Hi all, here are my thoughts from my high horse
.
I'm glad Phil's review has reflected what I thought myself after examining the first batches of CP 5000 photos in December. I'm disheartened that it's worse in some aspects than I would have imagined though, but it does make me feel better about my 995.
In my opinion, when compared to the 995, the 5000 is only a step forward in resolution (and even then it's more like a 4 MP camera than a 5 MP), hot shoe, and anti-glare CCD. Some people like the flip out LCD, but I would rate that only slightly better than the swivel (I've owned and used a G2 for a month), and the wider angle lens appeals to some (I like the idea in principle).
Where I live (UK), right now the 995 is selling for £ 570 and the CP 5000 is selling for £ 899 - £ 950. That's more than 1.5 times the price of the 995 for very few improvements, and there are a bunch of disimprovements, such as the even softer-at-the-edges, slower lens (and the 995's lens is already a teeny bit slower than the 990, which is not a fast lens to begin with), much more noise at higher ISO and dodgy highlight chopping. I've owned two Nikon Digicams now (950 since June '99 and now a 995) and a Canon G2 for 4 weeks, and as much as it pains me to say it, if the CP 5000 and the CP 995 were to cost the same amount of money, I'd be very tempted to go for the 995 simply because it doesn't have most of the downsides of the 5000. That may sound like I'm trying to convince myself that I made the right choice (I bought my new 995 last Monday for the bargain price of £ 570), but I'm being honest here. The 5000 seems to be a fine camera in its own right, I just don't believe it's worth that kind of cash, not by a long shot.
To make a comparison, the 990 was almost a quantum leap forward from the 950. The 995 is basically a slightly improved version of the 990 with a proprietary battery and slightly more barrel distortion (I've used both extensively, then chose a new 995 over a used 990 and I've owned a 950 for a long time, so I am expressing my opinion based on real experience). The 5000 seems a slight step backwards, to the side, and then forward in a few ways. For a new form factor from the same manufacturer it's a big disappointment.
I also think it's sad the way that Nikon treated Phil regarding the review camera. I don't know the details, but it sure looks like they were afraid that his review would dampen down their sales if it was published sooner. It's comforting to know that at least one reviewer tells it like it is, instead of the standard "oh-it's-a-lovely-camera/look-at-the-pretty-pictures" reviews that the rest of the big sites produce.
Thanks Phil.
All the best,
JPC--Located in the UK
http://www.caudata.org/personnel/john/photography 