Was lucky enough to have this little one land within a few metres of me. Neither sets are cropped. Remember I am still learning the Canon gear. The Nikon goes with me pretty much everywhere I go. Am pretty happy with all these! Unfortunately didn't have a super closeup of the head on the Canon.
The Nikon has the greater zoom, but it is a point and shoot "bridge" camera.
I know Alex is looking at some new camera equipment, so here is a comparison, using the same subject. For what it's worth, I think the Nikon photos are better than the Canon, but as I said I'm still learning with the Canon.
First series with Canon 7D Mark II Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM L (not the most recent lens), Kenko 1.4 Teleconverter.
Noisy Minor by Dale Watson, on Flickr
Noisy Minor by Dale Watson, on Flickr
Noisy Minor by Dale Watson, on Flickr
Second Series Nikon Coolpix P900, Scene set for birding.
Noisy Minor by Dale Watson, on Flickr
Noisy Minor by Dale Watson, on Flickr
Noisy Minor by Dale Watson, on Flickr
Noisy Minor by Dale Watson, on Flickr
Interesting contrast. I have the same Nikon camera and it's been great, so easy to use (i'm an absolute novice photographer) but i find it has it's limitations, especially with the zoom, as in not enough of it. I'm not complaining though, i like to go hiking and it's compact and comfortable on long walks.
Thanks pip, I think a point I was trying to make to Alex, and I guess anyone, is that unless you are unlikley to have more zoom in a DSLR or Mirrorless (compared to the Nikon P900) unless your prepared to spend some serious money on lenses. I have only had the P900 for a few weeks, and am serioulsy wondering if I wasted my money on the 7D (second hand @ $2750 with body, lens and extender), as the reach is nowhere near that of the Nikon. I did consider the P1000 (125x optical zoom and ability to shoot in RAW), but serioulsy couldn't justify the extra more than $400.
Should have pointed out the 7D was fully stretched at 560mm (400mm lens +1.4 extender), while the Nikon still had zoom left!
Yes the Nikon has some limitations, but so does the 7D. I think it's about what you want from your photography.
A former poster on BiBY says "You need to zoom with your legs". Boy thats hard sometimes.
By the way, I would be happy with pretty much all of your photos.
My photos are for me, sharing but a few here, hopefully for others to enjoy. Happy with constructive feedback, but otherwise not too fussed.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Thanks for posting that Dale. It clearly shows that with the right circumstances, the P900 can get superb, sharp photos, and I've had enough success that I'm persisting with it. The zoom is also incredible in reach, and has helped me capture all sorts of birds for ID confirmation, probably where the camera is really shining for me. You are right, there are no DSLR/lens systems that come remotely close to the focal range or ultimate length that this camera has. I'll probably always keep it for those reasons, also because it is so light and easy to carry that I can take it anywhere, even on work trips, and the camera you have on you is the best camera possible!
But I am very often frustrated by some of its limitations, principally
1) AF - it really struggles in anything less than very good light, and so many of my photos are lost because of poor focus. I generally use manual spot focus and am getting quite good at keeping the spot on the target, but it still struggles with subjects that are back-lit, low contrast, or on water. For example - I took 20-25 photos of some glossy ibis foraging in shallow water at Werribee, but not one in focus, despite valiant efforts to get it to focus. I eventually tried to switch to manual focus, but this is really clunky on the P900 so I missed the opportunity, and the resulting pics were too bad even for an EBC shot! I have been trying BIF shots for 6 months and while I appreciate there is a huge amount of user skill to develop, I think the AF on this camera is too flawed to ever be able to reliably get BIF.
2) Viewfinder is just awful - I always struggle to find small / low-contrast birds in the viewfinder, even when I know they are in frame, and quite often I'm just shooting and hoping. If there is bright light from the sides or front, sometimes it is completely unusable.
3) Dynamic range of the small sensor is really poor - in strong light you can sometimes get both the whites blowing out as well as the blacks blocking out, and in poor light it gets really soft. But generally you need really good light on the subject to get a quality photo.
So yes, I'm keen to get something more specifically suited to bird photography, I'm saving for a Nikon D500 and probably a Tamron 150-600 G2 lens to start with. It is a hugely poular bird/wildlife photography combination, and certainly has the technology to take the photos I want to take - then I will have no excuses and will just have to improve my skills :-) And yes, that will include getting closer to the birds, as it will have about half the effective reach of the P900 .
Your combination of 7d Mk II, 100-400 and TC is a good one and I'd think you should be able to get good shots in much more challenging circumstances that the P900 is capable of. I don't think you've made the wrong call at all - stick with it and keep working it, and the results will come. But yes, you will have to get closer :-)
Thanks Alex.
I agree with all your issues, but also add, that when zooming, there is a tendency for the lens to dip forward when pressing the shutter button, often causing me to miss the bird all together. Long distance shots would benefit from a tripod or monopod, however that impacts on portability and increases reaction time, leading to more fails! The other issue, if you take continuos shots, is the "buffering" which sometimes can be slow, when saving images to the memory card. I deliberately bought the maximum transfer speed card to suit the camera.
I read a lot of reviews on the P900 before purchasing, and all of those points you make were raised.
My intention is to persevere with the D7 and improve my skill all round, keeping the P900 for the handy to have.
When I go serious birding, I actually take both. The P900 for its super zoom. The Canon for times when I can get reasonably close.
I have the Canon on a monopod, gives me a better chance of getting some well focused shots. I think 2 cameras both with monopods would just be too much to handle.
Importantly also you should (if you haven't already) have the "Vibration Reduction" feature turned on, regardless of which camera/lens combo you have.
Regardless of which camera I am using, I find autofocus to be the best, on the Canon, manual focus to a close point, and then let autofocus take over. The P900 manual focus just looks to complicated to do in a hurry. Both cameras/lenses have a tendency to "hunt" for focus in both poor light and scenes which have a lot of subject (example a bird in a densely foliaged tree).
On the P900, I use the scene setting on the dial, choosing birding as the desired option, which has overall given some reasonable results, but still a lot of discards.
Please don't think I am an expert in any way shape or form, really am just a beginner!
Whatever camera you end up with there will be limitations. The Nikon rig your looking at obviously gives great results, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. I considered that option as well, decided to go with Canon, primarily because I got a good package deal second hand, the body had less than 3,500 on the shutter count, included a Canon 2x Teleconverter, which I now realize autofocus doesn't work on the 100-400, even in very bright light, Hense I purchased separately the Kenko 1.4 teleconverter which works unless in really low light. Kenko was several hundred cheaper than it's Canon equivalent, and for what I do, it's fine.
if anyone else wants to offer some tips or advice, feel free.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Thanks for the comments re the P900. I was considering one as an option for my amateur bird pix future. Not sure if the P1000 updates any of the limitations exposed by Alex. I can relate to how annoying it is to have the AF not do it's thing, as it is sometimes an issue with the Sony HX300 with 50x zoom that I use, and trying to use it manual focus is touch and go, be delicate with it, or it easily goes over the point of focus, either way. Mucking around with manual focus and fast moving birds, is frustrating I have found. I use the auto centre spot focus mostly, pick an edge of the subject if i can, which helps a lot, or the branch right where the bird is, but as we know, birds are rarely still for long enough to get an edge of anything. Forget multi-focus with bird pix, at least for this camera, as any branches will be picked up quite easily, with poor out of focus bird results. I can't use the viewfinder, glasses and small VF's suck, so I rely on the screen, which can get washed out in bright conditions, which also affects results. I think this camera is reasonably similar in results to the P900, as far as operation and hit and miss quality goes. I do use the multi-shot feature though, anything from 2 to 10, depending on how long the shutter button is depressed, but if focus is out, it won't correct during multi shooting it seems. The P900 pix by Dale seem to have a nice depth of field with that 'bird' scene setting, I would definitely make use of that setting and multi-shot. Isn't it great with these new digital cameras, none of the concern over using up the old 35mm film and cost of developing. YAY, for recent digital tech, which will only get better.
Hi tweetee.
My understanding is that the P1000 only offers extra zoom, 125 as opposed to 83 with P900, and the ability to shoot in RAW, if your keen and on post processing your photos. It may have some extra features.
For me wasn't worth the extra cash, as it is my carry everywhere camera as opposed to specific birding trips.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Hi tweetee - sounds like the HX300 has much of the same scope and limitations as the P900, suggesting that it might be unsatisfactory as an "upgrade". The P1000 does address some of the shortcomings of the P900 (principally better AF and much improved viewfinder) and adds an even more extraordinary lens, whcih comes with corresponding doubling in the size of the camera. I checked it out when I bought the P900, and thought for my purposes, it is too big to be a take-anywhere use anywhere camera, and handholding in the 2000-3000 range (the additional over the P900) is going to be so hard it will almost require a tripod - thus making it much less useful for me.
Your tip on finding an edge to focus on certainly does help in many circumstances. I don't know the Sony system, but Nikon have both "manual" AF spot (where once you have autofocussed on the spot you want, it wont change as you fire away, and "auto" AF spot, which will attempt to refocus between shots. I find the latter so bad in practise that I prefer the manual fixed AF - but I beleive this works incredibly well on more up-spec Nikons (and the likes of Sony A7/A9 series), a big driver for me to change.
Hi Dale, thanks for response. I was close to purchasing the P900, but thought I would just make sure to find out some more info and read more reviews first. Reviews can save on that buyers remorse feeling ;-)
If the P1000 only offers extra zoom, I can see why you didn't bother with it. 83x is already a lot to deal with, especially getting towards full zoom focal length, with that extra vibration or movement. This 50x is a handful when no support of any kind around. I'll put the body of this camera up against anything to try and stabilise it a bit better ;-)
I'm like you, amateur, but learning as I go. I used to have a Pentax back in the '80's with several lenses, and I needed a pretty big camera bag to carry all the kit around. The 500mm mirror lense was great for landscape and non moving subject shots, but it had such a fine focus and depth of field range. It would not be suitable for bird pix. I had a Tokina 25-250 which was much better to deal with, anything from macro to zoom, and I used to prefer it with a 2x converter over the mirror. Haven't things changed? The 'all-in-ones' are becoming awesome kit and will only improve.
Hi Alex, thanks for response and experiences. Yes, I did notice how the P1000 is quite a bit larger over the P900. I'm like you, I'd just like to get something that isn't too big and heavy, can be hung around my neck and I can go walkabout and click away. I'm sure that the P1000 could have me looking like the Hunchback in a few months ;-)
The 'all-rounder' bridge type cameras are improving a lot and will be taking a fair slice of market share for ease of use and great inclusions, with pretty decent results.
The upgraded AF on the P1000 could be a big seller though, as it would surely mean more consistent focus and better results right?
For what I want as an amateur pic taker, is to get good results without having to reinvent the wheel, with a reasonable cost to achieve it. Todays tech will always continue to improve tomorrow, and I am sure more compact and lighter gear will be on the way, without compromising quality, but we have to go with what we can now, or wait until the next gen arrives and see what upgrades are included.
The P1000 is likely at the top of the current tree of 'bridge' cameras. And that 125x optical zoom is simply wild, considering a 25x zoom just a few years ago, was the top of the range.