Nikon Coolpix A Preview updated with studio comparison pages

Studio samples are not always reliable.

@Bamboojled

This camera has phenomenal resolution in the center of the frame, but you're wrong about the corners.

Look at the watch. The Nikon A resolves the markings for 10, 11, 12, 1, and 2, as a single line. However, they are double lines. Also, the Nikon A heavily distorts the watch. The straight lines are curved.

Now pull up the OM-D. Not only the OM-D, but the other three cameras in the comparison (Panasonic G3, Sony Nex 7, and Samsung NX200, I think), resolve the watch correctly.

What does this mean in real life? It depends. But certainly image quality with this camera is degraded somewhat in the corners.

@bobbarber

You posted something similar to this in another thread...
I, like the person that answered your comment in the other post, do not agree with you. In fact when the other person (I believe it was marike6) pointed out the lines of the brushed metal around the watch.

You then dismiss this and all the other examples given, showing you far more detail (the A on thursday). Also take a look a t the top far left right corner with the checkered pattern against any of the cameras.

It was also pointed out to you that on the OM-D it is using a 50 Macro if I remember correctly, so you are not comparing apples to apples.

If you want to make a claim that the lens is soft at the corners then you have to 1) compare to equivalent lens, 2) look at the corners of the checkered pattern on the far right corner, all other cameras show this soft and grey and white.

If you think this is not acceptable performance, show me a $1000 camera with a 28 equivalent that performs as well if not better.

@Bamboojled

You're making a case for this camera's IQ in the corners, when the camera is obviously missing in the corner.

Who give's a rat's patootie about the "brushed metal" you and marike6 are gushing about, or the Thursday, when the camera is incorrectly resolving basic, LARGE details like the markings for numbers on the watch? If you really want your eyes open, go smaller than m43 and look at how the XZ-1, TL500, LX7, and similar cameras resolve the watch. They do a better job than the A too. The markings for the numbers are depicted correctly.

This camera looks awesome in the center. You should take what you have, and stop arguing where you're wrong. Anybody who takes the time to look at the comparison images will see that the watch is distorted and incorrectly depicted in teh Nikon A image. The rest of the image I like very much.

@bobbarber,
a little pot calling the kettle going on....
You say that you don't give a rat's patootie about the brushed metal, you also want to ignore the other examples that make the case for the Nikon A corner sharpness.
It sounds to me like you are completely fixated on this and that is all you want to see, and no evidence to the contrary (Sharper lettering on the watch, detail around the watch, detail in the far upper corners of the image, Checkered pattern on the top)
DUDE YOU ARE STUCK ON THOSE MARKINGS IGNORING ALL OTHER EVIDENCE!!!
It's interesting you completely ignore the fact that you are not comparing apples to apples with regards to lenses as marike6 and I posted. The m43 are not using a 28mm and neither are all the other cameras you are comparing...HOW THICK ARE YOU THAT YOU CAN NOT GET THAT.

Not thick at all.

I didn't cherry-pick the watch markings. They are one of the few things that I look at with all cameras. Why? Because I've bought wide-angle converters and wide-angle lenses that don't perform edge-to-edge. It's like getting cheated a little bit, because you buy wide angle specifically for that reason--to frame as wide an angle as possible.

Two other things I look at are the golden hair just above the watch, and the woman's face on the currency with red hatching. This camera dominates those two parts of the setup. It really does a phenomenal job.

So--I guess we just have a difference of opinion here. To me, this camera is more like a 35mm angle of view with premium image quality, and some distorted view thrown in at the edges, if that fits your vision. Would I buy it because I thought I was getting 28 mm FOV? No.

P.S. It creates detail in the corners (filling in markings), yet you trust that other detail is genuine (not created). Um, OK. How do you know?

Just go buy an RX100. You get: Focus peaking, photo adjustments preview in real time (yes, including exposure compensation) , better LCD, much better battery life, smaller, Zeiss lens, Zoom, 20MP.

AND YOU SAVE $600!!

Other RX100 features not found on the A that I forgot to mention: in camera image stabilization (Steadyshot), faster auto focus (much), and a horizon level that doesn't impede live view. The quick menu accessed from the Fn button is much better implemented on the RX100. SAVE $600 for other goodies like extra batteries and a charger etc.

WOW, neat features...
Question; How do the images compare to the Nikon A?

Ahhh, I thought that would stump you :)

I've been shooting/testing with both for about a week and hands down the RX100 produces images that are much more pleasing to my eyes. The RX100 produces sharper images, with better color and the OOC jpegs crush the A. The RAW files from the RX100 are much heartier also. Please don't say "but what about the studio samples?" I'm talking live, in person REAL LIFE testing, not someone else's studio shots. IMO the RX100 is simply a much better camera than the A...sorry. Plus with the RX100 you get 10 fps burst (vs. 4 from the A) the camera does not forget the self timer (as it does on the A) sweep panorama, Sunny Weather LCD and max aperture of f1.8 vs. 2.8 on the A. The RX100 wins hands down, it's really no contest... ALL FOR $600 LESS!!

CHAS RX1
I had the RX100, nice camera, it does not hold a candle to the Nikon A...
Regarding heartier files, folks are throwing this around lately and seems to be the new word for filmic or film like or 3d look.
No matter what word you decide to use the RX100 does not outperform the Nikon A's files.
This is clear, CLEAR, in the studio samples, it is clear in all the reviews, and it is very clear in DXO ratings of both of these cameras.
The Nikon A has greater dynamic range, far better High ISO performance, and greater color depth.
So if you want to talk about heartier files or whatever the latest catch phrase is, the RX100 is not that.
Now if you like the look better, that I cannot argue as that has to do with your eyes.
Anyone that has 20/20 vision however, might come to a different conclusion.

@Bamboojled

Sorry but your simply wrong. Get an A for yourself then get back to me. You've been bamboozled! :)

I agree with Bamboojled on this one.

The RX100 is worse than the Nikon A in the corners. Nice IQ in the center of the frame, though.

Ah Bob, I knew we would finally agree on something!!!
Cheers

You all make very compelling arguments for your own individual opinions but I'm afraid I must agree with Chas RX1. If I needed a compact camera, I would choose the RX100 over the Coolpix A on the basis of value for the money alone e.g. $600 vs $1200. If I were going to spend $1200 for a new camera today, then I would most certainly buy the D7100 and for $199 more get the excellent AF-S Nikkor 35mm f1,8 lens. Just my 2 cents... :)

I don't need to justify my post. I bought it, I tested it and I stand by my opinion. But it is after all, just an opinion. If you feel that strongly about it, go get one. Knock yourself out slugger!

I think he is dead on balls accurate. I returned mine after a week. junk...

That would be great! looking forward to seeing the samples...