Nikon 8700: A Deal at $450 ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Magnusfarce, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. Magnusfarce

    Magnusfarce Guest

    The Nikon Coolpix 8800's predecessor, the 8700, can be had for about $450
    thanks to a rebate, which puts it at about half of the price of the new 8800
    and it's closest rivals. Seems like a lot of camera for the money. Any
    thoughts?

    - Magnusfarce
     
    Magnusfarce, Oct 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Magnusfarce wrote:
    > The Nikon Coolpix 8800's predecessor, the 8700, can be had for about
    > $450 thanks to a rebate, which puts it at about half of the price of
    > the new 8800 and it's closest rivals. Seems like a lot of camera for
    > the money. Any thoughts?


    Go for it, if it handles as you wish and does what you want!

    Assuming you don't want the image stabilisation of the 8800, of course.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:sWe9d.4447$...
    > Magnusfarce wrote:
    > > The Nikon Coolpix 8800's predecessor, the 8700, can be had for about
    > > $450 thanks to a rebate, which puts it at about half of the price of
    > > the new 8800 and it's closest rivals. Seems like a lot of camera for
    > > the money. Any thoughts?

    >
    > Go for it, if it handles as you wish and does what you want!


    (and if the dealer is reputable)

    > Assuming you don't want the image stabilisation of the 8800, of course.


    (and absolutely colossal frame in comparison to the 8700)

    --
    Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
    "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
    no, and yes...."
     
    Martin Francis, Oct 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Magnusfarce

    Linda_N Guest

    "Martin Francis" <> wrote in message
    news:ck44dr$esk$...
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    > wrote in message news:sWe9d.4447$...
    >> Magnusfarce wrote:
    >> > The Nikon Coolpix 8800's predecessor, the 8700, can be had for about
    >> > $450 thanks to a rebate, which puts it at about half of the price of
    >> > the new 8800 and it's closest rivals. Seems like a lot of camera for
    >> > the money. Any thoughts?

    >>
    >> Go for it, if it handles as you wish and does what you want!

    >
    > (and if the dealer is reputable)
    >
    >> Assuming you don't want the image stabilisation of the 8800, of course.

    >
    > (and absolutely colossal frame in comparison to the 8700)
    >


    To add to what's been said I'd suggest reading up on the 8700 at
    http://www.dpreview.com because if memory serves it come in rather low along
    with the other 8 megapixels released around the same time. I've read several
    folks saying they were going to skip the whole 8 meg sensor phase the
    industry is going through. Whatever the case you would be wise to invest a
    little time reading reviews because $450 is still a lot of money if you end
    up unhappy.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 7, 2004
    #4
  5. Magnusfarce

    Magnusfarce Guest

    I appreciate the suggestions. I agree that it is not going to be as good a
    camera as its replacement, the 8800, but for less than half the price I
    wouldn't expect it to be. And if it is not quite as good as the others in
    its class, I still fall back on the idea that for the money, it's a lot of
    camera. Given my alternative is the Canon A95 for only $70 less, I'm
    thinking that the 8700 is a big jump in quality for a small increase in
    price. Am I safe in assuming that the 8700 will outperform the A95 in most
    or all areas?

    - Magnusfarce
     
    Magnusfarce, Oct 7, 2004
    #5
  6. Magnusfarce

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "Magnusfarce" <> wrote:

    >I appreciate the suggestions. I agree that it is not going to be as good a
    >camera as its replacement, the 8800, but for less than half the price I
    >wouldn't expect it to be. And if it is not quite as good as the others in
    >its class, I still fall back on the idea that for the money, it's a lot of
    >camera. Given my alternative is the Canon A95 for only $70 less, I'm
    >thinking that the 8700 is a big jump in quality for a small increase in
    >price. Am I safe in assuming that the 8700 will outperform the A95 in most
    >or all areas?


    I think people have complained of CCD noise in all four of that 2/3"
    8MP sensor, even the Canon.

    I understand the Oly C8080 came out best. But I've seen people
    complain about ease of use.

    I do think, in general, that a lot of people posting here would be far
    better off with a little portable digicam rather than some bulky dSLR,
    with all the disadvantages of price, exposure of the body, softness,
    bulkiness, lack of LCD preview, expense, and even the price (did I
    mention?). It's like using a mini-cannon at the target range.
     
    Mark Johnson, Oct 8, 2004
    #6
  7. i believe in the efficiency in the market, meaning that things are priced
    where they are for a reason. in this case the 8mp sensor that is has,
    though impressive, has it limitations. specifically it does not perform
    well in low light. in fact, you will probably only want to use it at iso
    50. the significance of this may not seem important at first, but it is.
    if your intention is daylight photography then it does not present a
    problem, but it does impact the versatility of the camera. add to this the
    fact that is has an electronic viewfinder and the appeal of the camera to
    many folks becomes limited. the drastic drop in price does make it
    attractive, but it also signals to me that others will adjust their prices
    accordingly, that is if they feel they have to...

    "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Magnusfarce" <> wrote:
    >
    > >I appreciate the suggestions. I agree that it is not going to be as good

    a
    > >camera as its replacement, the 8800, but for less than half the price I
    > >wouldn't expect it to be. And if it is not quite as good as the others

    in
    > >its class, I still fall back on the idea that for the money, it's a lot

    of
    > >camera. Given my alternative is the Canon A95 for only $70 less, I'm
    > >thinking that the 8700 is a big jump in quality for a small increase in
    > >price. Am I safe in assuming that the 8700 will outperform the A95 in

    most
    > >or all areas?

    >
    > I think people have complained of CCD noise in all four of that 2/3"
    > 8MP sensor, even the Canon.
    >
    > I understand the Oly C8080 came out best. But I've seen people
    > complain about ease of use.
    >
    > I do think, in general, that a lot of people posting here would be far
    > better off with a little portable digicam rather than some bulky dSLR,
    > with all the disadvantages of price, exposure of the body, softness,
    > bulkiness, lack of LCD preview, expense, and even the price (did I
    > mention?). It's like using a mini-cannon at the target range.
     
    Christopher Muto, Oct 8, 2004
    #7
    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. Adam M

    Wow the Nikon 8700 looks nice too

    Adam M, Jan 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    414
    Roger Matthews
    Feb 6, 2004
  2. james parr
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    458
    Albert Voss
    Mar 1, 2004
  3. R2D2

    Nikon Coolpix 8700 down to $800 already

    R2D2, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    543
    Scott Peterson
    Mar 6, 2004
  4. Bay Area Dave

    Nikon Coolpix 8700 Review by me

    Bay Area Dave, Mar 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    413
  5. Tad Confused

    AMD64 or Semperon, deal or no deal?

    Tad Confused, Apr 10, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    635
    Tad Confused
    Apr 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page