Reading mode: Light Dark

I can't compete with a Nikon P900

Go to last post
Tuonov2 said:
luisflorit said:
Trevor's plane is clearly much higher,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Click to expand...
How do you know this?
Click to expand...
Sorry, by "higher" I meant "farther away". It seems to me that these strong atmospheric distortions and haze at the plane are very pronounced, beyond what you can expect from usual site variations.

Independently of the reason, I am sure that a p900 shot of Trevor's plane would show a much bigger and amplified... blurry mess.

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
 
Last edited:
luisflorit said:
Tuonov2 said:
luisflorit said:
Trevor's plane is clearly much higher,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Click to expand...
How do you know this?
Click to expand...
Sorry, by "higher" I meant "farther away".
Click to expand...
Yes, I understood that.
luisflorit said:
It seems to me that these strong atmospheric distortions and haze at the plane are very pronounced, beyond what you can expect from usual site variations.
Click to expand...
They could be due to lots of things, not necessarily distance.
luisflorit said:
Independently of the reason, I am sure that a p900 shot of Trevor's plane would show a much bigger and amplified... blurry mess.
Click to expand...
You could not tell because " the subjects and conditions are completely different."
luisflorit said:
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Click to expand...
 
Trevor Carpenter said:
Planes with con trails are generally between 30,000 and 40,000 ft, so it is reasonable to compare images from different cameras although atmospheric conditions have some impact.
Click to expand...
Actually contrails can't be used for altitude comparison. You can lower change for the contrails by lowering the engine power or you can avoid them by flying in warmer air by avoiding cold and humid air layer. Then there are differences do you ascend or descend and how much fuel you have in your wing tanks etc. There is too much variations to say anything about even by 3km altitude separation difference visually.

The only way to get to know the aircraft altitude is to use the aircraft own measured altitude information via services like https://www.flightradar24.com/ that allows you to track about 80% of the european flights and about 40% of the US flights (european airliners more often send their data over Internet).
 
Last edited:
My longest tele is the 100-300 II. Equivalent of 600mm. But I'm going to go get some pictures of jets with con trails, and crop them, and I think I can pretty much guarantee that they will have less noise than the second image in your post. Check back in a few days, I'll post pictures.

I've seen your airplane shots, they blow away what someone with a P900 couid do. If to need the 100-400 and TC1.4 to take a picture of a jet with contrails, then yeah an FZ super zoom or even a P900 might be less expensive option. I am out to prove that you don't need that, that the 100-300 II should be enough, when cropped.
 
Tommi K1 said:
Trevor Carpenter said:
Planes with con trails are generally between 30,000 and 40,000 ft, so it is reasonable to compare images from different cameras although atmospheric conditions have some impact.
Click to expand...
Actually contrails can't be used for altitude comparison. You can lower change for the contrails by lowering the engine power or you can avoid them by flying in warmer air by avoiding cold and humid air layer. Then there are differences do you ascend or descend and how much fuel you have in your wing tanks etc. There is too much variations to say anything about even by 3km altitude separation difference visually.

The only way to get to know the aircraft altitude is to use the aircraft own measured altitude information via services like https://www.flightradar24.com/ that allows you to track about 80% of the european flights and about 40% of the US flights (european airliners more often send their data over Internet).
Click to expand...
totally agree, plus the two shots atre shot at different angles, the Nikon shot is at less of an angle so has less air to shoot through and will help reduce atmospheric dostortions
 
JosephScha said:
My longest tele is the 100-300 II. Equivalent of 600mm. But I'm going to go get some pictures of jets with con trails, and crop them, and I think I can pretty much guarantee that they will have less noise than the second image in your post. Check back in a few days, I'll post pictures.

I've seen your airplane shots, they blow away what someone with a P900 couid do. If to need the 100-400 and TC1.4 to take a picture of a jet with contrails, then yeah an FZ super zoom or even a P900 might be less expensive option. I am out to prove that you don't need that, that the 100-300 II should be enough, when cropped.
Click to expand...
 
Trevor Carpenter said:
Cagey75 said:
We have no way of knowing how close he was to the plane he shot, he may well have been located much closer to an airport and therefore in a better position to grab more detailed images,. yours definitely looks to be flying a lot higher, there's haze/atmospheric blurring, showing quite a long distance between you and the plane. Drive to an airport and grab shots of planes landing and taking off and you'll get much better detail. Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
because it has a con trail is plane is at least at 30,000 ft ie 6 miles away from the photographer

--
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
Click to expand...
Contrails normally form at or above 8,000 m (26,000 ft), where the air temperature is below −36.5 °C (−34 °F). They can also form closer to the ground when the air is cold and moist.

Of course the angle of camera affects the distance significantly too. So without more information, it is possible one aircraft was twice as faraway.

And since these were taken under different conditions, we don't know how the heat and weather were affecting light waves.
 
Last edited:
Re: OK, Trevor, game is on
JosephScha said:
My longest tele is the 100-300 II. Equivalent of 600mm. But I'm going to go get some pictures of jets with con trails, and crop them, and I think I can pretty much guarantee that they will have less noise than the second image in your post. Check back in a few days, I'll post pictures.

I've seen your airplane shots, they blow away what someone with a P900 couid do. If to need the 100-400 and TC1.4 to take a picture of a jet with contrails, then yeah an FZ super zoom or even a P900 might be less expensive option. I am out to prove that you don't need that, that the 100-300 II should be enough, when cropped.

--
js
Click to expand...
The proof is in the pudding. Would love to see your proof!



As Trevor Carpenter (the OP) acknowledge, the photo of the aircraft taken with Nikon P900 is noisy but is better than his camera-lens and anything else he have seen. I'm looking forward to see your sample.

As for noise, inexpensive post processing software has soften the sting of noise.



Simple 30 second process to load, denoise, and save the photo. A second pass would even be better.
Simple 30 second process to load, denoise, and save the photo. A second pass would even be better.
 
Trevor Carpenter said:
Cagey75 said:
We have no way of knowing how close he was to the plane he shot, he may well have been located much closer to an airport and therefore in a better position to grab more detailed images,. yours definitely looks to be flying a lot higher, there's haze/atmospheric blurring, showing quite a long distance between you and the plane. Drive to an airport and grab shots of planes landing and taking off and you'll get much better detail. Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
because it has a con trail is plane is at least at 30,000 ft ie 6 miles away from the photographer
Click to expand...
 
KeepCalm said:
Cagey75 said:
Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
Not so bad when you quickly want a wide angle shot after taking a zoom shot. Describing these cameras with this term is ridiculous. Just general purpose cameras that do a great job over an extremely wide range of circumstances and the P900 is an extraordinary optical instrument for the price.
Click to expand...
The P900 is rubbish for anyone that wants to do more with their photography that rough snapshots. Even Nikon considers it a cheap snapshot camera as it doesn't have raw file support. The optical quality of it's 83x zoom is terrible compared to M43 lens choices.
 
Last edited:
greg 123 said:
KeepCalm said:
Cagey75 said:
Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
Not so bad when you quickly want a wide angle shot after taking a zoom shot. Describing these cameras with this term is ridiculous. Just general purpose cameras that do a great job over an extremely wide range of circumstances and the P900 is an extraordinary optical instrument for the price.
Click to expand...
The P900 is rubbish for anyone that wants to do more with their photography that rough snapshots. Even Nikon considers it a cheap snapshot camera as it doesn't have raw file support. The optical quality of it's 83x zoom is terrible compared to M43 lens choices.
Click to expand...
and yet the P900 shot is the most detailed of any in this thread.......
 
Wu Jiaqiu said:
greg 123 said:
KeepCalm said:
Cagey75 said:
Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
Not so bad when you quickly want a wide angle shot after taking a zoom shot. Describing these cameras with this term is ridiculous. Just general purpose cameras that do a great job over an extremely wide range of circumstances and the P900 is an extraordinary optical instrument for the price.
Click to expand...
The P900 is rubbish for anyone that wants to do more with their photography that rough snapshots. Even Nikon considers it a cheap snapshot camera as it doesn't have raw file support. The optical quality of it's 83x zoom is terrible compared to M43 lens choices.
Click to expand...
and yet the P900 shot is the most detailed of any in this thread.......
Click to expand...
But the photo is useless for anything photographically interesting. It's just the typical nonsensical comparison that DPR forum members are known for posting.
 
Wu Jiaqiu said:
greg 123 said:
KeepCalm said:
Cagey75 said:
Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
Not so bad when you quickly want a wide angle shot after taking a zoom shot. Describing these cameras with this term is ridiculous. Just general purpose cameras that do a great job over an extremely wide range of circumstances and the P900 is an extraordinary optical instrument for the price.
Click to expand...
The P900 is rubbish for anyone that wants to do more with their photography that rough snapshots. Even Nikon considers it a cheap snapshot camera as it doesn't have raw file support. The optical quality of it's 83x zoom is terrible compared to M43 lens choices.
Click to expand...
and yet the P900 shot is the most detailed of any in this thread.......
Click to expand...
People lugging around huge cameras & lenses don't like being shown the inconvenient truth....
 
greg 123 said:
Wu Jiaqiu said:
greg 123 said:
KeepCalm said:
Cagey75 said:
Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
Not so bad when you quickly want a wide angle shot after taking a zoom shot. Describing these cameras with this term is ridiculous. Just general purpose cameras that do a great job over an extremely wide range of circumstances and the P900 is an extraordinary optical instrument for the price.
Click to expand...
The P900 is rubbish for anyone that wants to do more with their photography that rough snapshots. Even Nikon considers it a cheap snapshot camera as it doesn't have raw file support. The optical quality of it's 83x zoom is terrible compared to M43 lens choices.
Click to expand...
and yet the P900 shot is the most detailed of any in this thread.......
Click to expand...
But the photo is useless for anything photographically interesting. It's just the typical nonsensical comparison that DPR forum members are known for posting.
Click to expand...
all of them are garbage, shots like these usually are. it's interesting how well it did however
 
telefunk said:
Wu Jiaqiu said:
greg 123 said:
KeepCalm said:
Cagey75 said:
Those bridge cams are great for zoom shots, but crap for anything besides tbh
Click to expand...
Not so bad when you quickly want a wide angle shot after taking a zoom shot. Describing these cameras with this term is ridiculous. Just general purpose cameras that do a great job over an extremely wide range of circumstances and the P900 is an extraordinary optical instrument for the price.
Click to expand...
The P900 is rubbish for anyone that wants to do more with their photography that rough snapshots. Even Nikon considers it a cheap snapshot camera as it doesn't have raw file support. The optical quality of it's 83x zoom is terrible compared to M43 lens choices.
Click to expand...
and yet the P900 shot is the most detailed of any in this thread.......
Click to expand...
People lugging around huge cameras & lenses don't like being shown the inconvenient truth....
Click to expand...
i do that myself but i can't even get close to the P900 shot with my current gear, luckily i shoot aircraft a little closer so it tends to do far better in those circumtances
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • User review User review
** LUMIX G9 Mk2 Review. First Impressions? Excellent! **
2 3
Replies
52
Views
14K
Stevie Boy Blue
S
Trevor Carpenter
It's airshow time
2
Replies
26
Views
27
nebulla
N
Trevor Carpenter
some thoughts on Focusing and BIFs
Replies
19
Views
20
Trevor Carpenter
Trevor Carpenter
F
Will new Nikon Coolpix P330's top-notch video capabilities swiftly retire Panasonic Lumix LX7?
2
Replies
32
Views
33
dpLarry
D
M
I can't decide between a Fuji F660EXR Panasonic DMC-ZS20 or Nikon S9300! Please help!
Replies
3
Views
4
mattsrespite
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top