MPS Photographic: Anyone see any good troll comments about the P900? This one is at GizMag.com:
"24-2000-mm equivalent? Nikon ought to be ashamed. Almost no one who buys this camera will be using it on a steady tripod. What a cynical bid to grab dollars from naïve photographers."
I just turned off stabilisation on my SX700, zoomed to 750mm and took a sharp shot at 1/50 sec in low light.If people can hold a camera steady, I think they'll be fine at 2000mm.
I seriously doubt the stabilisation will not be effective without a tripod. Everyone will be trying out 2000mm hand held. If it doesnt provide a good picture, it will certainly be returned.I'd say Nikon isnt that silly to try that. They did develop stabilisation for 2000mm.
Sangster: What a monster. Retracted the body measures 5.5 x 5.5 x 4.1". Fully extended that lens barrel must be at least 9 inches!
Its to impress the girls.
davids8560: How does this stack up against the Stylus 1, RX10, and FZ1000? You can be frank.
It wouldnt stack well because it would fall off.
ok, sorry. Everyone else was making silly comments..The difference between the P900 and the cameras you mentioned?Look at the first 2 images at 2000mm. There's the difference.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55391149
mosc: Can somebody quick work out the arc angle visible at 2000mm as compared to what is expected camera shake at the maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 sec?
I know it would require a lot of light but maybe this thing could manage taking an actual image of THE SUN ON A CLEAR DAY hand held?
That shutter is still not fast enough. Not even at f/8. You need a filter. Maybe at very low sunset however..
sunjester: I'm in, it seems like the perfect camera to take on kayak for small birds in good light.
Well it's either that or the 600mm F4 for my Nikon 1.
lol. yes, well, stabilisation at 2000mm hand-held remains to be seen.. :)
The SX50 is/was good, but it doesnt have enough reach, especially in the wild. It does crop reasonably well to 2400mm, but the P900 affords less cropping.
Hi DPR. You state, "At 2000mm, you'll need to use a tripod or crank up the ISO in order to get a sharp photo." Are you able to state what the Shutter and ISO values were to get a sharp hand-held shot of the people in the needle?Thanks
AlexisH: Many years ago I had a modest 10X bridge P&S, I was using a tripod, and I was much more lenient with my results, but I still never got an image I liked from the extreme end of the zoom of that camera.
It may have had poor stabilisation or you also may not be able to have held it steady. Thats ok.Today, people are taking sharp photos, hand held, with the Nikon P600 with its 1440mm 60x zoom.
MarioV: All excellent photos.Now, are we sure the photographer owns the copyright on these images? Set up remotely, what if they are triggered by proximity. Who took the photo?
What if a monkey sneaks up on the camera and accidentally presses the shutter for a great landscape shot?
I was hoping you would compare the scenario described to the guy who had no rights over the macaque selfie.
So, according to your logic, copyright doesn't really exist because it's the camera that takes the photos - not the person who owns or operates the camera.
All excellent photos.Now, are we sure the photographer owns the copyright on these images? Set up remotely, what if they are triggered by proximity. Who took the photo?
I particularly like 1, 5, 6, 7 and 10.
So this is how SkyNet started.I, for one, welcome our new drone overlords.
gskolenda: Who gives a rats A__ about Adobe! Shame on you DP, they suck and you know it, over 95% of you followers could care less, this just irritates the crap out of them! Stupid post I say!!!
Was that a cry for help?
D 503: Useless bloat ware.
I wouldn't call it useless, but Adobe software does seem bloated.
wootpile: It's a great piece of software - but I refuse to pay a cloud fee for it. over a 10 year - span - PS CC will cost you $1200. hope they go broke.
And that's assuming the price doesnt change.
Hilarious. Great commentary spin.Rating: 2 x 50%
MarioV: That 100 photo stitch sounds amazing.
I was referring to the visual impression of such a large detailed scenic display, not the technical feat.