 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
highlander
|
Ok, it's not a DSLR Ok, it's got a tiny sensor But how else do you get the equivalent of a 24-2000mm optical zoom? And the result aint half bad either Attachment: ST0RM-0098.jpg (Downloaded 63 times) |
|||||||||
highlander
|
please bare in mind these images are reduced in size from the original to allow easier online posting/viewing Attachment: ST0RM-0130.jpg (Downloaded 60 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Very interesting....and nice quality images. 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 |
|||||||||
highlander
|
The lens goes from f2.8 at the wide end to f6.5 at the long end. It has, according to Nikon, a 5-stop image stabiliser which I have to say does work to an extent although I did brace my elbows against the wooden frames of the hide. The shutter lag isn't too bad, but really its done to treating it like an old camera and pre-focusing then holding it for the shot if the subject isn't sitting still. The start up time isn't too bad and you can preset the zoom start point, so with wildlife you have it go immediately to a mid-range telephoto and sit there on start up and then zoom in or out as required for the actual shot. http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/digital-cameras/coolpix/bridge/coolpix-p900#tech_specs |
|||||||||
highlander
|
A little pre-focusing (like I did in the 1980s....) Attachment: ST0RM-0049.jpg (Downloaded 59 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
highlander wrote:The lens goes from f2.8 at the wide end to f6.5 at the long end. It has, according to Nikon, a 5-stop image stabiliser which I have to say does work to an extent although I did brace my elbows against the wooden frames of the hide. Scuse my being thick....I realise it's got a maximum aperture f6.5 at the tele end but what's the minimum aperture f8/f11 or is it just that fixed 6.5 aperture that's available? |
|||||||||
highlander
|
Scuse my misunderstanding Eric. I always get my min and max apertures mixed up. I checked the manual but that was no help so I stuck it in A and it goes to f8 at every length |
|||||||||
Eric
|
highlander wrote:Scuse my misunderstanding Eric. I always get my min and max apertures mixed up. I checked the manual but that was no help so I stuck it in A and it goes to f8 at every length Thanks. That's the same as the LUMIX. It doesn't give a lot of choice at the tele end. The LUMIX is 5.6 > 8 which isn't a lot better. Suspect the compromises are many when trying to squeeze in the mega reach. Will watch with interest to see how you get on with it. |
|||||||||
highlander
|
Tried some macro shots today Attachment: ST0RM-0162.jpg (Downloaded 51 times) |
|||||||||
highlander
|
Here's another Attachment: ST0RM-0158.jpg (Downloaded 51 times) |
|||||||||
highlander
|
And a yellow hammer on a post, in the rain. This and the bee shot are both cropped to around half the original image size as I shot them in landscape and ended up preferring portrait Attachment: ST0RM-0169.jpg (Downloaded 53 times) |
|||||||||
highlander
|
All the shots are reduced in size to permit uploading. The originals carry much more detail, and I'm viewing them in 5K |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Been using one since March 2015 and it is one of my favorite. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Those images are of Amazing Quality....having those possibilities in an FX camera in such a small package , would be Impossible...but that`s what I said about Autofocus...and Digital Imaging would never be as good as film..What will they come up with next...?? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:Those images are of Amazing Quality....having those possibilities in an FX camera in such a small package , would be Impossible...but that`s what I said about Autofocus...and Digital Imaging would never be as good as film..What will they come up with next...?? After years of suggestion a variable ND filter should be incorporated into Nikons...I see the Panasonic LUMIX FZ 2500 has got it in stead!  This super bridge camera also has auto focus stacking and post 'exposure' focus selection.  Along with other pro grade video shooting techniques (incl dolly focus) this camera SAYS it's got super fast focusing sussed ....if that's true it would be a first for mirrorless cameras. One has to ask again while pro grade dslrs don't have all of these bridge camera functions? |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Eric wrote: After years of suggestion a variable ND filter should be incorporated into Nikons...I see the Panasonic LUMIX FZ 2500 has got it in stead! This super bridge camera also has auto focus stacking and post 'exposure' focus selection. Along with other pro grade video shooting techniques (incl dolly focus) this camera SAYS it's got super fast focusing sussed ....if that's true it would be a first for mirrorless cameras. One has to ask again while pro grade dslrs don't have all of these bridge camera functions? ...Consider me next to you on the bench.....If I was the same that I was forty years ago , I would know what to say( I knew so much then ) ..now I just wonder...different departments battling each other , marketing wizards...if only they would make them Big D`s less weighty..I thougt my Kodak SlrN was heavy..the D3s / D3x taught me otherwise...  |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Eric wrote: After years of suggestion a variable ND filter should be incorporated into Nikons...I see the Panasonic LUMIX FZ 2500 has got it in stead! This super bridge camera also has auto focus stacking and post 'exposure' focus selection. Along with other pro grade video shooting techniques (incl dolly focus) this camera SAYS it's got super fast focusing sussed ....if that's true it would be a first for mirrorless cameras. One has to ask again while pro grade dslrs don't have all of these bridge camera functions? ...Consider me next to you on the bench.....If I was the same that I was forty years ago , I would know what to say( I knew so much then ) ..now I just wonder...different departments battling each other , marketing wizards...if only they would make them Big D`s less weighty..I thougt my Kodak SlrN was heavy..the D3s / D3x taught me otherwise... |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
"One has to ask again while pro grade dslrs don't have all of these bridge camera functions?" Nikon doesn't consider these features pro. As an example Only a GPS dangling on a dongle is pro and suitable for a $5000 camera. A built in chip is OK for a $ 300 consumer model.  |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Wow...have to admit, this stuff is getting pretty impressive ! Go for it, Eric  |
|||||||||
jk
|
amazing50 wrote:"One has to ask again while pro grade dslrs don't have all of these bridge camera functions?" They want to sell more Nikon accessories where their markup is huge. GPS in camera is a easy one and the cost is less than $5 but a specialist GPS addon from Nikon is $€£250. Nice profit. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote:Wow...have to admit, this stuff is getting pretty impressive ! May get one for the wife to try. She likes macro and videoing. Her images and films on the FZ 1000 are quite superb. It's just the old chestnut of mirrorless response time that lets it down for me. Right now I am giving photography a miss. I am decorating my 94yr old father's kitchen and dining room! NEVER worked this hard...painting ceilings is a killer.  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Roller painting is hard work but easier than by hand with a brush. I am in UK until next week when I return to Spain. I have two ceilings to do and then my projects are finished! I am then into September photography time. Best time of year for outdoor shooting! Still warm but less hot. |
|||||||||
highlander
|
Fuji put an ND filter in the X100 but not in the other cameras, which is.a shame. I used it a lot in mine. I find I switch off the GPS most of the time because it really eats batteries. I had this problem with LUMIX, Canon, and Nikon cameras. Fuji's answer is to 'borrow' the GPS from your phone, if you can get it to stay connected with the phone in your pocket, but I have yet to get it to work even with the phone sat on the table in the garden next tot he camera. I did find it works well on the Nikon P900 but does drain the battery of course. I didn't have it making a log but only recording individual shot data and that helped a lot with battery use. Although I have bought four batteries now because non-Nikon ones are cheap enough  |
|||||||||
jk
|
I agree with you Jan. The Fuji Remote App that geotags is fairly useless in that it does not update location but uses the location last stored. So you need to continually refresh the app and then do the GPS update to the camera. Useless! I keep mentioning it on the Fuji-X forum and hope that Fuji will address this. |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
I have one but rarely use it. Seems that some of the Sony mirrorless can take GPS data from a smartphone for EXIF data. Anyone know if this works for Nikons yet? |
|||||||||
Bob Bowen
|
Remember reading about a work round for missing gps data. The guy took a single location shot on his phone when location shooting with dslr then applied data in LR. Bit clumsy but better than nothing. Currently racking memory as I scan old pics as I try to recall old trips. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I've never really understood the necessity for gps in cameras. These last couple of days I've been going back over the last 10years of photographs as I prepare to get rid of a computer. (No need for two desktops now I've retired) I can honestly say that I could return to the exact spot where I took every photograph on this computer, so why do I need to have a pinpoint map reference? I suppose I might understand if a photo was taken on some Himalayan trek...but even then why does it matter? I have returned to places to retake photos in the past, to try different lighting or sun angles but the desire to repeat a shot is very rare. On such occasions, the very intention is burnt into my memory sufficiently to know where I need to go. I just think it's another gizmo that we kid ourselves we need.  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Wait a few years Eric, it took me all day to remember where my kitchen is... Now fully fed up! Seriously, I do find it good to have a GPS location for the majority of my photographs, I can select a location and immediately have every image I took there ready to view at a mouse click. Including the ones I forgot. By zooming in or out one can find a general area or the detail of a particular location at say Cadwell Park, without ploughing through countless folders of image files, almost instantly. Lightroom Map mode: Attachment: Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 19.24.33.jpg (Downloaded 19 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Not only that but if I receive a request for a photo of a particular person I can find all my images of that person from 24,000 images with a couple of clicks. The map locations do have to be made by hand, but I do that on a day when I am bored and it's raining. The face recognition is pretty well automatic. It does get it wrong occasionally but no worse than me. Occasionally the errors are hilarious! If only it worked with flowers... Attachment: Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 19.36.59.jpg (Downloaded 20 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Two of the more amusing suggestions Lightroom came up with just now... My ex-wife, Sharon and her mother!!! Attachment: Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 19.49.52.jpg (Downloaded 17 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Robert, now you are being wicked! You bring to mind the famous Reggie Perrin memories!! Attachment: perrin-hippo.jpg (Downloaded 16 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Hey, not me, it was Lightroom honest! |
|||||||||
Bob Bowen
|
I'm with Robert on the maps use in LR. Never bothered with faces much as it does come up with odd matches. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert ...one day we must sit down so you can convince me that LR indexing and GPS tagging are that useful. I may not be able to do it in two clicks but a simple geographic/ alphanumeric folder naming system e.g. Cadwell09, Pompeii14 has served me well for years and gets me to the images I want fast enough? Having said that, I only keep to hand a few selected best images from that occasion which makes file identification quicker. Though I might take 500 shots, I may only keep 20/30 of the best shots in that folder. The 500 are archived in a similarly named folder on ext HD.....never to be used again. Lol So even if I used LR, I wouldn't allow it to look through 25,000 photos, when only 1000 are all I am ever going to need. I guess I must be quite brutal when it comes to selecting images I want to retain for ready access. But I cannot remember an occasion where I HAD to access the full archive to find an image that wasn't to hand. But to contradict myself a little and make you chuckle virtuously..... only last week I had to access the 2004 archive to recover a folder I seemed to have deleted from the main computer. It took me nearly an hour to find the cables to connect that drive! Having then taken almost another hour to upload the folder...I discovered the folder hadn't been deleted but dragged into another adjacent folder.  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Forgot to add/ ask..... I assume the map mode uses the gps detail from the camera or you have to input coordinates yourself? As I haven't got gps feature on my current or previous cameras, (I don't think so?) I presume I would need to input the data manually for the last 40 years of photography....that's after scanning the 25 years pre digital of course. That's an awful lot of work to get them on a 2click map? |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Until I went to South America a couple o`years back , I did Not see the need for geo-tagging...but when I look at pics. taken with the smart phone in those days , I wish I had that feature on my SlrN , soon I am bound on long Haul for the far East . and am Seriously thinking about getting a GPS device for the D3s/x ....as costly as they are  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Forgot to add/ ask..... Well, it is and it isn't... Most of your work is a confined location, an hotel or factory, all the images can probably be bundled to that location with perhaps separate location pins for internal and external images?. The vast majority of my images I have added the co-odinants by hand, but that just consists of dragging all the images to the map location. No actual data entry. I have a Garmin hand held unit which has an RS232 output which I have added an adapter to allow attachment to a D200 ten pin socket. I used it at large botanic gardens so I could identify the location, it's apparently accurate to a few feet. I then use that camera to photograph the plant name tag, while using the main camera to photograph the plant. Dumping the lot into a folder then into Lightroom, provided the clocks in both cameras are in sync the GPS images are alongside the plant images, so it's very simple to add the plant images to the name tag image, which already has the GPS co-ordinates. I have found the iPhone so erratic with it's GPS locations that I gave up on that one. One batch of photo's I took were about eight miles out.  When adding the GPS locations at somewhere like Cadwell Park I just drag to images to the most appropriate location marker, I think that's better than having a hundred slightly different locations which could result from using 'on camera' GPS As a retrospective thing I doubt the merit of adding GPS co-ordinates especially for one-off work images which you are never going to even look at again but if you visit a location repeatedly, different seasons and maybe different cameras/lenses, to be able to go to that location and pull out all the images you have decided to keep is in my opinion a great help. I have sometimes forgotten some photographs but not the location, clicking the location overcomes the memory loss and produces everything without searching through folders. All my photo files are in folders marked "yy-mm-dd brief description", which puts the folders in date sort order. I do have some of my images keyword but I find keyboarding so tedious that I don't keep it up to date as I should. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Going to have to have a round computer debate on this, Robert. I am getting a Mac later in the year so I may have to kidnap you for a weekend. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
That sounds all very complex, not to mention Hard Work to me Robert . Never gave " accuracy " on geo-tagging a thought...any one knows how good the Nikon GPS thingie is ? Intend to ducument places like the Forbidden City , and various places of the Chinese Wall..etc. , so would like the Nikon device to be fairly accurate , before I shell out the big bucks, anyone use those ? Input appreciated .  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Most GPS inits that are sold commercially state an accuracy range. I think a good one is currently 1-10m accuracy. Previously they were 10-25m which is probably good enough for most of us. Military grade GPS is meant to be 0.1-1m. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
jk wrote:Most GPS inits that are sold commercially state an accuracy range. I think a good one is currently 1-10m accuracy. Thanks JK... The one I found for the D3s/X only states Altitude / Longitude / Latitude / Time... The smartphone Mentiones the Place , which is actually what I need most..as in " San Felipe / Panama City / Panama / date / time " ... Is there one for the D3 that does that...is there an Easy work-around...or do I need to use the " Robert - Technique" .. Advise Appreciated.. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
JK, Is it possible to split this GPS thread from the original, it isn't really related or relevant to the OP but may be of interest to visitors? I seem to remember you told me how to do it but I don't have the confidence to meddle! LOL GPS units have obviously improved over time since their introduction. My first one worked with an early USB era Mac Laptop and is magnetic, clamping to the car roof like a little black limpet, worked with a USB Lead. I don't seem to be able to get software that's compatible with my current gear so it's hanging on a cabinet nearby, unused. Have tried a variety of different units but the most accurate one I have is my Garmin 'GPSmap 60CSx' which I reckon is accurate to about half a Metre, but dependant on a clear sky. GPS works by comparing the times received from multiple satellites around the world and computing the location based on the comparison between the tiny differences in the times received from each satellite and a lot of mathematics. To get great accuracy, top quality components in the receiver and the calculator are a essential and expensive. Cloud cover and trees/buildings do affect the accuracy. Some now also tap into the cellular phone mast network to improve accuracy I believe. I know JK has tested a variety of 'on camera' units but I think for most purposes a cheap tracker GPS creating a time log combined with the images is a pretty good method to set the GPS. I think Lightroom can ingest the tracker log to combine with the images to generate the locations. In my experience toe EXACT location of each image isn't needed because a glance at the image should give that... What's needed in practice is a grouping of all images at a given general location, in my opinion having a lot of images each with a slightly different (and possibly slightly inaccurate) location isn't helpful. You will get a snail-trail effect around a site when all you really need is a central locator on the site. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
novicius wrote:
The software adds the named location as the image is displayed/listed on your computer or smartphone. All a GPS does is add the Lat-Long ref to the EXIF, which your smartphone or computer looks up and tell you the name. What we are discussing is how the Lat/Longitude data gets into the EXIF. either directly as the image data is created or later by various methods. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Not now Robert. Once we go past a moment the splitting of a thread in a coherent fashion is difficult. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Thanks JK, I wasn't sure. Perhaps if there are any other GPS Related posts they could be put in a new thread, we seem to have completely hijacked this one. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Robert wrote:Thanks JK, I wasn't sure. Sorry about that Gents....my Sincere Apologies to the O P |
|||||||||
jk
|
We will get back on topic .... eventually. P900 is the original topic! |
|||||||||
Judith
|
Greetings fellow snappers.  I haven't been here for ages! Life sometimes gets in the way of the good stuff like taking photos. Grr... So, to get this thread back on topic... Jan, those pics are impressive. I could be tempted to get a P900 as my new holiday camera. I'm currently using a Fuji with a 1000mm equivalent zoom and have been well impressed with it but I fear it's been overused and is about to flake out on me so I've been considering getting a D3300 but going cross eyed at the thought of having to drag different lenses around with me. However, yours look like great quality. The Fuji's pics tend to be a little fuzzy looking when you look closely at them but considering it only cost me £130, I can't complain. Not sure I want to spend £450 but ohhh...the tempatation of a 2000mm zoom, especially when I'm going to South Africa next year.  These were taken at 1000mm in South America last year. Attachment: DSCF7216web.jpg (Downloaded 26 times) |
|||||||||
Judith
|
. Attachment: DSCF7203web.jpg (Downloaded 26 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Hello stranger.......what happened to the D800? |
|||||||||
Judith
|
Eric wrote: Hello stranger.......what happened to the D800Hello Eric:-D Oh, don't worry, I still have my Precious - the D810 - which I'm using for earning money type work and general piccy taking here but I can't be bothered carting that much weight around the world on holiday with me. For that I have my trusty cheapo Fuji bridge camera which takes more than adequate piccies for my holiday snaps and that 1000mm reach is sooo good. I'd need a trolley (and a mortgage) to carry the real lens equivalent lol. So, I was thinking about getting a D3300 as the Fuji is a bit clapped out now from overuse but I think the P900 is going to win. I also don't want to be carrying 1000s of pounds worth of stuff on holiday, worrying if I'm going to get mugged - and having to pay extra insurance. The £130 Fuji wasn't a worry at all and as I said, for my holiday snaps, it has been great. I'm not going to do anything with them other than make up some albums so the quality doesn't have to be amazing. I'm with you on the GPS thing as well - Mallorca2012...Venice2010... I usually know exactly where everything was taken just by looking at it and failing that, there's the folder name. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Judith wrote:Eric wrote:Hello stranger.......what happened to the D800Hello Eric:-D Mine will be more like Grimsby2011, Accrington2012. I have Mr Plowden visiting me tomorrow. The spotlight is ready positioned over the interrogation chair...need to get answers to a number of questions.  Without wishing to preempt the conclusions of this discussion, I will concede that for certain situations an exact reference might be useful. My wife took thousands of wild flower pictures in Italy a few years back. She is frequently asking me which road we were on. I am blessed by a very good memory of roads and urban streets. Provided I have driven the road I can go back years later and find a specific place ....assuming it's still standing or a motorway hasn't been swept through the location. But gps or retro map positioning would save me having to perform....the wife could find it from the database herself.Love the pelicans....didn't see many in Huddersfield last week. May be stating obvious...but the flock piccie could do with dropping the exposure by a stop to get more punch. |
|||||||||
Judith
|
Eric wrote. Provided I have driven the road I can go back years later and find a specific place ....assuming it's still standing or a motorway hasn't been swept through the location. I'm thinking you are trying to justify buying a new toy, hence inviting Mr P for tea and biccies. Yep, the pellies paid Huddersfield a brief visit a couple of years ago, squawked their disapproval of the climate, and winged it back to Peru! (Peru2016) Hmm...the flock pic looked not bad on my screen. It's a work in progress... |
|||||||||
Judith
|
Had another look at the flock - yeah they are on the bright side, aren't they. Lol |
|||||||||
jk
|
Judith wrote: Had another look at the flock - yeah they are on the bright side, aren't they. LolYep. I was going to comment. Have you calibrated your screen recently? I know you havent!! |
|||||||||
highlander
|
novicius wrote:Robert wrote: If there is one thing you can be sure of on this forum it is the ability of go off topic. Sometimes into areas that are equally interesting. No apologies required. (Love from the OP) |
|||||||||
highlander
|
jk wrote:Judith wrote:Had another look at the flock - yeah they are on the bright side, aren't they. LolYep. I was going to comment. I haven't calibrated mine either. But then its a mac so its just 5K of wonderfulness. Off topic and starting another argument no doubt..... Back on topic. I tried the LUMIX super zoom bridge cameras but found them not to be very sharp and often over exposing, but the exposure was unreliable so you couldn't just set -1 or whatever on the compensation because then you;d get a whole load too dark. When you need the jpeg to be a good as possible without processing it is very frustrating. I think that is why I went for the Nikon even though it was almost twice the price. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |