If you're looking for a do-it-all travel camera with a big zoom, look no further than the Panasonic FZ1000. Since it's no longer new, you can easily find it for only $150 more than this Nikon. Totally worth the extra money. Night and day.
I bought it as a B cam for 4K tests and I was surprised by its very high IQ.

Nikon Crappix cameras normally don't deserve a reviews. But I think this P900 is an exception. I hope Dpreview would agree to review it.

A lot of measurbaters here. The P900 is a multi-purpose tool. If you want to carry a heavy toolchest with specialised tools, go ahead, no-one is going to yell at you.

For me, the ability to shoot nice close-ups of the moon was one aspect that sold it for me:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55569962

The comments are so predictably tedious. Every superzoom announcement and photo set offers posters here the opportunity to see their ignorant snobbery in print. I guess this is the cheapest thrill imaginable, but so tiresome.

Nice pics. Good job DPR. IQ looks better than I might have feared. The only problem I have with this camera is that it is too big.

There are only 2 shots at 2000mm-eq, at the distance so high it is impossible to see the lens quality behind the haze.

I bet a lot of consumers will be flocking to this camera like children to candy, but I won't be one of them.

Thought it would be worse. But it actually isn't bad for a superzoom. With 2000mm focal length you can shoot birds from your couch.

I think a lot of people will buy this camera, enjoy it and get photos they would not have gotten otherwise. Before long, there will be a photo book by someone who used this camera exclusively, and this will lead to more people buying the camera.

Is it for DPR readers? No. But some pros will take it as a challenge to get the best from the camera. If I was in a war zone, or North Korea, that 2000mm might just do the trick. Then, there's photo safaris for those who don't want to lug a D800, private investigators, National Enquirer, the NSA, the list goes on.

No RAW = no interest on my part. Give me RAW and I'll consider..

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//

I bought the P900 for its reach. I have been shooting hand-held. It is quirky though. With a dslr, you can instantly zoom and focus for quick captures. The Coolpix is power zoom and power focus. Then there is the finding of the subject when the camera is zoomed out. These are work around issues, but if you are coming from a dslr, be warned that you will have to have some patience, and you are going to miss some shots. I have a sharp meadowlark, and I shot the moon the other night. Swimming waterfowl have been good subjects as well. It has the reach. It doesn't cost thousands either. I am satisfied with the image quality. Blur is operator error. Enjoy.

Is it just me, or do these shots seem slightly hazy and not very sharp.

Part 2: One thing photographers have to remember, is that our eyes are great cameras! Our eyes have a dynamic range (from black to white) of about 25 stops. The best cams on the market have half that at about 12 stops, 14 stops with tweaking in LR.

Looking at the three glacier images Dan-08, Dan-20 and Dan 13, shot at 24mm, 200mm and 400mm consecutively, one can see all three need exposure comp to get the bright clipped areas correct, easily accomplished by a photographer who learns how to use this feature. I think dpReview is showing what happens in full auto mode without any intervention by the shooter.

As to the post that said a smart phone can take a better photo, well the latest models on the market cost more than this cam, and certainly don't have its zoom range!

I suspect for most buyers of the new Nikon P900, and the features it packs... it will be good enough!

Cheers,
Frederic Hore,
Photographer,
Montreal, Canada

Part 1: For its features, zoom range and price category of under $600, I think this is a great camera! Does it have the sharpness of a Nikon D800 with a 500mm f/4 Nikkor lens? Of course not! The latter system, which I own, is a $10,000 investment. It's the old adage of you get what you pay for!

But let's look at the gallery images more critically and thoughtfully. I found the owl closeup pretty decent, considering it was taken in the shade in low light conditions. Yes, you don't have great feather detail, but the DOF is very shallow. Looking at the racoon image under direct sunlight, you see much better sharpness and detail.

The glacier closeup at 2,000mm (Dan_06) suffers from over-exposure, easily corrected with the +2 to -2EV exposure compensation. The data provided does not show what time the photo was taken, but there appears to be a lot of mid-afternoon atmospheric haze. Shooting from a long distance, just makes it worse. Certainly not under magic hour!

Frederic in Montréal

This camera was not made/designed for pixel-peepers. It was not designed for high-quality prints. It was designed to simply "get the shot" where othe cameras would not suffice. Once people comprehend that, there should be a lot less whining....

I'm definitely impressed with the composition, subjects and overall presentation of the samples - great job DPreview! IQ is exactly what I expected from a mega-zoom camera. I've used Sony's high zooms for several years and IQ is similar for this type tool, which is completely acceptable given cost. Without the long zoom, many of these shots would be impossible to get. The only disappointment I've heard of so far is an occasional operational freeze-up, which battery removal/replacement fixes.
Overall, Nikon has set the zoom bar high with this one. Way to go Nikon!

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...

This is lovely. And it's 1600mm and ISO 800.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3197942/dan-09_iso-800_1600mm?inalbum=nikon-p900-samples-gallery

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.

Just for testing, compare it to a 24mp APS DSLR with a 300mm lens. Uprez the DSLR image to match the Coolpix at 2000mm. See what it compares like. If you can see more detail with the Coolpix, then it has a place.

Big big zoom bridge cameras are quite a tool, no matter the comments of pixel peepers.
These guys would never tell the difference of an image of a celebrity in the beach or sport scene printed in their favorite tabloid or sports mag.
It's sure that those cams images would never make it to National Geographic pages, but they can capture an image of importance at the glance whereas the pro monsters systems would need an eternity to do it.
Some of those cams offer very good IQ comparable to monsters in some cases.
The P900 seems to offer a decent quality comparing to the results of previous implementations of a couple years old from other manufacturers. Definitely not a top in IQ, but the +30x zoom factor has its cost.

I think Canon SX60 21–1365 mm has much better useability b/c 21mm. or Panasonic DMC-FZ70 20 – 1200 mm.

Not sure about the lens performance.

Meh!

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

I shot one @ 428mm x 5.6 crop factor = 2397mm 35mm equivalent
and one @ 642.6mm x 5.6 = 3600mm in 35mm equivalent

All handheld - you can download the original images here for your review: http://www.jkwebzone.com/nature/Downloads.html#11

To Nikon, just give us one superzoom with 1 inch sensor, f/2.8-f/4.0, 600mm EFL, EVF, RAW-capable, manual zoom and we will be all happy camper. =D

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.

I like the lynx photo. Nice shot, and shows the usefulness of the camera's long zoom.

I think the Canon SX60 HS, relatively speaking, has better IQ than this camera does. Even though it's entirely possible that they both use the same Sony sensor.

No comment on the camera but any set of photos that features a snowy owl gets my approval! Nature's perfect use of B&W.

Another Foolpix product!
Thats why I commend Sony and Panasonic for changing the norm when it comes to bridge cameras, they realised sacrificing the tele end enabled them to produce a product with a larger sensor that was capable of delivering good to reasonable image quality throughout its focal length, because its pointless having a massive zoom range if you're unable to get usuable images at its longest end