Nikon Coolpix 3500

Announced Sep 19, 2002 •
3 megapixels | 1.5 screen | 37 – 111 mm (3×)
Brum
 
0
replies

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 ...

View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
0
replies

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 ...

View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
lowlight
 
0
replies

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 ...

View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
Dave Bol
 
0
replies

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 ...

View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
Delta
 
0
replies

This was first digicam. I bought it in Dec. 2002. The image quality was quite good, except that there were a lot of very odd spots allover the image if it was taken with flash. These dots seem to be the blurred images of dust particles, which are floating around in the air. As I took a lot of pictures with flash I couldn't keep the camera, because these artefacts were really annoying! Sometimes almost 50% of the image was blurred with these spots! I returned the camera and got me a Canon S45 ...

View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
0
replies

I bought this digital camera because I needed some fast pictures. I use several Nikon SLRs as well as my preferred handycamera, Leica Minilux. After having fun with it for two weeks it goes back to the shop and Iøm going to buy a Nicon 35mm scanner instead. That way I'll be able to use traditional 35 mm cameras and scan them with 11 million pixels. Note added January 2004: I did buy a scanner. Also I bought a Leica D1 digital which is the perfect camera. Problems: 1. It almost has to be ...

View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
Ken Blumberg
0
replies

Maybe this is the price one pays for being an early adopter. See problems. Problems: I had high hopes for this my first digital camera. Unfortunately, I got one that was defective. Many pictures had a strong magenta cast and several had speckles. Returned it and plan to pick up a Canon S45 next week.

View review in forums Leave a comment on this review