*Hear me out: Yes, I'm know you're about to assault your keyboard because I said this Coolpix might be a DSLR Killer.* But think about it.... What do we all want in a good camera? Ease of Use. Sharp Photos. Light-Weight Body. Ergonomic. Good Travel Companion. Reach? Time to start thinking outside of the box for photography!
Love this little camera. Got it as a gift many years back. Curious though, any advice in regard to settings, etc. when approaching shooting in darker environments (such as concerts)?
@nicoletaylor2372 I'd recommend bumping your ISO up to probably 400. It will introduce a little noise into your image, but that's just a part of concert photography with any camera. Your shutter speed will depend on how far away from the stage you are, and how much you need to zoom to get a good shot. The longer your focal length (or the more you're zoomed-in), the faster your shutter speed will need to be. Keep your aperture as wide (lowest number) as possible.
I got this one from my dad when he bought a new camera. Love it! I mostly use it for animal pictures and vacation pics. Only thing I can't figure out is to get a more blurred background (not great at manual settings😅)
That camera has been my concert camera for the past 8 years (yes, I bought it when new) and it's excellent for that! My only gripes are: No RAW, useless with SnapBridge and it will drain the battery when sitting unused. I have shot some phenomenal pictures at concerts from nosebleed seats, in pit areas, up close... arenas - bangers every time!
Hey there ! I have this camera and I had it for 7 years. Worked like a charm. A couple of days ago the belt for the flip up screen broke and I can’t see the screen. Where did you purchase yours?
Oh no! I got mine used on Facebook Marketplace. If you're looking for a bit of an upgrade, check out the Sony ZV-1: amzn.to/4dMwnuQ I'll be doing a review on it very soon!
Hey I love taking pictures with this camera but it’s my first one and I don’t really know much about the specs, do you have a video or tips you think would be useful?
I have all of the important specs listed on my blog: therunngun.com/nikon-coolpix-a900-review/ Is there something more you're looking for? Like a guide for the Nikon A900?
@@RunNGunPhoto I started with an A900, bought it as defective and repaired it myself and only later realised that there is also the A1000, which has the EVF. Then I got a defective A1000, which turned out not to be defective at all.
Short: unreasonably high price, can't compete even with a smartphone (at least on wider end). Long: Nice video title, man. That's how you should do it on UA-cam, I'm not pissed but I'll comment accordingly: that is not even a smartphone camera killer. With f/3.4 aperture and sensor size that small (one of my BUDGET smartphones has a bigger sensor), slow autofocus (again many smartphones do it better and faster) with no RAW shooting ability and ugly JPEG post-processing this thing SUCKS so much I don't even know why you are touching it. If you need crazy zoom - maybe such thing would be ok BUT there are much cheaper (similar device but older) options that can zoom that far with similar quality. So this thing isn't worth the money. Speaking of great photos, you could take them on a kid's toy watch, it's about your subject, the light, the composition not about the camera. And this camera can be used to take great photos too but it's a killer only to your budget.
*Boldly wrong on most, if not all accounts here, EJ.* I hear a lot of complaints without any solutions. The A900 is a good camera at an affordable price. Not everyone needs a Hasselblad or RAW for that matter. But go off...
@@RunNGunPhoto I don't have too many accounts here, RunNGunPhoto. It would be great if you could prove that I'm wrong on at least one point. Making your text bold doesn't prove anything. Here are some points I mentioned: 1) Aperture: Smartphones have f/1.8 on the wider end (typically 24-28mm), while your A900 has f/3.4 and it increases up to f/6.9. By the way, my iPhone additionally has 13mm f/2.2 and 77mm f/2.8 lenses, while the main lens is 24mm f/1.78 with a crop factor of 3.5. The A900 crop factor is 5.62. Am I wrong that 5.62 is larger than 3.5? Smartphones get more light and have a shallower depth of field. Am I wrong that 5.62 * 3.4 is f/19.108 while 3.5 * 1.78 is f/6.23 and it's better to have the latter? 2) Sensor Size: Discussed above. The A900's sensor size is no secret, nor are the sensor sizes of smartphones. For instance, the iPhone 14 Pro's sensor is 1.6 times bigger. This results in more light, a shallower depth of field, and less noise. My other $200 smartphone has a 4.65 crop factor (Samsung sensor) and a 26mm f/1.8 lens. Also better than A900. 3) RAW: It's true that not everyone needs RAW, but for a DSLR-killer, that's kind of essential. If I don't need it, I can always disable it in settings. But when I do need it and it's not available, while even smartphones offer RAW, it’s a disadvantage. You understand, right? 4) Autofocus: PDAF vs. CDAF. DSLRs, high-end mirrorless cameras, and modern smartphones like the iPhone use PDAF. CDAF is a cheaper and slower alternative. Guess what the A900 uses? CDAF, lol. "DSLR killer," eh? 5) Price: First link, A900 on eBay for $498 USD used. What? Are you serious? For that amount, I could get a good old used cropped Canon EOS DSLR and a good pancake wide-angle lens and a kit zoom that will easily beat the A900. But my point was: much older Coolpix models have zoom optics too (the only strong part of this type of camera) and are way more affordable. Take the Coolpix S600 as an example with its f/2.7-5.8 28-112mm lens. Specs are even better. Sensor size is almost the same (1-2% difference). $130 USD, used. That's just one example. No one said you need a Hasselblad, but no one needs 20-year-old tech for $500 USD as a "replacement" for DSLRs either.
I've addressed all of these in my video... If you hate the A900 so much, why are you wasting your time and mine? 1. It's a point and shoot camera with a 840mm equivalent lens. That's a lot of math for a moot point. 2. It's a point and shoot with a smaller sensor. Tech has improved in the last 8 years. Moore's Law proves true, and the sky is still blue. 3. It's a point and shoot, and most don't shoot raw. I don't need or want to edit every photo I take. Not every snap is a master piece. 4. It's a point and shoot. Yes, high-end interchangeable-lens cameras use Phase Detect AF... This is a point and shoot camera... 5. $335 USD New: amzn.to/3xokeNy, OR about $200 or less new. Meaning people are finding value in it, if it's 8 years old... I addressed all of these points to death in my video. Go buy a DSLR and a bunch of lenses. Now you have pounds of gear to carry around in a backpack. There are plenty of fauxtographers on UA-cam to troll. I've made my living with a camera outside of UA-cam for over a decade now, so if this camera and my opinion about it bother you so much... I don't care bro.
@@RunNGunPhoto Sorry for wasting your time, but I don't think I wasted mine. Let's keep the discussion friendly and constructive. Comments, whether positive or negative, are good for your channel. I don't hate point-and-shoot cameras, but I believe the price should be fair. That Coolpix A900 is not worth $335 USD or even 200. I already provided the Coolpix S600 as an example. It can do almost the same job for much cheaper. The fact that on wide side smartphones do better and have better specs is also a strong point because we are discussing compact/pocketable cameras. If someone wants to spend $300 and desires something compact, there are better options than Coolpix A900. Take the Fujifilm XF1, for instance. It's smaller, thinner, lighter, has a better lens (f/1.8 at wide), a larger sensor, manual focus ability, and shoots RAW. I know you may not want RAW, but I bet you wouldn't mind it, and others might find it useful, especially since you included "DSLR killer" in your title. As for zoom, I don't think anything beyond 100mm is essential for everyday photography because with a dark lens and a weak sensor, ultra-tele shots suffer anyway. It might also be reasonable to save a bit more and get something even better depending on your needs. For example, the Sony ZV-1F is a great option if you're into vlogging. The Panasonic Lumix LX10, at around $600, is about the same size but has an incredibly good lens, a large 1" sensor, and RAW capability, of course. You've decided to highlight a pretty mediocre compact camera with nothing particularly interesting about it. It's not appropriate to speak about its affordability because the same amount of money, or slightly more, could buy you something better, as I have described in my examples above. Or if you need that cheap ultrazoom compact vibe, older and cheaper models will do just fine as they have almost same (sometimes even better) optics, same sensors, but again, there's nothing special about this model to highlight. I could understand if you were showcasing some real gem, but this one is not.
@@EJej-z5g No hard feelings friend, I appreciate a good challenge and debate! :) I think we can agree more than disagree. Is it the best camera in the world? Hell no, not by any stretch of the imagination. However, is it an option? Sure! I picked one up for what I thought was reasonable at the time. (I also just got a Sony ZV-1 here, just waiting for new batteries.) It honestly made me choose the light option over a DSLR for a vacation. It got me thinking a lot about my priorities as a photographer when I'm shooting for fun. I wanted to share my enthusiasm and "gear doesn't always matter" mentality in this review. Also maybe help someone who's looking at buying one. Ultimately that's subjective, just wanted to share what I think about the A900!
*Hear me out: Yes, I'm know you're about to assault your keyboard because I said this Coolpix might be a DSLR Killer.*
But think about it.... What do we all want in a good camera? Ease of Use. Sharp Photos. Light-Weight Body. Ergonomic. Good Travel Companion. Reach?
Time to start thinking outside of the box for photography!
Love this little camera. Got it as a gift many years back.
Curious though, any advice in regard to settings, etc. when approaching shooting in darker environments (such as concerts)?
@nicoletaylor2372 I'd recommend bumping your ISO up to probably 400. It will introduce a little noise into your image, but that's just a part of concert photography with any camera. Your shutter speed will depend on how far away from the stage you are, and how much you need to zoom to get a good shot.
The longer your focal length (or the more you're zoomed-in), the faster your shutter speed will need to be.
Keep your aperture as wide (lowest number) as possible.
I got this one from my dad when he bought a new camera. Love it! I mostly use it for animal pictures and vacation pics. Only thing I can't figure out is to get a more blurred background (not great at manual settings😅)
The key is to use as wide of an aperture as possible (lowest F-Number). Zoom in, and get close to your subject.
Eight years old, that's 52 in camera years. You know what else is 52 years old? The Godfather! Still better than 99% of movies. Mic drop.
The best camera is the one you have with you, 52 years old or not! I hope I look this good in 20 years!
That camera has been my concert camera for the past 8 years (yes, I bought it when new) and it's excellent for that! My only gripes are: No RAW, useless with SnapBridge and it will drain the battery when sitting unused. I have shot some phenomenal pictures at concerts from nosebleed seats, in pit areas, up close... arenas - bangers every time!
The zoom capabilities are phenomenal! RAW would definitely make this an amazing camera!
I’ve had this camera for three years and I love it for vlogging
It's great! I'm still surprised it shoots 4K video!
Hey there ! I have this camera and I had it for 7 years. Worked like a charm. A couple of days ago the belt for the flip up screen broke and I can’t see the screen. Where did you purchase yours?
Oh no! I got mine used on Facebook Marketplace.
If you're looking for a bit of an upgrade, check out the Sony ZV-1: amzn.to/4dMwnuQ
I'll be doing a review on it very soon!
Hey I love taking pictures with this camera but it’s my first one and I don’t really know much about the specs, do you have a video or tips you think would be useful?
I have all of the important specs listed on my blog: therunngun.com/nikon-coolpix-a900-review/
Is there something more you're looking for? Like a guide for the Nikon A900?
Thanks for the review. I really love this camera. 35X is unmatched. Phones will never give you that range.
PS : i couldn't find the link you mentioned to see the pictures.
The equivalent range is insane! Especially in such a small package.
Here's the link to a couple more shots: therunngun.com/nikon-coolpix-a900-review/
Can you plug an intervalometer into this camera
I don't believe so @SasshaMay
Every other video I’ve seen about this camera showed horrible pic quality and yet yours look nice and crisp. How come?
Picture quality?
@@RunNGunPhoto yes. The pictures you took from this camera look miles better than others ive seen and i just want to know why/how 😬
Interesting... This video is uploaded in 4K which may help.
I kept my ISO low (80 most of the time).
It's because it's up to the artist not to the brush to give a good painting.
Sir
I am trying to find out last 4 months in my city Kolkata, india.
Not available unfortunately.
The Nikon A900 may be harder to find in some places.
I can't speak to its availability in India...
No .. That would be the Coolpix A
What makes you say that? Maybe I should look into reviewing the Coolpix A?
@@RunNGunPhotoAPSC sensor in a compact body.
NOT SUSCRIBE BUT GIVE U A COMENT! . NICE JOB
Thanks for watching @Zevastyam! Hope you watch more of my content and subscribe in the future!
Nikon A1000 is even better, it has an EVF.
Yes! The Nikon A1000 is on my list to review as well.
I just have to find one for a good price. :)
@@RunNGunPhoto I started with an A900, bought it as defective and repaired it myself and only later realised that there is also the A1000, which has the EVF. Then I got a defective A1000, which turned out not to be defective at all.
The chances of getting 2 defective cameras in a row... wow. Why did you think the A1000 wasn't working right?
@@RunNGunPhoto Both cameras were sold as defective. I buy such things because if you can repair it yourself, you have a camera for little money.
@@dorfschmidt4833 I've done the same with many older film cameras. They're typically easy to fix.
Short: unreasonably high price, can't compete even with a smartphone (at least on wider end).
Long: Nice video title, man. That's how you should do it on UA-cam, I'm not pissed but I'll comment accordingly: that is not even a smartphone camera killer. With f/3.4 aperture and sensor size that small (one of my BUDGET smartphones has a bigger sensor), slow autofocus (again many smartphones do it better and faster) with no RAW shooting ability and ugly JPEG post-processing this thing SUCKS so much I don't even know why you are touching it. If you need crazy zoom - maybe such thing would be ok BUT there are much cheaper (similar device but older) options that can zoom that far with similar quality. So this thing isn't worth the money. Speaking of great photos, you could take them on a kid's toy watch, it's about your subject, the light, the composition not about the camera. And this camera can be used to take great photos too but it's a killer only to your budget.
*Boldly wrong on most, if not all accounts here, EJ.*
I hear a lot of complaints without any solutions. The A900 is a good camera at an affordable price.
Not everyone needs a Hasselblad or RAW for that matter. But go off...
@@RunNGunPhoto I don't have too many accounts here, RunNGunPhoto. It would be great if you could prove that I'm wrong on at least one point. Making your text bold doesn't prove anything. Here are some points I mentioned:
1) Aperture: Smartphones have f/1.8 on the wider end (typically 24-28mm), while your A900 has f/3.4 and it increases up to f/6.9. By the way, my iPhone additionally has 13mm f/2.2 and 77mm f/2.8 lenses, while the main lens is 24mm f/1.78 with a crop factor of 3.5. The A900 crop factor is 5.62. Am I wrong that 5.62 is larger than 3.5? Smartphones get more light and have a shallower depth of field. Am I wrong that 5.62 * 3.4 is f/19.108 while 3.5 * 1.78 is f/6.23 and it's better to have the latter?
2) Sensor Size: Discussed above. The A900's sensor size is no secret, nor are the sensor sizes of smartphones. For instance, the iPhone 14 Pro's sensor is 1.6 times bigger. This results in more light, a shallower depth of field, and less noise. My other $200 smartphone has a 4.65 crop factor (Samsung sensor) and a 26mm f/1.8 lens. Also better than A900.
3) RAW: It's true that not everyone needs RAW, but for a DSLR-killer, that's kind of essential. If I don't need it, I can always disable it in settings. But when I do need it and it's not available, while even smartphones offer RAW, it’s a disadvantage. You understand, right?
4) Autofocus: PDAF vs. CDAF. DSLRs, high-end mirrorless cameras, and modern smartphones like the iPhone use PDAF. CDAF is a cheaper and slower alternative. Guess what the A900 uses? CDAF, lol. "DSLR killer," eh?
5) Price: First link, A900 on eBay for $498 USD used. What? Are you serious? For that amount, I could get a good old used cropped Canon EOS DSLR and a good pancake wide-angle lens and a kit zoom that will easily beat the A900. But my point was: much older Coolpix models have zoom optics too (the only strong part of this type of camera) and are way more affordable. Take the Coolpix S600 as an example with its f/2.7-5.8 28-112mm lens. Specs are even better. Sensor size is almost the same (1-2% difference). $130 USD, used. That's just one example.
No one said you need a Hasselblad, but no one needs 20-year-old tech for $500 USD as a "replacement" for DSLRs either.
I've addressed all of these in my video... If you hate the A900 so much, why are you wasting your time and mine?
1. It's a point and shoot camera with a 840mm equivalent lens. That's a lot of math for a moot point.
2. It's a point and shoot with a smaller sensor. Tech has improved in the last 8 years. Moore's Law proves true, and the sky is still blue.
3. It's a point and shoot, and most don't shoot raw. I don't need or want to edit every photo I take. Not every snap is a master piece.
4. It's a point and shoot. Yes, high-end interchangeable-lens cameras use Phase Detect AF... This is a point and shoot camera...
5. $335 USD New: amzn.to/3xokeNy, OR about $200 or less new. Meaning people are finding value in it, if it's 8 years old...
I addressed all of these points to death in my video. Go buy a DSLR and a bunch of lenses. Now you have pounds of gear to carry around in a backpack.
There are plenty of fauxtographers on UA-cam to troll. I've made my living with a camera outside of UA-cam for over a decade now, so if this camera and my opinion about it bother you so much... I don't care bro.
@@RunNGunPhoto Sorry for wasting your time, but I don't think I wasted mine. Let's keep the discussion friendly and constructive. Comments, whether positive or negative, are good for your channel. I don't hate point-and-shoot cameras, but I believe the price should be fair. That Coolpix A900 is not worth $335 USD or even 200. I already provided the Coolpix S600 as an example. It can do almost the same job for much cheaper. The fact that on wide side smartphones do better and have better specs is also a strong point because we are discussing compact/pocketable cameras.
If someone wants to spend $300 and desires something compact, there are better options than Coolpix A900. Take the Fujifilm XF1, for instance. It's smaller, thinner, lighter, has a better lens (f/1.8 at wide), a larger sensor, manual focus ability, and shoots RAW. I know you may not want RAW, but I bet you wouldn't mind it, and others might find it useful, especially since you included "DSLR killer" in your title. As for zoom, I don't think anything beyond 100mm is essential for everyday photography because with a dark lens and a weak sensor, ultra-tele shots suffer anyway.
It might also be reasonable to save a bit more and get something even better depending on your needs. For example, the Sony ZV-1F is a great option if you're into vlogging. The Panasonic Lumix LX10, at around $600, is about the same size but has an incredibly good lens, a large 1" sensor, and RAW capability, of course.
You've decided to highlight a pretty mediocre compact camera with nothing particularly interesting about it. It's not appropriate to speak about its affordability because the same amount of money, or slightly more, could buy you something better, as I have described in my examples above. Or if you need that cheap ultrazoom compact vibe, older and cheaper models will do just fine as they have almost same (sometimes even better) optics, same sensors, but again, there's nothing special about this model to highlight. I could understand if you were showcasing some real gem, but this one is not.
@@EJej-z5g
No hard feelings friend, I appreciate a good challenge and debate! :)
I think we can agree more than disagree.
Is it the best camera in the world?
Hell no, not by any stretch of the imagination.
However, is it an option? Sure! I picked one up for what I thought was reasonable at the time. (I also just got a Sony ZV-1 here, just waiting for new batteries.) It honestly made me choose the light option over a DSLR for a vacation. It got me thinking a lot about my priorities as a photographer when I'm shooting for fun. I wanted to share my enthusiasm and "gear doesn't always matter" mentality in this review.
Also maybe help someone who's looking at buying one. Ultimately that's subjective, just wanted to share what I think about the A900!