Hi guysI finally just pulled the trigger on the P900. Fastmikefree wrote:Hi guysI finally just pulled the trigger on the P900. I tend to agree with ANAYV.I don't think you (the OP) are seeing the effects of jpeg compression as, under good circumstances, the full 16MPs resolve quite well. Just be sure to set NR to NR- and keep ISO to 400 or lower. The sensor performs best at lowest ISO and, for anything except subjects with motion in the frame, VR is surprisingly capable of facilitating sharp images. Of course, nothing can help with less than ideal atmospheric conditions that also greatly affect outcomes with subjects at greater distances.

1. Free Download Nikon Coolpix Hack Raw Programs Like Limewire 2
2. Free Download Nikon Coolpix Hack Raw Programs Like Limewire Downloads

(subjects that often tempt P900 users)Looking at some jpegs shot with my D800 (36MPs for anyone unfamiliar), they can be around 11-12MPs depending on subject matter so, again, I don't see anything abnormal about the P900's compression ratio and refer back to my earlier points about ISO and NR. Fastmikefree wrote:Hi guysI finally just pulled the trigger on the P900. Many thanks guys for your valuable input and splendid photos!I agree with you that the P900 is great. Before buying it, I had a look to the B700 but reviews were not as good. I have been waiting for a 'B900 or P910' for a year but since nothing happened I decided to go with the P900.I am not too sure on how you get some so small files on the D800 since mine generates 75MB Raw files and about half size Jpeg files.

But that is true I am always going for lowest compression.To be short, I still think P900 pics are over compressed. All pics look great when viewed at 60% or 80% max. After that, at 100%, we can see that hairs or other details are blurred when they should not with that type of sensor under good light conditions, at 100 iso and using a tripod.I did of course set the minimum iso and NR as well as Fine mode.

So, happy with the results but think that a simple fix by Nikon just by offering a reduced compression ration will improve pics the same way as moving from 'normal' to 'fine'.Anyway, will probably keep that one! Fastmikefree wrote:Many thanks guys for your valuable input and splendid photos!I agree with you that the P900 is great. Before buying it, I had a look to the B700 but reviews were not as good. I have been waiting for a 'B900 or P910' for a year but since nothing happened I decided to go with the P900.I am not too sure on how you get some so small files on the D800 since mine generates 75MB Raw files and about half size Jpeg files. But that is true I am always going for lowest compression.See page 436 of the D800 manual. It has a table that shows the different image quality options and the approximate file sizes they create. RAW file sizes can vary slightly in size since they each contain an embedded JPEG file, and JPEG file sizes vary with their scene content.

JPEG sizes are also given for L, M and S image sizes and for JPEG fine, normal and basic.Anyway, before checking the manual, you may be happy (or chagrined) to know that you chose the largest RAW file size. The table shows 74.4 MB for uncompressed 14-bit RAW files. There are 6 RAW options and the smallest (32.4 MB) is for lossless compressed 12-bit RAWs. 'After that, at 100%, we can see that hairs or other details are blurred when they should not with that type of sensor under good light conditions, at 100 iso and using a tripod.'

I think that is correct. Zooming in on the JPEGs there are signs of smearing that is not necessary. Bright lights and ISO 100 don't fix it.It used to be Sony cameras were always being criticized for watercolor like smearing on JPEGS,like on my HX9V. But that problem pretty much went away on cameras like my HX30V if one set noise reduction and sharpness to the lowest settings.Today with my P900 I took some shots in P mode, Picture Control, Standard.

Image sharpening, contrast and saturation set to lower values. It seemed to help, but not as much as I hoped it would.

(all fine mode, NR set to low)I hope to find some time the next few days to take some outdoor test shots. I was so windy today all the grass and tree branches were moving around too much to make for fair comparison shots. Just to be clear, my intent is not to put the P900 down!As I said I do love it! But as described in some reviews, I believe the quality of P900' photos can easily be improvedd by changing the JPEG compression ratio.As indicated in Nikon manual, Normal more is 1/8 ratio and fine is 1/4 ratio, which is far too high for the jpeg destructive format.That is why I am saying that if they could implement a 1/2 Superfine mode, which again should be very easy since just one line to change in firmware if they choose to 'update' the Fine mode, we will save a lot more of details.Phil. Fastmikefree wrote:Just to be clear, my intent is not to put the P900 down!As I said I do love it! But as described in some reviews, I believe the quality of P900' photos can easily be improvedd by changing the JPEG compression ratio.Its more,the problem with NR smearing.even with NR set to.As indicated in Nikon manual, Normal more is 1/8 ratio and fine is 1/4 ratio, which is far too high for the jpeg destructive format.That is why I am saying that if they could implement a 1/2 Superfine mode, which again should be very easy since just one line to change in firmware if they choose to 'update' the Fine mode, we will save a lot more of details.Not if the in camera processing is using NR.

Free Download Nikon Coolpix Hack Raw Programs Like Limewire 2

Even with superfine, detail will be smeared, due to the camera attempts to remove noise.ANAYV. 'However, Nikon compression is far too high!' I have generally had the same opinion. But is is always good to test things out in real life. So I did a number of comparison shots this afternoon. Nikon P900 versus Sony HX300First the test shot.

Then the crops. Nikon first because N comes before S (Sony)Both cameras set to Noise Reduction Low.The Nikon was set on the default sharpness/contrast/saturation settings.

Free Download Nikon Coolpix Hack Raw Programs Like Limewire Downloads

I tried adjusting those through the 5 different 'quick adjust' values but did not see much difference on these shots.The Sony was set to sharpness low, contrast low. Adjusting those settings had a much larger affect on the images than the Nikon equivalents did.The complete views look fine. The difference comes when you zoom in. So the next two shots show crops.On the Nikon, at the pixel level, one can see regions of continuous pixels that are all at the same color and brightness.

The cable coming off the electrical pole does not show. Details are smeared. Sometimes this is called watercolor effect.On the Sony, there is much less smearing.

You can see detail within each little shrub. And you can see the horizontal line of an electrical cable from the pole.My experience just looking at the scene with my naked eye is that I can see there is detail in the shrubs. And I can see the electrical wire too. So it is disturbing to both things lost in the Nikon photos.I will speculate that the processing chip in the Nikon is not powerful enough to implement the better algorithms that are available now for noise reduction and JPEG processing. I think Nikon is just a bit behind the times in electronics.

(The reason the DL line was cancelled was lack of electronic processing power.) On DSLRs like my D7100, Nikon JPEG processing is extremely good. Better than my Sony A77II. So obviously Nikon knows how to put great JPEGs out.Nikon P900Sony HX300Nikon P900. I appreciate your attempt!

Forgive me for offering some comments!. One can't overlook the 25% difference in pixel count. The focal length of the Sony is approx. 30% longer than the P900 (creating an obvious difference in framing). The picture control setting on the P900 image is absolutely horrid.The disparities are too great to give the comparison much weight but I get the point and appreciate the attempt.If you want to test the sensor, you have to flip the focal length disparity to favor the P900 as it is short on pixels. To even the score, make the P900 focal length = sq root of 1.25 (the pixel count difference) = a 1.12x FL factor. Also, please use the neutral picture control on the Nikon with sharpening turned down (and contrast perhaps, too.

That image was seriously ug!).About Augustin's comment re: Imaging Resource's tests, a weakness of any such tests - just like this one really - is they're taken at a specific focal length which may or may not fall at a strong point of a wide-range (50x or 83x) zoom. It is impossible for us to tell what focal length is each lens's strong point. A fairer test - and I'm not asking for this but it would be fairer - would be to do a test at a number of equivalent focal lengths throughout their respective ranges.Additionally, if you want to test reach which is where these cameras see a fair amount of use - again, using a decent picture control in the Nikon, please - since you can't offset pixel count or focal length differences, you just have to let 'em rip! Best not to choose too distant a subject as atmospheric conditions can play too great a role.As some concession to the OP, going back to the notion of D800 JPEG file sizes, there is a huge discrepancy of full rez jpeg output from the D800. I have full rez native D800 JPEGs - not converted from NEFs - that range from anywhere from about 10MB to around 30MB for more detailed low-ISO content but most are around 15MBs or so. P900 JPEGs are generally but not always proportionally smaller: in the 5-8MB range the way I shoot (which is exclusively low ISO) but never higher. Only in best-case scenarios does it seem the D800 saves more info per MP.Are differences due to the compression method?

Are any compression differences due to the EXPEED version? (the P900 uses! And the D800 Expeed 3) Is it because this is how Nikon views the use of - or output from - these small sensor cameras that they treat files this way? Again, the P900 files vary much less the D800 files without as much upside so maybe!That said, my Canon Powershot SX50 offered RAW and I rarely if ever saw an upside to that format's use from that camera. I have Sony P&S cams and I hate their smearing.

If Sony finally did something right with the HX300, good for them! I didn't see those benefits conveyed in any tests when considering the P900 vs any other bridge camera including the Sony.WRT to pixel count and - ultimately - resolution, I make this point in other forums far more than I'd like: If you use the Windows 'standard' of 96 dpi monitor resolution, even a P900 file viewed at 100% is akin to a whopping 36'x48' wall print! How big is anyone really going to view these things??? (I have made big prints with files inferior to those produced by the P900 that get oohs and ahhs from people, some of whom consider themselves photographers. And, no, I don't pay them for the accolades! My point is these files serve a purpose.)Finally - and in a somewhat related vein - there is much more to imagery than just resolution and pixel count.

With appropriate picture control settings, I have found the P900 sensor very forgiving in contrasty lighting conditions. I have also found the ability to crop in-camera very helpful to how I envision a scene. For jpegs coming from a 1/2.3' sensor, I find the tones and color very acceptable.

For me, it's not always about pixel-level resolving capability. That said, is it the only camera I have? Admittedly, it is not. If it were, it's still not a bad one by any stretch of the imagination: I get more smiles-per-shot on my face from this camera than I do with any other.

(and it wasn't my first bridge camera either. Or second!)Although I wouldn't mind seeing a more effective comparison - but I appreciate that's a lot to ask - it really wouldn't change how I feel about this camera. YMMV Regards.When every pixel counts.

Lost Nikon photos overview (what and how)Nikon is firmly established as one of the most popular brands in the world. It is getting more and more widely used so lots of people become its users. But, just like many other digital cameras, Nikon is also prone to the disaster of unexpected data loss.

While photographing the families, animals, wilds, landscape, and activities, do you take safety measures for your beloved shots?As for users of the traditional Nikon compact digital cameras and the current Nikon SLR cameras, such as the D3-series, D2-series, D700, D300(S), D200, D100, D7000, D5000, D3100, D3000, D90, D80, D70s, D70, D60, D50, D40X, D40, and the COOLPIX A, they lost photos like every seven days in a week in similar yet frequently happened ways! For instance, accidental deletion, careless SD card formatting, or memory card errors after plugging in or plugging off from the computer. Without making backups in advance, at this moment, you can only apply some reliable and powerful that supports the specific Nikon image file format. Download Nikon photo recovery softwareIf you search online, you will find a long list of data recovery software that claims to be able to from digital cameras, but which one is the best for you to trust?Here, our advice is.

The software has been updated and improved many times, which ensure that it is powerful enough to deal with all data loss scenarios. And with a step-by-step wizard, it is also very easy-to-use. Every user from beginners to experts can use it for Nikon photo recovery.

100+ file formats support, including NEF, TIFF, RAW, JPEG, which are exclusive to Nikon cameras. Filterability in the scan results, so just display the 'Graphics' results if it's only for the photo recovery. Searchability in the scan results, so just type a specific file format, e.g., tiff, to display only the.tiff files.Just install it on your computer and follow the tips and three simple steps to rescue the valuable pictures, and video recordings you lost by chance. File size: 40mbDownload time: 12min How to recover deleted Nikon photosBefore proceeding with the guide, please consider the following:When you delete off a photo from the camera's storage card, its occupied space will be marked as free, but the file content actually remains intact until new files are written and saved on the spot. After the marked space of the lost photo has been used by the new data, it becomes unrecoverable. That's why we ask you to download the EaseUS software as soon as possible when data loss happens. The sooner you do the recovery, the higher chance you can bring files back.Step 1.

Connect the SD card and start scanning.Take out the SD card from the camera and connect it to the computer via a card reader. Then launch EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard, hover on the SD card, and click 'Scan'. Related Questions (People Also Ask) How to fix Nikon NEF files corruption?If you lost your Nikon RAW files in NEF format due to corruption, you can follow the solutions to repair Nikon photos.1. Repair Nikon photos with EaseUS photo repair softwareThis software supports to repair damaged or corrupt JPEG/JPG photos on the hard drive, sd card, memory card, or any other storage medium. No matter they are lost or existed on your devices. Watch the video and recover and repair your Nikon photos:2.

Open NEF files in another image viewerIf PS cannot open NEF files, you can open them in another program.3. Convert NEF to other file formatsIf a NEF file fails to open in Photoshop and get the 'Unable to open NEF file in Photoshop' error, convert it to DNG format with a free online image converter tool.4. Download Microsoft Camera codec packIf your PC doesn't have the right codec, you may also receive the 'corrupt raw Nikon NEF files' error. To fix it, download the Microsoft Camera codec pack.

What is a NEF file?NEF files are the RAW file formats from digital photos taken by Nikon cameras. NEF files retain everything captured by the camera before any processing is undergone, including the metadata like the camera and lens model. How to open NEF files?You can open NEF files without any additional software if your PC has the right codec on your computer. NEF files can also be opened with the most popular photo and graphics tools. Mobile devices can open NEF files as well.

Google Snapseed is an app that supports this format. Why choose EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard?'

EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard is the best we've seen. It's far from perfect, partly because today's advanced disk technology makes data-recovery more difficult than it was with the simpler technology of the past, but it's fast and efficient.' —'The first thing you'll notice about EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard Pro is that its interface is very clear and uncluttered, with only a small collection of self-explanatory controls. You won't find lots of extra options hidden in a system of hidden menus, either; what you see really is what you get.' —'Recover lost files, even after deleting a partition or formatting your drive.' Why cannot I recover 2GB data for free?It is recommended to check the version installed is Free or Trial because they are different versions.Trial has data preview function but cannot save any files, while the version enables to recover 2 GB files.

The default free space is 500 MB and you may share the product on social media to get another 1.5 GB. Why cannot the recovered files be opened?A file is saved as 2 parts on the storage device: directory info (which is comprised by file name, time stamp and size info, etc.) and data content.If the files with original file names and folder structures cannot be opened, one possible reason is the corrupted directory info. There is still a chance to recover the data content with the method in our software. Why isn't it suggested to recover the files back to the original drive?The storage structure of the lost files would be altered or damaged by any changes on the drive. If you save the recovered files back to the same drive, the original data structures and data content would be corrupted or overwritten, which causes permanent data loss.

So you should prepare another disk to save the files. How can I check whether my data is recoverable or not before purchase?The version helps you save 2GB files to better verify the recovery quality of our product before purchase. How long does it take to scan the drive?It strongly depends on the capacity of your hard drive and the performance of your computer. As reference,most drive recoveries can be completed in around 10 to 12 hours for a 1-TB healthy hard drive in general conditions.