| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Funnily enough I was, an hour ago, talking to a birder friend who was trying my 1.4x teleconverter on his 300mm lens and DX Nikon. His problem is that even with 650mm equivalent he still has to crop his images. He's got a 24mp body, so thats ok but we were saying that unless he can get closer or afford thousands he is styled.
The p900 offers another option. The only experience I have of these type of integral cameras is with my wife's LUMIX FZ1000 which has a 600mm equivalent and is superb quality!!!
Going as far as 2000mm must create stability concerns...ok if you use a tripod I guess.
The main failing of (some) bridge cameras is the speed of response (the complete frame...focus...shoot...repeat sequence). The Fuji XT2 is better (with 3batteries!) but is still not immediate in its response. The LUMIX is much slower. It's a bit like a diesel car v a petrol car, when you put the foot down....the diesels have a hesitation that petrol don't have. (Albeit slight in some)
The other concern I have is the battery life. Mirrorless is like being back with the D1!!!
What is the MINIMUM aperture on the P900?
The LUMIX has a very limited f8 minimum aperture. Although f8 may be ok for wildlife I don't like operating at any lens' limit.
Of course one advantage of small sensor size is the increased dof....which may offset any loss of smaller apertures
Last edited on Fri Jul 28th, 2017 10:15 by Eric
____________________
Eric