Nikon 5700 ??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by slhawks, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. slhawks

    slhawks Guest

    I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    Is this correct ????
    Many Thanks



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004
    slhawks, Jul 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. slhawks

    grenner Guest

    Poor focusing in low light is a common complaint.


    "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > Is this correct ????
    > Many Thanks
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004
    >
    >
    grenner, Jul 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > Is this correct ????
    > Many Thanks
    >

    I own the 5700 (have for a bit more than a month), and yes--in low-light
    anyway, autofocusing is horrible. I have a Sony DSC-P50 point & shoot camera
    which I just got--a $100 camera WITH a 64 meg stick--and honestly its
    autofocusing is better. For a camera which just last year sold for
    $1000--many still sell it for close to $600--for such a class of camera the
    5700's autofocusing in low-light leaves much to be desired.

    That said, one thing that helps a lot is to turn OFF manual selection of the
    autofocus points. (The menu says either AUTO or MANUAL or OFF; turn it to
    OFF). I did that, and that did help somewhat.

    Many say the camera's abilities are so great that if you can workaround the
    autofocusing in low-light that you will LOVE the camera. I agree. I toyed
    for a bit with the idea of selling it and getting a Sony DSC-F717 (below),
    but decided to stay with the 5700 and I don't regret it.

    If it's that big of a deal--and I've seen the time where it was to me--then
    instead consider the Sony DSC-F717. It has a laser beam which helps
    tremendously with low-light autofocusing. It also has longer battery life,
    another common (but less severe, to me anyway) 5700 complaint. On the other
    hand, the zoom range of the Sony is less (35-190 vs 35-280 for the 5700), it
    doesn't shoot it RAW (which is itself a blatant "serious camera" omission)
    and it has less parameters (I believe noise reduction, saturation and
    contrast are not adjustable as they are in the 5700--but I think sharpening
    is).

    Some I've seen do a wrig-up where they buy a flash bracket-type of thing and
    attach an aftermarket laser-pointer as a "pseudo" DSC-F717 type of device
    for their 5700.

    LRH
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 11, 2004
    #3
  4. "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > Is this correct ????
    > Many Thanks


    No problem under normal conditions. Under very low-light conditions, you
    may need to choose a high-contrast edge to focus on. The newer 8700 has a
    foxus assist light, which is reported to improve the situation.

    I have had a 5700 for about a year and have been delighted with it. I
    recently bought a Minolta A2 as an "upgrade", but the image quality is no
    better and I sent the camera back.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2004
    #4
  5. slhawks

    fs Guest

    Fine Camera
    Had mine for 5 mounts and all good pictures.
    The new 8700 two noisy for me.




    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:bl5Ic.610$...
    > "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    > news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > > Is this correct ????
    > > Many Thanks

    >
    > No problem under normal conditions. Under very low-light conditions, you
    > may need to choose a high-contrast edge to focus on. The newer 8700 has a
    > foxus assist light, which is reported to improve the situation.
    >
    > I have had a 5700 for about a year and have been delighted with it. I
    > recently bought a Minolta A2 as an "upgrade", but the image quality is no
    > better and I sent the camera back.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >
    fs, Jul 11, 2004
    #5
  6. slhawks

    TheNewsGuy Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:12:31 GMT, "slhawks" <>
    wrote:

    > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    >Is this correct ????
    >Many Thanks



    I also own a 5700 - the focusing is a bit slow and in low light very
    poor. Nikon did not make it compatible with their Speedlight AF
    assist either. And no TTL metering. Bad! So I use a much less
    expensive Vivitar 730AFNi. BUT, I still love the camera. Very
    sharp images and excellent colour - with enough menu choices to allow
    the serious amateur a lot of creative options.

    The battery does drain quickly but I find that NO problem. Third
    party batteries from Sterlingtek.com are cheap and I find work just
    fine - I keep a couple charged all the time.

    Also look at third party accessories - many, surprisingly, are better
    thought out than Nikon's. Check out Ching-Kuang Shene's excellent
    Coolpix information site: http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/



    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    + The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
    + (two mirrored sites)
    + http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
    + http://waveprohosting.com/tnguym
    + All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    TheNewsGuy, Jul 11, 2004
    #6
  7. slhawks

    Zebedee Guest

    "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > Is this correct ????
    > Many Thanks


    Added to that, how does it perform overall and does the oddly-sited power
    switch cause any problems? I too am thinking of getting one, having decided
    the Canon S1 is too poorly contructed.

    --
    Yours

    Zebedee

    (Claiming asylum in an attempt
    to escape paying his debts to
    Dougal and Florence)
    Zebedee, Jul 11, 2004
    #7
  8. slhawks

    slhawks Guest

    Thanks to all


    "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > Is this correct ????
    > Many Thanks
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004
    >
    >



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004
    slhawks, Jul 11, 2004
    #8
  9. slhawks

    Frank ess Guest

    Zebedee wrote:
    > "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    > news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    >> I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor
    >> focusing Is this correct ????
    >> Many Thanks

    >
    > Added to that, how does it perform overall and does the oddly-sited
    > power switch cause any problems? I too am thinking of getting one,
    > having decided the Canon S1 is too poorly contructed.


    Mine has seen a year of use, makes good photos when I prepare and point
    it and shoot it right. Like nearly (?) all other-than-dSLRs, there is
    lag to learn and compensate for. It is a proprietary-energy-cell user,
    and a little hungry in that regard, but the add-on 6-AA and new release
    and zoom button appliance seems to last forever on rechargeable NiMhs.

    Only *serious* problem has been the fatal lens error when the switch
    turned on while in the bag: I guess it strips a gear or something if it
    can't deploy its lens without interference. You need to be careful with
    add-on filters if you choose other-than-Nikon; theirs are deep set to
    accommodate that.

    It was a two-week turnaround to Nikon Torrance California to get it back
    (with the hot pixel eliminated, nice touch). Like looking both ways
    before stepping off the curb (kerb), I have learned to switch to
    view-review before stowing the camera.

    These are some albums of (mostly) CP5700 photos, many with the 1.5x
    teleconvertor. In the second URL, one of the
    Sun-through-SanDiego-wildfire smoke photos is with the standard lens
    (35mm) the other with the wide-angle convertor (28mm). Hard to tell
    which.

    http://www.fototime.com/inv/6EAD9D36F0ADC7B
    http://www.fototime.com/inv/A1ADDE202286826

    If you are serious and driven to use a CP5??? camera for wide views, get
    the CP5000 and its wide convertor which takes you to 19mm equivalent.
    Very good. Nikon offers fisheyes for a 183-degree(?) view.


    Those two cameras and a convertor each kit you up from 19-420mm. Without
    the 6AA paks, they are light and compact. With them, they last a long,
    long time. You pays you money and you makes you choice.


    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Jul 11, 2004
    #9
  10. slhawks

    Zebedee Guest

    "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:pDhIc.41081$...
    > Only *serious* problem has been the fatal lens error when the switch
    > turned on while in the bag: I guess it strips a gear or something if it
    > can't deploy its lens without interference. You need to be careful with
    > add-on filters if you choose other-than-Nikon; theirs are deep set to
    > accommodate that.


    Thanks Frank.

    That dodgy power switch is something I'd find hard to live with. Olympus
    solved that one by making the lens retract midway if it reached an
    obstruction.

    It's made me look harder at the Canon S1.

    --
    Yours

    Zebedee

    (Claiming asylum in an attempt
    to escape paying his debts to
    Dougal and Florence)
    Zebedee, Jul 12, 2004
    #10
  11. "Zebedee" <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:40f19d40$0$21478$...
    []
    > Added to that, how does it perform overall and does the oddly-sited

    power
    > switch cause any problems? I too am thinking of getting one, having

    decided
    > the Canon S1 is too poorly contructed.

    []
    > Zebedee


    I don't find it oddly sited, as it is consistent with the other Nikon
    cameras I have used.

    On some of the much earlier Coolpix (e.g. 990) the power switch
    occasioanlly needed some switch cleaned sprayed in externally, but after a
    couple of years in the field that doesn't seem unreasonable!

    I do second Frank's comment about switching to View mode before putting
    the camera away. Good practice if you remember and not a disaster if you
    don't.

    I've had mine 2 years, and recently compared the image quality to the much
    newer Minolta A2. On average, the Minolta was no better than the 5700. I
    sent the Minolta bacl. The 5700 is a well made camera, with a
    well-matched sensor and lens combination. I heartily recommend it.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 12, 2004
    #11
  12. slhawks

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:43:01 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Frank ess"
    <> wrote:

    >Only *serious* problem has been the fatal lens error when the switch
    >turned on while in the bag: I guess it strips a gear or something if it
    >can't deploy its lens without interference.


    To stop this set the camera to playback. The lens does not extend in this
    mode unless connected to a computer via the supplied cable.

    >You need to be careful with
    >add-on filters if you choose other-than-Nikon; theirs are deep set to
    >accommodate that.


    There are aftermarket solutions like the NextPhoto adapters which attach to
    the lens barrel itself and don't cause this problem. There is even a 58mm
    sized adapter which lets you use the same filter on the camera itself and
    the TC-15 teleconverter.

    >Very good. Nikon offers fisheyes for a 183-degree(?) view.


    But compared to my old CP-990 + FC9 combo, the 5700 + FC-8 is sorely
    lacking. It's at best a novelty lens, imo. Must shoot only circular images
    fully zoomed out or the outer periphery of the image is horribly out of
    focus.

    >Those two cameras and a convertor each kit you up from 19-420mm. Without
    >the 6AA paks, they are light and compact. With them, they last a long,
    >long time. You pays you money and you makes you choice.


    I also find the battery pack gives a better handhold for my left hand and
    stops inadvertent contact with the buttons on the left side of the barrel.

    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
    Ed Ruf, Jul 12, 2004
    #12
  13. "Zebedee" <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<40f19d40$0$21478$>...
    > "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    > news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > > Is this correct ????
    > > Many Thanks

    >
    > Added to that, how does it perform overall and does the oddly-sited power
    > switch cause any problems? I too am thinking of getting one, having decided
    > the Canon S1 is too poorly contructed.


    Check out
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700/

    I have to say--different reviewers have lamented the "oddly sitted
    power switch." Actually, I have always found its location to be the
    most logical place in the world.

    The only reason some find it odd is that some DIGITAL cameras use that
    location as their zoom's location. But it makes sense for a Nikon; all
    of their recent SLRs have their OFF-ON switch there, and I have always
    found that location VERY logical. So it's just an extension of that if
    you ask me.

    Overall, I love my 5700. Most who've owned it will agree. Its
    low-light autofocusing is annoying but can be worked around. Again
    some even wrig up a generic laser pointer via a bracket and use it
    much as Sony's DSC-F717 uses its own built-in laser pointer. It does
    help a lot.

    Here is one link describing it (he describes it for his Coolpix 995,
    but it works the same for the 5700):

    http://www.photoprojects.net/index6.html

    http://www.photoprojects.net/laser995.jpg (that one I got by clicking
    the photo-icon next to "focus assist" on the same page)

    Also:

    http://www.pbase.com/budguinn/handle_for_laser

    Again, overall--great camera with huge capabilities. The 35-280mm
    (equivalent) zoom is very nice--and of high-quality despite the huge
    8x range--and it has a HUGE assortment of manual controls and
    adjustable parameters, ability to shoot in RAW, a hot-shoe, great
    quality build, ability to accept filters (with adapters at
    http://www.nextphoto.net/5700.htm ), and the photo quality is really
    good. 8 x 10s I've done were practically indistinguishable from 35mm 8
    x 10s. Some report similar results at even bigger sizes, although I
    can't confirm it.

    Again if the autofocusing issue is huge enough then a suitable
    alternative is a Sony DSC-F717 with its hologram-laser AF assist
    feature. I also like that it takes filters without the need for an
    adapter, and many love the swiveling lens barrel. But if you can work
    around the low-light AF issue--and again I decided I could--then the
    Coolpix 5700 is definitely the way to go. The Sony can't shoot in RAW
    (a serious omission from a camera with "prosumer" intentions), goes
    from 35-190 vs the Nikon's 35-280 (although 35-190 is pretty good
    too), doesn't allow saturation or tone (contrast) or noise reduction
    to be adjusted, and while the lens swivels the LCD panel doesn't as it
    does with other such high-line cameras.

    It (the Sony) also uses Memory Stick; that's not a huge thing but
    personally I like cameras that use Compact Flash as the Coolpix 5700
    does. Compact Flash is the cheapest storage yet not at all inferior
    (after all, the new & wonderful Nikon D70 uses it and it's VERY quick
    with the right kind of card). My 512 megabyte 12x Lexar card cost me
    only $80 and will hold about 350 FINE-JPEGs (full-size of course). I
    like the "universal" nature of Compact Flash and am not all that hot
    about cameras using SD, xD, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, yada yada
    yada. (The usage of SD disappoints me regarding Nikon's newer point &
    shoots like the 2200 or 3200, but anyway.)
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 12, 2004
    #13
  14. slhawks

    slhawks Guest

    Another Question.

    Can a third party flash (Dumb) be used on the shoe

    Thanks Again



    "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    news:3u0Ic.572$%...
    > I am thinking of making a purchase and have been told of poor focusing
    > Is this correct ????
    > Many Thanks
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004
    >
    >



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004
    slhawks, Jul 13, 2004
    #14
  15. "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    news:GBUIc.779$...
    > Another Question.
    >
    > Can a third party flash (Dumb) be used on the shoe
    >
    > Thanks Again
    >

    Some can, but you have to be careful about voltage issues. I think, say, the
    Sunpak PZ5000AF or PZ4000AF could. Some have mentioned using (I think) a
    Vivitar 730i.

    But an old Vivitar 283 or Vivitar 285? That would be quite risky. Wein makes
    a voltage thingie--can't remember what it's called--that suppressed the
    voltage of such flashes to make it safe.

    LRH
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 13, 2004
    #15
  16. slhawks

    Zebedee Guest

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "slhawks" <> wrote in message
    > news:GBUIc.779$...
    > > Another Question.
    > >
    > > Can a third party flash (Dumb) be used on the shoe
    > >
    > > Thanks Again
    > >

    > Some can, but you have to be careful about voltage issues. I think, say,

    the
    > Sunpak PZ5000AF or PZ4000AF could. Some have mentioned using (I think) a
    > Vivitar 730i.
    >
    > But an old Vivitar 283 or Vivitar 285? That would be quite risky. Wein

    makes
    > a voltage thingie--can't remember what it's called--that suppressed the
    > voltage of such flashes to make it safe.


    How about a Metz 45 CT1?

    --
    Yours

    Zebedee

    (Claiming asylum in an attempt
    to escape paying his debts to
    Dougal and Florence)
    Zebedee, Jul 13, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lawrence L'Hote

    Nikon Coolpix 5700 Off to Nikon for Repair

    Lawrence L'Hote, Oct 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    579
    Lawrence L'Hote
    Oct 13, 2003
  2. Lawrence L'Hote

    NIkon 5700 Back from Nikon Repair

    Lawrence L'Hote, Oct 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    485
    Lawrence L'Hote
    Oct 28, 2003
  3. Pete C
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    506
    Pete C
    Apr 28, 2004
  4. Tavish Muldoon

    Nikon 5700 Nikon View 6.2.1 not working

    Tavish Muldoon, May 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    481
    Tavish Muldoon
    May 10, 2004
  5. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Nikon Coolpix 5700 or Nikon D100

    Larry R Harrison Jr, May 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    659
    misifus
    May 17, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page