brn: Warning: not for pixel peepers.
At 1:1, even this ISO100 images look terrible.
What is PP?
forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".
You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.
It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.
> f2.8 is still f2.8 as regards to light gathering, no matter > the sensor size. The 'equivalent' f-stops you quote are > only related to depth of field. This is a common confusion > in the photo community.
This is the correct physics. Why don't DPR lay the question before experts in DxO or Fujifilm, etc., and get it from the horse's mouth?
Alex Permit: The FZ1000 can go up to 1600mm using its digital zoom. I wonder if the image quality would be comparable to the P900 at 2000mm. Take into account that the the FZ1000 sensor is roughly four times the size of the P900.
You do get more megapixels from the p900, but i doubt youre getting 16mp worth of resolution at 2000mm
As regards Raw, I have a feeling that the images coming out of the sensor might be so noisy and distorted that if people saw them, they'd run screaming out of the room. Just a feeling.
KonstantinosK: I found the pics better than I had expected when I read about the camera on photographylife.com, and I think the same again. I find them perfectly acceptable, considering the kind of camera that came from. But how about reviewing this camera at the beach? It's almost summertime so I think it would be interesting to see some beach shots.
What, horseshoe crabs?
Azurael: Am I going mad? All the comments here are really positive, but to my eyes, this looks dreadful. In most of the wide shots, this _camera_ has worse IQ than my _smartphone_ in broad daylight. Even £50 Fujis can do better than that. And the noise... Where on Earth did they find that sensor? 2004?!
Some images at the long end of the zoom (like the Eagle) show really poor contrast, too... It was pretty obvious ISO 1600 would look like a watercolour, so I'll discount the mess that is that Snowy Owl pic.
I'm sure I'm going to get called a pixel peeper, but I was judging based on the largest gallery view, which is smaller than a lot of prints I'd like to make?
On the other hand, the first Lynx shot is quite nice. What's going on?! I think the combination of very clumsy noise reduction with rather a lot of oversharpening isn't doing it any favours. Are there controls for this on the camera? I see it doesn't have RAW, which is disappointing, it might have been possible to fix the output...
My wild guess is that if you stick to good light and 8x10 prints, you're OK.
Here's a shot at ISO 100 which has a lot of smearing in the foreground, as well as lack of sharpness on the left edge and in the left corner. The smearing is much more apparent when you correct the luminance values.http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/Coolpix-P900-5744/large/Nikon-Coolpix-P900-Wide-angle-DSCN7327_1427716369.jpg
georgievv: I think these samples do not represent best of what the camera is capable of or intended for. Having a 2000mm lens does not mean that you can take a clear photo of something a mile away. But the same 2000mm is ideal for wild life photography. Many DPR members already have the camera and are getting amazing shots of birds. See this flickr gallery of a DPR member myssvictoria to get a feeling of what the camera and lens is really capable of:https://www.flickr.com/photos/myssvictoria/sets/72157651158420940//
None of the images are full resolution.
This is a powerful photo.
Cane: OMG, how many times can you mention burst rate? You'd think that was the only feature in a camera worth buying it for.
Yes, that's right, Dan.
The marketeers are forever vociferating about selling points. Add "bokeh" to "burst rate."
Vegasus: Usually almost once a year or 2 years epson will release new high end scanner,.. finally epson release the new one, good job.
Pat Cullinan Jr: No viewfinder? So near, yet so far.
straylightrun: Not bad for a FF superzoom that starts at 24mm, but the RRP is crazy.
Argh, that used to be MSRP.
Bokeh didn't bother me in 1960, and it doesn't bother me now (except for the doughnuts you get with catadioptric lenses).
What is RRP?
(When you tell me, I'll probably slap my forehead.)
Impressive corner sharpness.
jwhig: "Canon's new EF 11-24mm F4 L wideangle zoom lens is Canon's widest ever rectilinear zoom by some margin"
You mean the widest FULL FRAME zoom lens. The 10-22 EF-S is wider.
My pet name is Mungawa. My wife calls me that. :)
That was a jokie-wokie-poo. "Gezornplotz," indeed!
But not as wide as my Gezornplotz 7-14mm.
Hmmm... The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S sells for $1800. That's $1600 less than the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM.
What should I do?
Pins and needles, needles and pins.
Prognathous: Is image-stabilization "class leading" only in comparison to other similarly priced in-body IS cameras (Sony, Pentax) or also in comparison with similarly priced kits with in-lens IS (Nikon, Canon etc...)?
>All I know is that I can get sharp, well focused images >in a dark room at 300mm equivalent at 1/4 second >shutter speed.
Now that's high-impact communication.
That's the stuff that sells people on product.