Dpreview Nikon Coolpix A compatative review published

Started Jun 6, 2013 | Discussions
Robert A F
Regular MemberPosts: 440Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon seems to have made a nice ~$700 Camera
In reply to walkaround, Jun 7, 2013

$1100.00-----US is insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Time for me to buy my 1st Cell Phone and Lime Green Kia Soul. Become part of the cool Social Media Gremlins. Peace Out.

 Robert A F's gear list:Robert A F's gear list
Nikon D300S Nikon Df
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,168Gear list
Like?
How's that Nikon A for Portraits? Or Sports?
In reply to walkaround, Jun 7, 2013

walkaround wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Unfortunately, they priced it WAY above $700.

Just for yucks, compare the features and capabilities of this camera to the similarly priced Nikon D7100.  Or the Nikon D5100 with a good wide prime.

Man, you are clueless...

Or closeups of one's kids?  It's not very useful for an awful lot of subject matter

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,058Gear list
Like?
Re: How's that Nikon A for Portraits? Or Sports?
In reply to dougjgreen1, Jun 7, 2013

dougjgreen1 wrote:

walkaround wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Unfortunately, they priced it WAY above $700.

Just for yucks, compare the features and capabilities of this camera to the similarly priced Nikon D7100.  Or the Nikon D5100 with a good wide prime.

Man, you are clueless...

How's that Nikon A for Portraits?  Or Sports? Or closeups of one's kids?  It's not very useful for an awful lot of subject matter

How's that D7100 for discrete street shooting or informal people shots at non photo-centric events?

If you don't get the uses of a camera like this, I STRONGLY encourage you not to buy one! But these silly comparison aren't helping your credibility a bit...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AngryCorgi
Contributing MemberPosts: 914Gear list
Like?
Re: How's that Nikon A for Portraits? Or Sports?
In reply to Ray Sachs, Jun 7, 2013

Ray Sachs wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

walkaround wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Unfortunately, they priced it WAY above $700.

Just for yucks, compare the features and capabilities of this camera to the similarly priced Nikon D7100.  Or the Nikon D5100 with a good wide prime.

Man, you are clueless...

How's that Nikon A for Portraits?  Or Sports? Or closeups of one's kids?  It's not very useful for an awful lot of subject matter

How's that D7100 for discrete street shooting or informal people shots at non photo-centric events?

If you don't get the uses of a camera like this, I STRONGLY encourage you not to buy one! But these silly comparison aren't helping your credibility a bit...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Yeah, I looked into Mr. Green's history.  He's an MFT owner/pusher/fanboy who is just going around poo-pooing anything NOT a Panny or Oly.  I've deduced he's not worth the effort.  Feeding trolls only gives them reason to continue.  He's in my ignore list now.  Easier way to handle his sort.

-- hide signature --

-AC-

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard Butler
dpreview AdminPosts: 1,986
Like?
Coolpix A 'soft corners'
In reply to AngryCorgi, Jun 7, 2013

The Coolpix A's lens is pretty spectacular - it supports the line we often hear from manufacturers about 'matching the lens to the sensor.'

My suspicion is that PC Mag have tested the Coolpix at very close focus distances (where, yes, the corners can be soft). In real-world use, it's not an issue.

Richard - dpreview.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,168Gear list
Like?
I also own & use Nikon DSLRs and MF flim gear
In reply to AngryCorgi, Jun 7, 2013

And I used to own and use Leica flim gear as well.  I've shot with View cameras, Rollei TLRs and 600x SLRs, Mamiya and Pentax 67s - most of which I still use on occasion.  I'm pretty sure I get what the Nikon A is for.  It's just not that great at it - compared to, say, a Leica M and the right Leica glass, for someone for whom money is not an issue - and that's the point - the Nikon A is priced so foolishly that it will only really appeal to those folks for whom money is not an issue - and those folks use Leicas.

BTW, my "history" as you put it, on this site, is less than 3 weeks - although I used to post here about 5 years ago and lost my user-name and/or password having not bothered with the place for many years because of exactly the sort of gear-oriented fanboys I've encountered here.  But my actual experience in photography is well over 40 years.

I only re-joined because I wanted info on the Micro 4/3 gear I was buying.

I've forgotten more about shooting with film than most folks on this forum actually know.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard Butler
dpreview AdminPosts: 1,986
Like?
Re: Dpreview Nikon Coolpix A compatative review published
In reply to ovatab, Jun 7, 2013

Sorry about that typo - thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I used F8 to ensure plenty of depth-of-field with fairly close focusing and also to push the cameras up into an ISO they'd find a bit more challenging than the ISO 1600/1400 shots at the top of the second comparison page.

Richard - dpreview.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,058Gear list
Like?
Re: Coolpix A 'soft corners'
In reply to Richard Butler, Jun 7, 2013

R Butler wrote:

The Coolpix A's lens is pretty spectacular - it supports the line we often hear from manufacturers about 'matching the lens to the sensor.'

My suspicion is that PC Mag have tested the Coolpix at very close focus distances (where, yes, the corners can be soft). In real-world use, it's not an issue.

Absolutely! I've been shooting the GR and the A back to back as well and did the ubiquitous brick wall test and the A is incredibly good at all apertures. The GR is spectacularly good at all apertures, being sharper in the extreme corners than the Nikon. So that's a minor talking point for the Ricoh, but when has anyone been shooting wide open and had the corners even in sharp focus, let alone playing a role in the shot that such minor differences would matter. I've been shooting for better than a year with the Fuji X-Pro and the 18mm f2.0 lens and I love that combination and did a lot of photography with it I'm quite pleased with. And then I ran that lens through the same test with the A and the GR and its TERRIBLE in comparison in terms of corner sharpness at f2.8, let alone at its max aperture of f2.0 - just rancid and horribly bad! But to the extent that it never, not even once, bothered me in real life shooting.

I guess technical reviewers have to do this stuff, but why anyone would latch onto it as a reason to choose a lens I honestly don't get...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AngryCorgi
Contributing MemberPosts: 914Gear list
Like?
Re: Coolpix A 'soft corners'
In reply to Richard Butler, Jun 7, 2013

R Butler wrote:

The Coolpix A's lens is pretty spectacular - it supports the line we often hear from manufacturers about 'matching the lens to the sensor.'

My suspicion is that PC Mag have tested the Coolpix at very close focus distances (where, yes, the corners can be soft). In real-world use, it's not an issue.

Richard - dpreview.com

Yeah, that's what I'm hearing from EVERYONE (except pcmag) I trust.  And as far as I can see, the samples confirm it.  MOST lenses that are not specifically corrected (via floating element/group or as Nikon calls it CRC) for shorter focus distances will suffer in the corners close up.  I fully expect that and consider it totally normal.  The X100/X100s is no different and I'm sure the GR behaves similarly.

-- hide signature --

-AC-

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,168Gear list
Like?
Why not get a Macro lens for close-ups?
In reply to AngryCorgi, Jun 7, 2013

AngryCorgi wrote:

R Butler wrote:

The Coolpix A's lens is pretty spectacular - it supports the line we often hear from manufacturers about 'matching the lens to the sensor.'

My suspicion is that PC Mag have tested the Coolpix at very close focus distances (where, yes, the corners can be soft). In real-world use, it's not an issue.

Richard - dpreview.com

Yeah, that's what I'm hearing from EVERYONE (except pcmag) I trust.  And as far as I can see, the samples confirm it.  MOST lenses that are not specifically corrected (via floating element/group or as Nikon calls it CRC) for shorter focus distances will suffer in the corners close up.  I fully expect that and consider it totally normal.  The X100/X100s is no different and I'm sure the GR behaves similarly.

-- hide signature --

-AC-

Oh, that's right, with a Nikon A, you can't.  With an interchangeable lens mirrorless compact system, you can.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,058Gear list
Like?
Re: I also own & use Nikon DSLRs and MF flim gear
In reply to dougjgreen1, Jun 7, 2013

dougjgreen1 wrote:

And I used to own and use Leica flim gear as well.  I've shot with View cameras, Rollei TLRs and 600x SLRs, Mamiya and Pentax 67s - most of which I still use on occasion.  I'm pretty sure I get what the Nikon A is for.  It's just not that great at it - compared to, say, a Leica M and the right Leica glass, for someone for whom money is not an issue - and that's the point - the Nikon A is priced so foolishly that it will only really appeal to those folks for whom money is not an issue - and those folks use Leicas.

BTW, my "history" as you put it, on this site, is less than 3 weeks - although I used to post here about 5 years ago and lost my user-name and/or password having not bothered with the place for many years because of exactly the sort of gear-oriented fanboys I've encountered here.  But my actual experience in photography is well over 40 years.

I've forgotten more about shooting with film than most folks on this forum actually know.

I'm right there with you pal - my first film camera was in 1968 as a 9 year old kid. Wasted much of my youth in a darkroom and, like you, have forgotten most everything I used to know about the chemistry of film and paper and developer, etc.

But to say that because a camera may arguably be a couple hundred dollars over-priced compared to the competition it will only appeal to those to whom money is not an issue and it won't appeal to them because they're all shooting Leicas anyway is just silly! If money was NO object, I'm sure I'd be shooting a Leica - I'd love to be able to. Money is a consideration but deciding to spend an extra couple hundred bucks on a camera I might like more than the arguably better deal is just a tiny bit different than taking the leap to spending, oh, about $15,000 on a new Leica and a couple of nice Leica lenses. NOT the same thing.

Also, the difference between a Nikon A or Ricoh GR and a Leica Monochrome or M, while real, is fairly esoteric - in lots of ways one could argue that the the Leica isn't quite as good. The difference between the Nikon A or Ricoh GR and the EPL2, I'm sorry, is a MUCH MUCH bigger jump.

Yes, this is a gear forum. We discuss gear here and on the other forums, and sometimes we share some photography too. There's nothing wrong with either. I view cameras and photography as two related and reinforcing hobbies. Its possible to be into both without confusing the two. But sometimes knowing the gear can improve your photography - not your creative eye, but your ability to realize what the eye sees. If you have a problem with that, you could always go back to film or the first digital cameras or just keep shooting with your EPL2 - I won't think the less of you for it. But I'll take exception when you imply that only YOUR choices are legitimate and that the choices others make, for WHATEVER reasons, aren't just as legitimate as your own choices...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aleksanderpolo
Regular MemberPosts: 433
Like?
Re: I also own & use Nikon DSLRs and MF flim gear
In reply to dougjgreen1, Jun 7, 2013

If you are new to the m4/3 land, I highly recommend you check out (if you haven't already done so) the new 16MP sensors in Oly body. There is a really big jump in sensor quality that hasn't been seen in previous generations. At the low end I think something like a EPM2/EPL5 makes more sense than the first generation EPL2, you are not paying a lot more, but you do get a lot more.

This has nothing to do with our current discussion, of course.

Cheers,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,168Gear list
Like?
Re: I also own & use Nikon DSLRs and MF flim gear
In reply to aleksanderpolo, Jun 7, 2013

aleksanderpolo wrote:

If you are new to the m4/3 land, I highly recommend you check out (if you haven't already done so) the new 16MP sensors in Oly body. There is a really big jump in sensor quality that hasn't been seen in previous generations. At the low end I think something like a EPM2/EPL5 makes more sense than the first generation EPL2, you are not paying a lot more, but you do get a lot more.

This has nothing to do with our current discussion, of course.

Cheers,

The thing is, I don't need those newest sensor Micro 4/3 bodies any more than I need a Nikon A.

Very little of what I shoot is at the edges of current sensor performance - The vast majority of what I shoot is at ISO 400 or lower.  I certainly looked at the new 16MP Oly bodies, before getting a G5 that cost me 1/3 as much.  Because for me, it's much more about body ergonomics and the lenses, than it is about the sensors.  The current state of sensor art is such that just about any 4/3, or DX sensor will be sufficient for my needs.  This is NOT true with body ergonomics or lenses.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,168Gear list
Like?
Re: I also own & use Nikon DSLRs and MF flim gear
In reply to Ray Sachs, Jun 7, 2013

You missed my point.  I was NOT dismissing people's choices if they choose a Nikon A.  I was dismissing NIKON's choice for how they are positioning and marketing the camera.  I have no problem with someone who pays a few hundred more for a camera than I think it's worth, because they find it well suited to their particular shooting style and subject matter.  I specifically stated that I thought Nikon came out with a nice $700 camera, but they priced it well above that which I felt was silly.  That means what it says - it's a NICE camera for what it is, it's just priced too high IMHO, for it to succeed in the competitive marketplace.  And that probably means you won't get an improved gen.2 successor to it, the way market-successful cameras do.

Your prior post seems to have really the first common ground we can share without getting nasty about it with each other.  But the fact is, this venue tends to have people that care too much about their gear, and not enough about their photography.  Don't mistake my critique of Nikon's marketing with a critique of Nikon's product - or the people who use it.  if it were priced more reasonably, I would probably want to own and use it too - but I'm not going to buy an $1100 camera that only is useful for a quite small portion of what I use a camera for.

I went with Micro 4/3 because it will serve the MAJORITY of my needs that I have found my DSLRs and many lenses to be too bulky sand heavy to use.  The Nikon A would only fulfil a small fraction of those uses for me personally - and it's simply to costly to only serve such a small portion of my needs.  BTW, in 2-3 years, when those puppies are selling on ebay for $200-300 - I'm pretty sure I'll buy one.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,058Gear list
Like?
Re: I also own & use Nikon DSLRs and MF flim gear
In reply to dougjgreen1, Jun 7, 2013

dougjgreen1 wrote:

You missed my point.  I was NOT dismissing people's choices if they choose a Nikon A.  I was dismissing NIKON's choice for how they are positioning and marketing the camera.  I have no problem with someone who pays a few hundred more for a camera than I think it's worth, because they find it well suited to their particular shooting style and subject matter.  I specifically stated that I thought Nikon came out with a nice $700 camera, but they priced it well above that which I felt was silly.  That means what it says - it's a NICE camera for what it is, it's just priced too high IMHO, for it to succeed in the competitive marketplace.  And that probably means you won't get an improved gen.2 successor to it, the way market-successful cameras do.

Your prior post seems to have really the first common ground we can share without getting nasty about it with each other.  But the fact is, this venue tends to have people that care too much about their gear, and not enough about their photography.  Don't mistake my critique of Nikon's marketing with a critique of Nikon's product - or the people who use it.  if it were priced more reasonably, I would probably want to own and use it too - but I'm not going to buy an $1100 camera that only is useful for a quite small portion of what I use a camera for.

I went with Micro 4/3 because it will serve the MAJORITY of my needs that I have found my DSLRs and many lenses to be too bulky sand heavy to use.  The Nikon A would only fulfil a small fraction of those uses for me personally - and it's simply to costly to only serve such a small portion of my needs.  BTW, in 2-3 years, when those puppies are selling on ebay for $200-300 - I'm pretty sure I'll buy one.

OK, fair enough - I did not get your emphasis before this post. I don't think my last post in the other thread was particularly nasty, but you might think the last statement is a little pointed, so please disregard it.

BTW, I've been an m43 shooter for a few years now and I think it's a fine system but I seem to me moving toward more niche or specialized cameras recently, for a variety of reasons. The only thing I really still use m43 gear for much is portrait length and longer shots. But that's just me - I fully get the appeal of the system.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon seems to have made a nice ~$700 Camera
In reply to AngryCorgi, Jun 7, 2013

AngryCorgi wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Unfortunately, they priced it WAY above $700.

Just for yucks, compare the features and capabilities of this camera to the similarly priced Nikon D7100.  Or the Nikon D5100 with a good wide prime.

Point me toward a "good wide prime" to mate up to the D5100 and we'll talk.  For now, nothing in the same price range exists, and definitely not at the optical performance level of the lens on the A.

On APS-C, it's tough to find a prime at 28mm.  If you don't mind a bit longer, the Nikon 35 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, and Nikon 28 1.8G are all excellent lenses.  I have the 28 1.8G and it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned.  But I use it on FF.  On a DX camera, it would be equivalent to a 42 1.8G with the 1.5 X crop.  But it's a highly recommended lens.

Something wider on APS-C, your best bet is actually on of the UWA zooms like the superb Tokina 11-16 2.8.  It's an incredibly sharp lens.  The Tokina 12-24 f4 is also a very good lens if you don't mind the 1 stop slower max aperture.  The Nikon 10-24 3.5-4.5 and 12-24 f4 DX lenses are also both superb as well.  I've also used the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 and it's not quite as sharp as the two Tokina lenses, but it's quite good, and a good deal less expensive.

Someone mentioned the Samyang 14 2.8, which is an incredibly sharp lens.  The only potential problems with that lens are manual focus only (not such a big deal) and heavy distortion (which there are no Lightroom profiles for).

The D5100 is a great little camera (have been considering picking one up because it's so small and IQ is so excellent with that sensor).  Enjoy.

Best of luck, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,776
Like?
Re: How's that Nikon A for Portraits? Or Sports?
In reply to Ray Sachs, Jun 8, 2013

Ray Sachs wrote:

How's that D7100 for discrete street shooting or informal people shots at non photo-centric events?

It's bigger than Coolpix A, but in the world where everyone shoots with a cellphone (and you see them from a mile away when they do), anyone using anything other than a cellphone is gonna really stick out.

Ultimately, biggest difference is in the mind of the photographer. If the smaller camera makes you less self-aware, then the A may, indeed, be better for that self-aware photographer.. Best ones don't sneak and hide what they do.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
walkaround
Senior MemberPosts: 1,035Gear list
Like?
Re: How's that Nikon A for Portraits? Or Sports?
In reply to coudet, Jun 8, 2013

coudet wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

How's that D7100 for discrete street shooting or informal people shots at non photo-centric events?

It's bigger than Coolpix A, but in the world where everyone shoots with a cellphone (and you see them from a mile away when they do), anyone using anything other than a cellphone is gonna really stick out.

Ultimately, biggest difference is in the mind of the photographer. If the smaller camera makes you less self-aware, then the A may, indeed, be better for that self-aware photographer.. Best ones don't sneak and hide what they do.

A real man has to use a giant DSLR? Feeling inadequate in other areas coudet?

 walkaround's gear list:walkaround's gear list
Canon ELPH 310 HS Nikon Coolpix P310 Canon PowerShot S110 NEX5R Olympus PEN E-PL5 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,776
Like?
Re: How's that Nikon A for Portraits? Or Sports?
In reply to walkaround, Jun 8, 2013

walkaround wrote:

coudet wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

How's that D7100 for discrete street shooting or informal people shots at non photo-centric events?

It's bigger than Coolpix A, but in the world where everyone shoots with a cellphone (and you see them from a mile away when they do), anyone using anything other than a cellphone is gonna really stick out.

Ultimately, biggest difference is in the mind of the photographer. If the smaller camera makes you less self-aware, then the A may, indeed, be better for that self-aware photographer.. Best ones don't sneak and hide what they do.

A real man has to use a giant DSLR? Feeling inadequate in other areas coudet?

I never said a thing about a "giant DSLR" or a "real man".

You may want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,058Gear list
Like?
Re: How's that Nikon A for Portraits? Or Sports?
In reply to coudet, Jun 8, 2013

coudet wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

How's that D7100 for discrete street shooting or informal people shots at non photo-centric events?

It's bigger than Coolpix A, but in the world where everyone shoots with a cellphone (and you see them from a mile away when they do), anyone using anything other than a cellphone is gonna really stick out.

Ultimately, biggest difference is in the mind of the photographer. If the smaller camera makes you less self-aware, then the A may, indeed, be better for that self-aware photographer.. Best ones don't sneak and hide what they do.

I take your point, and I agree its in the mind of the photographer up to a point. I've shot street with cameras as small as a GRD3 and as large as an X-Pro and I feel I can shoot discretely with either. Although a large DSLR with a loud mirror might be pushing it - in any case I don't think I'd try...

But I seem to recall Garry Winogrand talking about how he used to pause when he saw a street photo opportunity developing in front of him, act like he was taking a shot of some distant thing, maybe off-direction from where he saw the shot developing, then bring the camer down to his waist and act like he was fiddling with something on the camera, as he actually took the shot he was planning all along. He was one of the "best ones" I'd say - one of the all time greats. And that sounds kind of like sneaking and hiding. So I won't feel too bad if I shoot from the waist and look away before I take the shot as a distracting move. I don't think I'm any great shakes as a street photographer, but one of the best street photographers I've seen in recent years told me he basically does the same thing.

I think its all in the final result. I've seen some street photographers work who take the total opposite approach and nearly assault their subjects with the camera. I hate that as a technique and could never do it, but I've seen some incredibly good photographs made that way too.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads