 |
| Active D Lighting on HIGH. Compare this with the next photo below. Look at the level of highlight detail in the sunlit boat superstructures then at the foliage detail. Fine foliage is smudged more in this photo than the next. Both this and the photo below have been edited in the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop. The unedited, out of camera version of this photo has flat mid tones which I do not find appealing. |
Considering the tiny sensor used in this camera, the massive zoom range and lack of RAW capture, the P900 can make pictures of very good quality in the right conditions.
Output picture quality is dependent on many factors, some of which are as follows:
Camera factors: Shooting mode (Auto,PASM), ISO setting, shutter speed, lens focal length, vibration reduction effectiveness, JPG picture control settings.
User factors: Camera holding technique to minimise shake, experience with the camera and with monitoring exposure parameters during Capture Phase of use.
Subject factors: Amount and direction of light, type of subject (with or without fine detail, with or without human faces and hair), subject movement.
All these things and more have a big effect on photo output which can vary from very good to disappointing.
At the time of writing I have made more than 1500 photos with the P900, experimented with many camera settings and tried a range of subject types and lighting conditions.
 |
| Active D Lighting OFF. There is less highlight detail but fine foliage is less smudged. |
My conclusion thus far is that the camera delivers best results hand held most of the time with the following settings:
* Shooting Mode, P (on the Mode Dial) or S when direct control of shutter speed is required, at the long end of the zoom and/or low light.
* Picture Control, Standard with Sharpness, Contrast and Saturation at default levels. (in the Shooting Menu).
* Noise reduction filter at LOW (in the Shooting Menu). Even at the LOW setting, images from the P900 appear to me to have a high level of noise reduction. There is very little granular type noise even at ISO 1600. I would like to see Nikon introduce a lower NR setting in a firmware update. That might overcome the mushy appearance of fine details which is easily seen in P900 images.
* Active D Lighting (ADL) OFF with front lit subjects or when subject brightness range is low. (Set this in the Shooting Menu).
* Active D Lighting HIGH with backlit subjects or when subject brightness range is high. (bright highlights, dark shadows).
The camera has menu resume (menu will open at the last used tab) in the Shooting Menu so if you go to the [Active D-Lighting] tab when preparing the camera for an outing the menu will open there for quick access next time you use it.
ADL works. It delivers improved highlight and shadow detail when subject brightness range is high. I suggest some experimentation with the levels available to see what is most effective.
I noted in my tests that pictures with ADL on HIGH have slighly more smudging of fine details than companion images with ADL OFF.
* Image Quality Fine, Image Size 16 M, White Balance Auto1, Metering Matrix, Single shot, AF-S, AF Area Mode Manual Normal, ISO Auto.
In general I have found it best to let the camera figure out the best combination of shutter speed, aperture (which will almost always be the widest available) and ISO sensitivity.
The exception to this is with the lens zoomed out and less than bright light levels when the camera will allow the shutter speed to drop below a safe hand held level.
In my hands if I am holding the camera very steady, this is about 1/800sec at E2000mm and about 1/200 sec at E800mm.
I then switch to S (shutter priority) Mode and control the shutter speed directly.
At Focal Length E24mm shutter speeds of around 1/15-1/30 are achievable and even slower with a bit of luck but that takes no account of subject movement.
I note that P900 users are posting in online forums decently sharp photos taken at lower shutter speeds than those quoted above. I too, have had occasional sharp shots at low shutter speeds but for consistency have found that in my hands the speeds above are more realistic.
The camera does have a [minimum shutter speed] setting but it is fixed and does not adjust for zoom.
Nikon should reconfigure this in firmware if possible. I find 1/30 sec or slower is fine at the wide end but useless at the long end.
I have read numerous posts in user forums about the P900, some in praise some in despair. It seems to me that several of the despairing posters might have been trying too hard to exert control over the camera, using M Mode, or using shutter speeds which are unrealistically slow or shooting through hazy hot air.
There have been some reviews heavily critical of the image quality. One such review described the sensor as ‘hellishly crappy’ and the images as being ‘like oatmeal’ and ‘like porridge’.
I have to say, my initial reaction to the P900 images was something like “oh, yuck, I can’t live with these JPGs”, having used RAW capture with almost every other digital camera I have owned.
However after experimenting with various settings and becoming accustomed to the camera I am not quite so negative about the JPGs although I still wish Raw was available.
As I see it, there are three main problems with JPG pictures, including those produced by the P900.
1. Image editing is done by the camera according to its own algorithms then baked in and at least half the original data discarded. This means opportunities for post capture adjustment are limited.
2. Overexposed and unrecoverable highlights are common when subject brightness range is high.
3. Fine textures and subject details tend to be lost in the JPG creation process leading to a mushy appearance of some types of subject, typically fine foliage, hair and skin texture.
However I must say that the JPGs from the P900 are better than those from the Canon SX60 and Panasonic TZ70 which I tested alongside the P900.
By ‘better’ I mean they have less noise, more detail and generally more accurate color.
 |
| The moored yachts are about 750 meters from the camera. Overcast day. FLE 2000mm. I made 10 exposures hand held at 1/400sec. This is the sharpest. I am unable to get reliable sharpness at the long end at this shutter speed. |
The lens I rate the P900 lens as quite remarkable, astounding even, given the price of the camera.
It delivers very good to excellent sharpness right across the frame from the wide end of the zoom range to about E1200mm . There is a bit of softening in the edges and corners but this is not noticed in most photos.
From there to the long end sharpness and contrast decline somewhat but remain capable of decent picture quality even at E2000mm in the right conditions (see below). My copy is a bit soft on the right side at FLE2000.
In practice I found that the camera in P Mode selects the widest available aperture almost all the time and that works well. I could see no optical benefit to stopping down the aperture.
My strong suspicion is that the JPG engine is not allowing the lens to display its full potential.
There is no appreciable distortion or chromatic aberration presumably as a result of software correction in camera post capture.
Some purple fringing may appear at high brightness/contrast edges.
Objects behind the plane of focus tend to exhibit double line type nisen bokeh which can be distracting with some subjects.
Flare can be an issue with the sun or bright light shining towards the camera. There is no lens hood supplied.
The lens takes a standard 67mm diameter screw in filter. I have a u.v. filter fitted permanently to protect the front element.
On my camera the lens has about 2mm free play along the optical axis. I find this somewhat disconcerting as the lens flops in and out if the camera is shaken back and forth or tipped up one way then the other.
 |
| This is the best frame from a run of 10 hand held at 1/800 sec. I got a greater percentage of acceptable shots at this shutter speed but you can see the increased granularity due to the need for higher ISO. |
Vibration Reduction (VR) This camera and all other super zooms would notbe usable hand held without a highly efficient vibration reduction system. The P900 has one of the best VR systems I have encountered but it does struggle a bit at FLE2000.
It allows me to hand hold (with careful technique) down to about 1/400 second, sometimes slower, at a focal length in the FLE600-800mm range.
Towards the long end of the zoom I find I need to use at least 1/800sec or faster for reasonable consistency.
At this point a tight little nexus between focal length, ISO, shutter speed and picture quality sets in.
The problem is that if shutter speed is increased to counter camera shake then ISO must increase and that brings increased noise reduction which impairs picture quality.
So there must always be a balance between focal length, shutter speed and ISO setting. I suggest each individual photographer run trials on this to determine the optimum relationship for that person’s own camera technique.
In light levels which are less than bright it may be impossible to achieve hand held sharpness at the long end with any camera settings.
Bear in mind that VR does nothing for subject movement.
 |
| Now the same thing on tripod, with timer delay 2 sec. With ISO at base level and no camera shake this is the best result. Only the individual photographer can decide whether the benefits of the tripod outweigh the drudgery of carrying it. The fact that I am even suggesting the use of such an amazing focal length without a tripod is remarkable. |
Sharpness at the long end Over more than a thousand frames I have repeatedly found that my rate of sharp photos declines as focal length increases, particularly over about FLE1000mm.
This could be and probably is due to several factors. To mention a few:
* Atmospheric haze and turbulence distortion with distant subjects. This can be a major issue on a sunny day in the afternoon.
* Camera shake hand held.
* VR is very good, but in my hands which are reasonably steady, not quite good enough for reliable sharpness at the long end.
* Just framing a subject is difficult enough at the long end let alone holding the camera still. The ‘Snap-Back-Zoom’ button is useful for locating a subject.
* The lens loses some sharpness and contrast at the long end which is of course just when sharpness and contrast are most needed.
* It is possible that AF is not as accurate at the long end. I have several photos which are not sharp, apparently out of focus.
I usually find it is possible to improve sharpness at the long end by mounting the camera on a VERY sturdy tripod, with no breeze at all and firing the shutter by timer delay or remote device.
Beware the lightweight tripod for long zoom work. The slightest breeze can move the camera enough to make sharp results impossible.
The tripod socket is off to the left side and quite forward in the baseplate of the camera which doesn’t help at all.
If Nikon does a follow up model I would like them to redesign this part of the camera for better tripod stability.
As it stands you have 185mm of lens (at full zoom) cantilevered out in front of a 15mm support platform (the distance between the center of the tripod socket and the front of the baseplate). This is not sufficiently stable and makes setting up a tripod shot at the long end difficult as the lens drags the camera down even with the tripod head controls locked.
 |
| Wattlebird. Small birds like this make themselves hard to see clearly, ducking behind foliage repeatedly. Anyway I finally grabbed a shot of this one about to take off. All right, they are always about to take off. FLE 1100mm. I got one reasonable shot in 20 of the wattlebirds that day. |
Sharpness at the long end: Tripod vs VR. I ran a series of tests at two distances, 19 meters and 750 meters from camera to subject.
I found that with a static subject, no breeze, ISO 100 and 2sec timer I reliably got better picture quality with the tripod at either distance.
ISO range image quality I found with that with camera settings as detailed above and with the provisos also mentioned above about smudging of fine textural detail and the risk of blown out highlights, image quality is very good at base ISO and declines only slowly as ISO is increased with gradual loss of sharpness, detail rendition and color.
I found JPGs from the P900 to be visibly better especially at high ISO settings than JPGs from the Panasonic TZ70 or Canon SX60 which I tested concurrently with the P900.
I am happy to use the P900 at ISO 800 or even ISO 1600. This is the best high ISO performance I have seen from a camera with the 7.66mm diagonal sensor.
This makes the P900 usable indoors without flash.
It also gives me cause to rethink the potential of the 7.66mm sensor in modern digital camera practice.
As mentioned above I think Nikon could and should include a lower setting for NR which would hopefully boost fine detail rendition. I doubt the increase in grain would be a problem.
JPG vs RAW workflow considerations I use Adobe Photoshop.
I have found that in the great majority of photos I can improve the out-of-camera JPG by editing with the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop.
S
o I do just as much post capture editing on JPGs as RAW images but with less useful effect.
At the capture end of the workflow cycle, shooting RAW (where available) is much easier than shooting JPG. I don’t have to worry about setting Active D Lighting or not and don’t have to worry about applying exposure compensation or thinking about other settings which will be ‘baked in’ to a JPG.
The point is that for the user who does normally run a RAW based workflow, JPG capture is more troublesome and less effective than RAW capture.
Next: performance
Đăng nhận xét