Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon Coolpix P7800 real-world samples

By dpreview staff on Oct 2, 2013 at 01:01 GMT
Buy on GearShop$546.95

Nikon's new Coolpix P7800 arrived in our Seattle office a few days ago and we've been doing our best to get as many sample images as possible on it, despite the unpredictable autumn weather. We've managed to create a small gallery of samples, taken in a range of different conditions to show off what the camera can do. There's more on the way, but for now, check out our gallery of pictures from Nikon's newest zoom compact flagship. 

Nikon Coolpix P7800 Real-world Samples: Published October 1, 2013

There are 32 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

61
I own it
36
I want it
12
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Nikon Coolpix P7800

Comments

Total comments: 80
CMurdock
By CMurdock (6 months ago)

This is very strange. The images from this camera are much blurrier than the images from the previous model, the P7700. This is discouraging.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (6 months ago)

I wish Nikon or one of the m43 companies would come out with a fixed zoom lens body using the Nikon 1" or DX sensor or m43 sensor with a 24-80 or so equivalent lens. Faster would be better, but at some point it can't be made compact or the lens IQ suffers.

If Nikon made a P7800 with a 1" sensor and a fixed 24-75 (or so) equivalent zoom lens that had very very good sharpness I'd be a buyer for sure as I like the features, layout and ergonomics of the P7800 very much.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

You've heard of the Canon G1X?

Also "fixed lens" can have a different meaning--see the Ricoh GR. That has a fixed lens.

Then how about the Sony RX100 II?

Or is what you really see a Sony RX100III with an EVF? Like the Nikon P7800 or the Panasonic LF1?

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (6 months ago)

If only Nikon had made it a 24-XX FX equivalent I'd be sold . . . perhaps the next iteration they will. In the mean time I'll keep using my LX7, which is fine, but it does not have an EVF nor an articulated screen.

I do have m43 gear (GH-2 and G5) which becomes more bulky and expensive once you add equivalent lenses to them.

Perhaps I'll pick one up in a year or so when the price comes down.
Still waiting for a replacement of my dear old CP8400 - the P7800 came close except for being 28mm on the wide end . . .

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

You can get a very nice EVF for the LX7.

0 upvotes
David Julian
By David Julian (5 months ago)

I totally agree, and I'm also seeking a very-wide compact with articulating LCD (gee, thanks Canon for leaving that great feature out of your G# series updates).
Considering this Nikon 'cause nothing else zooms as much an art. LCD. The pics I've examined are damn good for a small sensor. Wondering if it takes a filter adapter like the G-series.

Let's pray to the Mfr gods for the ultimate compact that makes our hearts soar and out pockets not empty.

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (6 months ago)

Utterly amazing. You can get many a 4/3rds camera from Olympus or Panasonic, even a DSLR, for less than the Nikon 7800 or Canon G16. Instead, why doesn't Canon advance the G1X and let Nikon come up with something similar.

1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (6 months ago)

Although I wanted to like the P7800 because it is a Nikon with ADL, I think the Canon G16 samples are better, or maybe another set of samples is in order from dpreview to prove otherwise. The exposures are very inaccurate with half over or under exposed by half stop to 1 stop (off colours) but the other half looks okay. I will stay with my LX5 for now (more consistent exposures outdoors especially) and my wife's Coolpix. Canon G16 exposures were consistent.

For those wanting a m43, go for it. The point of these advanced compacts is the size with long zoom is much more compact and lightweight than m43 if it had the exact same long zoom range. Worth the money to many who buy for this reason.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (6 months ago)

You can get a DX DSLR BODY for the price of a P7800, but when you throw a lens or two in to get the equivalent focal length coverage you are at $1K or so. The DSLR system is also much bulkier in total. You'd have to buy a much older model DSLR and used glass to approach the P7800 new price.
Wait a year and the P7800 will be a bit cheaper I'm sure.

1 upvote
Neil29
By Neil29 (6 months ago)

Has anyone seen information regarding "what information is displayed in the digital viewfinder other than the image itself" was looking at the Fuji X20 with its digital overlay in the viewfinder. Also does anyone know if the write times have been improved over the P7700?

0 upvotes
Iso1975
By Iso1975 (6 months ago)

These pictures are crap! Any low priced compact would do the same or even better.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (6 months ago)

Any chance of a portrait without highlight clipping or overexposure? I am sure if the camera was metering off the face and not the dark jacket, likely the face would have been much better. A second photo of a portrait would have been best to do so we can examine the skin tones properly.
Still have the camera for testing?
Sorry to be bit picky, but Nikon cameras are usually much better for portraits. The DSLRs certainly are, and I have one of the small compacts Coolpix for my wife.

Other than that, the image quality looks very good for other subjects.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Pierogo
By Pierogo (6 months ago)

I have a P7700, and I love its image quality. I'm really drawn to the new viewfinder this new camera has, but what I need to know is, does it write its RAW files any faster?

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (6 months ago)

How long does it take to write RAW files on your P7700, please ?
Which type/class of SD card do you use ?

0 upvotes
Pierogo
By Pierogo (6 months ago)

I use an Eye-Fi Mobi 8 gig card. The camera is busy and unusable for about 4 seconds after I take a shot when it's set for writing RAW+jpeg. It's not a high-performance card, but still.
Even with a fast card, it's pretty slow. Go to the "Performance" section to get Dpreview's take:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-g15-nikon-p7700-shootout

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

Nice output but one wonders if there's still market for such compacts when you can get a V1 or a m43 for much less money.

1 upvote
Karroly
By Karroly (6 months ago)

How big and expensive would be a V1 or m4/3 body PLUS a 28-200mm equivalent F2.0-4.0 zoom lens with OIS ? So yes, there is definitely a market for these compacts IMHO...And the "average" photographer does not care about ILC and is seeking for a compact "all-in-one" camera usually...

7 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (6 months ago)

Thank you for the samples. Very good overall sharpness, but...
To get a better idea of the zoom IQ at tele end, why not choose a subject that is bright enough to be shot a lowest ISO (no noise), fastest aperture, which is flat enough so everything is within the DOF, with small details on every edges and corners, and is near enough so atmospheric turbulences and haze is not a problem ? It should not be that difficult...
DSCN0138 was taken at 1600 ISO...
DSCN0093 is a far subject with 2/3 of sky...

0 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (6 months ago)

I agree with Gulffish, the images are flat and lifeless!

0 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (6 months ago)

Ever seen raw images off of a D4 or MkIII? Flat, flat, flat. But full of data with possibilities. To compare untouched images to cheap cameras with balls-to-the-wall internal correction (*cough*Sony*cough*) means nothing.

1 upvote
gulffish
By gulffish (6 months ago)

Nice sample shots but to me they look flat, 0073 is agood example. Think saturation and color density need to be kicked up.

2 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

Some of the images are overexposed, 1/2 to 1 step. That is why they look flat, nothing more.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

And all of these images are jpegs, so unless y'all are commenting on the jpeg engine, why bother commenting?

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

Do not POST technically imperfect images, jpegs or raws, doesn't matter.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

moizes 2-

People post “technically imperfect images” all the time. Including here at this website, and sometimes some of those technically imperfect images started out as raws.

jpegs remain a degraded version of what this camera can do. That’s why reading complaints about the image quality of this camera based upon jpegs is really tiresome.

Unless you’re wedded to only shooting jpeg, who cares about the image quality of what DPReview posted here?

Also things like exposure, tint, and saturation are often a matter of taste, and then given that computer monitors vary in quality widely you may not be seeing the same image that the originator posted–even if you download the whole jpeg.

Raws aren't exactly posted for viewing either, raws would be downloaded and then worked upon/extracted.

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

To listen to you, it is much better if people call the images "flat and colorless". Such the characteristics may kill brand new very nice product even before it goes to shelves. Huge part of potential buyers of that camera do not even know the difference between jpeg-raw, and they are correct, absolutely. They only see poorly performed images and read "FLAT, COLORLESS". Miss Dorothy will never buy it, simply like this, and she will be right. You, guys, should think twice, before posting anything here, poorly made images or critics. Or take responsibility on yourself, do not put it on any manufacturer, Nikon in this case. Very good pristine images must be posted, not demagogue!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

moizes 2:

And when did I advocate posting flat or colourless images?

All I was saying is that jpegs usually are that way. And why bother to even look at jpegs from a camera which can shoot raw? Unless of course you only shoot jpeg.

No one serious about cameras like this one, say the Canon G16, is going to make image quality judgements based on jpegs.

I understand why DPReview didn’t post raws for download; ACR doesn’t extract these Nikon raws yet. And I don’t particularly care that DPReview posted some jpegs to look at. Jpegs aren’t things I look at when trying to find out about cameras like this one.

I’ve not looked at all of these jpegs, but they mostly look good on my monitor, but my monitor is extraordinary.

Reads like you work for Nikon.

Wait until you can see raws and extract them.

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

This camera is targeted for segment of the market which populated with buyers who do not know what does it mean jpeg or raw and why they need spend time to improve the image. They simply do not need any raws and supporting programs, accordingly. They need nice reliable camera right now, without any extra trouble. They are doctors, lawyers, mothers of families, drivers, so on and on. They DO NOT need RAWs. They are not pros, like you and me. That's why any new tested camera MUST be advertised with max even possible quality of the images, not clear garbage, to turn a good idea into its opposite. BTW, I am not working for Nikon, never did. I am old pro for 55 years, from darkroom and Toyo 8x10, to D4/D800 and Hassy with digibacks.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

m--

No this camera is not targeted at jpeg only shooters. Remember how many objected when Canon made the G series jpeg only?

Yes some people who buy this camera will only shoot jpegs, and for that reason in the final review, not this posting, a comment should be made about the strength or weakness of the jpeg engine.

I looked again at some of the jpegs, they look okay to good on a MacBook "retina".

There's an out door one of clouds which looks hazy, and that tells me that the lens isn't dealing with UV as well as a good Samsung, Fuji, Zeiss, Olympus, Panasonic or PanaLeica would.

Remember this isn't the final test by DPReview, these are simply jpegs shot with the camera.

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

I would accept something there, but most of the images are overexposed and such situation is working against its main goal - to show how good is brand new product. So far people saying - flat, colorless images - because of unforgivable operators overlooking or direct mistakes. Keep in mind, nobody from potential buyers has "retina", very few - maybe!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

moises 2:

So I got some ISO 1600 raws, extracted them to 8bit tiffs with View NX2.

They seemed fine, with room to play with saturation and exposure, when ACR finally extracts them.

The problem would appear to be that the Nikon P7800's lens isn't as optically good as it should be. PanaLeica, Fuji, Samsung, Olympus all have better lenses on the direct competition--LX7, X20, EX2F, XZ2.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (6 months ago)

Image quality looks almost exactly the same as the P7700..not that that's a bad thing. But I guess if you can do without the viewfinder, you can save yourself almost $300 and get the same level of imaging performance with the P7700.

0 upvotes
mr.izo
By mr.izo (6 months ago)

p7800 is 7700 with viewfinder..

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

vapentaxuser:

Um where did you get raws from the P7800?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

mr.izo:

And a BSI sensor.

0 upvotes
108
By 108 (6 months ago)

Very nice camera, nice samples. Now the american Amazon retail price new is 546.95 usd, whereas on Amazon germany and france it sells for euros 561. At today conversion rate ( 1.35 dollar for 1 euro ), that puts the" european" 7800 at 757,35 usd equivalent. Given all the talk about free trade and fair treatment to all nations, anyone can explain to me this discrepancy ? Assuming some kind of adjustment for whatever economic/standard of living reason, let's say a 1.15 conversion rate to be nice, that's still 15% more than US retail price. What are we european customers ? Idiots to be milked dry by austerity measures while our american counterparts continue enjoying better prices for the same goods paid with paper printed at will by the FED ?

4 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (6 months ago)

This is not a Nikon thing, this is an economy thing.

0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (6 months ago)

Not an economy thing. It's a fiscal policy thing. Talk to your local government representative.

2 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (6 months ago)

Well you can always live in America, with American labour laws, health care, unemployment and social care benefits. You'll have more money in your pocket and cheaper cameras until something goes wrong in your life and then...
Otherwise you'll pay VAT, higher overheads for shop workers, the retailer and distributor, higher fuel prices for delivery etc etc. and have to pay more for your latest gadget.

10 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (6 months ago)

Keep in mind that the Amazon US pricing excludes sales tax while in the European Amazon stores VAT, MWSt etc is included. There's still a difference but it is not quite as big. Also, you have much better warranty in Europe which also has to be worth something.

3 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (6 months ago)

Yea, but, how would you like to pay $300,000 for life-saving medical care without insurance... even with insurance, you are going to dig into your savings. Now, do you want your children to go to school as well ....

4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (6 months ago)

The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is unpaid medical debt. That's the price of cheap cameras.

2 upvotes
Jim in Hudson
By Jim in Hudson (6 months ago)

What in the world does health care have to do with the price of a camera?

0 upvotes
jimkahnw
By jimkahnw (6 months ago)

VAT is 19% in the EU, hence the price difference. Which makes the base price lower.

0 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (6 months ago)

Hmmm, let me see. In Europe it's VAT and your overvalued Euro. But you also get free health care, unemployment, 2 hour lunches, and at least 6 weeks vacation every year. So stop bashing Americans.

1 upvote
M DeNero
By M DeNero (6 months ago)

Yeah, blame America. I don't know exactly where in Europe you are from - probably one of the countries with low work-ethic and high showmanship - but Americans are not the geniuses who encouraged disparate economies to join together in a currency union. In fact, responsible Americans discouraged it from the beginning. We also have fewer tariffs on foreign goods than Europe. And the US is not the only country running its printing presses 24/7/365.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
nedelcho
By nedelcho (6 months ago)

Here in Bulgaria (we are also part of the EU) we have almost no free health care, 1 hour lunch, 20 days vacation per year and 600 euro salary per month (which is one of the relatively good salaries) and guess what, the price of the cameras are the same like everywhere in Europe. So stop make yourself some kind of a victims.

1 upvote
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (6 months ago)

Look...the start of World War Three :)

3 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

To Olymore - you, guys, there in Europe, used to drink coffee from 11 to 3, everyday, what I've seen with my own eyes. Germany is working hard to cover your coffee. Nobody is covering anything for me in the NYC, and I working everyday in my 70, to get something over my pension. The same do a lot of my old friends, who is not after stroke or heart attack. If you are from GB, it is not for you, but anyway, you know...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Jim in Hudson:

Figure it out, it's really pretty obvious.

0 upvotes
sdh
By sdh (6 months ago)

Let's see, same lens, sensor and IIRC processor as the P7700. Is there any reason to expect image characteristics to any different from the P7700?

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

The P7800 has a BSI sensor. And the P7700 doesn't that's a significant difference.

0 upvotes
IonPortraits
By IonPortraits (6 months ago)

One more portrait would be nice and actually necessary for a better understanding.
Very impressive outcome for a small sensor though! And the lens is very good but at its extreme sides. I feel Nikon has worked hard to make its best here, iq wise.

0 upvotes
jeds
By jeds (6 months ago)

Less than impressive. They all look a bit insipid to me.

1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (6 months ago)

Some of the shots look a little flat, and colors a little too cool for my taste.

Still, the sensor/lens combination gives good noise performance and is nice and sharp. Shot 18/25 with the plant in front of the brick shows good sharpness across the frame. True, its an ideal situation with base ISO, stopped down in good light, but it shows what the camera can do.

Very good results I think for a 1/1.7 sensor and 7x zoom.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

they're jpegs.

0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (6 months ago)

That portrait shot is terrible. Yeah, lovely skin tones. lol

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (6 months ago)

Wow, I can imagine that 072 (bubble sculpture in half shadow) is a very challenging dynamic range.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

I went to DSCN0084 first and find it quite good.

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (6 months ago)

True. That's a nice one too. Nice performance! It's not for me, but you have to give credit where it's due.

0 upvotes
Mayank B
By Mayank B (6 months ago)

Thank you, DPR.

0 upvotes
sbansban
By sbansban (6 months ago)

The daytime shots seem to be overexposed

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

they're jpegs, who cares?

0 upvotes
jackpro
By jackpro (6 months ago)

lovely skin tone lol

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

jpegs, get it?

0 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (6 months ago)

The images show an amazing amount of detail for such a small sensor camera. No doubt in large part due to the excellent Nikkor lens in the P7800 and excellent noise handling that retains detail as well. This is about as good as it gets for a camera with a tiny sensor!

7 upvotes
carlos roncatti
By carlos roncatti (6 months ago)

The only problem with Nikon nowadays are the skin tones..they are ugly...many of the new cameras have an orange color. If you go to shuttebug reviews and see all brands, nikon has one of the worst skin tones ever. They shoot the same girls with every different camera...

1 upvote
Vizio Virtù
By Vizio Virtù (6 months ago)

Don't agree. My Nikons (D3, D3x, D200, D 5100) produce just perfekt skin tones ooc. Very natural and not that reddish you often see from other brands. Of course, to know your camera helps to get good results. Proper in camera tonal curve settings are importan likewise using NX2 when shooting RAW.

The portrait here (2709291.jpg) is overexposed.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
carlos roncatti
By carlos roncatti (6 months ago)

Many samples from the new ones do have an orange cast...my old D300 is better, i also agree.
there were many complaints about the D7000 and if you type orange skin tones nikon on google you will get plenty of resuts..d5200:
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/nikon-d5200-lab-test-results-amp-comments
of course is a matter of taste...some like this kind of color...i like fuji skin tones very much ( but dont own any fuji mirrorless camera or dsrl)

1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (6 months ago)

If you shoot raw and run the Nikon photos through Lightroom and apply Portrait mode preset, the skin tone colours always look lovely to the eye or select any of the other presets in LR for shade, cloudy or daylight. Works very well. Something I would do for a DSLR file, but for an advanced compact, most may choose to shoot in jpeg only or the occasional raw. If one wants the best you can get from a raw file (because higher IQ matters) likely they are using a larger sensor camera to start. Works well in LR for my D700 and D300.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

@all:

These are jpegs, who cares about claims of jpeg skin tones?

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

IQ at base ISO is very nice and looked good at ISO 720. How do they get those weird ISO value BTW? ISO 1100 wasn't so good, but not bad.

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (6 months ago)

Simple, conjoin 2 round numbers: ISO 1000 - 1/2 EV.
(Camera under auto ISO, I'd guess; didn't check the EXIF.)

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (6 months ago)

No they shoot in auto ISO mode and the camera picks odd ISO values at times.

0 upvotes
camerosity
By camerosity (6 months ago)

I hope dpreview will do a full review of this camera...

2 upvotes
WayneDB
By WayneDB (6 months ago)

You mean like they did the last one? Maybe in a years time...

0 upvotes
sbansban
By sbansban (6 months ago)

Absolutely - I just opened a thread in the suggestions and feedbacks forum entitled Point and Shoot Reviews requesting DPR for more P&S reviews - at least the more interesting/advanced/high-end ones.

0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (6 months ago)

I like your examples...good shooting. I am wondering why you guys are continuing to show examples of 2005 technology, the world has moved on. No more small sensor Kodak type of unlimited DOF please.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (6 months ago)

We cower in the shadow of your terrifying opinions.

15 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (6 months ago)

Yup the world has move on indeed with mobile phone photography.

4 upvotes
Total comments: 80