Reading mode: Light Dark

I can't compete with a Nikon P900

Go to last post
When my local Best Buy got the Nikon P900 in, I rush in to try it out. I had such high hope for this camera, reading

Loading…

www.nikonusa.com

seem like a dream comes true. Sadly, in real life, I find the camera really struggle to focus on anything. P900 focusing in not only BAD, but SLOW, INCONSISTENT and often refuse to focus even after 2 minutes of struggling. Finally, I had to resort to MF to get any decent results.

Granted, I was taking test shot in:
  • Indoor Best Buy lighting @iso1600
  • 1st version Firmware
My experience was bad enough that a slight tweak in firmware won't much difference. I won't try to talk anyone out of this camera, but I would urge you to try shooting one in person.
 
Last edited:
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...
The GM5 with kit lens blows away the P900 on image quality at a fraction of the size. The 24 to 64 range is far more often used than the long zoom that's basically useless. I wouldn't bother to use that long focal length on a such poor quality lens. Then add in it's inconsistent focusing and the P900 is a real dog in every respect. You get what you pay for.

With M43 you can always add a longer focal length lens for those shoots. It's not necessary to haul around a large lens for shooting at 24mm or normal field of view.

Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
 
Last edited:
Re: I can't compete with a Nikon P900
Trevor Carpenter said:
I like to take some pictures of high flying aircraft as a test of iQ and as my cameras have evolved I have seen some improvement to where I am now with my G80 and 100-400. Here's one I'm took this week, cropped to give me some detail. This is a Eurowings A330. 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. The second picture below was posted by a guy named Tom Whitelegge and is shown here with his permission. It's a Boeing 777. It was posted on an aircraft forum and saved by me directly from there. It was taken with a Nikon P900 bridge camera. It's a bit noisy but I think I could clean that up but more importantly the detail is better than anything I can achieve with my G80 and better than anything similar that I have seen from m4/3s.

Interested to hear your thoughts. Can you achieve the same details as Tom with m4/3s.
Click to expand...
I like your Honesty! Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by your post. It is nice reading a post from an excellent photographer who does not exhibit a fan boy enthusiasm. I am exclusively a Nikon DSLR user but I do not own a P900. Personally, I believe your G80 and lens combination is better than the P900, but that is irrelevant in this specific Forum.

I can't help but wonder about the big fuss. I hope to see posts of sample shots from those who think they are up to your challenge.

I took the liberty to denoise the photo by Tom Whitelegge. Not having the EXIF, I can only make a guess that the shot was made at dusk that required high ISO, thus the noise.

Denoised with just one pass.
Denoised with just one pass.
Trevor Carpenter said:
6f69b270e7214d0fa59d3af64ba44656.jpg

--
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
greg 123 said:
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...
The GM5 with kit lens blows away the P900 on image quality at a fraction of the size. The 24 to 64 range is far more often used than the long zoom that's basically useless. I wouldn't bother to use that long focal length on a such poor quality lens. Then add in it's inconsistent focusing and the P900 is a real dog in every respect. You get what you pay for.

With M43 you can always add a longer focal length lens for those shoots. It's not necessary to haul around a large lens for shooting at 24mm or normal field of view.

Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Click to expand...
Well, the 12-32 lens is a great sharp lens. But for someone who wants a longer reach they will need to buy a different lens. The Nikon is darned good for what it was meant for.
 
BrownieVet said:
Re: I can't compete with a Nikon P900
Trevor Carpenter said:
I like to take some pictures of high flying aircraft as a test of iQ and as my cameras have evolved I have seen some improvement to where I am now with my G80 and 100-400. Here's one I'm took this week, cropped to give me some detail. This is a Eurowings A330. 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. The second picture below was posted by a guy named Tom Whitelegge and is shown here with his permission. It's a Boeing 777. It was posted on an aircraft forum and saved by me directly from there. It was taken with a Nikon P900 bridge camera. It's a bit noisy but I think I could clean that up but more importantly the detail is better than anything I can achieve with my G80 and better than anything similar that I have seen from m4/3s.

Interested to hear your thoughts. Can you achieve the same details as Tom with m4/3s.
Click to expand...
I like your Honesty! Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by your post. It is nice reading a post from an excellent photographer who does not exhibit a fan boy enthusiasm. I am exclusively a Nikon DSLR user but I do not own a P900. Personally, I believe your G80 and lens combination is better than the P900, but that is irrelevant in this specific Forum.

I can't help but wonder about the big fuss. I hope to see posts of sample shots from those who think they are up to your challenge.

I took the liberty to denoise the photo by Tom Whitelegge. Not having the EXIF, I can only make a guess that the shot was made at dusk that required high ISO, thus the noise.

Denoised with just one pass.
Denoised with just one pass.
BrownieVet said:
6f69b270e7214d0fa59d3af64ba44656.jpg

--
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The issue with denoiseing is the loss of detail. Just compare the serial number on the wing and even the three ribs each side at the trailing edge.
 
Steven Ar said:
greg 123 said:
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...
The GM5 with kit lens blows away the P900 on image quality at a fraction of the size. The 24 to 64 range is far more often used than the long zoom that's basically useless. I wouldn't bother to use that long focal length on a such poor quality lens. Then add in it's inconsistent focusing and the P900 is a real dog in every respect. You get what you pay for.

With M43 you can always add a longer focal length lens for those shoots. It's not necessary to haul around a large lens for shooting at 24mm or normal field of view.

Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Click to expand...
Well, the 12-32 lens is a great sharp lens. But for someone who wants a longer reach they will need to buy a different lens. The Nikon is darned good for what it was meant for.
Click to expand...
The only thing it's good for is poor quality snapshots with a high chance of missed focus at a distance. That's pretty useless. I'll take a Pana 100-400 , Oly 40-150 2.8 or Oly 300 for more reach and decent quality images. The P900 is only for those that are ok with a snapshot quality image. No raw shows that the P900 is designed for beginning novices that think they are getting a great price on a long tele. Unfortunately, the P900 is a gimmick in Nikon's lineup in hopes to snag those consumers.
 
Last edited:
greg 123 said:
Steven Ar said:
greg 123 said:
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...
The GM5 with kit lens blows away the P900 on image quality at a fraction of the size. The 24 to 64 range is far more often used than the long zoom that's basically useless. I wouldn't bother to use that long focal length on a such poor quality lens. Then add in it's inconsistent focusing and the P900 is a real dog in every respect. You get what you pay for.

With M43 you can always add a longer focal length lens for those shoots. It's not necessary to haul around a large lens for shooting at 24mm or normal field of view.

Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Click to expand...
Well, the 12-32 lens is a great sharp lens. But for someone who wants a longer reach they will need to buy a different lens. The Nikon is darned good for what it was meant for.
Click to expand...
The only thing it's good for is poor quality snapshots with a high chance of missed focus at a distance. That's pretty useless. I'll take a Pana 100-400 , Oly 40-150 2.8 or Oly 300 for more reach and decent quality images. The P900 is only for those that are ok with a snapshot quality image. No raw, means it's designed for beginning novices that think they are getting a great price on a long tele. Unfortunately, the P900 is a gimmick in Nikon's lineup in hopes to snag those consumers.
Click to expand...
and yet.........never mind lol
 
Wu Jiaqiu said:
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
Click to expand...
which is the point I was trying to make, not that it is a great photograph but still comparably better than what we can do with m4/3s in this specific situation
 
Last edited:
greg 123 said:
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...
The GM5 with kit lens blows away the P900 on image quality at a fraction of the size. The 24 to 64 range is far more often used than the long zoom that's basically useless. I wouldn't bother to use that long focal length on a such poor quality lens. Then add in it's inconsistent focusing and the P900 is a real dog in every respect. You get what you pay for.

With M43 you can always add a longer focal length lens for those shoots. It's not necessary to haul around a large lens for shooting at 24mm or normal field of view.

Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Click to expand...
let's see your aircraft @ 30k feet with that then we can all compare..........
 
Being late to the parade I may have missed something but I just did 2 Flickr searches....p900 moon shot and Panasonic 100-400 moon shot..... surprisingly the P900 had the best shot IMHO.... great if you want to take photos of the moon or high flying airplanes....
 
Tuonov2 said:
greg 123 said:
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...
The GM5 with kit lens blows away the P900 on image quality at a fraction of the size. The 24 to 64 range is far more often used than the long zoom that's basically useless. I wouldn't bother to use that long focal length on a such poor quality lens. Then add in it's inconsistent focusing and the P900 is a real dog in every respect. You get what you pay for.

With M43 you can always add a longer focal length lens for those shoots. It's not necessary to haul around a large lens for shooting at 24mm or normal field of view.

Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Here is the real inconvenient truth. It's not as you purport.
Click to expand...
let's see your aircraft @ 30k feet with that then we can all compare..........
Click to expand...
That argument is pure desperation. Most people could care less about taking an image of a jet at that altitude. These are the kind of stupid comparisons that are common on DPR. They don't make any sense for a typical photographer. If you spend most of your time taking shots of airplanes at 30k feet up this might be your camera. For 99% of uses an M43 camera absolutely crushes the P900.
 
I guess this is sort of off topic, and no masterpiece, but if we're talking about taking a very spur of the moment quick shot of a plane, this is pretty cool. The tanker had just detached. One of very few 747s that can be mid-air refueled. Something you don't see everyday!

This was taken over eastern Canada with my FZ80. All the wrong settings and I haven't cleaned it up.

5b32901dbb1e4e8697ef6771f45dcbcd.jpg
 
Aberaeron said:
BrownieVet said:
Re: I can't compete with a Nikon P900
Trevor Carpenter said:
I like to take some pictures of high flying aircraft as a test of iQ and as my cameras have evolved I have seen some improvement to where I am now with my G80 and 100-400. Here's one I'm took this week, cropped to give me some detail. This is a Eurowings A330. 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. The second picture below was posted by a guy named Tom Whitelegge and is shown here with his permission. It's a Boeing 777. It was posted on an aircraft forum and saved by me directly from there. It was taken with a Nikon P900 bridge camera. It's a bit noisy but I think I could clean that up but more importantly the detail is better than anything I can achieve with my G80 and better than anything similar that I have seen from m4/3s.

Interested to hear your thoughts. Can you achieve the same details as Tom with m4/3s.
Click to expand...
I like your Honesty! Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by your post. It is nice reading a post from an excellent photographer who does not exhibit a fan boy enthusiasm. I am exclusively a Nikon DSLR user but I do not own a P900. Personally, I believe your G80 and lens combination is better than the P900, but that is irrelevant in this specific Forum.

I can't help but wonder about the big fuss. I hope to see posts of sample shots from those who think they are up to your challenge.

I took the liberty to denoise the photo by Tom Whitelegge. Not having the EXIF, I can only make a guess that the shot was made at dusk that required high ISO, thus the noise.

Denoised with just one pass.
Denoised with just one pass.
Aberaeron said:
6f69b270e7214d0fa59d3af64ba44656.jpg

--
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The issue with denoiseing is the loss of detail. Just compare the serial number on the wing and even the three ribs each side at the trailing edge.
Click to expand...
As most of the noise problem is in the sky you could mask the plane and add NR more to the sky . Quick select using quick selection tool in photo shop { it works very well with this kind of scene } and a run through topaz denoise

d445667ba8004b668115db001c62b721.jpg

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
 
Last edited:
greg 123 said:
Member said:
let's see your aircraft @ 30k feet with that then we can all compare..........
Click to expand...
That argument is pure desperation. Most people could care less about taking an image of a jet at that altitude. These are the kind of stupid comparisons that are common on DPR. They don't make any sense for a typical photographer. If you spend most of your time taking shots of airplanes at 30k feet up this might be your camera. For 99% of uses an M43 camera absolutely crushes the P900.
Click to expand...
The discussion is about taking photo's of aircraft at 30k feet, that's what the OP was about, it's you that somehow came to the conclusion that an m4/3 camera with a wide zoom was better........
 
Tuonov2 said:
greg 123 said:
Tuonov2 said:
let's see your aircraft @ 30k feet with that then we can all compare..........
Click to expand...
That argument is pure desperation. Most people could care less about taking an image of a jet at that altitude. These are the kind of stupid comparisons that are common on DPR. They don't make any sense for a typical photographer. If you spend most of your time taking shots of airplanes at 30k feet up this might be your camera. For 99% of uses an M43 camera absolutely crushes the P900.
Click to expand...
The discussion is about taking photo's of aircraft at 30k feet, that's what the OP was about, it's you that somehow came to the conclusion that an m4/3 camera with a wide zoom was better........
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use a wide zoom. I would use an Olympus 300 with 1.4 tele-converter on EM1ii cropped. This would do just as good or better. I can't prove this with an image and you can't prove me wrong.

I don't go looking for jets at 30K feet so I don't have any images to compare. As mentioned on other posts, any sort of comparison of a jet image at altitude is meaningless. There's no way to know the distance to the plane and no way to compare differences in the atmospheric conditions. Cameras can be compared, but not jets at 30K feet.
 
Last edited:
greg 123 said:
Tuonov2 said:
greg 123 said:
Member said:
let's see your aircraft @ 30k feet with that then we can all compare..........
Click to expand...
That argument is pure desperation. Most people could care less about taking an image of a jet at that altitude. These are the kind of stupid comparisons that are common on DPR. They don't make any sense for a typical photographer. If you spend most of your time taking shots of airplanes at 30k feet up this might be your camera. For 99% of uses an M43 camera absolutely crushes the P900.
Click to expand...
The discussion is about taking photo's of aircraft at 30k feet, that's what the OP was about, it's you that somehow came to the conclusion that an m4/3 camera with a wide zoom was better........
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use a wide zoom. I would use an Olympus 300 with 1.4 tele-converter on EM1ii cropped. This would do just as good or better. I can't prove this with an image and you can't prove me wrong.

I don't go looking for jets at 30K feet so I don't have any images to compare. As mentioned on other posts, any sort of comparison of a jet image at altitude is meaningless. There's no way to know the distance to the plane and no way to compare differences in the atmospheric conditions. Cameras can be compared, but not jets at 30K feet.
Click to expand...
Yep , i think shooting them at a lower altitude and filling the frame as best possible is the way to go :-)
 
greg 123 said:
Tuonov2 said:
greg 123 said:
Member said:
let's see your aircraft @ 30k feet with that then we can all compare..........
Click to expand...
That argument is pure desperation. Most people could care less about taking an image of a jet at that altitude. These are the kind of stupid comparisons that are common on DPR. They don't make any sense for a typical photographer. If you spend most of your time taking shots of airplanes at 30k feet up this might be your camera. For 99% of uses an M43 camera absolutely crushes the P900.
Click to expand...
The discussion is about taking photo's of aircraft at 30k feet, that's what the OP was about, it's you that somehow came to the conclusion that an m4/3 camera with a wide zoom was better........
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use a wide zoom. I would use an Olympus 300 with 1.4 tele-converter on EM1ii cropped. This would do just as good or better.
Click to expand...
So why show one to 'prove your point'? Why not show am EM1 ii with oly 300 and 1.4 tc? Maybe that wouldn't fit your narrative?
 
Aberaeron said:
The issue with denoiseing is the loss of detail. Just compare the serial number on the wing and even the three ribs each side at the trailing edge.
Click to expand...
Of course! Consider the sample is not the original. I was working on a 150 meg download which may have been severely cropped.
 
I should have masked as you did. Good catch!
James Stirling said:
Aberaeron said:
James Stirling said:
I like your Honesty! Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by your post. It is nice reading a post from an excellent photographer who does not exhibit a fan boy enthusiasm. I am exclusively a Nikon DSLR user but I do not own a P900. Personally, I believe your G80 and lens combination is better than the P900, but that is irrelevant in this specific Forum.

I can't help but wonder about the big fuss. I hope to see posts of sample shots from those who think they are up to your challenge.

I took the liberty to denoise the photo by Tom Whitelegge. Not having the EXIF, I can only make a guess that the shot was made at dusk that required high ISO, thus the noise.

Denoised with just one pass.
Denoised with just one pass.
James Stirling said:
6f69b270e7214d0fa59d3af64ba44656.jpg

--
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The issue with denoiseing is the loss of detail. Just compare the serial number on the wing and even the three ribs each side at the trailing edge.
Click to expand...
As most of the noise problem is in the sky you could mask the plane and add NR more to the sky . Quick select using quick selection tool in photo shop { it works very well with this kind of scene } and a run through topaz denoise

d445667ba8004b668115db001c62b721.jpg

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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
17K
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
38
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