Just Posted: Our Nikon Coolpix A review

a.the dof actually looks pretty different in practice it crosses a threshold of actually being a noticeable

b. the zoom isnt that useful. Both these camera are really only for photographing things you can get close too. you won't be shooting the great horned owl with either. the ricoh and nikon lens have nearly no distortion and are effective at photographing most anything

c. The sensor and lens is no match for the GR/A. These images I shot with my GR yesterday are a good example http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51604079 . i taxed pretty heave on dynamic range and iso at the same time. the RX100 is just not up to this.

d. the nikon is a little big the GR is very comfortable in my pocket.

e. the sony like all sony camera be they nex/slt whatever is sort of a nerdy joyless thing to use. people will say thios doesnt matter until they try one and it beeps to let them know it took a picture. or they are having trouble composing there image through the 100 icons on the sony's screen

"Most cameras today are more than capable to make most people happy"
If you are talking about detail I agree but it is not that simple. I will give you an example I have an E-PL1 an NEX-5N. I don't shoot RAW so only use out of camera jpeg

The white balance of E-PL1 is very unreliable in any artificial lighting and someimes even daylight, produce odd color and it is a pain to correct them with jpeg (almost impossible to me)
I also much prefer the color of NEX there is no way you can change the color of E-PL1 jpeg to NEX color

So not as simple as you said. The white balance and color of a camera is different for different cameras so not all cameras today are OK to everyone

Of course one can shoot RAW but that is an added cost and added trouble that not all (including me) will do. Even in RAW I bet different camera has different color and also white balance is determine by camera settings if done in batch mode

CaptureNX and ViewNX both apply ADL for NEF/NRW files. Capture allows you to disable ADL, while View does not. Other raw converters ignore ADL. There is a discussion here http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigital/discuss/72157623298578772/

Hi, R Butler
Please produce more comparison between Nikon Coolpix A and GR in your coming GR review
both out of camera jpeg and processed RAW is greatly appreciated

Coolpix A seem to have better white balance for out of camera jpeg in many situation base on my observation
Is this correct?

No way
If that RX10 did come, the lens would be much better
even the recent SEL 20 F2.8 is just an average lens

SEL 20mm F2.8 is not so good and it is not OSS lens. So the rumored RX10 would be a nice runner.

There are a million possible reasons why the images in the A gallery are more pleasing to YOU than those in the GR. this doesn't make it the case for everyone and very very few of those reasons would actually have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the differences between the two cameras.

Isn't it interesting that people target you specifically and no-one else? I think that says a lot more about YOUR attitudes on these posts than anyone else's.

Further to this, Richard has spoken about the images in the galleries. There can be clearer answer than that. What you perceive to be 'nicer' or 'better' is completely subjective.

In further addition to this, there is FAR more to photography than numbers and sheer IQ output. Some of us like the process and the way the tools that we use work within that process. I would go so far as to say the IQ on most 'enthusiast' cameras nowadays is more than 'good' and we no longer need to worry about insignificant details - so the actual device itself and how it makes us feel becomes far more important.

@InTheMist - no offence taken - both galleries were by me (though some of the light I had when shooting the Nikon was lovely).

I would never expect everyone to agree with every word I say. It's frustrating to be told you're wrong by people who haven't actually read all of the review but, if someone's read the review, looked at the evidence I based my conclusion on and found it helped them draw their own (different) conclusion, then I've done my job.

@marike6 - I hope you enjoy whichever of these models you end up with.

Anyone trying to convince others which is better has to be based on facts
attacking each other is useless
show evidence and example why one is better than the other than everyone will benefit

Under "Real-world comparisons" I did find Nikon A better in color and/or white balance than GR in the 3 samples available but
1. color is subjective and that is just me
2. it may be possible to adjust GR in RAW to match Coolpix A but for out of camera jpeg (I assume those samples are), Coolpix A is better in my eyes

it cost you a lot of money to figure that one out, I guess you never really needed the Nikon pro kit in the first place.

Failure in your eys. It got Silver which means its good, and it says Nikon on it, which means it will outsell the xpro and x100 combined.

I'll try to make it clearer in the review. The Nikon can set exposure before shooting (and allow /some/ adjustment during capture), the Ricoh allows neither.

Aren't up to scratch? LOL. Nothing like webexperts putting down professionals out of jealousy. What a joke

Oh, boy. I guess you need a magician's certificate, with triple honors, to make the GR's colors right. Ming Thein is a highly competent professional who is hired by some of the fussiest people on the planet to photograph luxury goods accurately. It my be true that it needs arcane skills to make the GR colors correct, but if it's true it means Ricoh screwed them up monstrously. Which I don't really believe, as the pictures are quite nice from both. It's very easy to see a $300 difference if that's what you're expecting to see.

Thom Hogan, Ming Thein, et al don't write reviews. They are bloggers, they bother not with accuracy, cross testing, careful study, measure, analysis, consulting second opinion, acquiring needed testing equipment, setting up testing environment, triple checking, consulting camera manufacturers, software vendors, etc.
They ultimately write subjective reflections in the form of high-tech fictitious narrative based on an abbreviated and hyperbolised experience for our reading pleasure during leisure.
Their contribution to the art of photography is that of a tech romance fiction.
And that is exactly why we need websites like DPreview — despite their almost proverbial slowness sometimes. However, that has incredible merits, to disperse the accumulated nonsense of the bloggers celebrity famdom, who often sacrifice common sense and thorough testing by substituting them with loads of subjective nonsense — just to be first to "review" a camera after a barely two days of using it.

You should do a stand up comedy act dealing with cameras as your subject. You have repeatedly proclaimed that you are a camera collector not a photographer, hence, you don't know inferior color from black & white. And why would you want complicated menus given your lack of photography skills? on the other hand, Nikon A may have the ideal target market in you, point and shooter of static scenes...like a sleeping wife in the dark.

Ha! You make yourself sound like a chump not being able to figure out snap focus! Send it back, it will never suit you.

Dude, you bought the camera no one broke your arm to, right? Besides, most would disagree with you.

Hence the 14mm lens. You could even tailor the "fixed lens" by going with a 20mm or a 45mm, your choice. Someone need never change it. But, if something changes, the option is there.

@RIchRMA

I'm totally with you on the E-PM2+14mm making more sense (it's even a bit faster at f2.5 negating any sensor size advantage if even there)

But to be fair, the Nikon A still lays much flatter than the E-PM2+14mm. Just check it out here:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#387.5,445,ha,t

and this is even without accounting for the lens cap which further makes the E-PM2 even fatter.

Integrated lens allows for such tight designs that interchangable lens cameras just don't seem to compete with now.

m4/3 is simply not in the IQ class as the A or GR. Much larger sensor. Different features, strenghts.

Maybe. But neither of these are in the same class as m43's in operational speed or flexibility.

Oh and being able to have in excess of 2 stops faster lenses... yeah that part makes a FAR bigger difference in overall IQ than a 'slightly' better sensor.

The resolution of the OM-D sensor is such that you can run it through one pass of noise control and end up with pretty much the same image up to 3200 ISO as any of the APS sensors. Just compare the OM-D images with various APS sensors in the studio scene. The Pentax implementation has an edge when it comes to noise, the 24mp sensor in the Nikon has a resolution edge, but not by much in either case.

OM-D equal to D7000? Hahahahahahahahaha. Obviously never did any fair comparsion.

I thought the review DPR did with the two photo journalists would have been enough - You know, professionals using a professional tool and all that? (Not calling DPR staff unprofessional in any way shape or form), but that seemed like a pretty smart way to handle those cameras to me.

@ jackspra - If you need DPR to tell you whether the D4 is any good, then you aren't it's target market. Buy an RX1 of M instead.

Didnt say i need dpreview to tell me whether is any good. I said i would have liked to read a test on the d4.I enjoy reading the reviews and have a 1dx what i would like to compare.Its the flagship nikon! No big issues but think a digital website for cameras would want to review the top cameras for the top companys. This tends to get all the smart remarkers going including the site staff.

There is no reason to review D4. It's comfortably outside of the price range of 99.99% of DPReview readers. There are many other more interesting cameras that are still missing reviews. No need to waste resources on D4 review when 99.99% of DPR reader aren't interested in $6000 specialized pro sports camera.

Interesting that even though you are "ignoring" the reviews, you still found time to visit this website and comment on the review :)

I just love grumpy posters.

BTW we don't review all cameras, and we've written a lot about the D4, published plenty of samples etc. We almost certainly won't do a full review on it.

Simon, you couldn't even be bothered to post samples from the Canon 1D X. Why? You can't afford to rent one for a few weeks? This is supposed to be Digital Photography review. Both the D4 and the 1D X should have been reviewed as these are flagship, state of the art DSLRs and important to the camera industry. Before you say a word, ask yourself why do Road and Track or Car and Driver review the Corvette ZR1 or Ford GT500?

If you could put them in your studio comparison tool that would cover a big part of it

No good deed goes unpunished from armchair keyboard commandos.

I think it may be quite pragmatic to not bother with the flagships.

Who here is waiting for a review from ...DPR to decide whether to buy a1Dx vs. a D4? In fact, who is waiting to decide whether to change systems from Canon to Nikon?

The two purposes I could see for such reviews would be clicks and a boost in sales of lesser models from either range.

So you're saying the Ricoh definitely doesn't use the same sensor? I'm not sure I'd be that confident.

The rest of your points are addressed in the review and my comment below.

@R Butler

"While Ricoh, which owns Pentax, says the sensor is not the same highly-rated Sony sensor that is in the Pentax KII DSLR and several other cameras, my informal image quality tests show it is in the same league."

Source in Adorama's Ricoh GR preview:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014207/article/Product-Review-Ricoh-GR

@ marike6 - with respect, it's very rare for a manufacturer to say 'these two sensors are the same.'

The lack of AA filter or a difference in colour filter array is enough for a product manager to say 'this is totally new.' Given Nikon's talk of optimised microlenses on the A's sensor, I wouldn't rule that out as the difference.

I don't know the margin of error in DxO's testing, but there's nothing in their results that makes me believe there's a big difference between the two sensors.

Perhaps because no manufacturer wants to reinforce the idea that a products' qualities aren't its own doing. Or to avoid supporting the (false) idea that a camera's quality comes solely down to its sensor.

Look at the Sony NEX F3, 5N and 5R results. Certainly 16MP Exmor sensors, ISO scores ranging from 910 to 1114. Could that be the 5R's hybrid AF denting the performance? Maybe, but it still shows that some variance is not unusual, even in closely-related sensors.

I really don't see anything on DxO or that Adorama quote that changes my belief that both cameras use very similar sensors, plausibly two variants of Exmor.

Look at the pixel counts and video/CDAF performance of the GXR series, vs the availability of Sony 12 and 16MP sensors and I'm not sure that you can move from Exmor to GXR.

Marike6 - I'm also a long time Ricoh user who's had a chance to shoot pretty extensively with both of these. And I personally find plenty to like about the Nikon, some things more than the Ricoh. I, too, really like the focus ring, I like the auto-ISO implementation better, and blasphemous as it might be, I even prefer the less complex but still flexible interface. But I really don't know where you get "far better high ISO ability"? DXO shows a marginal difference of about a third of a stop IIRC, and I could never see a difference in actual low light shooting. They're both excellent, and as equally so as my eye could determine. Measurably better, maybe. But far better? I don't think so.

@ Marike6 - Of course you would say that about the Nikon, you are the worlds biggest Nikon zealot! Let's clear a few things up here:

Nikon doesn't name Sony either as the sensor manufacturer. Neither did Olympus or Panasonic - But we know better don't we?

Ricoh and Pentax both use Sony sensors in other models, such as the K5 series, GXR series, K-r, K-x and previous GRs - But you want us to believe that THIS sensor, that directly competes with your beloved Nikon but $400 cheaper, couldn't possibly be using the same Sony sourced sensor?

Oh yeah and you're a tool bag! Glad you finally took away your picture BTW.

Why is only Fuji the one trying to advance the state of viewfinders. Try harder, "Avis."

I'm sorry that the cameras in front of me didn't allow me to reach the conclusion you wanted.

Next, you'll be arguing the Ricoh isn't actually cheaper. They both produce very similar, high quality relative to their size. If someone has to have a Nikon, fine, but I'm not impressed by DxO scores and statistics like 974 ISO vs. 1164 ISO. I get different credit scores but I'm really the same.

According the DxOMark, 12-bit DNG on the K-30 vs 14-bit PEF of the K-5 cost it about 1 EV DR. But instead you did the usual DPR move of speaking for photographers saying "unless you are into heavy post work" kind of caveat.

But I didn't expect any outcome as I've actually pre-ordered the GRD, as I've been a GRD user for years. I just found it odd that you made one of the nicest DPR galleries ever with your Coolpix A images, and you wrote such a joyless review. Even positives like the manual focus ring, better moire control vs the GR, bitingly sharp images, great Sony Exmor sensor with nearly 14 EV DR and wonderful colors were not discussed. So no offense, I appreciate the work you've done, but I just thought you didn't review the Coolpix A on it's merits, but wrote a more subjective comparison piece.

DxOMark may have said that about the Pentaxs but they aren't saying that here.

The difference in their low light score is less than 1/3EV, the difference in the overall score is 2 points - they say 5 points is equal to 1/3EV. The difference in their DR score is 1/3EV. There isn't a 1EV difference between these two cameras.

I'm flattered that you liked the Coolpix A gallery, since I shot most of it. The Nikon's JPEG colour played a bit role in that.

Don't get me wrong, the Nikon's a nice camera - a Silver Award is meant to denote that it's really good. However, the two cameras are too similar for me to ignore the Ricoh.

@R Butler

No offense, much appreciate your review. But there is quite honestly a disconnect in your above statement about "GR is a bit better in every way" and the two DPR Sample Galleries from each camera. The Coolpix A gallery you made is absolutely beautiful: colorful, sharp, highly detailed images, while the GR's does not impress much at all.

Just reading your review and the lack of enthusiasm for the camera (and conversely your high enthusiasm for all things GR) seems odd considering the nice gallery you shot with it, that's all. Don't take it the wrong way.

@ marike6

I'm really not much of a 28mm equiv shooter, so your words are very kind. I can't do anything to change my assessment of the Nikon - it's really quite good.

It certainly sets a challenge for my Ricoh gallery.

Of course he is. Marike6 always claims to shoot lots of different cameras or formats, but somehow, in every word that is written about a product, regardless of brand, Marike6 has something to say about how great Nikon is. He is an unadulterated tool amd every single DPR post/review/preview is filled with his shilling nonsense. He cannot leave one thing alone, ever. Reading about the new Canon 11-22 for EOS-M? Time to read about Marike6's take on why the Nikon 1 is better.

If we can all ignore the dullard goon, he might take his meaty face elsewhere.

My eyes are telling me the same thing. Even at base ISO the Fuji raw images aren't as sharp as either of these two. And at higher ISO levels that continues. Don't know why. The Fuji seems like a very capable camera, but these are just a little bit nicer. I'll take the Ricoh, as it seems just a hair better at almost everything, for significantly less. Though the prices on all of these are too high. For the price of the Nikon I could buy a good dslr and lens or a very good mirrorless system. This might have better IQ at 28mm than they would, and fit in a jacket pocket, but so does a NEX-6, and it gives me an evf and a lot more versatility.

ACR is under-representing the X100S's capabilities. Check out the JPEGS.

No, you should have your eyes checked. The Fuji RAWs are soft as a baby's butt. All detail is washed away. Mr. Fuji rep..

Got to agree, Fuji cook their X-Trans RAWs like Pentax do. The X100 looks nicer to me. Though X-Trans does do a really good job of built in NR at high high ISOs, kinda makes a mess of them at lower ISOs.