This is what the Nikon Coolpix P900 camera’s 83x zoom at 2000mm looks like

This is not normal: a 2000mm handheld camera. Check out the attached pictures taken with the new Nikon Coolpix P900 and its 83x optical zoom (24-2000mm equivalent) - you can hardly see what's in the frame before zooming in:

The P900 is a fairly big camera - see the size comparison with the already big Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 (16x zoom):

The Nikon Coolpix P900 (user's manual) does not have the best IQ, but it's certainly appealing for bird photography. You can pre-order the P900 at one of our sponsors:

Few P900 videos including more 83x zoom samples:

The official P900 sample photos can be found here, here and here.

This entry was posted in Nikon Point and Shoot and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Dada Kaka


    • dosco

      Wow! Is this looking terrific because its downsized?

      What gives – between this and D800?

      • VikingAesir

        This (P900) will be terrible in low light or any high ISO, but in good light this looks like an amazing package.

        • stesk

          You don’t shoot high ISO with kind of cameras. It’s a matter of knowing the limits of each camera and then choose the right camera for the right purpose.

          • myNameIsCondor

            If you try to hand hold this thing at 2000mm and with clouded sky you will need higher ISO values! Even with IS you will need fairly short exposure times (1/250-1/500).

        • Andrew

          The low light performance of the P900 is proving to be awesome! And the optics is superb!!!

          I suspect this camera is a game changer and here are the reasons:

          1. High Image Quality: The pictures are incredible. In different lighting conditions up to higher ISO, the colors, sharpness, and brightness are all amazing!

          2. DSLR Quality Lens: The lens on the P900 is a professional DSLR lens with ED glass. Nikon has to give us a good reason to buy their $17,000 Zoom lens instead of this camera. Nikon calls it a “super-extra low dispersion (ED) glass element. In other words, the colors do not bleed and the optics is sharp at extreme Zoom.

          3. High ISO: The small sensor may have close to a 1 inch sensor performance and that is why Nikon placed such a high-end (optics) lens on this camera. In October 14, 2014, Sony announced the commercialization of a 1/3 image sensor for the automobile market that can capture high resolution color images in low 0.005 Lux light conditions equivalent to nighttime levels. The image sensor in the P900 is much larger. So expect higher ISO performance!


          4. Fast shutter speed: The shutters can take a picture in as little as 0.12 seconds. That is, there is no focus hunt. That is stunning!

          5. Zoom Performance: The closer the camera zooms in on a picture in low light conditions, the brighter the image becomes. The 5-stops vibration reduction (VR) performance is industry leading. This will enable hand held Zoom pictures to be sharp. But the fine Zoom capability at 4000mm of the eagle in the official Nikon demo video above shows the incredible sharpness and rich colors the P900’s incredible lens picks up at extreme distances. Nature photographers will be all over this camera!


          I own a 16x Zoom camera and then purchased a 60x Zoom camera 2 years ago, both from a different manufacturer. Buying the P900 will be “all the” Zoom and image quality I will need for the next 10 years. No more looking for the perfect ultra-Zoom camera. These are the types of cameras Nikon needs to reach the mass consumer market. They may be 2 years ahead of the competition with this product if not more.

          • fjfjjj

            The lens on the P900 is not a professional DSLR lens. Lots of crappy lenses have ED glass. ED glass does not guarantee a lack of color fringes. Summarizing specifications and advertising makes for a good book report, but that’s about it.

            • Andrew

              “Nikon’s Extra-low Dispersion (ED) and Super ED glass help correct chromatic aberrations, or optical color defects, caused when different light wavelengths do not converge at the same point after passing through optical glass. Calcium fluorite crystals were once used to correct this problem in telephoto lenses, but the substance cracked easily and was sensitive to temperature changes. So Nikon created ED glass, which offers all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass. ED glass is now an essential element in NIKKOR’s telephoto lenses, helping deliver stunning sharpness and contrast, even at maximum aperture.” See:

            • You should get a job in Nikon marketing 😉 With their sales dropping I think they could really do with someone like you.

            • Andrew

              Actually, the entire market has contracted, so it is a bigger challenge for all camera manufacturers. I think all Nikon needs to do is get out products like the P900 which the mass market can embrace.

              But to know how good the P900 is, a lot of professionals are now talking about buying it. Some are even justifying their purchase by saying it is light by comparing it to their DSLR lens kit; go figure! But it is the fun factor that is selling this camera – bring distant objects amazingly close with stunning image quality.

              But consider this. A couple of years ago I bought a 60x ultra zoom camera from a different manufacturer which was to replace my older 16x zoom camera. I was not in the market for another zoom camera when all of a sudden, Nikon launched the P900. This is what Nikon needs to do more of to buck the market trend.

              At a personal level, I would like to see Nikon prosper, but we have to respect the competition. I would also like to seen Olympus and Panasonic prosper to keep Nikon under pressure. But unfortunately, the P900 is the worst thing that can happen to the competition at the moment. Anyone who sees the sample pictures and videos coming out of the P900 will be mesmerized. Nikon hit this one out of the ballpark. Now all Nikon needs to do is advertise those sample videos to the mass market, they do not need much advertising talk, the camera will sell itself!

            • fanboy fagz

              Yes the entire dslr demand is in decline for everyone. But no one has an 11% stock drop in a day. No one has their stock the lowest its been for 4 years straight. No one has quarter after quarter in loss. No one else had 2 instances where class acts were going to be filed. No one else made a defective product and instead of fixing it they ignore their loyal customers and release the same produxt with minor tweaks. Only nikon does that. They do that superbly mr andrew.
              Read andy’s comments and u can see he clearly is a nikon employee.

            • Andrew

              Let me translate your comment: You are against Nikon and so you profusely dislike my positive views on the P900 because you think that it helps Nikon.

              Well, that is your personal problem and I am not here to provide comfort to your personal issues with Nikon – no disrespect! Nikon really does not consider people who purchase gray market cameras their loyal customers if that is case. It is a risk these people take but sometimes they get burnt – that is life. Nikon is just like any other company out there, they are not perfect.

              But the good news is that they have really stepped up their customer support so overall you should have a great experience buying Nikon products.

              Now if you are accusing Nikon the same way that you are falsely accusing me of being a Nikon employee, then I must say that you really do have a personal problem. Seeing that you are so negative about Nikon, are we to also assume that you are working for Canon or another of Nikon’s competitors?

              You really do need to grow up and be a man. I am taking the time to answer you so as to help you gain a better perspective. In some cases on this blog, it has helped some other folks.

              Your behavior towards Nikon will overtime affect your relationship with other people in your life. You will find yourself trying to hurt innocent people just because they like someone that you hate. Imagine, I write a post about Nikon and you are suddenly attack me and trying to discredit me because of my nearly consistent positive view of Nikon, what is wrong with you?

              So Nikon has served me since the mid-1980s and they continue to make exceptionally great products and you want me to become disloyal for no justifiable reason? Let me tell you something about myself, I will never praise anyone if I do not believe what I am saying. To do that would be dishonest and that would damage me as a person. I would not tell lies not even for $100 million dollars. If you dislike Nikon so much, you really need to take a timeout from Nikon blogs. Or better yet, sell all of your Nikon gear. But be warned, your attitude towards Nikon will spill over to whoever else you go to.

              Here is a hint about Andrew:

              I have provided full disclosure by making my over 1,000 posts over the past few years available. Secondly if I were an Nikon employee I would not have categorically denied working for them either directly or indirectly in responding to false accusations in the past. It is a federal offense to do such things and anyone who does that is a fool!

              Take Care.

            • Lickitysplit

              That’s who he is.

            • myNameIsCondor

              Everything above $100 is called professional. It’s pure marketing bullsh*t.

      • iamlucky13

        Yes, the downsizing helps keep you from seeing the limits of the camera, but buyers of superzooms tend not to be worried about blowing images up to large print sizes anyways.

        And really, for 2000mm equivalent from a 1/2.3″ sensor, I’m quite impressed that even a 1000 pixel wide image looks pretty good. Then again, the camera is roughly the size of a D90 with an 18-200 attached.

        Naturally, you won’t want to zoom in to 2000mm in low light.

      • Spy Black

        I question those zoomed-in images being handheld, unless it was handheld by a neurosurgeon…

        • Brett A. Wheeler

          Depends on the shutter speed. Then again, I used to hand hold my Nikon F3/MD4 with a 50 mm f/1.4 back in the day at 1/15 with no problem, and could get away with 1/8 if I had something to steady the camera against.

          • Spy Black

            A 50mm is one thing, a 2000mm is another. 😉 I’m sure a high shutter speed was part of this.

        • Andrew

          You get 5-stops VR with the P900, so it is expected to get consistent image quality when taking zoomed-in pictures and videos. And besides, if you lean against a wall, a tree, your car, sit down and rest your elbow on your knees, or put your elbow on a platform, you will be able to take pretty steady handheld pictures and movies without using a tripod. Again, the 5-stops will really help in this instance. So in general with this camera, it is going to be all about the photographer and their photographic technique in getting the best quality images that will showcase this cameras capability.

          When you teach the beginner the art of photography, one of the first things they learn is to breath-in, hold their breath, keep steady, and press the shutter making certain they do not shake the camera when pressing the shutter. Also if they take a movie or picture while walking, the image quality is affected.

          • Spy Black

            Well, this could have well been taken by an experienced shooter, but the average person that will be buying this won’t know about any of that. The VR will help somewhat, but at a 2000mm equivalent focal length, it’s only going to do so much. I’ll have to assume that a high shutter speed was used in these zoomed-in shots.

            • Andrew

              The Nikon official demo picture/video above and the first series of pictures above may have all been taken with a tripod. But there are other videos above that were no doubt taken by inexperienced persons and yet their handheld, zoomed-in videos are astonishingly impressive.

              What we are talking about here is 5-stops VR which I would think is equivalent to 125mm and there are enough pictures here on the web that are proving that his camera can handle 2000mm comfortable. So if that is indeed the case, then we may be witnessing something incredible here. We have all clamored for Nikon to do the impossible, and if any company can, it is Nikon!

              So if it turns out that the average person can get those shots at 2000mm, then the P900 may indeed represent Nikon’s attempt to respond to the market conditions in the most aggressive way possible. Especially given the fact that $599 is a very consumer friendly price. That being true, this camera would create a massive opportunity for Nikon in the consumer market.

          • Thom Hogan

            You’re teaching beginners wrong. Holding your breath to take a photo is dead wrong.

            • Carleton Foxx

              And don’t forget that you can do an awful lot of stabilizing with an Leica tabletop tripod by bracing it against walls and trees and resting it on rocks and tabletops.

            • Andrew

              Well, I guess things have improved over the years with VR. OK, I will just tell them to keep their hands steady, no more of that Japanese samurai tradition 😉

            • Thom Hogan

              No, that’s not it (glad to see you still shilling for Nikon, though).

              Holding your breath puts tension in your body, which translates to shake. General advice has always been breath slowly and easily and shoot on the exhale.

            • Andrew


            • Andrew


            • Good tip…

            • neversink

              Relax and enjoy. You’ll take better pics. I am waiting for the equivalent 6mm to 4000mm lens on the next model of the P900. Admin, any rumors on the long awaited P900 replacement????

            • HF

              We can all learn from biathletes having to hold their gun steady when arriving at the shooting area, with a pulse of 160. They hold their breath for an instant _after_ breathing out. At that moment they release. I get my best results using this technique, too. Basically it is a very fluent way of shooting and you are really holding your breath only for a tiny fraction.

            • neversink

              Hold your breath when you are taking a photo and not only might you be wrong, you might end up dead!!!!!!

            • Especially if you hold it too long, lol.

  • DarkHole

    and people thought Mirrorless Interchangable Len Cameras (MILC) was the future! now we got this shiz and all they gotta do is up the IQ.

  • That’s a pretty impressive demonstration, I have to admit.

    • Eric Calabros

      says once again: dont be afraid of diffraction

  • saywhatuwill

    Wow, time to get rid of the D810 and the 400mm lens. I’m getting a P900.

    • captaindash

      Just glue five 400mm lenses together, centipede style.

      • saywhatuwill

        Or just one P900.

    • Julian

      Whilst you’re at it you can send me the D810 as I need an additional paperweight for my desk.

      • saywhatuwill

        Sure thing. I’ll send you a few lenses and accessories too since I won’t be needing them either.

      • saywhatuwill

        Sure thing. I’ll send you a few lenses and accessories too since I won’t be needing them either.

  • Taggart

    I can’t wait for the various CSI TV shows to get their hands on this – they’ll be able to read the serial numbers of satellites in geosynchronous orbit!

  • captaindash

    That’s one hell of a vacation camera, or for little Susie’s soccer game when you’re too lazy to leave your house.

    • Depends a lot on autofocus speed and accuracy, surely.

  • bob smith

    finally, i can look into my neighbors house down the street… I mean watch birds.

    • John Doe

      All right, out with it: How attractive is your neighbor?

      • I’m sure he’s pretty attractive…

    • Andrew

      Yes, and they would say “that’s a beautiful bird.” This camera may redefine the concept of bird watching for some and what it means to be a nature photographer 😉

      But that is where self discipline comes in – just like on the web, I do not click on any image that plays on my emotions. Self-control and a strong will to resist temptations is to me the hallmark of a strong personality. When people give themselves to these things, they become addicted. We should all remember that the camera can only point towards images we move it towards and nature is too diverse for a person to be fixated on the wrong things. But it all starts with our minds and the types of thoughts, images, and pictures we want swimming in there. I strive to keep my mind childlike 😉

    • outkasted

      All Nose picking will have to end NOW!

  • Ian Lindo

    Wow, this would honestly be a great “take everywhere” camera.

    • captaindash

      Not exactly. With 83x optical zoom, you wouldn’t have to take it anywhere. If you have line of sight, you could shoot it from where you are.

  • Luis F. Vidal

    I was pretty excited until I realized about two major deal breakers with this camera:
    1- It doesn’t record RAW, and
    2- It doesn’t record RAW

    I almost hit the “Buy Now” button.

    • RAW WOULD be nice

      • Global

        Raw is ESSENTIAL to clean up the total MESS and mush this camera is going to be at night. Here is how this camera is going to be:

        Day = okay.
        Night = blight.

    • outkasted

      WHAT! NO RAW!

    • Carleton Foxx

      You know what? I’m sick of RAW so I’m trying to get back to the mindset I used when shooting slide film. Either I get the shot or I don’t, and then I move on. After 35 years of using computers, I don’t want to sacrifice any more of my joint cartilage to keyboards. I’m saving my hands for opening Champagne bottles and hugging dames.

      • Luis F. Vidal

        That’s a brave move for you. But RAW is not necessarily a way to get the picture right that you didn’t get with the camera, it’s the lab in your hands. If you take a bad shot it will be a bad shot regardless you have it in RAW or not. If you take an underexposed shot with film you can alter that in the lab. RAW is not a magic resource but a must have.

        • Carleton Foxx

          That’s all true but my point is that I’m sick to death of computers and the toll they take on the human body—shoulders, back, neck, hands, wrists, elbows—we’re all going to be cripples one day thanks to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

          Which is why I love my D810. It has plenty of image processing power, accurate white balance, excellent exposure metering, and enough preset flexibility that I can get exactly what i want from jpegs (I actually figured out how to use D-Lighting).

          The only thing I use the computer for is to zap zits with the Spot Healing Brush tool and to send pictures to the lab for printing. And to edit videos, of course. But I’m hoping to find an editor who shares my creative vision so soon I won’t have to do that either.

          • Jon Ingram

            And also you use the computer to comment on this forum… Just saying.

          • OMG the last thing I’d do if I could jump to a D810 is shoot JPEG only. I mean that’s great if you can get what you need for pro work straight from the camera and collect the money and move on, but no matter how “perfect” a shot looks to me before it hits Lightroom I almost always prove myself wrong; maybe the D810 would help resolve that though I’d still be saving RAWs no matter what. But as an artist and tech-head I like to tinker, and I also do most of my computing from bed on a big screen, so poor ergonomics isn’t so much of an issue for me, lol.

      • outkasted

        i like control. Full control. I like to pull back on highlights when needed. Other than that its the 3 C’s…. Color , contrast,Clarity

    • Jon Ingram

      Yeah that is pretty disappointing.

    • Yeah that blows but if it has decent JPEG quality (lack of artifacts) then it’s still quite amazing as a day zoomer.

  • peter w

    even if the IQ is horrible, it is way better than Iphone 5c.
    great gadget, great commercial chances.
    and thank you Hans 😉

    • akkual

      Actually, it is not at all horrible. What’s even more amazing, is the sharpness that piece of glass can draw on such a small sensor area. Contrast is not obviously that great, but for x83 zoom $600 p&s, you cannot really complain.

  • Lee Myers

    If it shot in RAW I would put in an order. But it is really designed for Joe and Jane on vacation I guess.

  • Forget IQ, even a serious birder would be happy to have this camera in their pocket on a stroll through the park when they can’t lug an 800mm and a sack of TC’s, lol.

    The funny thing is, if the zoom range were only moderately absurd, folks might knock it a whole lot more, but it seems to have broken some sort of absurdity barrier, passing into a whole new realm of usefulness, especially considering the price. This is like, Mach 3.3 worth of absurd…

  • Roy LaFaver

    Okay. How much? Where can I get it? When will they have it? That video is ludicrous. They can’t do that, can they?

    • VikingAesir

      $596.95. I’m thinking that might be a great camera for shooting from a kayak.

  • Paul

    first time i’ve taken a second look at a coolpix.

    • Andrew

      I have looked at the official 5-stops demo video at least 20 times in the past few days looking at the details and making certain I am not overlooking anything. Then rereading about the 5-stops, ED class, DSLR quality lens, massive size of the lens, shutter speed, etc., etc. Then thinking that Nikon’s $17,000 lens does not have anything on this camera lens combo. Then I have looked at the videos being posted all over the web on this camera and walking away utterly impressed! Only three cameras have really impressed me in a while: the D810, D750, and now the P900; yes, the CoolPix P900!

      If I were reviewing this camera I would say, take a look at the sample pictures and go and buy it! But I like details, specs, comparisons, and affordability. This camera gives us high image quality zoom, stills, and videos with impressive shutter performance and image stabilization. Even its ISO performance seems unbelievably high. I bought a 60x zoom camera not too long ago but enjoyed my 16x zoom camera much more – which I purchased a few years earlier. The P900 83x zoom will rekindle my love for zoom cameras again. And those massive lens, I can’t get away from thinking that Nikon is putting such powerful optics into our hands. Someone must have forgotten to price that lens at $5,000!

      • Thom Hogan

        Drink some more of the juice they’re feeding you.

        • Andrew

          You’re funny 😉 Whatever they call the juice, CoolPix, Cool-Aid, there is a point at which things come together and I am convinced that Nikon has nailed it with the P900. This is the type of camera a lot of young people would love to own and I would be surprised if it is not their biggest product launch in years.

          That white elephant you spoke about in terms of Nikon’s precipitously declining sales may have an answer in the P900, it brings the fun back into photography. But from a marketing standpoint, the main issue is that the competition does not have anything in sight to compete against this camera.

          This camera makes up for the D7200 which I was initially excited about and though it is a competent upgrade, Nikon has increased our expectations with the D750 body (its ergonomic hand-grip and tilting LCD screen) and the D5500 touch screen. So as competent as the D7200 is, I was a bit disappointed. But the D7300 will most definitely be a Cool-Aid worth drinking 😉

          Anyway, no one could have imagined that the P900 will be the camera to resurrect the compact camera market segment, the CoolPix brand, and with it, Nikon’s fortune. Though I am making a bold prediction, it is one bet I am confident about.

          • Thom Hogan

            Looking at Nikon’s own sample photos, I see excessive overall contrast with low micro contrast, lack of nailing focus, diffraction, NR’ed noise, and a host of other IQ flaws.

            You might also want to look at the parameters of Sunny 16 versus 1/focal length (even adjusted for perfect five-stop VR ;~). You’ve got maybe two stops from Sunny 16 before you have shake or you’re raising the ISO.

            I’ll make you a bet that the P900 doesn’t resurrect the compact market, which will be down another 25% this year. Nikon will also be announcing declining earnings eventually resulting in loss. So I’ll take your bold prediction for US$100. Twelve months from now, Nikon will be a smaller, less profitable company if that’s all they’ve got.

            • Andrew

              Ah, twelve months cannot come fast enough 😉

            • neversink

              In agreement about the sample photos and the P900 camera. Hope you are wrong about Nikon. I would love to buy the stock at this low price, but I fear Nikon’s stock price is going to even go lower.!!!! I hope not, as the health of Nikon is important to what comes out of R&D and future products.

            • Thom Hogan

              The stock market is a good example of how the world doesn’t work as business school teaches ;~). In theory, stock prices should seek rational proper values. In reality, they don’t. They have distorted values.

              In order to invest in a stock, you need to understand how its value is distorted by the market and why. This is even more true in Japan than in the US.

            • outkasted

              Damn Thom’s going in on Nikon 😛

          • fjfjjj

            What’s the point of being confident about a bet if you have nothing at stake? Is someone betting money agianst you that this won’t “resurrect the compact camera market segment”? Here’s an idea. Make some bets that you stand to gain something from winning. For example: Bet that your ability to turn specs and advertising into breathless pseudo-reviews will easily land you a job at a shitty camera magazine.

            • Andrew

              Admin, this is another of his many replies to my posts using inappropriate language.

  • fjfjjj

    “This is how it looks like.”

    Admin, I don’t know whether English is your native language, but we say either “This is how it looks” or “This is what it looks like.”

    • outkasted

      I got my P900 eye on you fjfjjj

  • AlphaTed

    Wow. A new tool for peeping toms … I mean paparazzis.

  • Duncan Dimanche

    Sensor size anyone ?i wish it was a 1″…

    • …and it would be 70% larger and heavier and probably 150% more expensive. Funny, that thing called “physics”.

  • AlphaTed

    Bird photography? Not sure about that. But yeah, it can take bird pictures alright.
    Will definitely appeal to bird watchers for bird ID, and post them in the Yahoo groups.

  • bratvlad

    waste of time for any serious bird photography IMHO, sensor size of the B&H site :
    1/2.3″ CMOS.
    EFL: 4.3-357mm (35 mm equivalent: 24-2000mm)Aperture: f/2.8 (W) – 6.5 (T)

    in my quick calculation its a 5.5 crop factor, which brings the affective aperture to 9.9 W – 35 T in terms of bokeh and ISO, terrible 🙂

    • captaindash

      So you mean the $600, 24-2000 all in one camera that’s jpg only isn’t going to have the IQ of a D810? Sunovabitch! I better cancel my order. This changes everything…

      • outkasted

        Bawhawhahahahaaa you are killing me over here!

    • Carleton Foxx

      Please do not drag that equivalence nonsense to this fine site. The poor misguided souls who run that site have a fundamental misunderstanding of photography and the exposure triangle.

      • 24×36

        “Equivalence” has nothing to do with the “exposure triangle.” It has to do with producing similar images on different formats, which most certainly is not “nonsense.”

        • Carleton Foxx

          Don’t defend them, feel empathy for them and pray for their deliverance.

          Everything they believe has to do with exposure. They have a concept they call “equivalent light” or something like that which they try to use to explain noise in relation to sensor size and f-stop. Unfortunately the whole cult is based on faulty logic:

          They start from the premise that it is possible via some combination of lenses and sensor sizes for micro 4/3 cameras to create the same quality of image as a full-frame camera.
          It’s mainly embraced by people using micro 4/3 cameras.

          Regardless, there can be no equivalence because every camera renders the world slightly differently (and a lot of their equivalent examples require micro 4/3 lenses with f-stops of under 1).

          They don’t understand that equivalence is impossible because every camera maker uses a different combination of lens design, sensors design, color science, and processing.

          Think about it, there’s even a difference between the way that Nikkors from different eras render a scene so how could you expect an small-sensor Olympus or Panasonic to match the rich color and majestic imaging quality of a full-frame Nikon?

          • 24×36

            I think you’re mixing up “equivalence” in the sense of “as similar as possible using different formats” (as in same angle of view, same depth of field, same shutter time, and similar image noise) with EQUAL image quality, which is most certainly NOT the case.

            And you certainly need not search for any intangible factors when looking for the reason FF is better; the answer lies in the simple physics. As in, specifically, APS-C users would have to have lenses with 150% of the linear resolution of FF lenses in order to keep up in image quality terms, and FT/MFT users would have to have lenses with 200% of the linear resolution of FF lenses in order to keep up in image quality terms. Basically, the smaller formats don’t have lenses that good and never will, because nobody would be willing to pay the price tag of such lens finery. And that in both cases also assumes equal pixel count, which in many cases is also not true.

            • Carleton Foxx

              Agreed. It’s just that the whole concept is very misleading to new photographers. I have read numerous forum posts where people get very mixed up and start adjusting their exposures based on the crop factor—the meter reading for a full-frame camera is f/5.6 and 1/100 at ISO 100 but they think they can shoot at f/11 because of “equivalence.” Basically, it takes a simple idea and makes it extremely complicated for a lot of people.

            • 24×36

              Ironically, you probably can – and then just increase “exposure” by two stops in post and have the same result. Of course that has to do with “ISOless” sensors, not equivalence. 😉

              What those “new photographers” are doing is confusing “equivalence” with “exposure settings.” Equivalence has nothing to do with setting equivalent “exposures,” it has to do with making similar images on different formats. “Equivalence” is not making the “simple concept” of “exposure” (really image brightness, another discussion) complex, it is a discussion about something else entirely.

              Basically, in order to create “equivalent” photos on different formats, “exposure” settings HAVE to be different, by definition – because “same DOF” demands different f-stops be used on different formats.

  • Pawel

    Wow, really impressive 😐

  • Nikon1isAwesome!


  • SunkenBranch

    Can’t use all that tele power for super macro closeups. Maybe with some 67mm close up lens. Per Nikon, focus range

    [W]: Approx. 1 ft. 8 in. (50 cm.) to infinity
    [T]: Approx. 16 ft. 5 in. (5.0 m) to infinity
    Macro mode: Approx. 0.4 in. (1 cm) (wide-angle position) (All distances measured from center of front surface of lens)
    Still, would be fun for drone spotting

  • Tony Manning

    what a peice of shit.

    • Thanks for your intelligent and considered contribution to this blog.

      • Tony Manning

        Does anyone remember when Nikon made the best cameras? I do. They’re just not the company they used to be. I would rather they make something with a 10X zoom good quality sensor and lens. Instead of doing a crap job on the whole thing, and making the Hummer SUV of the camera world. This fits right in with the Coolpix A, Nikon DF and the whole 1 system.

        • dosco

          put down that bong!

          • Tony Manning

            you’re right they are really staying relevant and leading the industry as a whole just like they did in the 70’s and 80’s… Nikon doesn’t even remember what they did right, and all those people that got them there are probably dead.

            • Tony Manning

              Inspiration has a new name, it’s just Olympus or Sony.

            • LMFAO!!! Olympus or Sony…what a joke. My guess is you started “taking pictures” four years ago and now you’re an “expert” and going to tell the rest of all about it. If those are great cameras to you, then I’m not sure you know what makes a camera great.

            • peter w

              great pictures is what makes camera’s great. The brand doesn’t matter. It never does. Some brands don’t offer what you need. For bird photography you specifically need to be on the right place on the right time. No camera is helping you to achieve that, and this P900 is not an exception to that. It helps making a picture on moments you weren’t prepared. There will not be very much breath taking pictures made with this thing, but a lot of people will be very happy to snap a shot that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

            • captaindash

              I’d throw Pentax in that mix too. Either way, it sure as hell ain’t Canikon.

          • Brett A. Wheeler

            I think you mean crack pipe!

        • What a bitter and uninformed troll you are. Tony, take a look around and show me a better $600 camera with one lens for the average person to go out and capture some neat shots of birds, sports, the kids at play, their vacation. Show me another camera that can fit in your shirt pocket and deliver IQ as good as the Coolpix A. Don’t what to operate a camera with traditional dials? Then don’t buy a Df, buy something else. But for the person that wants that, it’s an excellent camera with probably the best all around sensor of ANY camera. I’ve been shooting Nikon for 42 years now. I pay my bills with one. They still make the best cameras.

          • Tony Manning

            Coolpix A = Ricoh GR, Nikon Df you’re right, great sensor shit camera wrapped around it… I could continue.

            • Tony Manning

              I really liked Blackberry seven years ago too.

        • Sandy Bartlett

          All those cameras make money for Nikon. And they all take great pictures. Nikon who also brought us the crap D7200, D750, D810, and D4s. What a load of garbage you spew.

        • Brett A. Wheeler

          They still do. The D4s is the best pro camera on the planet. The D810 is the best high MP DSLR in existence and pulled many photogs away from Canon. Even the yet to be released 50 MP Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R still have shortcomings vs the Nikon D810. DXO Mark’s lens comparison ranks Nikon/Nikkor as having 18 of the top 50 camera/lens combinations (most of the rest are Nikon/Carl Zeiss), while a Canon body/Canon lens doesn’t appeear until #156. Not sure what you’ve been reading, but Nikon is dominating the field again.

        • ZoetMB

          Nikon has been making point-and-shoots for the low end of the market since at least as far back as 1983. And they started the Nikkorex 35 line, which was no great shakes, in 1960.

          The fact is that critics simply don’t like the idea that Nikon even tried to do a consumer camera with such a wide zoom range. The reality is that the end results are actually quite remarkable. I was really impressed by the quality of that image of the sign.

          Few people can afford to buy the $18,000 800mm or even the 500mm f4.0 for $8400. For $600, the P900 has some really great features and the quality is reasonable. It’s not meant for pro photographers. For the average person who is not a photography geek, who is going on a trip where they need the zoom range and who wants something better than a smartphone, but who doesn’t want to invest in a system, the camera looks like a great choice.

          And once again, the Nikon designers who are working on this are not the ones working on full-frame bodies or FX/DX lenses. One thing doesn’t preclude the other.

        • neversink

          Nikon still makes great cameras – the D4s and the D810 are stellar, as are many of their pro lenses. It’s just that Nikon has gotten lost when it comes to the point and shoot products. This segment has killed them and will continue to kill them as more and more people abandon cameras for their smart phone cameras. Smart phone cameras are great for most people. So Nikon has to compete more with other camera makers for a diminishing market.

    • Sandy Bartlett

      The troll is deep in this one.

  • animalsbybarry

    I needed somethin to toss in the car when I cant carry a real, camera.
    I thought about this camera but figured 83x zoom and a 1/2.3″ sensor can’t have decent quality.
    The range is incredible, but the quality is not good compared to a larger fact none of these sample pictures look sharp even at this small screen size. I would not get a single usable shot in any situation.
    Instead I got a Nikon 1 with 70-300mm, and extension tubes.
    I only shoot long and macro so this lens matches what I shoot…185-810mm equivelent close up to about 5″ image , 1″ image with extension tubes.
    The quality is not comparable to my real cameras, but reasonable, and much better than a smaller sensor can do.

    • Tony Manning

      you’re right the FZ1000 or the Sony RX10 would be a better choice. Crop if you need more zoom.

      • animalsbybarry

        With such high resolution sensors the lens is the most critical element.
        The 70-300 lens is not only excellent but its range matches what I use it for..and it does not do normal or wide angle which I don’t need.
        So the lens was really my only reason for this purchase..and the camera was just necessary to go with the lens.

      • Andrew

        You need to crop to get zoom? Boy you really do not understand the consumer market this camera is targeted towards. The P900 gives us instant gratification and impressive image quality. Most consumers who buy zoom cameras are pleased with their purchase. The only problem now is that the competition cannot match this camera in terms of image quality and zoom reach.

    • Andrew

      Actually, I find the P900 extremely sharp and the image quality impressive. I bought a Panasonic 60x zoom which did not give me the image quality of a previous Panasonic 16x zoom camera I bought. The image quality from the P900 outperforms those cameras quite significantly. Its image quality seems like a DSLR camera a few years back which is a significant accomplishment by Nikon. It is no doubt the result of its DSLR quality lens and amazing image stabilizer. Anyway, this camera sells itself. The P900 will compete quite favorably with 1 inch image sensor cameras on the market and totally outperform them in the zoom area. In fact, it may just about take away a lot of sales from the low end DSLR camera market when the average consumer sees its impressive image quality.

      • animalsbybarry

        Its all relative.
        It will probably outperform any camera with that small a sensor, and the versatility is amazing.
        But the other camera will produce a higher quality image and no smaller sensor camera will take any pictures I can ise.
        The 1″ sensor is still not really acceptable but often I cannot carry my good cameras.
        If the IQ is good enough for you than this is a fantastic camera…buy it.

      • Guest

        Actually, the P900 is a piece of landfill. The sensor makes a 5-year-old DSLR look good. This camera disappears up its own ass which is a significant accomplishment by Nikon.

        • Andrew

          Admin, this guy is commenting on a number of my posts using inappropriate language.

          • In this case I do not see inapropriate language.

        • You mean it can’t even beat out the 7 year old D3? Man, what a let down. But if it compacts down as good as you say it does, it may still be worth owning…

  • AlphaTed

    This should come with a built-in tripod.
    Seriously, it needs good support beyond the 800mm equivalent zoom.

    The VR is not good enough.

  • Aldo

    The first ‘cool’ coolpix …. a must have if you have a hot neighbor.

    • Andrew

      I am concerned that the P900 is going to be extremely popular all for the wrong reasons 😉 Aldo, you must resist these thoughts… resist… resist…

      • Guest

        You must resist the compulsion to comment on fucking everything… resist… resist…

        • Andrew

          Admin, could you please delete this post!

  • VanHoff

    I’m not feeling safe anymore lying at my favorite nudist beach with all this Nikonian weirdos and their P900s sneaking from the parking lot from a mile away :'(

    • Andrew

      It is a conspiracy to clean the beaches.

    • “Anymore”??? The Hubble Space Telescope has pictures of the rings around Uranus from ten years ago!!!

  • AYWY

    Should have come with RAW support…

    Now if RAW wasn’t included because someone in management says that will cannibalize sales of their expensive super-zoom lenses, these people need to die in an accident quickly.

    • captaindash

      That last part was unexpected. It made me chuckle. I’d be lying if I said I never openly wished death on somebody because they made a decision I disagree with.

    • Andrew

      I am sure Nikon engineers have looked at RAW for this camera and concluded that it adds nothing to the picture quality. The HDR (High Dynamic Range) options available for this camera takes the place of RAW, and the high quality JPEG images coming out of the P900 camera is already quite impressive.

      The P900 gives you high quality optics with the extra-low distortion (ED) lens which is quite massive; and you get extremely sharp images where there is no color bleed. And besides, I suspect most RAW processing results in lower IQ (image quality) anyway. So this camera does not need RAW. Nikon engineers have mastered the art of superb JPEG image quality and many professional photographers no longer use RAW anyway; not even with their DSLR cameras. They use HDR or in-camera settings. There are many uses for RAW, but we need to stop imposing that requirement on every new camera that is released regardless of its category.

      • dclivejazz

        People who shoot RAW and know how to make the most of it won’t settle for less. “Imposing” JPEG only is a restriction some people will not accept.

        • JK

          The more likely answer is that between the sensor and the zoom, there’s some serious tweaking going on that they don’t want reveal and/or left up to 3rd-party raw processors. (Not to mention they’d have to face the reality that no one in their right mind uses Nikon’s raw software….)

        • JK

          The more likely answer is that between the sensor and the zoom, there’s some serious tweaking going on that they don’t want reveal and/or left up to 3rd-party raw processors. (Not to mention they’d have to face the reality that no one in their right mind uses Nikon’s raw software….)

        • Andrew

          Not true for everyone, RAW cannot makeup for inferior image stabilization (i.e. vibration reduction), inferior shutter, inferior image sensor, and inferior (optics) lens performance. These are all areas where the P900 camera is excellent.

          • dclivejazz

            Right, RAW won’t help you with any of the things you mention, but they are also not the point of it. A lot of people don’t bother with it, and I might shoot jpeg for some purposes occasionally myself, but an ability to capture RAW is a minimum feature for any camera for me. To get the most out of any image, I will always want the RAW file. No RAW, no deal.

            JK’s conjecture is interesting. Could be.

            • Andrew

              Yes, I think Nikon as a company does not omit anything without a reason and it is up to us to speculate what that reason might be. Keeping the RAW image concealed is something they can get away with for this camera because if the target audience.

              I would think some people would draw the line when it comes to compact camera in terms of their demand for RAW. But I suspect that 95% of those buying this camera would be delighted by its performance and the quality of the JPEG images they are getting out of it, which in my estimation is impressive. But I can understand that you want to have you personal stamp on most of the images your camera takes.

            • Surinder Gill

              I second you dc

  • lorenzo

    A good replacement of D810 + 600 mm f/4 for cheetah hunters in Africa.

    • stesk

      How many shots will you be able to take with this gear from a driving jeep?? You will miss all the shots.
      Again the Nikon 1 + 189-810mm is the gear.

  • stesk

    I prefer the Canon SX50 and SX60 which can use RAW up to 1,365mm (SX60).
    What I read here is some people join the discussion without knowledge of those cameras – how and when to use them.
    How can someone make a video with a DSLR using a 1,365mm/2,700mm lens?
    Walking around with those “toy”-cameras will give you the shot you couldn’t take with a DSLR.
    The Nikon 1 system is the same. Just came back from a photo tour with other “photographers” and I got what they wished for but couldn’t get. I read here you can just crop. You can’t!! The Nikon 1 is also about action and you can’t have this with the DSLR. Not to talk about the weight of carrying Nikkor lenses. Who can carry a 400mm – 500mm – 600mm or 800mm around.

  • aarif

    if onlt the lens was a 2.8 🙂

  • Julian

    I wonder how that lens really performs – thinking chromatic aberation, distortion, flare etc. Anyone seriously thinking they are gonna get top image quality from a general purpose superzoom lens is setting themselves up for some disappointment IMHO.

  • Erics

    It’s not a 24-2000 mm lens. It’s not a 24-2000 mm lens. It’s not a 24-2000 m lens. It’s a 4.3 to 357 mm lens, and those shots are taken at 357 mm. Of course, a 4.3 – 357 mm lens is impressive bit of technology. Very cool. But why not actually call it what it is, which is not a 24-2000 mm lens.

    • jtan163

      Because rightly or wrongly there is an industry standard that uses 24x35mm focal length (let’s not get into light and depth of field) as the basis for comparison?

      • markdstump


        BTW, the “35mm” is a measure of the shorter dimension–but including the sprocket holes.

      • Guest

        You can get into light and depth of field after you learn what focal length is.

  • Helvio Carlos Silva

    Ok, nice. But keep one tripod with you every time 🙂

    • Andrew

      Camera shake is mollified significantly with the 5-stops vibration reduction (VR). Or just lean on the closest pillar. At least that is the promise 😉

  • markdstump
  • Carleton Foxx

    Jumpin’ catfish. That’s kind of cool. Looks like the perfect travel/scouting cam. If and when someone makes a superlight bike clamp for it, I’m buying.

  • JXVo

    That is a pretty remarkable zoom lens however with a 0.75 sec shutter lag at full zoom it will be of limited use for sport, wildlife, birding and action.
    Apart from occasional immaculate static shots, most people prefer birding/wildlife pics that show action or interaction. Being sharp is not enough if you don’t capture the actual moment.
    Secondly – 5 stops of VR is not enough to ensure blur free handheld pics at 2000mm equiv. FoV. VR does not compensate for subject movement either. So you’ll need support and a remote release to get the best IQ
    Decent bird-in-flight shots are going to be tricky with this one, as is little Johnny’s shot at goal. Remarkable camera and no doubt fun to own but it is not going to compete with the big glass and fast pro bodies

  • HILARIOUS that this has GPS and they removed it from the D5000 series and on no other DSLR from them. Guess they think GPS is more of a low-end consumer thing…

  • julio

    when i just swear again not to buy a nikon product again (you know, defective launch products, nikon making 50% off discount after i buy at full price, my new camera gets replaced every year, etc)
    nikon always announce a product nobodyelse had, that i want it, badly
    i had “Battered nikon user syndrome”
    oh nikon all its in the past, i know you had changed, i will buy it and i know i wont regret it, cause you love me, take my money

  • Smarten_Up

    Note the aperture range: f/2.8 (W) – 6.5 (T)

  • yogesh parihar

    hey…………..plz tell me…’s the low light capacity of NIKON P900….and its flash power

  • bgbs

    Whoa, who needs Nikkor 800mm lens that costs more than a home when you have Nikon P900?

  • Mudit Badlani

    I recently got myself a P900, however, I think there might be a problem – there’s significant chromatic aberration in quite a few shots.
    Please check them out and tell me if that’s normal or not – so that I may act ASAP for a replacement.
    You’ll notice that I clicked three pictures of the same frame. While I’ve rotated the images back to orientation, I clicked them such that the camera was at different angles – 0 degrees and + and – 90 degrees. And the aberration has moved according to the direction of the lens moving.
    I’m quite worried.

  • Back to top