Nikon p900 for birds?

413x · 8 Jul 2017 at 19:28

So, decided to make a new thread as I'm considering this camera. And the thread title might grab peoples attention who have it.

I want a solution that is beyond 400mm, suitable for birds, doesn't cost the earth and doesn't weigh a tonne!

So 400-500mm in dslr could well cost me 2-3k where as this super zoom is less than 500!

I know it's going to have big limitations. But I'd like to know if you can really get good pics at top end dslr zoom ranges.

I've seen a fair few good pics around.

Any help would be appreciated!

Rroff · 8 Jul 2017 at 19:46

The zoom on the p900 is crazy for something that isn't in that top tier professional area from the videos I've seen of it in action it will go beyond the capibilities of all but the most specialised equipment.

beefybarn · 12 Jul 2017 at 21:15

Have a look at the Panasonic FZ330 as zooms to 600mm and has a lens capable of F2.8 throughout the range.

Energize · 13 Jul 2017 at 04:51

413x said:
So, decided to make a new thread as I'm considering this camera. And the thread title might grab peoples attention who have it.

I want a solution that is beyond 400mm, suitable for birds, doesn't cost the earth and doesn't weigh a tonne!

So 400-500mm in dslr could well cost me 2-3k where as this super zoom is less than 500!

I know it's going to have big limitations. But I'd like to know if you can really get good pics at top end dslr zoom ranges.

I've seen a fair few good pics around.

Any help would be appreciated!

Your numbers are way off. An entry level Canon SLR combined a 70-300mm lens gets you to 480mm for less than £500 and is pretty light, or combined with a 150-600mm lens takes you to 960mm for about £1000.

The pictures that the P900 gets are considerably worse than an SLR at the same focal lengths so "good pics", needs some clarification. I would also be amazed if the AF is usable at the long focal lengths for birds.

Columbo · 13 Jul 2017 at 09:07

Not to mention the pinhole aperture which will need a huge bump in ISO, diffraction killing the image quality and the environmental effects such as haze between you and the subject at those focal lengths.
I'd much rather take a 24mp DSLR and 18-300 lens and crop in over any of these superzooms with tiny sensors.

413x · 13 Jul 2017 at 14:53

300mm hasn't been enough before. I had a 120-300mm sigma OS and it wasn't any good. It was bad with a TC on it and was only good for things like sports (which is what it's aimed at)

It was no good for wildlife.

I'd much rather take a DSLR in the real world but can't seem to find a weight/cost/reward balance worth it.

Ideally I'd like something like the nikon (fixed lens to keep all awesome processing which I think is how it achieves what it does) but more expensive and less reach. Bigger sensors, half range would be ideal.
2000mm as you say is ridiculous. So much atmosphere. And I'd probably never use anything in that range.

I know by physics I can't get what I want but seems like there isn't much middle Ground

Ideally I'd want a 400 f4 which can take a Tc with stabilisation for 2k - but that's a dream. That doesn't seem possible

The DO lens mkii is too expensive

Columbo · 13 Jul 2017 at 15:20

Something like a Canon G3x will get you to 600mm eq @ f5.6 and has a 1" sensor, again I'd much rather take that over a 1/2.3" sensor @ f6.3

413x · 13 Jul 2017 at 17:51

Columbo said:
Something like a Canon G3x will get you to 600mm eq @ f5.6 and has a 1" sensor, again I'd much rather take that over a 1/2.3" sensor @ f6.3

Thanks for this. I didn't realise the sensor in the Canon was bigger, and 600mm is probably fine.
The other option I have now seen is Rx10 iii