Lin Evans: How are you converting your RAW files? My D7200 didn't come with a RAW converter like my D7000, D5300 and D7100 did???
I called Nikon's support and a very helpful lady gave me a link to Nikon's NX-i software. I installed it and it appears to work in concert with NX-D. Now when I open NX-D (latest version), it offers an option of opening the RAW file with NX-i and works to convert the RAW file. Problem solved.... Thanks all for the tips...
I loaded the latest NX-D version but it just says "cannot load" followed by the filename when I try to load the NEF...
How are you converting your RAW files? My D7200 didn't come with a RAW converter like my D7000, D5300 and D7100 did???
Lin Evans: Does it or does it not have GPS? The text says yes but the specifications say "none"...
Nikon says "Yes" it indeed has GPS - from Nikon site: The P900 is also equipped with a variety of features that make photography more fun, including an electronic viewfinder with built-in eye sensor, GPS/GLONASS/QZSS support that enables recording of location data with images, and support for NFC, which easily enables Wi-Fi® connection to a smart device
mpgxsvcd: I would be willing to bet that no one is ever able to take a truly good picture with this camera at the 35mm equivalent of 2000mm.
My 8 inch F4.0 telescope gives me the 35mm equivalent of 1600mm. That perfectly fills a 16:9 aspect ratio with the moon. However, it has to be on a tracking mount in order to follow the moon’s motion at this focal length. Therefore, it is unrealistic to think that you are going to get great images or even videos of objects in space while hand holding this camera or if it is on a non-tracking tripod mount.
The lack of RAW is a good indication that these images are useless without massive in camera distortion correction. Even with the correction they are probably still close to useless. That is a tiny sensor with a ridiculous zoom range.
This camera would have been so much better if they just gave it a 25x zoom and a faster aperture instead.
Some of your assumptions are incorrect here. It is possible to use higher than 800mm hand-held and get quite decent pictures. I use 1200mm and get quite satisfactory image with my Canon SX50 HS. I also have digiscoped for many, many years - I'm the digiscoping moderator on Steve's digicams. I use all types of both professional and consumer digicams and image quality is very important to me. I think everyone should reserve their opinions until this camera has been reviewed.
Does it or does it not have GPS? The text says yes but the specifications say "none"...
Lin Evans: They probably couldn't catch Sony or even Nikon (with the 1 series) if they really tried. This camera is overpriced, has mediocre autofocus and too many competitors with substantial headstarts. If Canon wants to seriously play in this market they need to go back to their CAD systems and redesign something truly innovative and competitive IMHO..
No. My Nikon One has excellent autofocus and uses, with the adapter, nearly any Nikon lens - let's me capture wildlife images I can't do with my pro-level Canon and Nikon bodies. I don't see this m Canon equalling any of the above. So, no I'm not joking.
They probably couldn't catch Sony or even Nikon (with the 1 series) if they really tried. This camera is overpriced, has mediocre autofocus and too many competitors with substantial headstarts. If Canon wants to seriously play in this market they need to go back to their CAD systems and redesign something truly innovative and competitive IMHO..
Anastigmat: Being a landscape camera, it should come with a built-in GPS, and that data can then be used to go back to the exact spot years later, even if one forgot where the photo was originally taken. A GPS unit would be less useful if one is shooting sports because the uniforms would inform you which team was playing and therefore where the photos were taken. It is a glaring omission that hopefully Canon can correct before launching the camera.
Cell phones are generally optimized for use on roads, in cities, etc. Most are pretty worthless where I photograph. There is no cell connect... The battery eating gps on my Nikon D5300 internal works just fine though but neither my Nokia 800 nor my iPhones gps is useable.
keither11: I would wait for the 5D Mk IV. These new cameras are too specific, they don't really need the "S" version. Why would you buy a 50mp camera and not choose the one that will be sharper, the "R" version, seems redundant. These cameras are for catalog(S) and architectural(R) work, basically. Those specific shooters use PHASE or Hasselblad for (true 16Bit) in their hi-res imagery.
Would have been nice if they added a body that did astrophotography with 50mp, that would have made sense, the "A" model... There better be a baseline 5D Mk IV with all of the bells and whistles (stills & video) down the road, or Canon is in hot water. Even with all that money and R&D, Canon is the one that is one step behind now and following it's competitors.
Why would anyone want a 50mp sensor for catalog work? Perhaps for high-end double truck ads, but certainly not for catalogs...
Lin Evans: "the RX100 III offers the best image quality of any pocketable camera we've ever seen."
I guess you haven't seen Sigma DP Merrill cameras then....
Because you can do things with the little Nikon which would cost thousands to do with a dSLR like shooting with a 600 F4 at 1620mm?So you use a good APS C with a 1.5 crop, add a 600 F4 and a 2X tele converter and you are at F8. Is it that much better than the 1V3 at F4? http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54292895
That's a fairly accurate analogy. Of course the Sony is a compromise as well. I had to laugh when I read the DXO review on the RX100 II and they compared it with the Nikon 1V3 and gave it a considerable higher "sports" rating. No photographer in their right mind would use the RX100 II (or RX100-III) for sports while the 1V3 can be an exellent sports camera since it takes virtually the entire line of Nikon lenses, has superb fast autofocus, etc. It's all a compromise. The DPM Sigma cameras take superb landscape and super high resolution images for their intended use. I'm certain that the RX-100 III will be very successful as a general purpose tool, but the IQ isn't remotely comparable with the Sigmas.
carlos roncatti: great resolution..but all raw files i've downloaded have the right and left sides noticeable blur compared to the center....
Carlos, that's exactly what I see as well. That plus rather extreme distortion at the wide end periphery. The IQ just isn't there in my opinion. I'm really surprised that so much was made of IQ. I'm comparing it to my DP2m and finding it sadly lacking in the IQ department.
I might agree that the DP Merrill cameras are a bit larger than the RX-100 III but they do fit in my pocket. As for image quality, unless you have something other than the images posted in the review, they are not even in the same universe in terms of IQ with my DP2 Merrill. I use lots of cameras from high end Nikons and Canons to Pentax, Olympus, and also a good number of Sony's. Frankly, other than resolution I wouldn't trade my Sony R1 for this new RX-100 III if the best it can do for IQ is what you have posted in the review samples. Not a single landscape image has decent sharpness in distant foliage and the edge distortion is quite apparent. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't trade my little Nikon 1V1 images for what I'm seeing. I'm seriously uncertain how you see these images as having superior IQ - sorry but that's my unvarnished opinion....
"the RX100 III offers the best image quality of any pocketable camera we've ever seen."
Are you "certain" that the EVF is an "Optional" extra? B&H says it comes with??? O.K. - comes with US kit and optional for European.... Got it!
daddyo: Sorry Nikon, but this seems like a bad joke. If you compare image quality between this and the Olympus E-M10, it's not even close. The E-M10 with 14-42mm lens goes for $799 right now, and includes a built-in EVF.What am I missing here?
Without refocus between shots 60 fps and with refocus 20 fps both subject to a 40 frames buffer. But you can keep shooting as the buffer clears. It's hard to argue that the 1V3 isn't a bit special in this regard.
So BarnET, I'm unclear about how you get 1350mm with the 75-300 or 100-300? Not sure how 60fps in 1080p is more useful than 60fps at 18 mp resolution? You've got to explain this to me... LOL I've got lots of Panasonics - I prefer my 1V1 by a wide margin. I would LOVE to have the 1V3...
grumpycat: who will buy this thing???
Like I said, If you like peripheral distortion and don't care about vertical being vertical then there's nothing wrong with an UWA. It doesn't make sense to try to shoot UWA with a 2.7 crop-factor camera so use a tool suitable for the task at hand if it floats your boat. Not having UWA hasn't hurt consumer camera sales that I can see.