It includes a one-inch sensor, which is way bigger and better than the tiny sensors used for the Coolpix P900, 950, and 1000 and most other bridge cameras. But the larger sensor is why the Sony RX III and IV "only" go to 600mm full frame equivalent.
Small sensor cameras have much higher noise levels at relatively low ISO levels. With the P1000 ISO 400 is about as high as you can get without serious noise issues, and yet remedies for this via noise reduction software are limited. Eliminating the noise generally leaves a pretty unsharp image.
There are some photographers who have become very skilled with these do-it-all bridge cameras like the P900 and P1000. If you look at the Flickr pages dedicated to these cameras there are some excellent shots to be found. But having owned both of them for a time, I found that getting optimal photos using them hand-held is very difficult, and putting the camera on a tripod kind of defeats the purpose of carrying a "do it all" bridge camera. As previous posters have indicated, the photos are good for ID purposes and for "record shots" generally, but one's interest is first-rate bird images there are too many compromises. I actually looked at the linked pages for the P1000 provided by a previous comment and I would offer that those photos do not stand up to serious pixel-peeping. They tend to have a certain "jpg artifacts" look. They are ok but not really close to the quality one can get even with a one-inch or M43 sensor.
The reality is that these bridge cameras can produce "gee whiz" high magnification largely because the sensors are so small. If the sensor is bigger, the level of magnification is reduced. The Sony RX10IV remains the best bridge-type camera yet made, as far as I know. It includes a one-inch sensor, which is way bigger and better than the tiny sensors used for the Coolpix P900, 950, and 1000 and most other bridge cameras. But the larger sensor is why the Sony RX III and IV "only" go to 600mm full frame equivalent.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
My sister and I purchased one for our mother for her birthday a few years ago. It works great. The image quality can be surprisingly good. Not at 3000mm, but at 100mm or 200mm it definitely produces better images than some DSLRs.
It is a definite step up from phone quality, and a very good medium ground for someone who doesn't want to carry 12lbs (and $20K) of a Z9 + 400TC, or even 5lbs of something like an R7 + 100-400.
The coolpix is a very popular choice among people who are generally considered birders first, and photographers second. It is basically the perfect lightweight and portable setup for getting a good ID shot of a bird you might see on your travels.
I don't know that I'd ever print any of the pics I've seen from them, but for just showing to friends or posting on social media - it gets the job done.
As with all things - keeping your expectations sane is key. a lightweight $1000, small camera boasting 3000mm of reach is quite obviously not going to keep up with pro, or even advanced hobbyist equipment.
It is a definite step up from phone quality, and a very good medium ground for someone who doesn't want to carry 12lbs (and $20K) of a Z9 + 400TC, or even 5lbs of something like an R7 + 100-400.
The coolpix is a very popular choice among people who are generally considered birders first, and photographers second. It is basically the perfect lightweight and portable setup for getting a good ID shot of a bird you might see on your travels.
I don't know that I'd ever print any of the pics I've seen from them, but for just showing to friends or posting on social media - it gets the job done.
As with all things - keeping your expectations sane is key. a lightweight $1000, small camera boasting 3000mm of reach is quite obviously not going to keep up with pro, or even advanced hobbyist equipment.
Paul Grecian
Member
I had the P900 and sold it for the P950 which I like much better. With good technique and using the camera at its strengths and understanding its weaknesses, very printable images can be made. This is at maximum focal length (2000mm equiv.) at ISO 400 handheld at 1/250. The IBIS is pretty effective considering the magnification. This camera won't replace a full frame tele or even a m4/3 tele, but it is certainly a fun and viable option for certain kinds of work and I have sold a fair number of prints up to 11x14. Sharpness is always just one parameter of a successful image. I did use noise reduction and sharpening on the file, but then I do that for every image.
SHC
Member
In 2018, rented the Sony RX-10 IV when I accompanied a choral tour to South Africa that also included a safari day. I was pleasantly surprised at how versatile it was and how well the images came out. The interface was different enough from Nikon that I’m sure that I could have done better with more time to learn the Sony controls. Nevertheless, it was a great camera to have when I couldn’t haul all of my full frame gear.