CP4500, I wish to see any full color landscapes?

[Neil Hicks]

Hi,

I am thinking about buying the CP4500 and I have been looking at all the posts about it. I would like to see some full color landscape images and wondered if someone can point me in the right direction.
I have been lurking on this site for some time and think it is excellent.
Thanks,
Neil Hicks.

 

[DrW]

I hope this helps, it isn't super distant, but should give you an idea of the level of detail and color this camera has. This is fully automatic with the excpetion I shot at ISO 200 (handheld). No post processing, straight from the camera. The camera is tack sharp with distant landscapes, better than previous coolpix models. The color is incredible (yes that is real color of this awesome sunset that occurred as the sun broke out after a strong storm off the coast.

 

[Olga Johnson]

Hi,
I am thinking about buying the CP4500 and I have been looking at
all the posts about it. I would like to see some full color
landscape images and wondered if someone can point me in the right
direction.
I have been lurking on this site for some time and think it is
excellent.
Thanks,
Neil Hicks.

Here are a few unretouched photos taken with a 4500:

http://www.pbase.com/olgaj/colorado

• Olga

 

[Sid Daley]

Here's a few totally unretouched.







Sid

Sid's Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/sid_daley/coolpix_4500
Coolpix 4500 Community:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nikon-4500/

 

[Diana Lundin]

does this qualify as a landscape? For the most part, I really, really like the 4500. It's a great little camera. A few faults, yes, but who amongst us does not have a fault or two?



--
Diana
http://www.pbase.com/dlundin

 

[Chris Book]

... have a peep through the arch



Chris

 

[neil chirnside]

Hi Neil,
I have plenty at my site please take a look.Usually do alittle work in P.S.P.

Cheers Neil Chirnside http://www.Pbase.com/kiwineil/neils_pics

 

[Lloyd Hager]

Here's a couple I took at the Denver Botanical Garden



and



Cheers

Hi,
I am thinking about buying the CP4500 and I have been looking at
all the posts about it. I would like to see some full color
landscape images and wondered if someone can point me in the right
direction.
I have been lurking on this site for some time and think it is
excellent.
Thanks,
Neil Hicks.

 

[Diana Lundin]

Another one:



Diana
http://www.pbase.com/dlundin

 

[Dmitriy107869]

I was also looking into getting a 4500 for almost 2 months now.... still can't decide. Unfortunetely, these images is what I was afraid of... this camera does a pretty bad job with landscapes. I am not a pro photographer.... but landscape shots look extremely blurred. Yes, the camera is perfect for macro shots... but occasional landscape shots is also something I'd like to be able to print out. The blurred images I've seen posted (from 8 posts below) look blured when printed 8x10. Detail is just not there. All leaves are blurred into one green mess, no defined edges...

Those who have the camera, what's your HONEST opinion of the landscape performance? It seems that the little Canon S40 does a better job, but I could be wrong there. 5700 is definetely better, but that's almost 2x the price difference.

People, please share you opinion of the landscape performance of this camera, and how does it compare to, say, S40?

 

[Olga Johnson]

All leaves are blurred into one green mess, no defined edges...

Those who have the camera, what's your HONEST opinion of the
landscape performance? It seems that the little Canon S40 does a
better job, but I could be wrong there. 5700 is definetely better,
but that's almost 2x the price difference.

People, please share you opinion of the landscape performance of
this camera, and how does it compare to, say, S40?

I don't have an S40, but got the 4500 after having an S330. The green "glob" is something I noticed with my first photographs and even posted a message here about that, which went unanswered, when I first got my camera.

After using the 4500 for a couple of months, what I am seeing is that the Nikon has overall truer colors but it does a lousy job in handling a healthy dynamic range in a landscape where you go from bright skies to dark trees. (If you meter the 'green' you get great detail but blown skies.) The S330 did a much better job. However, the S330 colors look more artificial than the more natural colors of the Nikon, at least in my eyes.

I have found ways to minimize the green glob look. The detail is there, even when it's a glob out of camera, and can be brought out in Photoshop as well.

Overall I do prefer the Nikon 4500 landscapes to the Canon 330 since they look more like the real thing; they don't have a 'painted' look.

• Olga

 

[Frank Vigil]

I can't speak for the CanonS40, never saw it, held it, shot with it. I have no idea how well it does with landscapes or even how ALL of it's features and price compare to the 4500. I only had my 4500 a few weeks before I decided to also buy a 5700, so I never got around to shooting much in the way of landscapes with it, but from what I did shoot, I thought it met all my expectations. Yes, leaves in a distance begin to fall apart, but that was my expectation from a 4 mp camera. I'd be curious to see how this Canon does in similar situations. Here's one shot I took with the 4500...not a great shot, but it's a landscape

Frank
Whimsy is salvation for a life taken too seriously.
http://www.pbase.com/poetrunner/root

I was also looking into getting a 4500 for almost 2 months now....
still can't decide. Unfortunetely, these images is what I was
afraid of... this camera does a pretty bad job with landscapes. I
am not a pro photographer.... but landscape shots look extremely
blurred. Yes, the camera is perfect for macro shots... but
occasional landscape shots is also something I'd like to be able to
print out. The blurred images I've seen posted (from 8 posts
below) look blured when printed 8x10. Detail is just not there.
All leaves are blurred into one green mess, no defined edges...

Those who have the camera, what's your HONEST opinion of the
landscape performance? It seems that the little Canon S40 does a
better job, but I could be wrong there. 5700 is definetely better,
but that's almost 2x the price difference.

People, please share you opinion of the landscape performance of
this camera, and how does it compare to, say, S40?

 

[Wosabi]

I'm not sure if people are posting the types of pictures for print quality. Maybe that's why they are blurred?

If you want to print, shouldn't you be using some huge files? And then again you might have to apply unsharp mask in photoshop. I have a cp4500 and I am confident that if I did want to print a 8x10 using one of the landscape pictures I have taken at max res. and max quality that it would be quite sharp.

warren.

I was also looking into getting a 4500 for almost 2 months now....
still can't decide. Unfortunetely, these images is what I was
afraid of... this camera does a pretty bad job with landscapes. I
am not a pro photographer.... but landscape shots look extremely
blurred. Yes, the camera is perfect for macro shots... but
occasional landscape shots is also something I'd like to be able to
print out. The blurred images I've seen posted (from 8 posts
below) look blured when printed 8x10. Detail is just not there.
All leaves are blurred into one green mess, no defined edges...

Those who have the camera, what's your HONEST opinion of the
landscape performance? It seems that the little Canon S40 does a
better job, but I could be wrong there. 5700 is definetely better,
but that's almost 2x the price difference.

People, please share you opinion of the landscape performance of
this camera, and how does it compare to, say, S40?

 

[Frank Vigil]

Warren:

There's clearly a difference between what you see posted and what really exists. The 3.4 meg file I posted looks a HECK of a lot better on my monitor in the original state than the 150 kb photo you see here.

Frank

If you want to print, shouldn't you be using some huge files? And
then again you might have to apply unsharp mask in photoshop. I
have a cp4500 and I am confident that if I did want to print a 8x10
using one of the landscape pictures I have taken at max res. and
max quality that it would be quite sharp.

warren.

I was also looking into getting a 4500 for almost 2 months now....
still can't decide. Unfortunetely, these images is what I was
afraid of... this camera does a pretty bad job with landscapes. I
am not a pro photographer.... but landscape shots look extremely
blurred. Yes, the camera is perfect for macro shots... but
occasional landscape shots is also something I'd like to be able to
print out. The blurred images I've seen posted (from 8 posts
below) look blured when printed 8x10. Detail is just not there.
All leaves are blurred into one green mess, no defined edges...

Those who have the camera, what's your HONEST opinion of the
landscape performance? It seems that the little Canon S40 does a
better job, but I could be wrong there. 5700 is definetely better,
but that's almost 2x the price difference.

People, please share you opinion of the landscape performance of
this camera, and how does it compare to, say, S40?

--
Whimsy is salvation for a life taken too seriously.
http://www.pbase.com/poetrunner/root

 

[DrW]

I have read from people here before that they didn't feel that the 4500 was suitable for landscape shots, but most of these people don't even own one. The 4500 performs just as good (if not a little better) than the Canon G2. If you read Phil's review you will see that Nikon has chosen a more conservative 'film like' sharpening method that is full of detail, but not over-processed to the point of artificats and noise (like the G2). The dynamic range of the 4500 is quite impressive, don't think highlight clipping has anything to do with the dynamic range, it has to do with the fact that Nikon pushes the black point up from the shadows to produce an image that's balanced between being wide in dynamic range (flat looking) and one that has a bit more contrast. It's just like using the 'Auto Contrast' feature in photoshop which most of the time moves the black point up the scale to produce a better looking image (images with contrast are more appealing to the human eye). You may not notice it, but even in photoshop using Auto-Contrast or Auto-Levels produces an image with clipped highlights. Now I am not excussing Nikon from that fact that better implemented algorithms could have fixed this, but on the other hand this isn't a problem that has affected any of the shots I have taken thus far.

 

[Dmitriy107869]

Actually, most people posted their shots at Pbase and that had the original size image on it (2-3Mb files) if you click on "Original" link below the image. What I am saying, is that 4500 images at the "Original" size do not look "sharp" enough. I don't mean "sharp", as something you can do in Photoshop... I mean "sharp" as not having enough details. They look like 2Mp camera images zoomed 200%. Maybe 4500 lens is not sharp enough for the 4mp sensor? I don't have S40 myself, I am just judging from the samples posted here and there. I do have an Oly 2Mp camera, and landscape shots look exactly the same as 4500 images.

My friend has a Fuji camera that does that image interpolation 2Mb = 4mp image, and that's what 4500 images remind me of the most. Looking at the "original" pic at the Pbase is about the same as downloading "medium" and zooming it 200% in Photoshop.

Any thoughts on this?

There's clearly a difference between what you see posted and what
really exists. The 3.4 meg file I posted looks a HECK of a lot
better on my monitor in the original state than the 150 kb photo
you see here.

Frank

If you want to print, shouldn't you be using some huge files? And
then again you might have to apply unsharp mask in photoshop. I
have a cp4500 and I am confident that if I did want to print a 8x10
using one of the landscape pictures I have taken at max res. and
max quality that it would be quite sharp.

warren.

I was also looking into getting a 4500 for almost 2 months now....
still can't decide. Unfortunetely, these images is what I was
afraid of... this camera does a pretty bad job with landscapes. I
am not a pro photographer.... but landscape shots look extremely
blurred. Yes, the camera is perfect for macro shots... but
occasional landscape shots is also something I'd like to be able to
print out. The blurred images I've seen posted (from 8 posts
below) look blured when printed 8x10. Detail is just not there.
All leaves are blurred into one green mess, no defined edges...

Those who have the camera, what's your HONEST opinion of the
landscape performance? It seems that the little Canon S40 does a
better job, but I could be wrong there. 5700 is definetely better,
but that's almost 2x the price difference.

People, please share you opinion of the landscape performance of
this camera, and how does it compare to, say, S40?

--
Whimsy is salvation for a life taken too seriously.
http://www.pbase.com/poetrunner/root

 

[Chris Book]

I own a 4500 and luv it to bits but in all honesty if you want detailed landscape shots then you gotta go to medium format. The 4500 is at it's best in the middle range, close-up and macro... Is there any middle priced dc's that can take detailed landscape shots? I don't think so... however, I do take landscape shots with the 4500 and friends and family never complain about 'em. I'ts only us guys who see all the problems. Nikon deserve a pat on the back for the 4500 and 5700 as it's got me back to taking pics again, which is all that counts in the end

I have read from people here before that they didn't feel that the
4500 was suitable for landscape shots, but most of these people
don't even own one. The 4500 performs just as good (if not a
little better) than the Canon G2. If you read Phil's review you
will see that Nikon has chosen a more conservative 'film like'
sharpening method that is full of detail, but not over-processed to
the point of artificats and noise (like the G2). The dynamic range
of the 4500 is quite impressive, don't think highlight clipping has
anything to do with the dynamic range, it has to do with the fact
that Nikon pushes the black point up from the shadows to produce an
image that's balanced between being wide in dynamic range (flat
looking) and one that has a bit more contrast. It's just like
using the 'Auto Contrast' feature in photoshop which most of the
time moves the black point up the scale to produce a better looking
image (images with contrast are more appealing to the human eye).
You may not notice it, but even in photoshop using Auto-Contrast or
Auto-Levels produces an image with clipped highlights. Now I am
not excussing Nikon from that fact that better implemented
algorithms could have fixed this, but on the other hand this isn't
a problem that has affected any of the shots I have taken thus far.

 

[Olga Johnson]

Actually, most people posted their shots at Pbase and that had the
original size image on it (2-3Mb files) if you click on "Original"
link below the image. What I am saying, is that 4500 images at the
"Original" size do not look "sharp" enough. I don't mean "sharp",
as something you can do in Photoshop... I mean "sharp" as not
having enough details. They look like 2Mp camera images zoomed
200%.

That is an extreme exaggeration and absolutely not true. They in no way resemble 2MP images zoomed 200%. You can take the 4500 4MP image and bring out the detail of the green shadows sharper than you can see them in a manipulated 2MP image.

With my 4500 the detail is there, captured, hidden in the shadows. With my S330 what you see is what you get. There is no hidden detail.

And from what I've seen, the S330 just barely produces a decent 8x10 print with an artificial look. The 4500 print has true colors and detail at even 11x14.

• Olga

 

[Dmitriy107869]

Olga,

did you really try to print 11x14 from 4500 images? Any landscape prints? That's what I am interested in... and need to decide if I want to buy this camera or not. Do you just sharpen them in Photoshop before printing? How do you bring up the detail (that is in the shadows)? I tried playing with you images, and couldn't get anything decent looking, but I am not a pro at that. It just seems a little out of focus... maybe the 'infinity' focus on the lens is not really 'infinity', but more like 10-20 feet?

Actually, most people posted their shots at Pbase and that had the
original size image on it (2-3Mb files) if you click on "Original"
link below the image. What I am saying, is that 4500 images at the
"Original" size do not look "sharp" enough. I don't mean "sharp",
as something you can do in Photoshop... I mean "sharp" as not
having enough details. They look like 2Mp camera images zoomed
200%.

That is an extreme exaggeration and absolutely not true. They in no
way resemble 2MP images zoomed 200%. You can take the 4500 4MP
image and bring out the detail of the green shadows sharper than
you can see them in a manipulated 2MP image.

With my 4500 the detail is there, captured, hidden in the shadows.
With my S330 what you see is what you get. There is no hidden
detail.

And from what I've seen, the S330 just barely produces a decent
8x10 print with an artificial look. The 4500 print has true colors
and detail at even 11x14.

• Olga

 

[dab63]

Hi guys,
are u talking about inches or cms?
Anyway, I did some test printing 30x40 cm size.
Same subject, different resolution (all FINE mode):

• 1280x960
• 1600x1200
• 2272x1704

I choosed a rainy day, so low light and grey tones dominating.

The difference between three resolution is remarkable and the last one resolution produced superb prints, I really didn't expected such quality.

I used a special printing process provided by photocity.it: laser exposure on Kodak digital paper, followed by chemical development (as "traditional" photos).

Olga,

did you really try to print 11x14 from 4500 images? Any landscape
prints? That's what I am interested in... and need to decide if I
want to buy this camera or not. Do you just sharpen them in
Photoshop before printing? How do you bring up the detail (that is
in the shadows)? I tried playing with you images, and couldn't get
anything decent looking, but I am not a pro at that. It just seems
a little out of focus... maybe the 'infinity' focus on the lens is
not really 'infinity', but more like 10-20 feet?