Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? at DVinfo.net

Warren Kawamoto · June 29th, 2015, 09:51 PM

My apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere, but have you seen this? I never heard about it. It's pretty nuts.
LiveLeak.com - Incredible Zoom

Steven Ansell · June 30th, 2015, 01:46 AM

The long end isn't much use from what I have seen. It picks up the slightest atmospheric disturbance and you end up with images that have no straight lines.

Brian Drysdale · June 30th, 2015, 06:20 AM

That's the equivalent focal length for full frame, large zoom ranges are easier with smaller sensor cameras.

Warren Kawamoto · June 30th, 2015, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Ansell

The long end isn't much use from what I have seen. It picks up the slightest atmospheric disturbance and you end up with images that have no straight lines.

I was thinking in terms of maybe an outdoor wedding, or a conference. One could literally set up anywhere near the back or front, then zoom in for a single shot closeup if necessary. From that same vantage point, they could also pull back for a wide.

Ricky Sharp · June 30th, 2015, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Kawamoto

I was thinking in terms of maybe an outdoor wedding, or a conference. One could literally set up anywhere near the back or front, then zoom in for a single shot closeup if necessary. From that same vantage point, they could also pull back for a wide.

True, but I'd be worried about lens compression. It would tend to make faces very flat looking when zoomed all the way in.

Jon Fairhurst · July 1st, 2015, 12:51 AM

Yeah, 2000mm is a bit extreme.

I shot some photos of my family at the zoo, using 400mm (200/2.8L + 2x extender) as one of the lenses. Rather than feeling that faces were flat, I experienced a surveillance feel, but also a nice feel of spontaneity and in some cases, possibly due to the aloofness of the subjects combined with shallow DOF, a feel that these were modeling photos.

One concern would be the speed of the lens. With f/5.6 outdoors, I had no problem. With 2000mm, the lens might be too slow for indoor weddings. One of the things I liked about my zoo shots was the frozen motion of a fast shutter. It kept things nice and crisp, well, aside from the fact that the 2x Extender II was a bit mushy.

Glen Vandermolen · July 1st, 2015, 10:27 AM

All I know is, after attempting to shoot Venus and Jupiter's convergence last night and then the full moon, I'd love to give this zoom range a try. Even with a 300mm on an APS-C-sized sensor camera, I wanted more zoom range. A lot more.

Peer Landa · July 1st, 2015, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Yeah, 2000mm is a bit extreme. I shot some photos of my family at the zoo, using 400mm (200/2.8L + 2x extender) as one of the lenses.

As a kid I managed to convert my dad's Pentax 400mm f/5.6 to my Canon FT-QL -- still, I don't remember to shoot a single useful image with that lens.

The longest I have now is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L ... and I almost always find myself at the shorter range.

-- peer (always been into wide primes)

Greg Boston · July 2nd, 2015, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

All I know is, after attempting to shoot Venus and Jupiter's convergence last night and then the full moon, I'd love to give this zoom range a try. Even with a 300mm on an APS-C-sized sensor camera, I wanted more zoom range. A lot more.

I hear ya, my 250mm zoom on the 70D wasn't really doing much for me last night.

The P900 is definitely intriguing from the video clips I saw. One clip zooms all the way into a distant highway with a bus and you can clearly read the license plate. Just insane.

-gb-

Steve Siegel · July 2nd, 2015, 01:22 PM

I currently shoot wildlife with a Sony PMW300 and a Nikon 80-400 zoom which gives the same 35mm equivalent of 2000mm. Sure would be nice to replace my 25 lb monster with this little guy and an equivalently light tripod and head. Can't wait to learn more about this one.

Steve Siegel · July 2nd, 2015, 02:53 PM

Changed my mind. A look at a review of this camera Nikon P900 Review: Now Shooting! - Shooting shows that the dynamic range and detail of the images is pretty bad. Also the high frame rate function (120 fps) gives images of 640 x480 pixels. Oh well. I guess you get what you pay for.

July 2nd, 2015, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Siegel

Also the high frame rate function (120 fps) gives images of 640 x480 pixels.

That's just sad. Even my iPhone 6 can do better at 240 fps, 720p and it doesn't look bad either.

Mark Watson · July 3rd, 2015, 06:24 AM

For moon shots I've tried my Sony AX100 in 4K but not really any reach. Cropping in post doesn't look as good as what I can get with my older setup, which is a Canon XL-H1A with EF mount adapter and a 100-400mm lens. This 1/3" HDV sensor camera + EF adapter gives a 7.2 crop factor. I have to pull back a bit or the moon gets clipped. If I add the 1.4x extender, then it has further reach. I didn't use a 3rd party LCD to get focus, so these samples aren't as crisp as they could be. One picture is without the 1.4 Extender (2,880mm), the other with (4,032mm). I would expect the latest crop of small sensor cameras to put out a much better image, if they can be adapted like this one. These photos were not cropped, they are as they appeared in the viewfinder when shot at 1440x1080.

Mark

Doug Jensen · July 5th, 2015, 06:55 AM

Seems like everyone was out shooting the moon this week. There's a few shots of the moon at the end of this test footage I shot using my F55 and a new Canon 200-400mm f/4 that I bought on Tuesday.

With the Canon's built-in 1.4x converter, and the F55's Center Scan function turned on, that gets me to an equivalent of about 1120mm f/5.6 for HD, or 560mm for 4K without Center Scan.

Bill Ward · July 5th, 2015, 07:14 AM

Man, if you only lived in an area with some better scenic opportunities... ;}

Was there some heat wave distortion in some of the images, or was that an artifact of the slow motion/panning/Vimeo compression?

June 29th, 2015, 09:51 PM	#1
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? My apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere, but have you seen this? I never heard about it. It's pretty nuts. LiveLeak.com - Incredible Zoom

June 30th, 2015, 01:46 AM	#2
Steven Ansell Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 34	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? The long end isn't much use from what I have seen. It picks up the slightest atmospheric disturbance and you end up with images that have no straight lines.

June 30th, 2015, 06:20 AM	#3
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? That's the equivalent focal length for full frame, large zoom ranges are easier with smaller sensor cameras.

July 1st, 2015, 12:51 AM	#6
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? Yeah, 2000mm is a bit extreme. I shot some photos of my family at the zoo, using 400mm (200/2.8L + 2x extender) as one of the lenses. Rather than feeling that faces were flat, I experienced a surveillance feel, but also a nice feel of spontaneity and in some cases, possibly due to the aloofness of the subjects combined with shallow DOF, a feel that these were modeling photos. One concern would be the speed of the lens. With f/5.6 outdoors, I had no problem. With 2000mm, the lens might be too slow for indoor weddings. One of the things I liked about my zoo shots was the frozen motion of a fast shutter. It kept things nice and crisp, well, aside from the fact that the 2x Extender II was a bit mushy. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 1st, 2015, 10:27 AM	#7
Glen Vandermolen Space Hipster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,596	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? All I know is, after attempting to shoot Venus and Jupiter's convergence last night and then the full moon, I'd love to give this zoom range a try. Even with a 300mm on an APS-C-sized sensor camera, I wanted more zoom range. A lot more.

July 2nd, 2015, 01:22 PM	#10
Steve Siegel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Posts: 840	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? I currently shoot wildlife with a Sony PMW300 and a Nikon 80-400 zoom which gives the same 35mm equivalent of 2000mm. Sure would be nice to replace my 25 lb monster with this little guy and an equivalently light tripod and head. Can't wait to learn more about this one.

July 2nd, 2015, 02:53 PM	#11
Steve Siegel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Posts: 840	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? Changed my mind. A look at a review of this camera Nikon P900 Review: Now Shooting! - Shooting shows that the dynamic range and detail of the images is pretty bad. Also the high frame rate function (120 fps) gives images of 640 x480 pixels. Oh well. I guess you get what you pay for. Last edited by Steve Siegel; July 2nd, 2015 at 02:59 PM. Reason: new info

July 3rd, 2015, 06:24 AM	#13
Mark Watson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Whidbey Island Posts: 873	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? For moon shots I've tried my Sony AX100 in 4K but not really any reach. Cropping in post doesn't look as good as what I can get with my older setup, which is a Canon XL-H1A with EF mount adapter and a 100-400mm lens. This 1/3" HDV sensor camera + EF adapter gives a 7.2 crop factor. I have to pull back a bit or the moon gets clipped. If I add the 1.4x extender, then it has further reach. I didn't use a 3rd party LCD to get focus, so these samples aren't as crisp as they could be. One picture is without the 1.4 Extender (2,880mm), the other with (4,032mm). I would expect the latest crop of small sensor cameras to put out a much better image, if they can be adapted like this one. These photos were not cropped, they are as they appeared in the viewfinder when shot at 1440x1080. Mark Attached Thumbnails

July 5th, 2015, 06:55 AM	#14
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,443	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? Seems like everyone was out shooting the moon this week. There's a few shots of the moon at the end of this test footage I shot using my F55 and a new Canon 200-400mm f/4 that I bought on Tuesday. With the Canon's built-in 1.4x converter, and the F55's Center Scan function turned on, that gets me to an equivalent of about 1120mm f/5.6 for HD, or 560mm for 4K without Center Scan. Canon 200-400mm Lens Testing with the Sony PMW-F55 on Vimeo __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

July 5th, 2015, 07:14 AM	#15
Bill Ward Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 580	Re: Nikon P900 24mm-2000mm??? Man, if you only lived in an area with some better scenic opportunities... ;} Was there some heat wave distortion in some of the images, or was that an artifact of the slow motion/panning/Vimeo compression?