Quality of Nikon 8700

Is it my imagination or does the 8700 take REALLY GOOD images. I have a Canon EOS 20D, a Nikon D200, and a Leica M8, and of course an 8700. I take the 8700 to really dusty/dirty environments and carry it a lot as a backup.

What is it with the 8700? Is there something about the sensor or size? I'm selling off a bunch of gear but hesitant to part with my 8700.

John

It is the glass, I believe--the sensor is quite inferior so Nikon has to make the glass a good one to compensate. I have a 8400 and it keeps getting sharper results at base ISO than the D40 with kit lens...though the 8400's colour is not nearly as saturated.

--

UMAX AstraCam (Hate-Hate relationship), Nikon 21OO (Love-Hate), 54OO (Steep Learning Curve), 84OO (Not-so-Steep), Canon A51O (Full-Featured but Soft), Sony Ericsson P91Oi's (O.3MP, for Pete's sake! Hate-Hate), Panasonic FZ2OK (Very Sharp but Noisy), Fujifilm F7OO (Inconsistant WB), F2O (The Ultimate P&S), D4O (Love-Love).

I've owned the 8700 and then purchased 2 8800s, one for me and one for my son. The image quality from these cameras has been really extraordinary, the best of any cameras / lenses I have owned. This includes a lot of very expensive Rollieflex, Leica, and Nikon gear.

I too would hate to part with my 8800. Despite its well-documented low light focusing issue in some lighting, the camera is otherwise a joy to own. The 8700 impressed me a bit more in its' macro mode than the 8800, but otherwise the 8800 meets and exceeds the 8700 image quality and zoom range in all other respects.

Larry

I good conditions my 8400 easily equals my D70/M5D.

Often go walkabout with just that camera.

Chas.
--
Canada.
==============
Do Not Listen to What I Say ... Listen to What I Mean !.

I have one, let me tell you why I bought it & how it has worked out.

First let me say this - my photographic style is such that I frequently find myself on the long end of the 8700's zoom. It replaced a CP 990 plus teleconverter that was never sharp enough.

I bought the 8700 because I needed the long zoom. I carefully read all the reviews and noted that the quality was good at low ISO settings, so I almost always shoot at ISO 50 with a tripod.

One of the issues in this situation was money. I could have had a D70 for a little more money but to outfit a D70 with a long lens comparable to the 8700's 280mm (equiv) would have been double the bucks.

The 8700 was supposed to be a little short on sharpness compared to the D70, but one of the reviews I read at the time said that yes there was a difference in sharpness in favor of the D70, but that the difference was very slight once you put images from both cameras through a little sharpening in an editor (I use Linux GIMP) and my workflow always includes a little bit of sharpening. I don't have an objective measurement on this point, but the 8700's images have always seemed sharp enough. I have to admit I didn't realize how good they really were until I got a really good LCD monitor to do them justice.

At any rate the bottom line is that the CP 8700 has proven to be a fine camera for me and even though I just got a D80 I'll keep the 8700 around at least for its macro capabilities. I hope others are enjoying this camera as well.

I agree with henry.. it's the glass. I recently picked up some cams at best buy to view and without attempting to bash any brand, the same or similar 8,10,12x teles by other manufacturers were so much darker (and colors muted) than the 8700 that I had and the 8800 I have now. The VR on the 8800 helps on handheld shots but most macros I shot with both were on tripods and I don't notice a difference in sharpness, except with the 8800, I have a 6T closeup lens and a TC, so I get closer
--
Kent

http://www.pbase.com/kentc
For prior discussions on most questions:
http://porg.4t.com/KentC.html
or d/l 'archives' at:
http://www.atncentral.com

that the old Masters - the 5700, 8700, 8800, 8400 - along with the Canon Pro 1, Olympus C5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, etc. - will never been seen again unfortunately. Although they all had quirks, whether it was the speed of the AF, or the ability to focus quickly in dark areas, or the RAW write times being exceptionallys low - they were unsurpassed within the digicam genre in image quality.

But alas, this type of camera actually cost the companies too much to make and thus the prices were initially high. What you see now are all the manufacturers just releasing a bunch of simple scenarios. Two companies: Fuji and Panasonic, still seem intent on focusing primarily on the digicam end of things so that's good. And Olympus recently released the much debated SP-550. Now whether the SP-550 can be ruled a success overall, is not the point - but rather it "may" signal that Olympus is trying to once again perhaps put out some advanced models within the genre. The big thing is that Olympus is keeping RAW within their SP series of digicams and that's great, whereas others have dropped RAW completely, which is a shame (i.e. G7, Nikon 5000, etc).

My suggestion is that if you can find an 8700 or 8800 in great condition, pick one up. I recently was on a quest to obtain the Olympus 8080 and 7070 again (had sold them a few years ago), and I'm so glad I managed to find two mint copies again.

I'd love to find a mint 8800, but have had no luck so far.
--
Have a great day!

I'm very fond of my 8700. It (along with the 5700) has an amazing macro and it is lighter and a bit faster than the 8800. Sadly, mine has developed a very loose viewscreen and I can't figure out how to tighten it, so it doesn't get out so much any more.

Carol
--
C D
CP4300, 5700, 8700, 8400, 8800
WSSA Member #75
Toronto, Canada

In a fit of madness I sold my CP5700 which I really loved. After trying many of these newer 'highly recommended' cams, I'm happy I found a CP8700 at ebay. Image quality is what counts and that's not only resolution and noise.
--
Many greetings Theo
http://www.pbase.com/nikoTHEllo

I was lucky to get a mint CP8800 from a friend.
He considered it too big and never used it .... well around 600 pics.

Currently, it is my preferred camera. Works great and the images are stunning. Used the Russian program to successfully clean up a handful of hot pixels.

I have had several CPs: 995 (Sold), 4500 (will never sell), 5700 (wonderful but flash never worked). The 5700 is a great little camera. However, while I don’t use flash much, I like the option. I decided not to send it to Nikon for repair.

I agree that camera's of the ilk you mention are becoming extinct. High end performance in a single package. I've gone thru the SLR and multiple lens phase and don't need that any more. I do want a highly flexible, reliable, high-end camera that has a superior lens. I want every bell and whistle modern technology provides even if I never use it...and that includes a decent on-body flash that works. Further I want pictures indistinguishable from film.

I sure agree with everyone on the 8700/8800. There is something special there, a sharpness, a lens quality, whatever, that has so far not been duplicated.

When I went to the D70, I was a little underwhelmed at first. But two things happened. I learned to postprocess (vital in a DSLR) and I located a not too expensive lens, the lightweight 28-200G, that has an inate sharpness that resembles the sharpness of the 8800, and for only $300. Nikon makes great pro lenses which I refuse to pay for, but they also make a few excellent modest priced very sharp lenses. BTW, the D70 remains the most ergonomic camera I own.

The other lens I have with this inate sharpness is the 50 f1.8. My two other primes are close and pleasing. My 35 f2 lives on my D50, another good choice. But the 8800 remains a camera you can just pick up and starting getting quality photos with because everything is all there just perfect and needing only a quicker processer and larger buffer.

The other I would put in this class is the little Nikon 4300, a modest camera but such a sweet, sharp lens. And also the 4 MP Pannies. Only thing with the Pannies is that Nikon can tweak a little better and Nikons have better ergonomics. Once Pannies went past 4 MP, they had to deal with the noise issue. But it is a great lens with the right MPs and the right body. And at least they are committed to still building bridge cameras.

--
Darlene
D70 and D50
Six Coolpixes
FZ4
http://www.pbase.com/imacatmom

I love the lens so far.
--
Darlene
D70 and D50
Six Coolpixes
FZ4
http://www.pbase.com/imacatmom

My Sony a100 DSLR simply blows away my CP5700, even with the kit lens. Of course the 5700 was never user friendly or very fast, but the image quality is OK, but no DSLR. I've also gotten some good shots with 1.5 tele, but again it's only good for max FL (no zoom).

The one time I tried to use it since got the Sony was on a motorcycle trip because it was easy to pack. Unfortualtely, the sensor died on that trip.

Carol,

I had the same problem with my 8700. Since I am a mechanical engineer it only took me 2 hours (!!!) to realize that it was just the 2 screws at the hinge side of the LCD that needed tightening. I actually took the LCD apart and saw the clamping plate under the screws. You'll need a very tiny philips screwdriver or just take it to a jeweler. If you unscrew them and put a dab of super glue on the screw you should not have this problem again.



--
Wilhelm
http://www.woodmaven.com

Took this with my 8700 this morning. This camera costs less than a close-up lens for a DSLR. It's a full-sized crop of the center of a pair clematises that just bloomed in our yard, not more than an inch across. Other than the crop (done in ACDSee 3.1), there's NO postprocessing. My wife claims the colors are spot on (I'm not good with colors).

Just seeing that pollen makes me want to sneeze!





--
Wilhelm
http://www.woodmaven.com