What does /p/ think of the Nikon Coolpix P900?
>>2806510
it's shit
The last thread we had about it ended in a general conclusion (by mass acclaim) that its small sensor is noisy, shitty and very poor in low light so it's not suitable (I'm guessing comparably to dslrs with fuckhuge teles?) for the only two venues of photography employing extreme telephoto - bird/wildlife photography and astrophotography. Gearfags were pretty much in unison on that topic. It seemed like the posters felt it's subpar in every regard. I wouldn't know, though, I don't make statements about stuff I haven't personally tried, seems stupid. Honestly, wish I had one. Seems cool.
>>2806516
I got one as a gift. I've barely used it, just curious what the general opinion is on it.
>>2806510
its just a poopy point and shoot with a crazy ass lens
thats pretty much it, the zoom is probably fun to play with but not much else
>>2806510
wait for nikon dl 24-500
>>2806516
>astrophotography
The Moon and that's about it.
Price-wise it's great. I've also seen some VERY impressive pictures taken with it. But upon reading reviews, the general consensus was that the camera has a super-SMALL sensor which is a limitation. If you got one as a gift, get around to trying it and show us what your own thoughts are?
It's cheaper than an expensive telescope. There's handheld (!) footage of it showing Saturn's rings and Jupiter with it's moons on YouTube. Optically, it's impressive although in high ISO shots you'll get more noise/grain.
I think it's excellent value for price. If you used a DSLR with a comparable lens, you'd be paying tens of thousands to come close.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P900 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 550 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4608 Image Height 3456 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:04:28 17:08:08 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 98.10 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1536 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Down Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2806516
Being a dirty polak and having very low sense of quality or no sense at all I honestly not surprised you want one. Gypsies tend to flock around shiny useless gadgets, I can only assume your type of people do the same.
>>2806510
Regarding the question, it is a bridge camera with over the top features not fitting it's limitations as a bridge camera. Not worth the money at all, much better to spend money on a simple bridge camera to simply dick around with photography. Since you got it for free just take it out and make photos, that's it.
>>2806510
unlike most people here, i actually had one and used it, mostly while traveling.
it was a nice point and shoot.
but i wouldnt do anything professional with it. i used it for the school paper as well back when i had it and it worked great for that.
pic related is from 2011 and taken with the coolpix, i was pretty inexperienced at the time though so there are much better examples of the camera's capabilities in this thread already.
but yeah it was easy to use, point and shoot. good for "normie" photography mostly imo
i'll post a couple of my photos from using it
>>2806566
>P900 came out in 2015
>pic from 2011
>>2806566
>>2806568
>>2806571
What on earth makes you think your words have any value with those awful snapshits?
>>2806573
Where are your good snapshits buddy?
I had it for a short while, it was nice to play around with. Eventually I found it too bulky for my needs plus I did not like what it did to the photos. Pic related.
>>2806584
Then again mind you I am fairly new to photography and up until recently I wasn't aware of how depth-of-field relates to aperture. It could be that one can take a lot better snaphits with it given that you know about such things and also have a tripod.
>>2806585
Sometimes it reminded me of the pictures I took with my Moto G shittiest ever camera - in what seems to be some sort of wierd post-processing applied to the pictures - pic again related
>>2806587
So yeah, the price was worth a ride, but I am happy that I was still able to sell it in price.
>>2806566
>here, have a smile, it's on the house
Why is it considered bad? All these words you say here don't mean much to me, and the photos seem to be of great quality. Anyone explain it to someone who takes photos with her Note 4 and wants to get into photography?
>>2807209
Because it is a bridge camera, meaning it is a cellphone camera's pinhole sensor mounted in a massive plastic body with a ridiculously oversized lens to sell it to people who only judge a camera lens by its physical size and "9000X ZOOM"-type marketing fluff numbers. Bridge cameras are great for manufacturers to get extra money out of plebeians, because they use cheap-ass components and yet sell for price that would imply something else (this hunk of junk starts at 600€ around here). In all likelihood you have an equivalent or better camera in your pocket or hand right now, that being your cellphone.
>>2807221
So what camera should I get?
>>2807223
Who knows? I don't know your individual needs for a camera. Post in the gear thread and you'll get answers
>>2807223
Use the gear thread, but you will get a usual answer. BTW this should be stickied as the list of recommended usual beginners kit.
Pentax K-50 or K-S2, Nikon D3300 or D5500, Canon 1300D or 760D, Sony A6000.
All with their kit lens or the bundled standard + telezoom kit.
>>2807223
Something with an interchangable lens and an APS-C sensor.
