Opinions: Nikon Coolpix 2500 Vs Kodak EasyShare DX3600 Zoom

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by D, Aug 1, 2003.

  1. D

    D Guest

    As an update to my personal view post, there are very very detailed reviews
    here;

    http://www.dpreview.com

    D


    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:bgdtgm$mppk1$-berlin.de...
    > I am very much a traditional film-camera user. I own a Nikon N65 and N80

    and
    > 3 lenses with them (working on a 4th, a classic 50mm f/1.8). That said,

    with
    > all the shooting I've done lately and with about 2/3rds of what I've done
    > not being all that spectacular (although the 1/3 which is makes it all

    worth
    > it) the costs have been adding up for me. I'm not one who can afford
    > shooting 3 rolls of film every week with the processing etc. Maybe 1 roll

    a
    > week. So I'm considering a digital camera for my average, run of the mill
    > photo taking. You know, stuff which if I never blow it up past 8x10 or

    even
    > 5x7 I'm fine with it.
    >
    > The 2 models I'm focusing on (pardon the pun) are the Kodak Easyshare

    DX3600
    > zoom and Nikon Coolpix 2500. The former has been discontinued I believe
    > (although of course there's always eBay), while the latter has not and I

    can
    > get it brand-new for $150 after rebate. Not a bad deal.
    >
    > Though I'm a Nikon loyalist with their 35mm SLRs, both cameras have been
    > stated in other reviews as having very good picture quality--especially

    for
    > their being 2.2 and 2.0 Megapixel models (respectively) and I'm leaning
    > towards the Kodak for three reasons. One, I believe it uses AA batteries
    > while the Nikon uses a custom battery just for it (though of course it's
    > rechargeable). Two the Kodak I've been told allows manual override of its
    > f-stops and shutter speeds. The Nikon does have exposure compensation and
    > also has "scene" modes so you can bias the aperture towards larger or
    > smaller openings so you could sort of get what you want through that
    > interface, but being a 35mm SLR user I prefer just seeing the apertures &
    > shutter speeds and being able to shift them.
    >
    > Three, the Kodak has a regular viewfinder while the Coolpix doesn't. I

    live
    > in southern Arizona where it's sunny and bright a lot of the time, and
    > someone told me that outdoors the LCD panel on the digitals washes out and
    > you have no idea what you're taking, hence the need for a rangefinder.
    >
    > Yes I realize if I really relish manual control I could get a Nikon

    Coolpix
    > 5700. Believe me, I'd love one, but I don't have $1000, and for such

    really
    > crucial work I can always use the SLRs if need be. I mean, while I'm at

    it,
    > I'd love a Nikon D100 or a Fuji S2 to use with my Nikon lenses, but again

    I
    > can't spend that much and I'm looking for the digital to **supplement**

    the
    > SLRs, not replace them.
    >
    > Tips?
    >
    > LRH
    >
    >
    D, Aug 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I am very much a traditional film-camera user. I own a Nikon N65 and N80 and
    3 lenses with them (working on a 4th, a classic 50mm f/1.8). That said, with
    all the shooting I've done lately and with about 2/3rds of what I've done
    not being all that spectacular (although the 1/3 which is makes it all worth
    it) the costs have been adding up for me. I'm not one who can afford
    shooting 3 rolls of film every week with the processing etc. Maybe 1 roll a
    week. So I'm considering a digital camera for my average, run of the mill
    photo taking. You know, stuff which if I never blow it up past 8x10 or even
    5x7 I'm fine with it.

    The 2 models I'm focusing on (pardon the pun) are the Kodak Easyshare DX3600
    zoom and Nikon Coolpix 2500. The former has been discontinued I believe
    (although of course there's always eBay), while the latter has not and I can
    get it brand-new for $150 after rebate. Not a bad deal.

    Though I'm a Nikon loyalist with their 35mm SLRs, both cameras have been
    stated in other reviews as having very good picture quality--especially for
    their being 2.2 and 2.0 Megapixel models (respectively) and I'm leaning
    towards the Kodak for three reasons. One, I believe it uses AA batteries
    while the Nikon uses a custom battery just for it (though of course it's
    rechargeable). Two the Kodak I've been told allows manual override of its
    f-stops and shutter speeds. The Nikon does have exposure compensation and
    also has "scene" modes so you can bias the aperture towards larger or
    smaller openings so you could sort of get what you want through that
    interface, but being a 35mm SLR user I prefer just seeing the apertures &
    shutter speeds and being able to shift them.

    Three, the Kodak has a regular viewfinder while the Coolpix doesn't. I live
    in southern Arizona where it's sunny and bright a lot of the time, and
    someone told me that outdoors the LCD panel on the digitals washes out and
    you have no idea what you're taking, hence the need for a rangefinder.

    Yes I realize if I really relish manual control I could get a Nikon Coolpix
    5700. Believe me, I'd love one, but I don't have $1000, and for such really
    crucial work I can always use the SLRs if need be. I mean, while I'm at it,
    I'd love a Nikon D100 or a Fuji S2 to use with my Nikon lenses, but again I
    can't spend that much and I'm looking for the digital to **supplement** the
    SLRs, not replace them.

    Tips?

    LRH
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Aug 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. D

    D at Work Guest

    I can only comment on the coolpix because I have one. I was also a 35 mm
    only type of person, multiple lenses, etc. Never owned a click and point
    camera. I got the coolpix 2500 for web work and it's so much fun, I haven't
    dusted off the old 35 mm equipment in nearly a year. It's so light I take
    it with me always. I've taken 5000 plus pics since I got it in September
    last year and, of course, they haven't cost anything for processing for
    film. It takes great pics in automatic mode and lots of things are
    adjustable in manual. Not f-stops, but it's so good I may lose my ability
    that way soon. And one of the big thing about digital pics seems to be
    alteration after in Photoshop or the like anyway.

    There are drawbacks - as you mentioned - the LCD panel is a little annoying
    in sun, I shade it with my hand but sometimes that isn't enough. I have
    learned to just take more pics - a different sort of bracketing as it were.
    As far as the batteries go - I bought another one so I always have a back up
    with me and that has worked out fine so far. Generally I can take 80 or 100
    pics with one battery. Usually then I recharge and put in the fresh one.
    But by then I also usually want to download the photos I have just made and
    play with them. I haven't found the battery situation a problem. But I
    also haven't taken the camera on excursions to places where there is no
    power or where I would take more than 200 pics or so without downloading and
    playing with them. It takes well more than an hour to recharge from flat
    out.

    I also bought a 128 meg flash card because mine only came with an 8 meg. It
    has a 100 plus page manual and I have tended to learn more features only as
    I need them. I haven't got to continuous, movies or some of the other
    features yet. I do use the close up and portrait 'scenes' a lot as well as
    the flash off feature. I have taken some shots at the highest resolution
    and had them printed at 8 x 10 and they are fine with the naked eye.

    For 150 dollars you will have a lot of fun.

    Some few pics I have taken with the coolpix you may find at

    http://www.fotolog.net/black16/

    I don't think there are any indoor without flash shots there, but it does
    those pretty well too.

    It's astounding how one's 'eye' and ability improves with the option of
    taking 100 pictures, say and then seeing them right away for critique. Then
    going out and taking another 100.

    Good luck and hope you choose soon and take lots and lots of pictures. It's
    a whole new world.

    D



    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:bgdtgm$mppk1$-berlin.de...
    > I am very much a traditional film-camera user. I own a Nikon N65 and N80

    and
    > 3 lenses with them (working on a 4th, a classic 50mm f/1.8). That said,

    with
    > all the shooting I've done lately and with about 2/3rds of what I've done
    > not being all that spectacular (although the 1/3 which is makes it all

    worth
    > it) the costs have been adding up for me. I'm not one who can afford
    > shooting 3 rolls of film every week with the processing etc. Maybe 1 roll

    a
    > week. So I'm considering a digital camera for my average, run of the mill
    > photo taking. You know, stuff which if I never blow it up past 8x10 or

    even
    > 5x7 I'm fine with it.
    >
    > The 2 models I'm focusing on (pardon the pun) are the Kodak Easyshare

    DX3600
    > zoom and Nikon Coolpix 2500. The former has been discontinued I believe
    > (although of course there's always eBay), while the latter has not and I

    can
    > get it brand-new for $150 after rebate. Not a bad deal.
    >
    > Though I'm a Nikon loyalist with their 35mm SLRs, both cameras have been
    > stated in other reviews as having very good picture quality--especially

    for
    > their being 2.2 and 2.0 Megapixel models (respectively) and I'm leaning
    > towards the Kodak for three reasons. One, I believe it uses AA batteries
    > while the Nikon uses a custom battery just for it (though of course it's
    > rechargeable). Two the Kodak I've been told allows manual override of its
    > f-stops and shutter speeds. The Nikon does have exposure compensation and
    > also has "scene" modes so you can bias the aperture towards larger or
    > smaller openings so you could sort of get what you want through that
    > interface, but being a 35mm SLR user I prefer just seeing the apertures &
    > shutter speeds and being able to shift them.
    >
    > Three, the Kodak has a regular viewfinder while the Coolpix doesn't. I

    live
    > in southern Arizona where it's sunny and bright a lot of the time, and
    > someone told me that outdoors the LCD panel on the digitals washes out and
    > you have no idea what you're taking, hence the need for a rangefinder.
    >
    > Yes I realize if I really relish manual control I could get a Nikon

    Coolpix
    > 5700. Believe me, I'd love one, but I don't have $1000, and for such

    really
    > crucial work I can always use the SLRs if need be. I mean, while I'm at

    it,
    > I'd love a Nikon D100 or a Fuji S2 to use with my Nikon lenses, but again

    I
    > can't spend that much and I'm looking for the digital to **supplement**

    the
    > SLRs, not replace them.
    >
    > Tips?
    >
    > LRH
    >
    >
    D at Work, Aug 1, 2003
    #3
  4. D

    Fr@nk Guest

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:bgdtgm$mppk1$-berlin.de...
    >
    > Though I'm a Nikon loyalist with their 35mm SLRs, both cameras have been
    > stated in other reviews as having very good picture quality--especially

    for
    > their being 2.2 and 2.0 Megapixel models (respectively) and I'm leaning
    > towards the Kodak for three reasons. One, I believe it uses AA batteries
    > while the Nikon uses a custom battery just for it (though of course it's
    > rechargeable). Two the Kodak I've been told allows manual override of its
    > f-stops and shutter speeds. The Nikon does have exposure compensation and
    > also has "scene" modes so you can bias the aperture towards larger or
    > smaller openings so you could sort of get what you want through that
    > interface, but being a 35mm SLR user I prefer just seeing the apertures &
    > shutter speeds and being able to shift them.


    No, the Kodak DX3600 does not allow you override much of anything. You can
    put it in Macro mode, you can change the flash setting, and zoom in/out. But
    no exposure control, no aperture control, no shutter control. Having said
    that, I have the DX3600, and it takes _very_ good pictures for a 2MP camera.
    It really excels at setting everything for you (since that's the only way it
    works). It "guesses" right very much of the time.


    F
    Fr@nk, Aug 1, 2003
    #4
  5. "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in
    news:bgdtgm$mppk1$-berlin.de:

    > being a 35mm SLR user I prefer just seeing the apertures &
    > shutter speeds and being able to shift them.
    >


    IMO, the best low-end deal available is the Toshiba PDR-3330:
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/pdr3300.html
    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Category/category_tlc.asp?CatId=07

    For $179, you get 3 megapixels, aperture priority, shutter priority, full
    manual control, a Canon 2.8x zoom lens, uses AA batteries, and it even
    takes movies (without sound).

    You could get an even better price on ebay:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2943254252&category=3001
    2
    Tony Whitaker, Aug 1, 2003
    #5
  6. Tony Whitaker <newsgroups@t_o_n_y_whitaker.com> wrote in
    news:Xns93CAB8C79F70Bnewsgroupstonywhitak@198.99.146.10:

    > "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in
    > news:bgdtgm$mppk1$-berlin.de:
    >
    >> being a 35mm SLR user I prefer just seeing the apertures &
    >> shutter speeds and being able to shift them.
    >>

    >
    > IMO, the best low-end deal available is the Toshiba PDR-3330:
    > http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/pdr3300.html
    > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Category/category_tlc.asp?CatId=
    > 07
    >
    > For $179, you get 3 megapixels, aperture priority, shutter priority,
    > full manual control, a Canon 2.8x zoom lens, uses AA batteries, and it
    > even takes movies (without sound).
    >
    > You could get an even better price on ebay:
    > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2943254252&category=3
    > 001 2


    I should mention the down side of this camera - it's an ugly, cheap-looking
    beast.
    Tony Whitaker, Aug 1, 2003
    #6
  7. "Fr@nk" <> wrote in message
    news:JuAWa.3417$cf.2392@lakeread04...

    > No, the Kodak DX3600 does not allow you override much of anything. You can
    > put it in Macro mode, you can change the flash setting, and zoom in/out.

    But
    > no exposure control, no aperture control, no shutter control. Having said
    > that, I have the DX3600, and it takes _very_ good pictures for a 2MP

    camera.
    > It really excels at setting everything for you (since that's the only way

    it
    > works). It "guesses" right very much of the time.
    >
    >

    I did later on notice this--that the DX3600 doesn't really have manual
    override, so your post was a surprise.

    One thing I noticed is the Nikon Coolpix 2500 does allow manual
    white-balance adjustment while the Kodak doesn't. How much has this been an
    issue for you?

    LRH
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Aug 2, 2003
    #7
  8. D

    Fr@nk Guest

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:bgfk9d$o5m92$-berlin.de...
    >
    > >

    > I did later on notice this--that the DX3600 doesn't really have manual
    > override, so your post was a surprise.
    >
    > One thing I noticed is the Nikon Coolpix 2500 does allow manual
    > white-balance adjustment while the Kodak doesn't. How much has this been

    an
    > issue for you?
    >
    > LRH
    >
    >


    Not really at all. Kodaks do a great job with white balance. There have been
    times I've wished I could increase or decrease the exposure a little (and of
    course you can't), but as far as the white balance, it gets it right pretty
    much every time.


    F
    Fr@nk, Aug 2, 2003
    #8
  9. D

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings Larry,

    I have extracted the specs on the Kodak DX3600 for you. As you will note
    there are no settings for manual adjustment of exposure. You can set the
    over and under feature but there are no settings for shutter and aperture.
    Also, the model you are interested in will use AA batteries, and Kodak
    suggests the use of NiMH rechargeables. Kodak also offers a specially
    designed battery pack that allows for charging of the batteries while in the
    camera and in the dock. This way, if you use the dock accessory, you can
    connect to the computer quite easily to transfer images, charge your
    battery, and maintain your camera at the ready at all times. if you have
    any questions, let me know, I am usually around.

    image resolution = 2.2 megapixel (1800x1200 pixels)
    CCD resolution = 2.3 megapixel (1901x1212 pixels)
    image qualitybest = (1800x1200 pixels) good (900x600 pixels)

    lens = 35-70 mm f/3.3-4.5 (35 mm equivalent), 30 mm threads lens
    protectionbuilt-in sliding cover
    zoom = 6X
    2X optical
    3X digital

    focus distance = 0.5 m (1.6 ft.) to infinity, close-up mode 28-60 cm (10-24
    in.)
    exposure control = automatic; continuous automatic exposure during movie
    capture
    shutter speed = 1/8 to 1/1200 second
    flash range = 0.5-3.2 m (1.6-10.5 ft.)
    flash mode = automatic, fill, red-eye, off
    ISO equivalent = 100, 200 (automatic)
    white balance = automatic
    image file format = JPEG

    user modes = still capture, movie capture, review, setup
    viewfinder = real-image optical viewfinder
    display = 45.7 mm (1.8 in.) color review/preview display
    software = Kodak picture software

    movie image resolution = Best: 320x240 at 20 fps Good: 160x120 at 20 fps

    movie length = unlimited, based on memory size, 5 sec, 15 sec, 30 sec
    microphone = built-in
    speaker = built-in
    movie file format = MOV video, QuickTime

    storage = internal storage: 8MB internal memory (up to approximately 48
    pictures at good quality)
    external storage: expansion slot for optional CompactFlashT card

    digital still print marking = DPOF printing
    video out = NTSC, PAL (user-selectable)
    interface = USB, Kodak EasyShare camera dock compatible

    tripod mount = standard
    auto time out = 8 minutes
    self-timer = 10 seconds
    power options = optional camera dock with Ni-MH rechargeable battery
    (in-camera charging), 2AA Ni-MH rechargeables; 2AA lithium batteries or 1
    CRV3 lithium battery
    weight = without batteries 230 g (8.1 oz.)
    dimensions = WxHxD: 120x74x50 mm (4.7x2.9x2.0 in.)
    warranty = one year

    Best Regards,

    Ron Baird
    Kodak


    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:bgdtgm$mppk1$-berlin.de...
    > I am very much a traditional film-camera user. I own a Nikon N65 and N80

    and
    > 3 lenses with them (working on a 4th, a classic 50mm f/1.8). That said,

    with
    > all the shooting I've done lately and with about 2/3rds of what I've done
    > not being all that spectacular (although the 1/3 which is makes it all

    worth
    > it) the costs have been adding up for me. I'm not one who can afford
    > shooting 3 rolls of film every week with the processing etc. Maybe 1 roll

    a
    > week. So I'm considering a digital camera for my average, run of the mill
    > photo taking. You know, stuff which if I never blow it up past 8x10 or

    even
    > 5x7 I'm fine with it.
    >
    > The 2 models I'm focusing on (pardon the pun) are the Kodak Easyshare

    DX3600
    > zoom and Nikon Coolpix 2500. The former has been discontinued I believe
    > (although of course there's always eBay), while the latter has not and I

    can
    > get it brand-new for $150 after rebate. Not a bad deal.
    >
    > Though I'm a Nikon loyalist with their 35mm SLRs, both cameras have been
    > stated in other reviews as having very good picture quality--especially

    for
    > their being 2.2 and 2.0 Megapixel models (respectively) and I'm leaning
    > towards the Kodak for three reasons. One, I believe it uses AA batteries
    > while the Nikon uses a custom battery just for it (though of course it's
    > rechargeable). Two the Kodak I've been told allows manual override of its
    > f-stops and shutter speeds. The Nikon does have exposure compensation and
    > also has "scene" modes so you can bias the aperture towards larger or
    > smaller openings so you could sort of get what you want through that
    > interface, but being a 35mm SLR user I prefer just seeing the apertures &
    > shutter speeds and being able to shift them.
    >
    > Three, the Kodak has a regular viewfinder while the Coolpix doesn't. I

    live
    > in southern Arizona where it's sunny and bright a lot of the time, and
    > someone told me that outdoors the LCD panel on the digitals washes out and
    > you have no idea what you're taking, hence the need for a rangefinder.
    >
    > Yes I realize if I really relish manual control I could get a Nikon

    Coolpix
    > 5700. Believe me, I'd love one, but I don't have $1000, and for such

    really
    > crucial work I can always use the SLRs if need be. I mean, while I'm at

    it,
    > I'd love a Nikon D100 or a Fuji S2 to use with my Nikon lenses, but again

    I
    > can't spend that much and I'm looking for the digital to **supplement**

    the
    > SLRs, not replace them.
    >
    > Tips?
    >
    > LRH
    >
    >
    Ron Baird, Aug 7, 2003
    #9
    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. Ron Hunter

    Re: Kodak DX3600 Shutting down automatically

    Ron Hunter, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    851
    Ron Hunter
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Ron Baird

    Re: Kodak DX3600 Shutting down automatically

    Ron Baird, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,000
  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Nikon Coolpix 775 or Nikon Coolpix 2500

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    521
    Larry R Harrison Jr
    Aug 2, 2003
  4. Mandolin

    Kodak DX3600 and my two cents

    Mandolin, Sep 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    770
    HuskyJim
    Jul 21, 2006
  5. Shannon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    595
    Ron Baird
    Aug 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page