P900 v P610/B700

[NCB]

I've been thinking about one of these long shooters for some time. The obvious difference is that the P900 has a somewhat longer reach, but is bigger and heavier (and a bit more expensive). The question which interests me is how the image quality compares. Take the longest reach of the P610 say, 1440. Would it be better than the P900 at that focal length, or vice versa, or the same?

If the P900 was no better than the P610, I might be inclined towards the P610, on account of portability; 1440 focal length is pretty good for my purposes. On the other hand, extra reach is always tempting.

Are there any other ways in which one camera is better than the other?

 

[Augustin Man]

In my opinion P900 is a unique camera for the moment. It's not only the "somewhat" longer reach, but also its fantastic stabilization. Thus, for the same reach as P610, you'll get a better (meaning more stable) image. Moreover, at WA, the aperture is bigger. The price for that: it's larger and heavier.

B700 is another story: it shoots RAW, records 4K and has 20.2 MP - if you'll get away with the noise, the more pixels means a better cropping.

It's up to you to decide.

All the best,

Augustin

 

[NCB]

Thanks. That's the sort of thing I wanted to know. Stabilisation in particular. The difference in weight isn't a deal breaker.

Nigel

 

[Stephen Ingraham]

Speaking strictly of image quality, the P900 and P610 are identical. Same sensor, same engine, same quality. I own both. The B700 is a total unknown. New sensor, and evidently a new processing engine. Only time will tell if Nikon has managed to maintain the same IQ at the higher pixel count

 

[Stephen McDonald]

I will be very surprised if the B700 doesn't show significant improvements in both the quality of its lens and of its sensor and processor. I think they've given it a 60X lens, rather than one with 83X, because they know it will perform better, both at the long end and throughout its range. This will be very important in allowing the 4K video function to be at its best. Is there anyone who could say that they were handicapped, by having "only" 60X in zoom?

The biggest unknown factor, is how it will stack up against a new Sony camera of its type, that seems likely to be introduced this season.

 

[Augustin Man]

Speaking strictly of image quality, the P900 and P610 are identical. Same sensor, same engine, same quality. I own both. The B700 is a total unknown. New sensor, and evidently a new processing engine. Only time will tell if Nikon has managed to maintain the same IQ at the higher pixel count

I agree with you about the similarities, Stephen! However, the optics is NOT the same and to such cameras it makes a lot of difference That was already proved by the outstanding P900 demand, despite its size, weight and cost.

All the best,

Augustin

 

[Augustin Man]

I will be very surprised if the B700 doesn't show significant improvements in both the quality of its lens and of its sensor and processor. I think they've given it a 60X lens, rather than one with 83X, because they know it will perform better, both at the long end and throughout its range. This will be very important in allowing the 4K video function to be at its best. Is there anyone who could say that they were handicapped, by having "only" 60X in zoom?

The biggest unknown factor, is how it will stack up against a new Sony camera of its type, that seems likely to be introduced this season.

 

[Stephen McDonald]

I will be very surprised if the B700 doesn't show significant improvements in both the quality of its lens and of its sensor and processor. I think they've given it a 60X lens, rather than one with 83X, because they know it will perform better, both at the long end and throughout its range. This will be very important in allowing the 4K video function to be at its best. Is there anyone who could say that they were handicapped, by having "only" 60X in zoom?

The biggest unknown factor, is how it will stack up against a new Sony camera of its type, that seems likely to be introduced this season.

--
Steve McDonald
http://www.ipernity.com/home/305883
My Flickr Album
My Vimeo Video Album
My Places on Google Earth and Slam Code Directory on OneDrive:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0

You're right, Stephen, on all your points. My only doubt is the increase of MP on the same size sensor, because as we all know a significant IQ improvement comes mainly from the sensor size. My personal opinion is that for an 1/2.3" sensor, the best number of MP is 12 (like in SX50), not even 16, let alone 20

All the best,

Augustin

P.S. I "jumped" over P610, now I can make it better with a B700

The issue with the ridiculously high numbers of pixels on such small sensors seems to have been ignored by Sony and now Nikon and some others. However, The sensors in my Sony superzoom cameras have gone from a total of 10-MP to 21-MP over the last 8 years. They jumped to 16-MP and then to 18-MP, before reaching the current level of 20-MP of active pixels. And each time, I was certain they had lost control of their senses and that the results couldn't be anything but bad. But, with the exception of the flawed HX300, the image quality has improved with each pixel increase.

This improvement has been due to having better lenses and image-processors, as well as in the pixel technology. Each pixel has been given more active area and the backlighting feature was added.

But I still say, that if all these improvements that make it possible to cram all those pixels on the small sensors, were applied to sensors with only 12-MP or less, that the results would be even better. But yet, I can't see any superiority in the Canon and Panasonic cameras with 12-MP, over my latest Sony with 20-MP. The performance is tied to the way that all the components work together.

It boggles the mind, to imagine how pixels so tiny can be made with all their complex parts being functional. The development of the micro-machines that make these sensors, had to come first and is even more impressive than the sensors, themselves. Of course, to be accurate, the pixels are arranged in clusters that function as single pixels for one color or another, in each scanning cycle. So there aren't nearly as many independent pixel units as the numbers imply.

And there is one more big advantage to small sensors of the CMOS type, for video. It's something that seems to catch little attention. I'm referring to the sometimes very bad geometric warping or skew at the edges of scenes where medium or fast panning and tilting speed is used and also moving subjects across the field of view. The bigger the sensor, the worse this artifact is. On full-frame, video-shooting photo cameras, it's very pronounced and on my "1/2.3-inch" superzoom, it's not visible at all.

Those who do professional shooting with these large-sensored cameras, have to meticulously avoid any panning and tilting, unless it's very slow. And if there's moving subjects, they have to track the cameras along with them. Since the viewers are looking only at the subjects, they ignore the warping backgrounds. However, not all pro DPs pay enough attention to these requirements and even on PBS, I nowadays see some of this flaw creeping into the scenes. The long hoped-for implementation of global scanning with CMOS sensors would eliminate most of this, as it does with CCD sensors. But it would be more expensive and make it more difficult to have such high frame-rates for burst shooting and slow-motion video.

--
Steve McDonald
http://www.ipernity.com/home/305883
My Flickr Album
My Vimeo Video Album
My Places on Google Earth and Slam Code Directory on OneDrive:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0

 

[metro65]

In my opinion P900 is a unique camera for the moment. It's not only the "somewhat" longer reach, but also its fantastic stabilization. Thus, for the same reach as P610, you'll get a better (meaning more stable) image. Moreover, at WA, the aperture is bigger. The price for that: it's larger and heavier.

Is the image stabilization different in these two cameras? They both list "5-stop Dual Detect" image stabilization in the specs.

How does the autofocus compare between P900 and P610?

I'm interested in the P610 especially, because of smaller size and price, but I'm hoping it has some of the strengths of its big brother. Thanks!

Mason

 

[Augustin Man]

In my opinion P900 is a unique camera for the moment. It's not only the "somewhat" longer reach, but also its fantastic stabilization. Thus, for the same reach as P610, you'll get a better (meaning more stable) image. Moreover, at WA, the aperture is bigger. The price for that: it's larger and heavier.

Is the image stabilization different in these two cameras? They both list "5-stop Dual Detect" image stabilization in the specs.

How does the autofocus compare between P900 and P610?

I'm interested in the P610 especially, because of smaller size and price, but I'm hoping it has some of the strengths of its big brother. Thanks!

Mason

I'm sorry I don't have both P610 and P900, but P600 and P900. People who have them said there isn't a discernable difference in focus or stabilization between P610 and P900; however the optics is clearly different, thus I infered that if the same IS (or VR as they call it) is being possible at the telephoto end in both cameras, then an 1440mm eq. image taken with P900 should be "more stable" than with P610, but I could have been wrong, of course.

I saw outstanding images shot with P610, some quite recently:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

All the best,

Augustin

 

[Stephen Ingraham]

Stabilization is equally as effective but focus is different. The P900 evidently has a more robust focus motor (as would be expected with such a large lens) and focus is a bit more snappy than on the P610. It is not an amazing difference and the P610 focuses faster than most superzooms, but the P900 is faster.

 

[Augustin Man]

Thank you, Stephen, for clarifying those notions!

Happy shooting,

Augustin

 

[Emminator]

Great thread and great site for comparing cameras. I'm currently a D7000 users and looking to switch/change to a Nikon super-zoom. I've been looking at the P900, P610 and P600. I pretty much settled on the P600 due to price and I'll get the majority of the capabilities I'm looking for.

What concerned me after reading the reviews and Q&A was someone mention that the P600 has a slow auto-focus and slow image processing. I read through the specifications and can't determine how slow these features will be. Anybody have any experience with these features on the cameras?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Paul Kratchman

 

[metro65]

Yes, thanks to both of you for this helpful information. The P900 seems to be worth the extra money, but the P610 also sounds like a good compromise, especially considering size and weight as well as price. And perhaps the P610 will come down further in price once the new model comes out.

Best,

Mason

 

[patticake]

i got the P610 after renting a P900, and for me, it's just not as good. the P900 was a spectacular experience - the P610 doesn't seem to focus as well for me. also while i shoot with a lot of smaller cameras, i found the P900 fit my hands better.

 

[lnbolch]

Thanks. That's the sort of thing I wanted to know. Stabilisation in particular. The difference in weight isn't a deal breaker.

Nigel

The P900 is designed in such a way that it is very comfortable in the hand, and weight is no problem either. Both factors are a consideration now, and I am acquiring lighter cameras for day to day shooting while the D700 is now reserved for things it does best and easiest in spite of its weight, bulk, and noise.

My last Coolpix was the classic 8400 bridge camera. It cost nearly twice as much and ISO400 was strictly for emergencies. The D900 is loaded with features and a hoot to shoot. Stabilization is incredible. To be able to shoot sharp, detailed bird shots hand-held is mind-blowing. This is a crow among autumn leaves, hand-held at 1/160th (not 1/1600th) wide open, half a block away at ISO400 and 2000mm FOV. No, it is not medium-format camera shot within a studio. It is a shot in the wild, and it shows what this camera can do. Few photographers have ever shot with the field of view of a 2000mm lens, since only a few exist and the prices are astonishing. A mirror Nikkor recently sold for $95,000US.


A crow among autumn leaves, hand-held at 1/160th (not 1/1600th) .

--
larry!

3D Wallpaper 4K for iPhone

Browse our 3D wallpapers that give life to your phone's home and lock screens. ✅Download free. ✅Create 3D wallpapers. ✅4K-HD Quality.

www.larry-bolch.com