/p/ - Photography » Thread #3443048

[64 / 18 / ?]

538KiB, 2500x2500, nikon_26499_coolpix_p900_digital_camera_1127274.jpg

first time buyer needs help

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 16:19:04 No.3443048 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3443068 >>3443122 >>3443127 >>3443141 >>3443316 >>3443335 >>3443522

i saw a video on youtube about the p900 zooming into the moon and some wildlife pictures

i would like to take shots of wildlife and astronomical photography

since this will be my first camera ever and i dont know if id like the hobby, i dont want to spend to much

id like to spend around ~600$ which is the range of the nikon p900

any suggestions?=

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 16:47:13 No.3443058 Report

Quoted By:

image quality will be shit compared to a dslr or mirrorless

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 16:57:30 No.3443068 Report

Quoted By: >>3443074 >>3443075

>>3443048
So you're interested in two of the most gear-intensive niches in photography and want to do it with a shitty bridge camera? Are you perhaps a boomer easily parted with his money?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 17:03:05 No.3443074 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443068
i said i dont know nothing about cameras why do you call me a bridger camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 17:04:08 No.3443075 Report

Quoted By: >>3443121

>>3443068
i also said im a beginner so calm yoiur ass diwn

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 03 Mar 2019 17:53:05 No.3443121 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443075

You're being a marketing victim. That camera is useless because it's too slow for either task, and the image quality is shit. If all you want are reference shots though, not nice photographs, go for it.

If you want to do astro then get a cheap telescope and webcam. If you want to shoot wildlife, get a DSLR with a kit lens. You can do plenty with 105mm until you save for even a cheap 300mm zoom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 17:55:01 No.3443122 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443048
>P900 fag is at it again
MOOOOODS!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 17:57:16 No.3443123 Report

Quoted By: >>3443129

i also bought a bridge camera thinking it would be a good first "real" camera to upgrade from my phone because megapixels and muh big optical zoom 99x range. it sucked and i barely ended up using it because it was discouraging how much it sucked. bought first dslr a couple of years later and probably took more shots in the first month or two than the whole time owning the shitty bridge camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 17:58:57 No.3443126 Report

Quoted By:

canon s90, or just iphone...don't buy a dslr

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:00:08 No.3443127 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443048
It would be a fun toy for the first 20 shots I guess.

But it doesn't really make sense.
If this sparks your interest, you will want a replacement rather quick, because the image quality is shitty.
If it doesn't, well. Yeah.

Get a used dslr, and get used glass.
Even using a body thats 10 years old and glass thats almost antique (cheap) gets you a lot better image quality.
If you decide this photo thing isn't working out for you, you can sell the stuff for (almost) the same money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:01:19 No.3443129 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443123
This. If you're really considering getting into photography, do yourself a favor and buy a DSLR camera. If you're thinking about buying a bridge, just stick with your smartphone's camera, you'll be better off.

Reasoning behind this is, one of the following will inevitably happen:
A) you really get into photography, you end up loving in, in which case a bridge camera won't cut it
B) you don't actually get into photography, in which case you won't even utilize the camera at all and you will have spent a shitton of money on something you will use once or twice a year and only in order to feel less shitty about your financial irresponsibility

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO YDSCN3530.jpg, 3MiB, 4608x3456

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:03:42 No.3443131 Report

Quoted By: >>3443137 >>3443143

P900 is only 357mm. The rest is marketing based wordplay. At its highest zoom setting, it's f/6.5 which is very slow.

Max. aperture at 300mm "equivalent" is f/5. I struggle to make f/4 and even f/2.8 work with wildlife a lot of the time, even on bright days. Lighting is a bitch. I wouldn't even attempt using this thing. Pic related is the image quality at max zoom. Absolute trash. Even stacking for astro, you'd end up with garbage quality.

Friendly reminder that 1mm to 35mm is 35X zoom, so don't fall for that nonsense either.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO wut.jpg, 88KiB, 936x929

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:08:36 No.3443137 Report

Quoted By: >>3443140

>>3443131
The fuck is this?

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:10:05 No.3443140 Report

Quoted By: >>3443149

>>3443137

A tiny shit sensor and tiny optics being pushed well beyond their limits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:10:45 No.3443141 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443048
You want to do astronomical photography, with P900 you can only do photos of moon, and that's pretty much it.

You need a telescope for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:11:03 No.3443143 Report

Quoted By: >>3443154

>>3443131
?? looks fine to me

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:14:45 No.3443149 Report

Quoted By: >>3443154

>>3443140
I think that actually might be shitty post-processing by the camera, sharpening halos or somehting

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3465.jpg, 29KiB, 220x216

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:23:25 No.3443154 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443143

You need glasses then, friendo. It's blurry and noisy with splotchy pixels containing next to no useful information. You'd get better results cropping from 200mm on a full frame.

>>3443149

I'd say that plus a lot of diffraction. Add to that the sensor noise, and it looks more like an oil painting.

>when your chromabs are 14 pixels wide

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:28:02 No.3443159 Report

Quoted By:

Pretty sure I see motion blur too, on the X axis. I corrected it for 8 pixels and it helped a lot. Still absolute shite, however.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO D3S_9057-1k5.jpg, 214KiB, 773x1500

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:42:39 No.3443167 Report

Quoted By: >>3443176 >>3443180 >>3443224

bridge cameras are shit and you should've posted this in the dedicated gear thread as well. whatever.
if you want some really specific advice the d7200 with pic related if you want to do some cheap wildlife with decent autofocus(will be completely useless when it becomes darker). the lens is sharp as shit from 70-200mm as , shit at 300mm with APS-C though but usable and at least gives you the option to do 300mm, which becomes 450mm on APS-C which in turn means it has more zoom than the p900.
quality wildlife and zoom in general is expensive and you won't be able to do proper astrophotography with this setup because that requires some really specialized equipment.
if you buy this you at least have a decent camera with a super good lens, buy it used as well so it'll be close to fitting into your budget.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 352.jpg, 1007KiB, 2944x1158

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:51:37 No.3443176 Report

Quoted By: >>3443177

>>3443167
high res snapshits with this lens incoming

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 354.jpg, 2MiB, 3424x2432

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:52:43 No.3443177 Report

Quoted By: >>3443179

>>3443176

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 491.jpg, 1MiB, 2874x1555

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:53:48 No.3443179 Report

Quoted By: >>3443185

>>3443177

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:54:38 No.3443180 Report

Quoted By: >>3443185

>>3443167
when i say wildlife im atalking about some birds and rabbits

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 452.jpg, 540KiB, 1308x1123

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 18:59:48 No.3443185 Report

Quoted By: >>3443191

>>3443179
look at how cute she is
>>3443180
that'll be perfect then, you can even save a bit of money and get a d5xxx/d3xxx instead because I'm pretty sure they have the same af as the d7xxx equivalent(s).
you gotta get a proper telescope for astro though, seen people do it without it with frankenstein contraptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 19:04:43 No.3443191 Report

Quoted By: >>3443199

>>3443185
how far can i zoom with this one? if the bird is in the tree and im on the other side of ther river

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 349.jpg, 1MiB, 3680x1920

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 19:17:22 No.3443199 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443191
you'll get more zoom than me since I use FF and not APS-C but most of these pictures were around 30-50 meters and with a proper camera and lens you'll be able to crop longer into the picture which in turn equals more zoom.
the p900 still has way more zoom thanks to its tiny sensor but if you want pictures that's actually usable you should listen to the entirety of this thread.
if you don't care about autofocus and quality then go ahead and get the p900.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 20:02:26 No.3443224 Report

Quoted By: >>3443226

>>3443167
this lens litterally already costs 300

i dont wanna spend more than 600 tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 20:06:04 No.3443226 Report

Quoted By: >>3443232

>>3443224
You can get a body with decent af for $300 as well

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 20:11:08 No.3443232 Report

Quoted By: >>3443246 >>3443252

>>3443226
can you recommend one?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 20:39:30 No.3443246 Report

Quoted By: >>3443252

>>3443232
I'd imagine a d5500 would go well with it since it has a pretty modern autofocus system. just put it on continuous mode, point focus/center focus and snipe away with the viewfinder.
one thing I'm looking at right now is that the iso performance is really good on the d5500 as an APS-C camera which is extremely useful because you'll be burst-shooting at high iso a lot, helps with some low light stuff as well.
it shoots at 5 pictures per second which isn't that impressive but the buffer kinda sucks on the d5500 though so you'll only be able to shoot 11-15 shots before the shots per second goes down which is 3 seconds, if you shoot jpeg files instead of raw files that won't be a problem since your buffer will be over 100 shots then and you won't hit the limit before you shoot 100 pictures. I'd still recommend learning the ropes of raw files because the quality of your pictures will skyrocket if you know how to edit them but midair birdshooting is fine with jpeg, but you'll get to squeeze a little bit more out of your picture with raw.
that's at least what I'd do with $600, I'd imagine the price'd easily go up to $700 thanks to shipping costs but just make sure you buy something that is in good quality from trusted sellers and that it comes with a battery.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO nikon-high-power-zoom-af-s-vr-zo (...).jpg, 31KiB, 704x598

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 20:57:21 No.3443252 Report

Quoted By: >>3443263

>>3443232
>>3443246
oh and one more thing because a lot of people have done this mistake.
DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT get the DX version of this lens, it's absolute garbage.
you want this exact lens with the red VR logo and distance scale.
once you decide you really want to invest in something like this take a visit to our dedicated /gear/ general thread and ask, because they will most likely give you alternative choices which might be worth looking into.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:15:15 No.3443263 Report

Quoted By: >>3443274

>>3443252
so whats the price for that lens? amazon says about 600

what about this lens? Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD

its much cheaper

if i get the d3300 + your lens i will be at 900

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _IMG8143-2.jpg, 455KiB, 798x1200

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:32:17 No.3443269 Report

Quoted By: >>3443270

Some of my snapshits.
APS-C camera with 70-200 zoom lens

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP2566.jpg, 480KiB, 798x1200

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:33:32 No.3443270 Report

Quoted By: >>3443272 >>3443288

>>3443269
same camera, same lens

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP8407.jpg, 349KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:34:39 No.3443272 Report

Quoted By: >>3443273

>>3443270
same camera, 50-200 shitty kit telezoom

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP8411.jpg, 790KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:35:44 No.3443273 Report

Quoted By: >>3443275

>>3443272

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:35:56 No.3443274 Report

Quoted By: >>3443284 >>3443618

>>3443263
that's why you buy it used. but it is like I said it'll easily be $700 for the d5500 and the nikon 70-300mm.
the nikon one is better than the tamron one both in contrasts and sharpness and I'm not too sure about the autofocus about it but I love tamron lenses and all of them I've used have had really good autofocus but the nikon one looks a lot better in this case, and the 70-300mm af-s is well known for being fantastic if you're on a budget, but fucking hell tamron is fantastic and I own their 24-70mm f/2.8 and the G2 version of that lens is better than both the nikon 24-70's.
I found a d3400 in really good condition from ebay from a 100% seller, but it's 400$ with shipping and you could get the d5500 for that price.
either way though, the tamron 70-300 and d3300 will get the job done but not as good as my recommendation, though it'll just make the job harder that's all.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP8412.jpg, 616KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:36:51 No.3443275 Report

Quoted By: >>3443276

>>3443273

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP8413.jpg, 483KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:38:47 No.3443276 Report

Quoted By: >>3443283

>>3443275
Posted these to show even the lamest kit tele lens is better on an APS-C DSLR than the P900

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:46:20 No.3443283 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443276
They are all shit and it has nothing to do with the lens you used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:46:28 No.3443284 Report

Quoted By: >>3443288

>>3443274
I'll definitely check the d5500 out.

what do you think about the D3500?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:49:41 No.3443288 Report

Quoted By: >>3443338

>>3443270
I like this shot
is >pentacks autofocus really that bad anyways? didn't seem that way when I tried one
>>3443284
well for starters it's more expensive than the d5500 both used and new, and it isn't better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:51:07 No.3443290 Report

Quoted By: >>3443293

OP, you are a filthy casual and future snapshitter so stop wasting your time and just get the P900. You were made for each other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:55:16 No.3443293 Report

Quoted By: >>3443294

>>3443290
be quiet incel

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:57:30 No.3443294 Report

Quoted By: >>3443298

>>3443293
>hey mom I learned a new meme!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 21:59:22 No.3443298 Report

Quoted By: >>3443337

>>3443294
>hey mom i go online and insult people who seek advice

now fuck off dipshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 22:26:06 No.3443316 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443048
You dont buy a boat. You have a friend who has a boat.

Same with meme-moon shots.

You dont buy the gear to take those pics. You appreciate the fucking weirdos that go out at night to take those pics.

As for wildlife, start with a 3/4 camera, apsc. Any meme model will do.

But do your fucking research before you even buy a camera. Tons of YouTube guys to look for. I recommend

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 22:56:16 No.3443335 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443048
People complaining about the quality at max zoom are being disingenuous, the absolute max zoom the second zooming is digital zoom, on the first level of zoom the quality is good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 22:58:31 No.3443337 Report

Quoted By: >>3443450

>>3443298
>normie asks poorfags with shit gear and no skills how to kick off a new hobby

You're the dipshits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Mar 2019 23:00:41 No.3443338 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443288
It's a meme quite popular around here

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO eye.jpg, 293KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 00:02:43 No.3443383 Report

Quoted By: >>3443579

Another vote for the Nikon 70-300mm VR (full frame version). Stays sharp out to 220mm, at 300mm it's still good. AF speed and VR are also good in my opinion. In the year 2006+13 you can find them cheap s/h. In good light it's great. For Astro it won't cut it though, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Pic related is a bad example, missed critical focus on the eye. Shot with an older 16 mp camera.(d7000). well within your budget with the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 02:13:29 No.3443450 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443337
fuck off retard nobody literally asked you something

now go and keep lurking

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 05:00:49 No.3443509 Report

Quoted By: >>3443581 >>3443616 >>3443693

What is it with boomers and bridge cameras anyway? Every air show I go to, wherever you look there's always the old fart with a bridge camera. Literally nobody younger than 50 has one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 05:55:27 No.3443522 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443048
For $600 you can get a decent dslr and kit, don't get a bridge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 09:34:22 No.3443579 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443383
Don't worry, it is the limitation of the lens, less resolution on the long end and less accurate AF drive combined does this, usually all consumer/kit telezooms have this issue.
Repeated AF can sometimes help, or just makes it worse, depends on the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 09:35:35 No.3443581 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443509
Diabetes and coronary diseases make it difficult to hold a heavy camera and lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 11:19:48 No.3443616 Report

Quoted By: >>3444080

>>3443509
Air shows require massive reach unless you want to just shoot the sky or something. Oldfags know where it's at, without putting $10k into a big-ass zoom lens & herniating yourself carrying it around twice a year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 11:23:26 No.3443618 Report

Quoted By: >>3443660

>>3443274
>that's why you buy it used
Good luck with gambling

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 14:19:48 No.3443660 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443618
I've spent $3000 on used equipment and got something bad the single time I bought from a "authorized seller", luckily I sent it back and got something in mint condition instead so I'd rather trust the Japanese and their judgement.
You have to have brain problems to be scammed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 15:39:06 No.3443693 Report

Quoted By: >>3443695

>>3443509
i dont even know what abridge camera is asshole.,

stop pretending people know everything about your niece

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Mar 2019 15:48:46 No.3443695 Report

Quoted By:

>>3443693
He's not talking to you OP

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Mar 2019 06:20:47 No.3444080 Report

Quoted By: >>3444083

>>3443616
500mm is enough for most. and that piece of shit will not deliver any useful images of fast moving planes while zoomed all the way in, nor will any other bridge camera for that matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Mar 2019 06:33:44 No.3444083 Report

Quoted By:

>>3444080
I do wildlife at 70mm, come at me

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

first time buyer needs help