replace old coolpix 995 with what?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-, Apr 23, 2006.

  1. I am considering replacing my Nikon coolpix 995. Years ago when I chose
    it I remember I found here really helpful advice... What would you
    suggest now, knowing that

    - I absolutely don't care about the current trend of having one more
    megapixel than the neighbor

    - 50% of my photos are taken in low light conditions, of which many
    without flash, so higher sensitivities are welcome
    (I also have an external, slave flash for when I can use it, but that's
    not often -OTOH I very often use the cooplpix 995's 800-ASA sensitivity,
    with dark noise removal, and I still find it quite noisy.)

    - I never used image stabilizing features up to now, but it seems these
    are being more and more available and efficient: is this a real
    advantage, are there devices better than others (optical stab vs
    CCD-level?)

    - I use a macintosh: while I expect all cameras will be compatible, any
    serious issue would be a show-stopper, and any positive info ("Nikon is
    porting its wifi interface to intel macs"?) also welcome.

    - compacity is still important to me. I won't invest in a 2-Kg machine,
    and moreover from a quick analysis I feel I don't need it. Volumes
    around my old CP995 are OK.

    - The Coolpix swiveling mechanism is very practical for me, and quite
    often I happen to lock the camera high above a crowd against a wall, or
    just onto any stable object, while still having real access to the
    screen. A fixed screen with no rotation at all would be a pain.
    I found Nikon is almost ousting this feature out to quite low-level
    cameras, and as most 'new' devices seem to choose a larger screen
    against an articulated one, this indeed is an issue for me

    - my present limitation to only 2 images in burst mode is a real
    constraint

    - I'm used to correct barrel defaults, but not color differences, and
    would be worried (maybe wrongly?) to choose 'such a poor lens' if there
    were a lot of color artifacts

    - I appreciate Nikon's multiple bracketing capacities (not only
    exposure)

    I'm going now to continue exploring DPReview and similar sites (which
    one would you advise?) but any comments here would be extremely
    appreciated!

    TIA,
    Hervé
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-, Apr 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Don Wiss Guest

    What is your budget? Is camera weight important? Are you more of a wide
    angle or telephoto person? Do you take macro pictures?

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
     
    Don Wiss, Apr 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    jean Guest

    Bonjour Hervé, moi aussi j'ai eu une 995 et je m'ennuie parfois de cette
    merveilleuse caméra. Je vais continuer en anglais pour le bénéfice des
    autres qui pourraient réfuter mes arguments et qui ne comprennent pas le
    français.

    I have a DSLR which is great in low light but at the cost of size and
    portability. The perfect camera does not exist so compromises must be made.
    My carry everywhere P&S is a Canon G6 but it is too big and suffers the same
    as small sensored cameras in low light and at high ISO settings. One camera
    which looks like it could do a good job is the Sony DSC-R1 which has a big
    sensor like a DSLR and has a nice zoom range, the downside is size and
    weight.

    A good do it all I think would be a Canon Rebel XT (or better) with a Canon
    28mm f1,8 lens, sure it is larger than a P&S but it is more like a 35mm of
    yesterday than anything else. I used to travel with a Canon FTb with a 50mm
    lens and when I look at my old pictures, I adapted to my environment by
    moving around rather than trying to zoom in and out. Naturally specific
    needs call for special lenses so I would not even think about taking sports
    photography with a 50mm equivalent lens but day to day a "normal" lens fills
    the bill very nicely.

    Jean

    PS A Nikon D50 with an equivalent lens would do just a s well.
     
    jean, Apr 23, 2006
    #3
  4. I wanted a compact, light camera with excellent zoom and image
    stabilisation capabilities, so I went for the Panasonic FZ5.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/

    There is now a more modern FZ7 model.

    I also analysed many of the pictures I took, and found that wide angle was
    important to me, so I added a Nikon 8400 to my outfit for the times I
    needed wide-angle.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/

    Both of these models are now superseded, and so may be available at
    bargain prices. Of course, your needs may be different to mine.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 23, 2006
    #4
  5. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Don Wiss Guest

    What superseded the 8400? I cannot recommend the 8400. It is terrible in
    low light. On my recent trip to the Cotswolds it rained most of the time.
    The light was low. I have numerous pictures that the 8400 ruined.

    Also, possibly like most cameras, if you have the sun behind a building and
    the building is in shadow, the picture will be poor. On my new D200 such
    pictures are much, much better. And is has no problems with very low light.
    But, it is expensive and heavy.

    Canon DSLRs are even better in low light, but Nikon has better external
    flash technology.

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
     
    Don Wiss, Apr 23, 2006
    #5
  6. Don Wiss wrote:
    []
    If you don't mind bulky and heavy, perhaps the Sony R1 could be seen as an
    8400 replacement?

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

    As a general purpose camera, I prefer my Panasonic FZ5 to the Nikon 8400,
    but for interior use (perhaps on a tripod) where a wide FoV is required,
    the 8400 can produce some very good quality images, without the need to
    stitch. On the other hand, the image stabilisation on the FZ5 frequently
    allows longer exposures, and hence the ability to stay at the lower noise
    ISO settings.

    I didn't find too many problems taking pictures into the sun with the
    8400, but of course keeping direct sunlight out of the lens helps. At
    least with digital you can check the results when you take.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 23, 2006
    #6
  7. I replaced my old Coolpix some 15 months ago with a Canon 20D. Best
    thing I had done until I upgraded to a Canon 5D.


    --

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Apr 23, 2006
    #7
  8. I'd say I expect something around 3-500E
    yes. I don't like miniature cameras (the Coolpix 995 size is OK) but I'd
    like to avoid big, multiple-lens devices
    both, depending on topic, I'd say slightly more WA if I had to choose
    yes
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-, Apr 23, 2006
    #8
  9. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    tomm42 Guest

    Replaced my 995 with a Nikon D200. I found the images from the 995 poor
    in ISOs of 400 and 800. Just had to use 400 shooting a conference,
    colors as usual were NG, but I discovered the B&W mode which produces
    better pics at high ISOs. This camera may become a permanent B&W
    infrared camera.
    The other thing about the 995 I'll never miss is its shutter delay.
    Most DSLRs totally eliminate shutter delay. The D200 being faster than
    my 35 SLRs.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Apr 23, 2006
    #9
  10. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Paul Bartram Guest

    What a crying shame Nikon didn't keep that brilliant swivel body design and
    upgrade the innards to match technology as it progressed.

    If my 995 became unusable, I'd be looking for another one in good
    condition - I love it.

    Paul
     
    Paul Bartram, Apr 24, 2006
    #10
  11. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    SMS Guest

    It all came down to saving a few bucks in manufacturing cost.
     
    SMS, Apr 24, 2006
    #11
  12. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Joan Guest

    What about the Nikon S4?

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    "Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR NEAR optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    :
    : What a crying shame Nikon didn't keep that brilliant swivel body
    design and
    : upgrade the innards to match technology as it progressed.
    :
    : If my 995 became unusable, I'd be looking for another one in good
    : condition - I love it.
    :
    : Paul
    :
    :
    :
     
    Joan, Apr 24, 2006
    #12
  13. I concur with that Paul. The design was brilliant for some uses.
    I've used it for quick copies of pages from various bound historical
    documents which it was not feasible to put on a copiers or not
    permitted.


    --

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Apr 24, 2006
    #13
  14. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I don't see how the 995 design was better than any other design for
    that. I do similar shots all the time with conventional digicams. I
    suppose there's a few special instances where a flip-out LCD could
    make things easier, but it hasn't been a big deal.
     
    Paul Rubin, Apr 24, 2006
    #14
  15. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    J. Clarke Guest

    That's usually a metering issue--either use a gray card in the shadow or use
    spot metering instead of averaging or center-weighted.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 24, 2006
    #15
  16. At least for me (the OP) this is out of question, since its sensitivity
    is twice less than my CP995 and I specifically wish to increase this...

    Hervé
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-, Apr 24, 2006
    #16
  17. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Paul Bartram Guest

    and upgrade the innards to match technology as it progressed.
    Interesting, didn't know about that one. No optical viewfinder though, which
    was the main drawback of the CP 4500 too...

    Paul
     
    Paul Bartram, Apr 25, 2006
    #17
  18. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Paul Bartram Guest

    It can be, if you're in a library or museum where flash is verboten and the
    only lighting is directly above (no windows.) Then the camera can be held
    directly over the item at arm's length while viewing the screen from one
    side - hence less shadow.

    Also great for macro shots, for the same reasons.

    Paul
     
    Paul Bartram, Apr 25, 2006
    #18
  19. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Ed Ruf Guest

    What are you talking about. The 4500 has a regular VF. Not full frame,
    but an optical VF none the less.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp4500/
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Apr 25, 2006
    #19
  20. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Her?==?ISO-8859-

    Paul Bartram Guest

    Oops, I meant it doesn't have the separate information panel on the top that
    the 995 does. Senior moment...

    Paul
     
    Paul Bartram, Apr 26, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.