|
Average rating:
4.13
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
Nikon Coolpix 35003.1 megapixels | 1.5" screen | 37 – 111 mm (3×)
|
|
Average rating:
4.13
|
|
Opinion: -> Excellent Camera
-> The Coolpix 3500 is a replacement for my trusty old Nikon Collpix 700 which died after many years of use and thounsands of photos. My impressions are that this camera does what it is supposed to do.
-> it's size and shape is a tad larger than my mobile phone. No problems fitting into a pocket. It is a simple to use, low feature compact camera that the wife is happy to keep in her handbag.
->Photo quality is first rate (minor barrel distortion at wider angles) and it is dead simple to use. Shutter lag is insignificant and the LCD crisp and clear, even in bright sunlight.
->Apart from a few minor issues (below) I am satisfied with this camera.
JPG
Problems: -> The battery compartment is a bit flimsy and with a bit of careful use will stand the test of time (this was what finally went on the CP700). Unfortunately to change the battery, or change cards, the compartment has to be accessed.
-> No optical viewfinder or manual focus.
-> It is difficult not to touch the lense when opening the camera.
-> No sport/fast shutter setting.
Opinion: A keen machine !!! BUT...
As you can see i've rated only a 2.5 for it's features.
This because 3500 model misses the capability to make accurate
pictures in the background with flash on. (It misses a flash with slow
shutter speed)
Secondly none of the fuctions could provide me a clear image of a
street filled with people and lights at night time.
The quality overall is fair enough for nice 10X15 pictures
Anybody who has a aps or a simple 35 mm compact camera, this might
be a suitable model for you. But i'm going to trade it for the Nikon
Coolpix 4500.... that's my better match !!!
Problems: No flash with slow shutter speed
Misses a couple of features to fotograph in every situation.
Opinion: This is my first digital camera, and I bought it because of the great deal I got on it. I paid about $275 incl. 16MB CF card from an on-line store in Sweden.
I have been using our company Nikon CoolPix 950 on several occasions and have been very satisfied with it even though it was bought five years ago soon.
After a week of taking a couple of hundred pictures I can say that there are a few quirks which I don't like... I don't like the fact that there's no optical viewer, I don't like the fact that the battery doesn't last for very long, especially when using the flash alot. The fact that it also needs much light to be able to auto focus is a bit annoying.
There are things I do like very much though, the pre-set scenes you can choose from, the excellent close-up feature among other things. On average I'm very satisfied with the image quality, the camera itself seems well-built and robust. Now, after buying an additional 128MB CF card I only have to get another EN-EL2 battery as backup. A minus as well that you need an external charger in order to charge the battery...
Problems: Very hard to take good pictures at a live rock-performance with smokemachines and scene lighting, maybe I should play around more with the manual settings when taking pictures at gigs in the future...
EDIT: Pretty damn often (too often) when taking pictures (mainly indoors) using the flash, you end up with a varying degree of white spots in the picture. The spots look something like amoebas or something and vary in size. Taking two similar pictures in a row as fast as possible with the flash may very well give you one good, spotless image and one full of white spots. I have seen others mentioning this here and it's growing more and more annoying each time I end up with a more or less useless image...
EDIT2: As I wrote before, the "spots" are becoming more and more annoying, also the poor auto focus when the lighting is just below good is annoying. I am currently looking for another camera to buy, one with better zooming capabilities and a Sport/action-setting for the concert-photos.
Opinion: Nice camera. Light weight and seemed very functional but I returned it to the store after 2 days. (see below in the problems section.)
Problems: The Nikon software conflicted with my HP printer. I have a HP 932 and run Windows 98. Nikon tech support told me there was nothing wrong with the camera only the software. To make it work I could download the pics into the computer but then before printing on the HP I had to disable the Nikon software. That seemed like too many steps for me to take each time so I returned it.
One note however, a 2nd computer in my home using a newer HP printer and Windows ME had no problem with the software. I needed the software to work on both PCs.
Opinion: My first digital camera. I wanted a small camera because I found that I used my Olympus Stylus Zoom 105 much more often than I used my Minolta X700. 99% of my shots are casual so I was not expecting to get a camera that took pictures as well as a $600 or $700 camera.
After reading other peoples reviews I expected a much lower picture quality than I have gotten. My battery seems to last plenty long enough I have shot 40+ pictures with flash after the low battery light indicator showed. When I put the battery in the charger but the only problem was slower cycling time more than likely do to recharging the flash. As far as I understand digital cameras eat a lot of batteries. But I take a lot more pics with my digital camera than I ever did with my 35mm. I simply would not take a hundred or so pics a day using film, the cost of processing would be prohibitive to my budget but with a digital camera I can shoot as many as I like.
No real complaints as the pics are much better than I expected after reading some of the reviews and rotating the lens becomes second nature with only a little practice. The red eye problem is of no real concern to me as it is so easy to fix in the Nikon View software. I have learned a lot from the forums here about CF and formatting the CF card in the camera because the CF gets fragmented just like a hard drive. The dust halos (common with the smaller cameras) are of little concern to me, but I have not experienced any, yet anyway. IMO, you get a lot of bang for the buck with this camera! If I ever get more serious about photography then I will consider a more expensive camera but until then this is a great little camera to stick in my pocket or just have handy to grab a quick snapshot.
It takes great pictures, very satisfied!
Problems: Just the learning curve, I am still trying to find out how much a 128 CF actually does slow down the time between shots as compared to a 64MB CF. i guess the only real way is to try a 128MB CF and a 64MB CF myself and then I will get the answer. Seems like the reviews on cameras should include some info to give a clue on how large of a CF card it takes before it starts to slow it down.
Opinion: This is my first digicam and fit my needs well. I take digital pictures mostly for record-keeping rather than art/aesthetic reasons, so minor problems with image quality don't bother me. The 3500 provides me with what I need at my present state of knowledge.
Since buying the camera I've discovered a use that I never dreamed of - taking pictures of documents (papers in scientific journals, mostly) instead of photocopying them. I download them to PC and shove them into Adobe Acrobat, whence I get a nice convenient .pdf file. Saves much money and shelf space, can annoy librarians though. It's also a good way of coverting those old happy snaps to an easily-storable format. 3Mp is fine: even 1600 x 1200 is good enough for most A4 pages of print.
The 3500 is excellent for such purposes. When it comes to the scientific stuff, though, it's an SLR and emulsion for me, every time.
Problems: None yet, though I'm hardly pushing the camera to its limits, am I?
Opinion: This is NOT a suitable replacement to the Coolpix 2500!
That's what I found out when I bought it as a replacement to my 2500. I thought good, I can finally upgrade to a 3.0 mpixel, but keep the same great features I am used to in the tiny 2500!
After a week I found out I was very wrong - these two cameras are identical in every way, except one:
The Coolpix 3500 has a TERRIBLE problem with shadow noise. It was immediately noticable when I first started taking pics. Luckily I still had my 2500 and was able to compare images directly. Taking the exact same pictures, you could see terrible shadow noise on the 3500, whereas the 2500 performed like always. And yes, I had the cameras set up identical.
If you love Nikon and want to get a 3.0 megapixel camera, go for the Coolpix 885 - it is roughly the same price as the 3500 now. While it's almost 2 years old now, all the features are there - check out DPreview's full review for details.
Problems: Terrible shadow noise rendered the camera inoperable.
Opinion: Bought this camera as a well featured pocket sized camera. Ideal for use at parties where you don't want the burden of a 35 mm . Based on the bumph that comes with it, it seem the ideal choice.
Problems: However ... You can't rely on the camera if you need to use flash , this pictures are ruined by what appears to be dust particles. I will be returning the camera and looking for an alternative.. what are Nikon playing at didn't they test the camera. I have seen results from their 885 and 775 models and they are extermely superior to the 3500
Opinion: Great camera for non-expert photographers. Does a lot of job for you, wich delivers generally good pictures. I wish the "scenes" (picture modes) could be modifiable and the bettery could last longer, but generally it's a very good camera.
Satisfied costumer.
Problems: none.
Reviews and specs
|
Galleries
|
Challenges
|
 | 22.3 megapixels 3.2" screen Full frame sensor |
