Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P7100 enthusiast compact camera review

By dpreview staff on Feb 21, 2012 at 00:39 GMT

Just Posted: Our review of the Nikon Coolpix P7100. The P7100 is Nikon's second attempt at producing an enthusiast compact to go toe-to-toe with Canon's popular G-series cameras. The P7000 showed some promise but slow, quirky operation meant it fell short of the well-established Canon it so clearly mimicked. With the P7100 Nikon has put much of this right and added even more direct control. It offers the largest zoom range in its class, but is this enough to make it stand-out in a highly capable field? Read our review to find out.

Comments

Total comments: 145
RichardAB
By RichardAB (Feb 29, 2012)

...the further point:

4. It was stated that, in effect, having three command wheels is pointless. I'd suggest that if you tried the camera in Manual Mode you'd use a finger on the front command wheel to control the aperture and your thumb on the main command wheel to control the shutter speed. The third wheel is then available, also for your thumb, to help with changing ISO or White Balance settings should you wish. Also, if you tilt the LCD and hold the camera up over head height to shoot from there, having the lower back command wheel is helpful as the thumb could use it to change the shutter speed when in Manual or Shutter Priority Modes if the higher wheel is then less easily useable, depending on the camera angle and size of hand/fingers.

1 upvote
RichardAB
By RichardAB (Feb 29, 2012)

1. Distortion Correction is available for both RAW and JPEG, not as stated in the review. It is clearly discernible on the LCD, according to whether it has been activated or not.

Also, in-camera RAW processing specifically includes the option.

Perhaps your 3rd Party RAW processing software let you down?

2. It's a puzzle to me why you didn't test the in-camera RAW processing, it's excellent. Also, you'd have twigged then that distortion correction is available for RAW.

3. A use for the Fn1 button not mentioned is to select a prescribed 35mm equivalent focal length by using it in conjunction with the zoom switch: focal lengths of 28, 35, 50, 85, 105, 135 or 200mm may be selected - it's like having those prime lenses to hand and fixing whichever you wish, a feature I particularly like and value.

A further point to follow ......

0 upvotes
camerosity
By camerosity (Feb 23, 2012)

Condsidering that a full review was never done for the P6000, or P7000, this is a good thing to see. I still wonder why dpreview has such an obvious Canon-centric bias when clearly the P7000 was superior to the G12?

0 upvotes
Roy Anderson 4266
By Roy Anderson 4266 (Feb 23, 2012)

The "P7000 was superior to the G12?". I couldn't disagree more with that statement. I have been sorely disappointed by the P7000 due to consistent focus problems.

0 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (Feb 23, 2012)

Ok before we all get upset this review is on the P7100 which I think is a bit better than the G12 (a few review sites agree). But the P7000 with its SLOW processing and autofocus issues was definitely not better...the P7100, yip a hairs breadth better I reckon due to the 'fixes' that make the P7100 the cam the P7000 should have been. IQ wise they are essentially equal but the sharper, longer and faster lens (f5.6 at 7.1x optical), and more manual options I think give it the edge, and the higher res LCD.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm trying to wrap my head around why the optical viewfinder is listed as a "Con"

To me, the presence of an optical finder on any compact camera is a "Pro." Very few digital compact models offer this feature.

So either DPReview considers the presence of this rare feature as a negative, which is interesting. Or alternatively, DPReview likes this feature, but just doesn't like Nikon's implementation of the feature. In which latter case, DPReview must rate the LACK of an optical viewfinder on any other compact camera as a Con... unless DPReview assumes the lack of a feature is more desirable than a 100% home run of a feature. In this case, I'll submit that the viewfinder is just fine as simple viewfinders go in any compact, non-pro camera ever. I mean, did you ever squint through a viewfinder of pre-coupled rangefinder 35mms?

So it would be good to know exactly what DPReviews criteria are for the presence, lack, and implementation of simple viewfinder windows.

3 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Feb 22, 2012)

It's listed as a con because the optical finder gives about 80% view. Not exactly ideal for composition and impossible to establish the point of focus. My Leica IIIC is better in this regard. Hence, its counted as a con. I suppose the optical finder on this Nikon is broadly similar to my Canon G11's finder. I would only want to use it if I really, really had to, and then if I had my IIIC at hand, I would prefer using that.

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Feb 22, 2012)

I would not worry about it. The viewfinder is perfectly useable. It is just a tradition to churn out the same old nonsense whenever this type of camers is released that the coverage is only 80%. The reviewers never seemed to worry while the manufacturers produced all these compact cameras with 0% viewfinders and often 0% LCD's in sunlight and hence a 0% view of anything.

1 upvote
Jote
By Jote (Feb 22, 2012)

If it only had AEB working together with timer I'd be sold. P7000 recently received a firmware update that allows just that, so maybe there's still a chance...

0 upvotes
princewolf
By princewolf (Feb 22, 2012)

This is about as good as it gets with this sensor size. And it IS good.

0 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Feb 22, 2012)

The P7100 is an excellent P&S but perhaps a bit too advanced for most P&S shooters. The focus is very fast and the lens has an excellent range. The only problem is that it is a bit weak, but perhaps a better lens is too much to ask for in such a small, compact camera with this huge zoom range.

0 upvotes
Narek Avetisian
By Narek Avetisian (Feb 21, 2012)

Lens distortion is just HUGE!!! Obviously lens is not as quality as one would expect...

0 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (Feb 22, 2012)

In the reviews I've seen the sharpness of the lens is lauded as been excellent and better than the competition (G12 etc.). distortion is an issue (always is in fixed zoom lenses but its easily fixed in cam (jpegs), but the sharpness corner to corner is great! pity it wasn't faster at he zoom end though...

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Feb 21, 2012)

Whilst it might not be the most impressive camera to review it is a very impressive camera to own. It just does what it does very well and seems a very capable little machine. The excellent sound quality is also an unexpected extra. It makes a change to have a camera where they put the bad bits right but resisted the urge to fiddle with the bits that worked.

4 upvotes
camcom12
By camcom12 (Feb 22, 2012)

Agreed. I've owned the P7000 for a year now. Although my P7000 did go back to Nikon twice for repair (a VR issue and then the well known stuck lens cover issue) I'm mostly happy with it. If Nikon added the features some commenters desire then it would be bigger, heavier, more $. Like the G12, the P7x00 is very good at what it's designed to do. Comparing it with cams other than its nearest competition (G12, X10, or LX5/XM1 w/opt. viewfinders), except on price alone, is a fool's errand. If m4/3 is what what you need, get m4/3, or if it's compact, get that.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Doug
By Doug (Feb 21, 2012)

Read every comment. Now You Tube can entertain nikon enthusiasts.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Feb 21, 2012)

As an enthusiast prosumer, I don't know why I still bother to read this Nikon P7100 review, or the G1X review, or the V1 or J1 review before this. I should have known that neither Nikon nor Canon would give us any compact, superzoom or mirrorless camera that can be taken seriously (when compared with competitors' models) for the enthusiast who want a smaller camera alternative to a DSLR, as they are just too afraid of affecting their DSLR business with a really good but smaller camera. I have given them the last chance and won't be wasting my time checking their new non-DSLR cameras any more, and look to makers with no such baggage. I should be just checking cameras like the Sony NEX7, Olympus E-M5, or Fuji X-Pro1 or X-S1, and later a Panaonic GH3 and a NEX 8, etc.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Feb 22, 2012)

That's OK. I am sure they won't miss your presence...

Obviously you have not handled any of these cameras which is why you dismiss them so fast. Reviews can be interesting to read but in the end, nothing replaces firsthand experience.

6 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Feb 22, 2012)

I have a G10 - and I like it. I assume you dismiss that also. I have handled the NEX7, an I absolutely did not like it. It sure do take better images. But ... different cameras have different cons and pros.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
jeremybarton
By jeremybarton (Feb 21, 2012)

And we thought the fuji x10 had problems!!

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

And we would have thought so correctly.

0 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Feb 21, 2012)

You're working under the assumption this was an objective review - Afterall, this is the same site that reviewed the Pentax K-5 more favorably than the Nikon D7000 - Having owned both, I find that to be laughable at best. I also find it interesting that we still have not seen any reviews for the X10. Hmmmmmm

2 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (Feb 22, 2012)

big difference between a a faulty sensor (orbs) in X10 and the P7100 that maybe hasn't got the best video specs or the fastest lens but IQ wise its a great machine with awesome amount of manual controls, other review sites love the P7100!

2 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (Feb 21, 2012)

I had the P7000 for a few months. The major problem for me was the autofocus, it was really slow and unreliable in all light situations. When it was able to lock on, the camera took excellent pictures. Problem was the AF was very slow so you could miss shots or not take them. The movies were excellent. Great sound and very smooth. RAW took too long. It is a shame that the review of the P7100 shows only a slight improvement over the P7000 and the overall score is so low. I think this camera would be a winner with a bigger sensor and better AF. The form factor was great and the controls were logical. But I had to sell it because it was very frustrating trying to take pictures with the poor AF. I am interested in the G1X.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

Off-beat review. There are so many new makes & models out there now, why go for this silly old goose thing? I mean.... for video shooting, who would wish to spend close to $500 for a digi-cam in 2012 that maxes out at 720p24? That was "the" standard some 5 years ago, folks.

Specs listed say nothing about any external microphone connector, But it being mentioned in the video review portion. But we still have no clue WHAT KIND of connection this is. No description, no photo. Could be 3.5mm.... 2.5mm... or proprietary. Anybody who has the camera have the answer?

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Feb 21, 2012)

@Carver
Some of us still have silly old XP computers that will not run 1080p except in great jerky motion. 720p is just fine for me.

1 upvote
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Feb 21, 2012)

So is this better than the Fui X10?

1 upvote
Terry1100
By Terry1100 (Feb 21, 2012)

Exactly - that's the question many are asking - and looking for an objective answer that isn't as polarised as the comments on the Fujitalk forum

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Feb 21, 2012)

Well the review says you can use the X10 at low ISO because of its fast lenses. Obviously no-one has told DPR that the X10 cannot cope with any shiny objects at low ISO's.

2 upvotes
Photo-Wiz
By Photo-Wiz (Feb 21, 2012)

Don't know if it is better. But I sold my X10 because if you like JPEG, it has too much noise even at low ISO. Also, I didn't care for the fact that Fuji represented they would fix the white orb issue, and then released firmware that has no meaningful effect on the problem. They should have recalled the X10...the fact they decided not to forever puts a blemish on Fuji in my mind.

Now I will give the P7100 a try as it seems to have good lens, good JPEG processing, and no white orbs.

3 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (Feb 22, 2012)

IQ wise I think the P7100 is really good, and yes no orbs...

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 21, 2012)

In Holland you can buy this camera for €400,- Which makes it a better deal. I wish Nikon would put the J/V1 sensor in a camera like this. The hell with megazoom.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Feb 21, 2012)

We are a bit spoiled. Every new camera must be better than all previous cameras. And the number of features must increase all the time. etc etc etc

So - maybe the G12 is better. Or maybe not. I think the review said that it was a comfortable camera that generally takes very good images. Who cares whats better if it is a good camera?

And - if you want a tiny one you can put in your small trouser pockets - get another one. I can assure you though. Its not as comfortable to use. And the lens is probably way worse.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Ken Schory
By Ken Schory (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree. The P7100 is an excellent camera, better than the P7000 in many significant ways (I own both). Where the P7000 was rather tedious to use, the P7100 is just fine, in my opinion. As a pro photographer accustomed to using much bulkier gear, I find it a real pleasure to carry the P7100 with me for casual shots. No camera is perfect; for those situations where the P7100 would be appropriate, it does a truly excellent job. I could probably say the same about the G12, although I often appreciate the P7100's greater zoom range. But there's little sense in splitting hairs over this. If the functionality and features of the P7100 appeal to you, and if you know how to take advantage of its manual settings, I would highly recommend it for you.

3 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 22, 2012)

I think the V1, at a little more money, is a much better camera in all relevant aspects, IQ, autofocus, lens versatility, VF. Having owned a G-series Canon, can't help but thing the times of these larger compacts with fixed lenses are gone for enthusiasts, one also has the Pannys/Olys m43 as alternatives. (Nex have larger lenses). The Canon G1x is interresting from IQ pov, but fixed lens with sfot corners and limited range is a big handicap.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (Feb 21, 2012)

So.. Nikon's answer to the G12.. and basic conclusion is that it competes very well.. yet Canon got a Gold Award? from the conclusion..

"On the plus side, the P7100 is a more versatile video camera than the Canon PowerShot G12, which lacks either AF or optical zoom during video capture.
In other respects the P7100 stacks up very well against the G12. As far as their handling is concerned, the cameras offer similar but not identical experiences. We like the G12's fully articulated LCD screen and its dedicated ISO sensitivity control but the P7100's quick control dial is useful too, and we prefer the more DSLR-like design of its two command dials as well as the slightly longer reach of its optical zoom. Ultimately neither camera is unequivocally 'better' than the other overall, and crucially, their image quality is extremely similar (and very good)."

6 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree.
Lumix GH2 (79% sc. : Silver Award)
while Canon G12 (73% sc. : Gold Award) and
Sony A65 (78% sc. : Gold Award).
Why?

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 21, 2012)

DPR clearly state that the Gold/Silver awards are highly subjective, and not necessarily connected to the final scores. Also, cameras are compared to other cameras available at the time of the review. P7100 enters a more crowded market than G12 did. Had it been reviewed 1-1½ years ago, it might have got a gold award too.
@ cesaregal: G12 is a different category of camera than GH2 and A65, and so cannot be directly compared.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

P7100 = P7000 Mark II.

Does anyone know how do you control focus MANUALLY with the P7100? If you cannot do it on the lens itself, it must be by twisting one of the command dials?

0 upvotes
Jon Stern
By Jon Stern (Feb 21, 2012)

The G12 was reviewed 13 months ago. Reviews have to factor in the environment in which a product exists.

High-end point and shoots with 1/6.7-inch sensors don't look as attractive as they did last year. Now there's the X10 with a 2/3-inch sensor, smaller and less expensive micro four thirds cameras, the Nikon 1 series with a 1-inch sensor, and of course the soon-to-be-released Canon G1-X with it's close to APS-C sensor in a body a little bigger than the G12 (a significantly higher price admittedly).

DPReview didn't give scores or precious metal ratings when they reviewed the Canon PowerShot Pro70 in 1998, but I'm sure you can see that that clunky 1.5Mpixel camera would score lower were it reviewed today.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

"High-end point and shoots with 1/6.7-inch sensors don't look as attractive as they did last year."

Jon, did you meant to say 1/1.7-inch sensors?

0 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (Feb 21, 2012)

Yet, DPR somewhat went out of their way to indicate that the camera the 7100 should be benchmarked against is the G12. As for comparing to anything else out there, DPR concludes this:

"There is no escaping the fact that the P7100 exists in a market that is rich with competitors - both compact and interchangeable lens models - that are faster, in some respects more versatile and which offer sensors capable of significantly better image quality for around the same price. But despite such aggressive competition the P7100 holds its own and offers a couple of genuine advantages - its lens, and its impressively generous manual control and customization options."

Perhaps if the D7100 deserves its score (and no award), DPR needs to consider retroactively changing scores/ratings/awards of other cameras (eg. G12) when they are STILL CURRENT. AFAIK, there isn't a G13 out there.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Feb 21, 2012)

@Revenant: ok, the categories are different.
You should define exactly a few categories where put cameras inside. Scores would be referred to an exact category. You should up to date actual cameras scores at least yearly, inserting scores in a database where you could see all the scores (IQ, ...) of the actual cameras of the category.
So readers could choice the category and then could value actual cameras scores. Not an easy project!

0 upvotes
Jon Stern
By Jon Stern (Feb 22, 2012)

@Francis Carver, I meant to say 1/1.67-inch!

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 22, 2012)

It is awkward, comparing review ratings from different years. It is a bit like price inflation over time, only for ratings it is a deflation process.

So my house cost the previous owner far less than I paid for it, even though it is the same house and holds the same economic value. Likewise, if they took the Canon G12 and put it through the review process today it would gain a lower score than it did originally. And a Gold Star performer from 10 years ago would be laughed at today. But it still has its Gold Star rating.

So maybe you actually have to read the review and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the camera in absolute terms, and come to your own judgement. Or maybe some brainio can compute a monthly ratings deflation figure to be applied to the numerical ratings retrospectively?

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 22, 2012)

I think it'll take Nikon to make a D4 at P7100 size and price to get Gold here at DPR.

0 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (Feb 21, 2012)

spending 400€ on a bulky P&S which takes shots that are not any better than those from a small 150€ P&S. Makes perfect sense.

0 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Feb 21, 2012)

Before making such a claim, do yourself a favor and don't hesitate to use the dpr's studio comparison tool.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
1 upvote
wlad
By wlad (Feb 21, 2012)

@Rachotilko - yep, looks the same as the 200€ Powershot SX230 HS. And I guess there wont be any difference in IQ between the P7100 and the Coolpix S6300.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 21, 2012)

Coolpix P series live view... like D800... D700... or any Coolpix... no thx.
all one can do is preview 'framing/focus'... with a neutral autogain view... which is unrelated to exposure settings.

if Nikon offers 'exposure simulation live preview', like D3/D3x/D3s... maybe D4... then, i'll consider it... but since they leave out the most advanced ExpSim or ES-LV features, then interest is zero.

in the meantime...
PowerShot G/SX/S/A series w/ M modes... ALL OFFER exposure simulation live preview... (a normal feature), in PowerShot G1 to G12, and G1X... as well as 1DsMkIII/5DMkII, 1DMkIII/IV, 1DX, 7D/60D, 600D/550D, etc, etc...

Sony's offer it in their prosumer digicams... too...

so, this leaves Nikon LV in the same company as Fujifilm and Kodak... maybe even Pentax too... and prosumer Olympus and Panasonic (the latter gets it 'part-time' on LX series, but that's it)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Feb 21, 2012)

You can add live histogram graphs, live depth of field, live indication of overexposed areas of the image.
But, I think, in Still Life only.
Can you adjust exposure in bad lighting conditions, in the field, better than a TTL automatic exposure can do?

0 upvotes
Tap0
By Tap0 (Feb 21, 2012)

@sdyue you seem to be a Canon employee who invented the 'exposure simulation live preview' , as every other post of yours has the same complaint..

11 upvotes
professor4321
By professor4321 (Feb 21, 2012)

FROM CANON 60D REVIEW.The optional Exposure Simulation function will ATTEMPT to recreate the exposure level that would be obtained with your current settings on the LCD display. This may RAISE NOISE LEVELS of the live view feed beyond what could be expected in the final image, since it must operate with a fast enough shutter speed to achieve its required refresh rate. The aperture also remains open by default, and so the exposure simulation doesn't indicate the areas in focus until you press the Depth-of-Field Preview button adjacent to the lens mount. Exposure Simulation will ATTEMPT to continue even with depth of field preview active, though this may RAISE the live view noise levels EVEN FURTHER.
SOUNDS GREAT!!!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
chris_j_l
By chris_j_l (Feb 22, 2012)

I have a feeling you may just be a script that posts about Exposure Simulation Live Preview or you were abused by a camera with no Exposure Simulation Live Preview when you were a child - it's the only explanation.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (Feb 21, 2012)

Nikon's most recent Canon G-series copy. I wonder if they will make a bigger version of this like Canon's GX1

2 upvotes
Knight Palm
By Knight Palm (Feb 21, 2012)

It's obvious in a fierce competitive scenario, you got to change the playground.

Nikon moved away from APS-C with their launch of the Nikon 1 (CX) system.

Canon movead away from the 1/1.7" sensor to a complete new playground. Are we expecting Nikon to follow to the 1.5" format that Canon did pick?

Well, when the G12 meets the end of life assignment, only Nikon P7100 will be frozen in at this sensor size format. The new leader here is Fujifilm X10 at 1/1.5" format. Apart from the smaller soapbox cameras XZ-1 & LX5 & S100, that might stay here with their better pocketability.

Canon moved with their G1 X & expect Nikon to reincarnate the P7100 within the CX sensor team.a

0 upvotes
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 22, 2012)

Fuji X10 is the leader and king of the ORB... lol

0 upvotes
Christian Greutert
By Christian Greutert (Feb 21, 2012)

Hello,
I live in Switzerland and has the Nikon P7100 for some time and I suggest you find pictures that I made with this device:
http://www.cgreutert.ch/escapade_a_saas_fee/index.html

3 upvotes
J. Qian
By J. Qian (Feb 21, 2012)

Yeah, your pictures are excellent, certainly comparable to those from DSLRs or mirrorless ones, mind to let us know how much it costs in Switzerland?

1 upvote
Christian Greutert
By Christian Greutert (Feb 21, 2012)

Thank you for your comment and your compliments. I do not speak English but I translate with Google.
In Switzerland, it costs 450. - CH Fr

1 upvote
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 22, 2012)

Très bien, Christian. Bien jolies photos.

0 upvotes
Christian Greutert
By Christian Greutert (Feb 23, 2012)

Merci beaucoup.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Feb 21, 2012)

The 720p video is quite adequate and 1080p is but a marginal, fashion improvement. 720p fills up the 1920x1080 screen fully and nicely, and I think dpr penalized the video performance too much on the P7100.

However, I think its time for ALL integrated lens cams to be tested for flare. This parameter is ignored by dpr and by the manufacturers and can be a big minus compared to MIL cams. "Look, Ma, I can go to 7x" (but cannot ignore the bright sources outside of the FOV).

2 upvotes
lotzi
By lotzi (Feb 21, 2012)

I kept saying similar things until I got the Sony HX9V. Trust me: there is a world of difference between the 720p from the Panny ZS3 and the 1080p60 from the Sony. The first is a "good quality home video", the other one is "virtual immersion in a memory". You need to make sure you actually view it in 1080p60 though.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2012)

When you consider that cameras like the IXus 300 HS have 1080p video, for the P7100 to not offer it doesn't make sense.

And I glad that you think 720p is adequate, but in the age of YouTube and Vimeo, it is not. Not at this price point.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Feb 23, 2012)

I have no reason to mistrust you, lotzi, but I spoke from my own experience. I have a decent 23" monitor and the videos from my Pana GF1 (720p) and Canon 230HS (1080p) look just about the same.

Marike, out of the last 20 or so videos I watched on YouTube, none of them were available in 1080p.

Overall, it would be a nice challenge to see who can correctly identify 1080p from a playback with a better than 75% success rate.

0 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Feb 21, 2012)

An enthusiast could tolerate a bigger and heavier camera and take a Nikon D3100.

0 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Feb 21, 2012)

An imaging enthusiast, maybe. The D3/5xK series are bricks compared to this granola bar. That's not even including the lens! This compares well with enthusiast compacts only - and m43s with pancake lenses only.

0 upvotes
Macwiz
By Macwiz (Feb 21, 2012)

DP should hire more team members to keep up with the testing backlog.
X10, G1X, OM-D, X-Pro 1 anyone?

5 upvotes
Parappaman
By Parappaman (Feb 21, 2012)

...NX200...

4 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Feb 21, 2012)

Why review X10 beyond saying it's a sick puppy. Then there are other Fuji cams that, if reviewed, should carry a warning that Fuji might not step up (by denying, too) to fix their problems.

My thing is to review more lenses so that we don't have to waste our time with integrated lens cams pretending to be as good as MIL cams or DSLRs, particularly since some MIL cams are in the P&S price range (Oly PM1, for example).

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 21, 2012)

The X10 is well progressed (but had to wait for the firmware update), the NX200 is very nearly ready, the G1 X is ticking along and neither the OM-D or X-Pro1 exist as reviewable cameras yet.

We're aware our reviews take time and we're always looking for ways to speed them up without compromising quality, but hiring more people won't let us review cameras that we don't have yet.

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Feb 21, 2012)

Macwiz, then go ahead, give them enough money for hiring more people... and force manufacturers to release their products quicker!

What makes you think that all those people will only work according to your own agenda?

0 upvotes
Dabbler
By Dabbler (Feb 21, 2012)

Well, I don't keep track of the timeliness of reviews but the P7100 seems way behind the 8 ball. It would be nice to have the review in order to make a buying decision, not after the fact when you realize you made a mistake or made a good choice.

1 upvote
Macwiz
By Macwiz (Feb 21, 2012)

thanx, just what was in my mind. btw I had the chance to view some real life samples of a (pre prod) x-pro 1 a few days ago. The photographer had his own cam and lens for shooting for a few weeks. I appreciate the work of DPs team where reviews are invaluable for a buying decision. In fact the x100 review came way too late so I had to "test" it myself and, after sending it to Fuji to fix sticky blade probs and false meter range value three times, I finally had to give it back. Similar situation with the Oly ZX1...

0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Feb 21, 2012)

Whilst I fully understand the need for an exhaustive and high quality review, having them come out so late in a camera's
Iife-cycle often make the reviews here more fodder for arguing fanboys than a useful buyer's guide. Digital cameras change very quickly, often there is a model refresh within the year, so timely feedback is needed.

Perhaps, as the premiere review site they could help this with-
-More detailed and critical previews, especially when it comes to features that new firmware won't be able to fix.
-More staff, some of them dedicated to certain technical aspects, like high-ISO noise, others doing real-life shooting and so on, to streamline the process.
-More video previews, as these bring you so close to the product and after all a lot of the detailed measurements to come aren't as important as experience of using the camera.

I think all of this is in fact being worked on, but with all the cameras coming out now, I think better, more detailed previews are the way to go.

1 upvote
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Feb 21, 2012)

"The P7100's optical viewfinder coverage is roughly 80%."
80% - Roughly.
Ie A completely useless peep-hole - roughly speaking.

7 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Feb 21, 2012)

It is very useful at full 200mm zoom. In fact as you get to these sort of long focal lengths it is the rear display that becomes useless in any camera.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

An optical VF on motion picture film cameras can provide 130-160 percent coverage, so you can "look around" the recorded image's frame lines. Even my old 8mm film cameras could do that.

This toy-like OVF on the P7100 is a serious disgrace.

0 upvotes
professor4321
By professor4321 (Feb 21, 2012)

How much is the price difference between a motion picture film camera an this camera?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

Prof, do you want cheap? Or do you want to actually SEE what your camera records, more or less?

Anyhow, there are plenty of inexpensive EVF cameraa that give you 100% coverage. And optical ones, too.

The 80% coverage with the P7100 is plainly retarded.

0 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (Feb 21, 2012)

The finder is extremely useful. I use it at least 50% of the time when taking photos, and wouldn't have bought the product if it was absent.

2 upvotes
Darrell Spreen
By Darrell Spreen (Feb 21, 2012)

I plan to use the camera with the 1:1 aspect option, so the width of the OVF is probably just right for framing. I'm especially pleased to be able to have a usable viewfinder in bright sunlight -- otherwise these cameras truly are just point and shoot.

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (Feb 22, 2012)

Tunnel OVFs as in rangefinders and P&S are oft criticized for subpar IQ. True. However, they're the only optical design that doesn't require eye re-focus (maintain the negative accommodation), something that most eye-glass wearers are *tearfully* aware of. Another 2 benefits of OVF: 3x more bat. life and steady 3-point camera support (shared w/ EVF).

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (Feb 21, 2012)

A 400gr. and $400 camera in AD2012 that seems to outclass my '06 PowerShot A620 in IQ, zoom and handling. Well done, Nikon! :-)

However, last year i got an NX100 for $280 (now 199Euro), on which i also can use all my Nikkor glass. Like NEX, the NX produces APS-C type of IQ at about the same size as P7100, but for 30-50% less cost than a Nikon P&S. If i want a more serious rangefinder P&S, i could buy a Fuji X (w/o orbs, hopefully). And finally, the ever increasing m43 lineup, the G1X etc. All make the P7100 seem rather irrelevant in its class today...

We know that canikon must (a) first realize what's *relevant* in their future markets, then (b) flush their (overbloated dinosaurian) OEM design pipelines, and (c) eventually try to adjust their courses. Or shrink and fade away into niches.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Feb 21, 2012)

None of these cameras you mention has a fully collapsible 28-200mm zoom lens - so no contest, the P7100 beats them all hands down.

It seems so many comments on this review just simply aren't grasping the concept of enthusiast compact. Maybe 'pocketable' might be an easier label to understand than 'compact'.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree with the part that Nikon and particularly Canon are seriously risking becoming dinosaurs in this fast paced digital era. Some of their designs -- like the Nikon P7000/71000, Canon G12, Canon G1 X -- seem truly prehistoric.

0 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (Feb 21, 2012)

One of the best things cameras such as this offer is a wide range of external controls that are relatively changeable without diving into and navigating menus. This list of up-front external features is what contributes to the size and flexibility. Those who tend to use P and Auto settings are probably better served elsewhere. But this ready full featured capability is what makes designs like those in the P7100 and Canon's so refreshing to a photographer, so unique is it in the run of themill compacts.

1 upvote
Terry1100
By Terry1100 (Feb 21, 2012)

There seems to be a lot of "knockers" here.

I have yet to actually get a "hands on" with this camera but it ticks all my boxes - yes I would happily trade some zoom range for a bigger sensor but in terms of control, that left hand settings dial harks back to the Minolta Dimage 5/7 and that was an absolute winner "back in the day"

If only they'd moved the viewfinder 1/2 inch to the left !

As soon as I can hold one in my hand - not a stock item at Jessops :-( - I'll decide between it and the X10

If you're trading up from a lesser compact, fair enough M4/3 cameras with kit lenses are a better answer INSTEAD of this - but if you already have a DSLR and want an additional carry around camera, this (or the other premium compacts) are the solution.

Small interchangeable cameras are just another compromise - a good one admittedly but they are not for everyone - and, for the most part certainly not for people with big hands !

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

I am not really aware of anyone still contemplating buying a Fuji X10. This Nikon P7100 looks retroactively retarded. It would have been okay if it came out say 5 years ago, maybe. But today, with the East German style "design" and toy viewfinder, it is wholly nonsensical, especially at the stiff price demanded.

0 upvotes
BrianSaunders
By BrianSaunders (Feb 21, 2012)

I bought the P7100 and it does the jobThe pics, video, size and weight, fits in my jacket pocket and that I paid $388 - $10 gift card = $378, plus Best Buy customer service sprung for next day air, I'd say it's hard to find faults. @ $499 well that's a different story. If your thinking about getting one make sure your getting it for under $400, it's fun to use.

2 upvotes
Doug
By Doug (Feb 21, 2012)

I think it is fun to use. Play with and always find good results somewherre. rear flash is metioned a lot. I use it at 1/16 flash, a kot. ieven outside. S8200 almost wins because of size.

1 upvote
tessl8d
By tessl8d (Feb 21, 2012)

Nikon 1 V and J1 now this, Yawn....... I want some orbital infotainment, we want to know if that X10 is a Lemon or a Lime.

3 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Feb 21, 2012)

Excellent camera for 2010.

Like the proverbial MOD that insists on fighting the previous war and not this one, Nikon insisted on releasing this when the body is too large, the sensor too small, the price too high, the interest too low, and the circumstances entirely different.

From the test it seems to be a great camera. I have no idea why it would be chosen over a μ4/3 or other mirrorless at this stage though.

15 upvotes
Ben Raven
By Ben Raven (Feb 21, 2012)

Well said, rallyfan, well said !

Kudos tho, to Nikon (and Canon G1X) for the continuing homage to the 1950's (or is that 30's) archaic teeny-view optical-only viewfinder, certainly worth the extra 50% size and weight cost --for the laughs alone.

And in perfect synchronicity, DP provides their (lately) classic "Way Too Late Full Review" for a camera they previewed LAST AUGUST !!

Pardon me, at this rate, I've got to sign off now to start preparing for the DP full review of the Olympus OM-D . . . THIS AUGUST !

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 21, 2012)

surely the reason why it might be chosen over the other cameras you mention is down to its lens? I do wish, when people made comments such as yours, that they would pause first to consider what you are proposing as the no-brainer alternative - a bag of detachable lenses etc etc, a camera bag to carry it all. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it is very different from having it all in one body that fits in a large coat pocket - if that difference is significant to you then the Nikon makes a very persuasive choice.
As to the Nikon be 'so 2010' - get a life. What happens next year when they bring out a new colour?

3 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (Feb 21, 2012)

I think the best thing compared to the m4/3's and other CSC's is the fact that its has a fixed lens (with a decent zoom 7x) so one doesnt have to have a slue of lenses which add to the bulk of the CSC's and m4/3's, I have a NEX 5N which is bril but as soon as you add on the 55 to 200 lens its a BIG cam, with the P7100 I get that zoom in a pocket cam (just) with all the manual settings I could ever need, ok, IQ at higher iso's is not on the same level but for the sensor size the IQ is great!

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 21, 2012)

Many people seem to assume that all who buy these cameras use them as their main or only camera. In fact, many use them as back-ups to their DSLR kits, and they don't want to invest in two different systems.
I agree that if you were to choose between a P7100-type camera and a mirrorless ILC as you're main camera, then the latter would be better.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

The P7100 is a camera that nobody demanded from anyone. Looks like some old East German body design from Anno 1964. The truly primitive, all but useless image chopping viewfinder probably predates even the design's era.

Way too pricey for a Point & Shoot camera, and the 7x focal zoom range is inadequate for a superzoom. It's a strange brew, whatever it is. Not that the Canon G12 or even the G1 X is much better.

0 upvotes
Photo-Wiz
By Photo-Wiz (Feb 21, 2012)

Perhaps because the 28-200mm lens is far far smaller and lighter than any 4/3rd with 28-200mm coverage. Not to mention much less expensive. Just a thought.

1 upvote
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (Feb 21, 2012)

I paid $350 new for the P7100 on Amazon some three months ago. I can't think of any equivalent machine at this price point.

This body fills an excellent niche with the kind of full external control the V1 could only dream of. Photographers who like to readily make adjustments will find few competitors in the compact segment anywhere (outside the fine Canon G series that is)

0 upvotes
Kayleigh
By Kayleigh (Feb 23, 2012)

Francis, the camera was never sold as 'superzoom'. Obviously, different people have different needs for a camera. I was looking for a nice, fairly small camera for quick snapshots and have missed the ability to manually adjust settings on my previous compact. For dedicated photography, I have an SLR with a considerate amount of lenses, but I do not enjoy carrying them all the time. The P7100 always has room in my backpack and I pretty much carry it wherever I go. The controls are nothing short of amazing; all the functions I use most of the time are quickly accessible. The viewfinder is small; it serves as a backup for a worst case scenario and nothing more. As far as your comments about the design are concerned – all I can say that the camera and it's controls are perfectly arranged and easily accessible for maximum control. So please stop these derogatory comments regarding the design; they are not helpful here nor do they have any merit.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Feb 21, 2012)

Wow, this camera has been out a while.
It is practically discontinued.

13 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 21, 2012)

In RAW compare tool, the default 3rd camera is a P7100, is that supposed to be a P7000?

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Feb 21, 2012)

I know I'm getting hopeful here, but wasn't the P7000 announced the same day as the D7000?

Can we expect a D7100 (or whatever will replace the D7000) soon?

1 upvote
Richie Beans
By Richie Beans (Feb 21, 2012)

The big boys have gotten stupid. Somebody tell Canon and Nikon that these cameras are OVER. Who'll spend this kind of money if the Sony Nex cameras offer so much more camera for nearly the same money?

5 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 21, 2012)

Agree about the money value. This camera type are overpriced by this days. But this camera type is not dead and has future. There will always be someone looking for a good compact camera with fixed lens because not everybody want start a new system, and searches for the practical side that this type of camera can offer.

4 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (Feb 21, 2012)

Reality check: the NEX's offer so much more sensor, but also so much less lens versatility for the price of entry (US$550 for a C3 w/18-55mm or $US500 for a C3 w/ 16mm pancake).

And Sony's 18-200mm? Costs US$800 and quadruples the size of the camera.

5 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 21, 2012)

Many enthusiast/pro DSLR users want a smaller second camera with good IQ, lots of external manual controls and a fixed lens. Cameras like P7100, G12, G1 X and X10 fit that bill nicely.
Sony NEX does not offer the kind of manual controls these users value so much, unless you opt for NEX-7, which is much more expensive. Also, it's an ILC, and not all people want to have two such cameras; many people want a fixed lens camera to complement their system camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Feb 21, 2012)

> Who'll spend this kind of money if the Sony Nex [...]

Many many people who do not want the bulk of NEX lenses all the time?

2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 21, 2012)

Canon took the Nikon camera in this genre with G1X, I think Nikon is going to have to open your eyes in the next model that will replace this.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

The G1 X body looks just as prehistoric as this Nikon job does, and the 4x zoom on that Canon one is a joke. Canon is also dreaming that there are still enough well-off soccer mums out there who will pluck down 800 big ones for the G1 X. But I just don't think so.

0 upvotes
jimr
By jimr (Mar 7, 2012)

The G1X has a number of issues that you would not expect in a $800 camera.
Its AF and responsiveness is much closer to that of the $400 G12 than any other $800 camera..DSLR..Very average for a point and shoot as Dpreview states...
Its close focusing ability is very restricted.
All in all...not what you expect for $800.....
A larger G12 with a larger sensor ...but that is about all...
$800 worth...NO!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
LJohnK2
By LJohnK2 (Feb 21, 2012)

I have both Nikon DSLR and recently a mirror less Olympus E-PL2...the V1/J1 sensor misses the mark IMHO.

Nonetheless, I think there is a huge potential for these types of enthusiast cameras and I think Canon is on the right track.

Drop a 12 MP CMOS into this and add a fully rotating LCD and Nikon will have something....it is still way smaller than a mirror less kit, but I'd be surprised if we see a P7200....I think Nikon will likely put thier eggs in the CX line.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2012)

Really compact P&S cameras like the Ricoh GRD IV or the Canon X100 still have a place. And while I commend Nikon for the nice external controls on the P7100, there is less of a reason for a photographer looking for a travel camera or an enthusiast to buy this type of camera, when for just a bit more, you can have a nice Panasonic GX1, the Nikon J1, or if you are a fan of this form factor, a Canon G1X.

3 upvotes
645D
By 645D (Feb 21, 2012)

Well said. The body is not small compared to mirrorless, price is not low, what's the selling point?
BTW, where is the NX200 review? postponed?

0 upvotes
Richie Beans
By Richie Beans (Feb 21, 2012)

The G1X is more than twice the price of this camera (if Amazon is to be believed). This form factor seems to appeal most to those who have to show off their "street cred" in the P&S world.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 21, 2012)

They're so comfortable with their DSLR sales that they don't want to take risks. Now, this product is rendered obsolete. Canon started getting out of that shell by replacing the G sensor with a large, modern sensor. Nikon is going to catch up, again.

2 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (Feb 21, 2012)

the others need lenses which adds to bulk and the need for camera bag to carry various lenses around, P7100 has decent 7x optical zoom, G1X is great too but its really big, the P7100 you can just about get into one's pocket (thanks to retracting lens), but the G1x is way to big for a pocket (maybe a coat pocket) but only has 4 x optical zoom, but has better IQ at higher iso's... I like the P7100, for the size of sensor the IQ is great and it has masses of manual options, its well built and wont produce orbs at least...

2 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Feb 21, 2012)

It's interesting to compare the RAW noise with cameras from back in 2004: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/KonicaMinoltaA2/page15.asp In my opnion a little underwhelming in terms of the technology progress.

0 upvotes
chris_van_bc
By chris_van_bc (Feb 21, 2012)

Put in a APS-C sensor and I'm buying it.

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 21, 2012)

Yeah,Nikon should. Sony started with the NEX and Canon with the G1X.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 21, 2012)

put an APS-C sensor in it and... oh, wait, it won't fit. Lets see how we can fix that:
+make the body bigger
+make the lens range shorter, or make the lens bigger, maybe both
+increase the price
Still want to buy it?

5 upvotes
chris_van_bc
By chris_van_bc (Feb 21, 2012)

As long as it's within the size range of the G1X, absolutely.

I love all the manual controls.

Of course the price has to go up.

I use a D1H frequently and that admittedly is a bit bothersome to travel with and the fixed lens will remove the need to decide what lens to take, let alone the need to carry a lens.

Apart from a large sensor option from Nikon I definitely will be getting a G1X. Dream come true.

0 upvotes
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 21, 2012)

I'm tired to read that Sony NEX started, the little NEX5N...etc
NEX started nothing, just copied a panasonic idea.
And it's not comparable to a compact with retractable lens. Even you will need a propietary and external flash. No mention to the BIGGGG !!! lenses ... tired.
A good sensor doesn't make a good camera.
A bad sensor does a bad camera... on the other hand... (X10)

0 upvotes
Retro Joe
By Retro Joe (Feb 21, 2012)

No surprises and at least Nikon has regained some ground on Canon, albeit in what looks like the end of the road for this line of compacts.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

Exactly. This thing was at least 4 years behind the times the day it was launched. An arcane looking digital bang-up job if I ever saw one.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Feb 21, 2012)

The Nikon V2, whenever it comes out, needs to derive its ergonomics from this camera. Combine these ergonomics with the J1/V1 sensor & you would then have something killer to have on you all the time.

1 upvote
smallcams
By smallcams (Feb 21, 2012)

Some of us would prefer Nikon just drop the N1's CK sensor in the next P7xxx P&S camera. Tame the zoom range and beef up the lens speed and now we have a winner!

0 upvotes
peter42y
By peter42y (Feb 21, 2012)

You are completely right but it looks nikon does not want to put in jeopardy its dslr sales and they fear a too good compact might impact negatively in their dslr sales. J1 has the relatively big sensor but not the body controls. 7100 is the other way around : It has a great body but a small sensor. The ones who have combination of big sensor body controls are the nikon DSLRs.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

"The Nikon V2, whenever it comes out, needs to derive its ergonomics from this camera."

I guess you really must like 1960s style "ergonomics," Larry.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Feb 21, 2012)

i would like to suggest that you test the fill flash ability of these cameras. To me, that would be much more useful than tests of straight on flash, especially since i would assume that no visitors to this site still tries to make shots with the on-camera flash providing the main light source.
Plus, those shots you post always make the person you're shooting look like a mass murderer.
So, how about it? Trade those straight-on flash shots for something backlit with the camera flash set to a standard -1.3 or -1.7 flash compensation. Or if available, use the back-lit flash setting.
Thanks for listening.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Jaelkay
By Jaelkay (Feb 21, 2012)

Shooting jpg only is something I've not done with the P7100. Given the image quality seems to be much better in jpg as opposed to RAW, I'll certainly be giving it a shot.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 21, 2012)

With careful post-processing you can always get better images from raw, unless the camera has an amazing JPEG engine. That the P7100 gets a higher score for JPEG than for raw IQ doesn't mean that JPEG is better. It only means that JPEGs are better in comparison to JPEGs of other cameras in the same class, than the raw files are in comparison to the raw files of those other cameras. The different scoring categories aren't meant to be compared with each other; they should be compared with the same category of other cameras.

0 upvotes
Mal_In_Oz
By Mal_In_Oz (Feb 21, 2012)

The Nikon P7100 gets a better score in low light / high ISO than the XZ-1. Does this mean the P7100 is better than the XZ1 in low light?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 21, 2012)

The longer the gap in time between when two cameras are scored, the less you should focus on minor differences in scoring. Look at the samples and the explanations in the review, it's a better starting point. The X-Z1 was reviewed more than a year ago.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (Feb 21, 2012)

yes, the XZ 1 is pretty average above ISO 400 but with its fast lens it doesn't need the higher ISO's. So where the P7100 shoots at say 1600 iso at 4X optical zoom the XZ 1 at 4X optical zoom will use 400 iso which is a big diff's (cos of the much faster lens) but if you compare 1600 iso shots from both the P7100 is a bit better, the XZ1 will just not need 1600 iso very often whereas the P7100 will.

0 upvotes
Mal_In_Oz
By Mal_In_Oz (Feb 21, 2012)

Hey Barney, thanks for your response. My comment was a bit tongue in cheek and was put out there for general comment, not directed at the review.

I must admit I did feel moved to comment given the XZ1 got very little mention. I actually didn't see any reference to the XZ1 in the review until after reading your response. There is one reference to it in the summary and it was about the shorter zoom in comparison to the P7100. It was also not one of the cameras put into the comparison tool. This seems very light coverage considering the XZ1 is the reining champ in this category going by the overall scores.

Anyway, thanks for a good read. Now I need to go back to my hole and promise myself never to try to defend something on a public forum. :)

Cheers.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 21, 2012)

This XZ1 -- which camera company makes it? Would be nice if you let us know.

0 upvotes
Dabbler
By Dabbler (Feb 21, 2012)

Oly makes the XZ-1. I have it, it takes terrific images for a compact. My only complaint is the useless lens cap which starts falling off after the plastic has loosened up a bit. Oly has a better threaded lens cap but they're not selling it in the US, only Japan. So when a company remedies a flaw but makes it unavailable to their customers I opt to choose products from other companies.

0 upvotes
jimr
By jimr (Mar 7, 2012)

The XZ-1's JPEG engine is widely regarded as not up to the best especially at ISO 400 and above...

0 upvotes
386
By 386 (Feb 21, 2012)

Conclusion page. No value's score?

0 upvotes
Jakubo
By Jakubo (Feb 21, 2012)

zero is a score.

4 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 21, 2012)

Sorry, we had some code issues with the scoring system, it should be fixed now.

2 upvotes
Jakubo
By Jakubo (Feb 21, 2012)

i was afraid you did not value nikon much :)

2 upvotes
Total comments: 145