What is the equivalent of Nikon p900 ? Or atleast the 83x zoom

>>3029195
> Or atleast the 83x zoom lens of it (2000mm)
Quite many telescopes..

Something like a APS-C with a 600mm prime will also obviously do better with digital zoom or with TC. Possibly even a 500mm reflex will.

>>3029198
I should look for a telescope as an equivalent of p900 ?

Should I get one for taking nipslip shots at the beach?

>>3029224
>not capturing the ISS

step it up

http://www.diyphotography.net/international-space-station-captured-nikon-p900s-monster-zoom/

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (4KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 480x360px

>>3029224
Sure you can but you can see saturn as well

>>3029226
Look at this shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clg7rQB6H2U

>>3029214
As the upsized variant with a bigger light collection ability and higher resolution / sensitivity on the sensor resulting in a better image.

But yes, equivalents for FF cameras are esssentially telescopes.

>>3029243
wtf

>>3029243
Resolution in stills is still ass, that glass is garbage in ILC terms.

>>3029384
>can see saturns rings
>2000mm resolution is still ass
k

>>3029386
Detail is blown. My consumer Sigma telephoto has more detail for the simple fact of less CA and no loss due to blown contrast.
The P900 uses software correction for the image in both stills and video, not to mention the video uses much less of the pixels effectively reducing QE due to less readout of the possible photo-electron injections.
It's a top line bridge camera but still a bridge camera, it has its limits due to the rules of physics.
You can use it for creeping on the beach but don't expect to have a better performance than an entry level DSLR with kit lens.

File: P900 Zoom Sample.jpg (2MB, 2048x6144px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x6144px

>>3029392
Well I don't expect anything more of it. It's price is high probably because of the inbuilt lens rather than the camera itself.
But still, anything that can do pic related got my attention, not to mention you probably can't find any other camera on the market that can give you this amazing level of detail.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:26 19:31:38
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	6144

>>3029397
You could get a decent compact with good reach for half the price, or a DSLR for its full price. Or better yet, a top line compact like an RX-100, LX-100, GX-85 etc...
It is just not a good value, no bridge camera, ever, is a good value.

>>3029407
I'm looking specifically for zoom power though. I don't think any of it can compare with 83x raw zoom.(166x still zoom)

>>3029420
Subscription to PornHub is much cheaper

File: 1393994010155.gif (35KB, 673x505px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 673x505px

>>3029243

>camera trying to autofocus
>makes a small, clearly defined white spot 3x bigger
>thinks this is more in focus

WHHYYYYYY THE FUCK IS THIS STILL A THING?! WHY CAN'T CAMERA MANUFACTURERS FIGURE THIS SHIT OUT? YOU WILL NEVER MAKE A BRIGHT, CONTRASTY THING BIGGER BY FOCUSING ON IT.

GRAGGHHH KILL YOURSELVES ALL CAMERA MANUFACTURERS IT'S 2017 FOR FUCK'S SAKE AUTOFOCUS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 30 YEARS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET IT RIGHT BY NOW

>>3029477
The problem is, it's trying to sample every pixel array on the screen, which in full of noise in that particular shot. So initially it focuses correctly, then messes it up again trying to find the correct contrast in other pixels.
That being said, never ever trust machines to do the focus. Manual all the way.

File: Zeiss_Mirotar_1000mm_f5.6.jpg (582KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1000x667px

>>3029195
Get a m4/3 or some other small sensor ILC and a big ass mirror lens (for example MTO 1000mm F10).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:06:07 19:37:17
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.56 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3029523
>f/10
at least it is better than f/18 of that bridge camera... oh, wait on a m4/3 it would be an f/20

>>3029523
83x corresponds to 2000mm. Doesn't yours give half the zoom coolpix gives?

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>3029538

>>3029527
>f/18
More like f/40 (35mm equivalent). The 1/2.3" sensor in P900 has a crop factor of 5.6 and the lens is f/6.5 @ max zoom.

>>3029538
A 1000mm lens on a m4/3 body gives you a fov of a 2000mm lens on a 35mm camera. Same lens on a 1" type sensor (Nikon 1) gives you 2700mm equivalent fov.

>>3029538
>83x corresponds to 2000mm.

Zoom and field of view are two different things.

More zoom doesn't necessarily means longer (equivalent) focal length.

>>3029527
P900 has a 6X crop factor and a f/6.5 lens.

So that's f/39 equivalent.

>/p/ always shits on bridge cameras
>can't name even one acceptable substitute for a camera that can literally resolve saturn's rings AND be acceptable for terrestrial use out of the box

y'all got btfo

>>3029688
There is no substitute for shit, mate. Embrace the truth.

Why do we still have this level of stupidity in /p/? Who's continually misinforming people??

>>3029527
f10 is f10 in terms of light gathering, not matter what's behind the lens. Find a any light meter and show me where the option for inputting sensor size is. It's nowhere because it has nothing to do with exposure.

Multiplying aperture by crop facture is only for approximating 35mm equivalent DEPTH OF FIELD

>>3029547
>>3029565
Same to you. f6.5 is f6.5 in terms of light gathering.

File: P900-ISS-Crop.jpg (56KB, 1037x738px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1037x738px

>>3029226
>>3029243
MY NIGGA!

If I buy a cat lens + a 2x teleconverter will I be able to take pictures of the ISS? Should a go for a telescope instead? Help me, /k/ i'm interested in this shit.

>>3029884
Well the p900 is pretty much a top of the line camera with a monster zoom that you can find on the market today. If your goal is to watch shit that is far far away, this cam is for you.

I have a tamron 500mm mirror lens and a Pentax Q-S1. I've never really thought of pairing them together, it would give me 2300mm equivalent

>>3029921
Do it faggot.

File: inb4 fourturds autists raging about equivalence.png (52KB, 282x320px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 282x320px

>f/40

>>3029995
meaning ?

>>3029995
?

f6.5 is plenty enough.

>>3030230
Dude I'm photoretarded. isn't higher f/ mean faster shutter capability?

>>3030230
Its not with a sensor that small. You need much more light to ged rid of the noise of a smaller sensor. Crop factor squared times the iso will give you a rough idea on noise levels when comparing differently sized sensors from about the same production time.

>>3029995

Confirmed for having never shot LF

>mfw portraits at f/64

>>3030235
> isn't higher f/ mean faster shutter capability
You are definitely photo-retarded.
The it's f divided by 6.5, which is a smaller number than f divided by 4.
A f/6.5 doesn't even provide half as much light as a f/4, because the surface area is squared.

File: 1482347191892.gif (25KB, 360x410px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 360x410px

>>3030235
>>3030314
F6.5 is F6.5 doesn't matter the camera it's just the ratio between the focal lenght and the aperture's diameter.

>>3029884
thats gotta be fake

>>3029884
The ISS moves ridiculously fast and in a super zoom and will zip across the FoV in a split second. Would take some practice and trial and error.

File: 8957052406_fe031c46b8_b-300x300.jpg (6KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x300px

>>3031615
>>3031620
>what is atrophotography

They take a bunch of pictures and stick them together in photoshop or other specif astronomy software or simply film it.

http://www.universetoday.com/93588/a-beginners-guide-to-photographing-the-international-space-station-iss/

http://soggyastronomer.com/how-to-photograph-the-international-space-station/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	400
Image Height	400

>>3031615
nawp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoncYaPcxm8

>>3030516

So it really has no bearing on the amount of light let through the lens? Or the depth of field due to varying sensor sizes?

Shouldn't we be using t-stops instead?

>>3034729

Yes, but even T-stops are prone to confabulation by manufacturers. If everyone found out that their $3000 f/1.2 lens is really only T/1.8, they probably wouldn't cop out the money for it over a $300 f/1.8-t/1.9.

>>3034732
>>3034729

Wait, so it is all fudged?

Some dude bragging about his f/1.4 aps-c lens might be getting worse dof and light transmission compared to an f/2.8 ff lens?

File: IMG_6995L.jpg (191KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 2000x1333px

This works pretty well. I stuck a mirrorless on the end of a 400mm lens and mounted a 2x and a 1.4x Extender - which (when coupled with the APS-C) crop factor of 1.61x... gave me just over 1,800mm zoom I can make out the rings and details of Saturn much more clearly than the Nikon P900 but this is partly because of the glass used and partly because of the larger sensor. The only reason I didn't buy a P900 is because the sensor is so small. They could have achieved a magnificent camera, if only they'd used a larger sensor on it. The latest generation Image Stabilizers Canon are using (on the more recent lenses) are so effective that I managed to capture a handheld color shot of the Orion Nebula with the 400mm unassisted lens, just by leaning with my back up against my car.

That said, the P900 is still an amazing piece of kit for the price. Has anyone tried it on the Orion Nebula because it's got to be able to get something at 2,000mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5472
Image Height	3648
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:03:07 20:05:03
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3037337
niggas b trying 2 find stars n shit with they dslers

>>3037337
>They could have achieved a magnificent camera, if only they'd used a larger sensor on it
Well then they'd have wound up with something as big as your contraption. Making an 1800-mm lens at a decent aperture is a large, heavy, and very expensive proposition. Making a 300/6.3 or something is cheap and compact, and bolting it to a tiny-ass sensor with an enormous crop factor gets you a big zoom that impresses the soccer moms.

>Orion nebula at 2000mm
I'm pretty sure the nebula would be larger than the frame at that point. Orion is pretty big as deep-sky objects go.

File: Nikon P900 - Orion.jpg (85KB, 1074x666px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1074x666px

>>3037342

I found a still someone posted online from the P900 of the Orion Nebula. Not as nice as I had hoped. But impressive to see nonetheless.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:12 01:58:13
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1074
Image Height	666

File: IMG_9350L2.jpg (488KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 2000x1333px

This is the handheld shot that I got with the APS-C mirrorless (EOSM) + 100-400mmL II lens unaided and handheld. That's not motion blur from handholding the lens, that's the result of a 4 second exposure revealing star-streaks. I'm quite surprised at the effectiveness of modern I.S. on today's cameras and lenses.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS M
Camera Software	Photos 1.0.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:16 23:28:18
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard