Reading mode: Light Dark

F717 or Nikon 5700

Go to last post
All three have great points and prior threads say most all of it.

I have the 5700 and 707. In great light, outdoors, the 5700 does very well and is small, light and for long zoom very little camera shake. Insofar as the rotating lcd-it is so tiny I find it useless. It is a great 'second' camera for size, zoom and macros.

For all the other reasons, the 717 looks to be a great camera. With someone truer colors which might really matter with nature and that same awesome resolution and low light and night shooting, the 717 will probably
amaze you.
Glenn A said:
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
If you do mostly nature photography - take a look at the Minolta
7i. You can macro focus at either wide angle or telephoto. This
is a great plus.

Glenn A
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

Nikon wins only of its bigger zoom. BTW, that's what I ( so much )
awaited with 717 for.

Ernet
 
Jeremy Birn said:
I don't know about that - with the F707 I see people adding various
telephoto extenders, or even using the digital zoom, and still
getting great hand-held shots.

I think more zoom is great. The trade-offs in between the lens
designs seems to be: do you want a more zoom in a more compact
package, or do you want better optical resolution and a wider
aperture that lets in more light?
Click to expand...
Exactly, better optical resolution, and a wider apperture are more important for me.
Jeremy Birn61459 said:
On the issue of blown highlights, the F707 does well - I haven't
had problems with that "video look" with highlights getting
clipped, as happens with some digicams.

But no matter how well the camera is configured to handle those
issues, I wish they would add electronic saturation and contrast
controls. There are times, such as when shooting a view from a
mountain, where I am shooting through a lot of haze into the
distance, and I know that the contrast needs to be boosted. I'd
rather have an option to boost contrast from the raw 14-bit sensor
data while I'm shooting, than be stuck enhancing the tonal range of
the jpeg afterwards in Photoshop. (To be fair, I should mention
that you do have a lot of room to move in terms of doing the
Photoshop tweaks and maintaining high photographic quality, though.
When I've done that Levels adjustment to remove haze, I've
generally gotten away with it and seen that all the detail is still
there without any bad grain or banding.)

I haven't found myself wanting to lower the contrast compared to
the camera's current behavior, I think it's already giving you the
full exposure lattitude of the CCD. (Although CCDs with a few
stops more dynamic range would be a great thing to see someday,
that's not a software fix.)
Click to expand...
I set contrast low, so that later on I have no clipping on lower and higher ends of the histogram. But with the live histogram feature on the 717 one could handle the situation with exposure correction instead of compressing the picture by lowering contrast, and hence sacrificing details.
Jeremy Birn61459 said:
-jeremy

--
Jeremy Birn
http://www.3dRender.com/
Click to expand...
Thank you for your time and the valuable information.

--
Alien
 
ZipperZ said:
ZipperZ said:
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
Of the alternatives you give I would be keener on the Sony. Not so
much zoom but I really don't trust the low-light capabilities of
the Nikon.
BTW, I don't own either, but am a Minolta owner so I have no ax to
grind.
Click to expand...
But the SOny axe would be the sharpest in the drawer
hehe
ZipperZ said:
Regards,
--
DaveMart
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Look
Measurable findings (three measurements taken for each camera):

Camera Measurement Absolute Res. Extinction Res.
Nikon Coolpix 5700 Horiz LPH 1350 * 1500
Vert LPH * 1200 1500
5° Diagonal LPH + 1000 -
Minolta DiMAGE 7i Horiz LPH * 1300 * 1450
Vert LPH * 1150 * 1450
5° Diagonal LPH 900 -
Sony DSC-F707 Horiz LPH 1450 1800
Vert LPH 1300 1800
5° Diagonal LPH + 1000 -
Olympus E-20 Horiz LPH * 1350 * 1650
Vert LPH * 1300 * 1650
5° Diagonal LPH + 1000 -

--
Gr. Paul
 
As the owner of this site put it (Phil Ashkey):

"I'll be totally honest, I'd rather have the Sony's 5x lens than the 5700's 8x lens, that said I'd rather have the Nikon's feature set than the Sony. "

take your pick!
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
 
First I'm not an expert on nature photogoraphy. But I asked this identical question a few months ago and a couple of people on this Forum who owned the 707 and the Oly E-100RS told me to get the latter. Hard to beat 10X IS and 15 fps for some special purposes although I don't think the Oly has enough pixels for the large print sizes you want.

On the comparison between the two cameras you're considering, I don't own either, but I think the choice is pretty clear for the following reason: While the Nikon may have a slightly longer zoom, you don't have any threads, so you can't use a teleconverter. You can with the Sony, and I think Sony is offering a 2X teleconverter which looked pretty compact. From my experience you're going to want to use something to boost the zoom. Neither 8x nor 5x is going to do it for wildlife, so you'll want a teleconverter, and the inability to use one on the Nikon would rule that camera out for this purpose for me.
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
 
But when you consider the focus problems of the 5700 , the lack of filter threads, and the wobbly retractable lens, no low light lamp,it's an absolute dealbreaker .(for me). I will not buy a camera that hunts for focus! Plus too many of the 5700 images are noisey. No way.I'll be more than happy without saturation control. It's simply not important. John
John Vincent said:
take your pick!
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
USN MCPO (ret)
 
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
5700 doesn't get close to the 707 and i bet it won't get close to the 717 either. Nikon has some catching up to do. It should be between the Canon G2 and the Sony but i would still pick the Sony. If you need macro and this is the most important and it being lighter weight get the Nikon. As far as picture image quality or fine fine detail the Nikon doesn't match up very well.
 
Tamara, what a wonderful situation you have, to choose from two great cameras.....for me if the 717 had the nikon zoom lens to 280 that would be the ultimate tool for nature photography with the ability to use a 2 time converter ( which suck) that would give you 560mm which I would think you need for your work.
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
--
http://www.fototime.com/inv/757AE7C15569148
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.

have a nice day and don't loose your head, it will show your lack of maturity and your age.
 
Tamara: I'm still nursing wounds from the NTF over my trying a 5700 and not liking it, stating that and taking numerous below the belt punches. Since you are a nature photographer, I'm afraid that the 5700 may not be your cup of tea. The AF, in less than almost perfect conditions, is slow and unpredictable. It is also difficult and time consuming to get a macro shot that matches the 707's excellent capability. My tests also revealed that a shot taken in full optical zoom by both cameras, showed the 707's product to be sharper. When you reduced the zoom on the 5700 to approximately the same 5X as the 707, there wasn't much difference but would give the nod to Sony. Another item is price. Presently, the 5700 is running several hundred dollars more and I'm hard pressed to understand why. If I would have compared the two cameras, not knowing the brand, I would have thought the Sony to be the more expensive of the two, due to overall quality, ease of use, lightning fast focus, excellent macro capabilities and much longer battery life. Having said this, will set back and wait for the body blows. Good luck. Gary
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
 
Hi Donald,

Sorry, you are wrong.

The Nikon CP5700 accepts the Nikon optical 1.5x TC-E15ED teleconverter, which is specifically matched to the high quality Nikkor ED lens on the camera ! (uses a lens adapter). There is also a Nikon dedicated wide-angle converter available.

The CP5700 also has a super macro mode at full telephoto. With regular macro at 3cm, I don't see how anyone can argue against the Nikon CP5700's close-up capabilities, a traditional feature strength of the Nikon Coolpix line..

I have tried a CP5700 for a weekend (borrowed from a relative), and was very impressed with its versatility and quality. The images that I shot in RAW and processed with the Nikon Capture 3 software (30 day free trial download from Nikon USA) turned out excellent printed at 11" x 14" on an Epson 1280 Photo printer using Photo Glossy paper.

Personally, I use a Nikon D1 and a D100. After trying out the CP5700, however, I am very tempted to purchase one for family and travel photography. A lot of camera in a very nice compact package. (Better ergonomics and balance than the Sony F-707/717 IMHO)

Rgds,

sjh

Donald Cooper wrote:
...I think the choice is pretty clear for the
Member said:
following reason: While the Nikon may have a slightly longer zoom,
you don't have any threads, so you can't use a teleconverter. You
can with the Sony, and I think Sony is offering a 2X teleconverter
which looked pretty compact. From my experience you're going to
want to use something to boost the zoom. Neither 8x nor 5x is going
to do it for wildlife, so you'll want a teleconverter, and the
inability to use one on the Nikon would rule that camera out for
this purpose for me.
Click to expand...
 
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
If I were you, I'd wait for Canon's announcement(s) before deciding for sure. That company's offering is sure to be competitive, although it may not offer long enough zoom for the nature photographer in you.

Nobody's mentioned that the Nikon supports RAW and also the Microdrive, but image quality has me underwhelmed. The Canon offering(s) surely will have that.

From what I've seen, the F717 with whacky colors fixed (for the most part) would beat what I've seen from Nikon in image quality, and that should be the bottom line. No doubt there are other niggles fixed from the F707, and that's good too. If the promised bigger memory sticks actually turn from vapor to real product, that's a big minus taken away, as well. Still no RAW, however.

My bet is that you'll see a tweaked G2 released as a G3 with a slightly longer zoom. The G2 is already pretty impressive image-wise when compared to the F707, but the F707 kicked it's butt in gee-whiz features, zoom, and focus ability. Canon will likely address where the G2 fell short, and that will make a tough call again for many.

I also have a nagging feeling that Canon has a 5700 competitor in the works with a 10x zoom and IS, so we may see more than one big camera introduction. Will it be the much-anticipated Pro90 successor? A G2 feature-set and image-quality with the Pro90 lens and EVF would be some pretty tough competition for Sony, Nikon, and the rest.

I've got a D30 now, so I'm watching with interest in the digicam market, and I probably won't be buying one this round. Still, when things heat up and all players show their cards, it could get really interesting again!

--
BryanS
 
Thanks for the info, I didn't know it was available. Since the lack of threads limits the choices (the 717 can use the Oly A200, B300, etc), do you know how available the the Nikon teleconverter is?

I've heard that even though the 5700 doesn't have stabilization, you can shoot handheld without much shake because of its size. Was this your experience?
sjh said:
The Nikon CP5700 accepts the Nikon optical 1.5x TC-E15ED
teleconverter, which is specifically matched to the high quality
Nikkor ED lens on the camera ! (uses a lens adapter). There is also
a Nikon dedicated wide-angle converter available.

I have tried a CP5700 for a weekend (borrowed from a relative), and
was very impressed with its versatility and quality. The images
that I shot in RAW and processed with the Nikon Capture 3 software
(30 day free trial download from Nikon USA) turned out excellent
printed at 11" x 14" on an Epson 1280 Photo printer using Photo
Glossy paper.
Click to expand...
 
Most of us in the NTF concluded that either you got a defective 5700 or you simply never learned to use it properly. Whatever, you demonstrated the perception of a juvenile that no one really took seriously. Aren't the comments below your own words;

"No, the 5700 is worth no more than a disposable film camera. The 5700 can't compare by a country mile to the 707 and soon to be available 717. The only way you'd like the 5700 is if you really, really like to punish yourself. Gary"

"You can get a Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji in the same price range or cheaper that, right out of the box, make the 5700 look like the tinker toy that it is. I'm trying to be kind with Nikon because we truly enjoy the 885 but the 5700 is one, big overpriced lemon. Best regards, Gary"

Cutting to the chase, here are some CP5700 full optical zoom shots;

http://www.pbase.com/eldata/zoom_comp
GLP said:
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Your bring up an interesting point. Obviously an in-camera contrast control has no effect on the light meter, so if a shot is overexposed, no in-camera control will preserve information that wasn't there in the first place. But will the algorithm in a camera without a contrast control “throw away” information that was within the dynamic range of the CCD, and will an in-camera contrast control prevent that from happening? If the answer is no, then an in-camera contrast control set to lower than normal would not prevent blown highlights, and a setting higher than normal could potentially “throw away” information.

Also, a contrast setting lower than normal potentially could compromise the image tonality, since the luminosity information would be squeezed into fewer discrete values, which could not be recovered later with post processing.

I think in an in-camera contrast control, and to a lesser extent saturation control, are not needed, and are potentially dangerous. The algorithms that interprets the output of the CCD is where the decisions about contrast and saturation should be made, not by an arbitrary in-camera control that assumes one size fits all, i.e., all images need the same adjustment. Of course, for ultimate control over contrast and saturation, you need a camera with raw output, and then the camera has no control over contrast or saturation – it’s all done with post processing.

The way to prevent blown highlight is with proper exposure, and the live histogram in the F717 is the best tool for this.

Chuck
Alien said:
  • 5700 has contrast and saturation controls. Now, this point makes
me think, because with my current cam (Oly 4040) I set contrast and
sharpnes to absolute minimum on camera to avoid blown highlights
and get better saturation. Afterwards I tweak the pics heavily in
PS. The results are colorwise good, however resolution and details
are not suitable for printing large. As far as I've seen from 707
pics, Sony seems to be better at highlites compared to Nikon or
Oly. What do you think?
Click to expand...
 
Just about anywhere selling the CP5700 sells the threaded adapter along with tele and the wide converters. I got adapter and tele from B&H. Here are two shots;

http://www.pbase.com/eldata/zoom_comp
Donald Cooper said:
I've heard that even though the 5700 doesn't have stabilization,
you can shoot handheld without much shake because of its size. Was
this your experience?
sjh said:
The Nikon CP5700 accepts the Nikon optical 1.5x TC-E15ED
teleconverter, which is specifically matched to the high quality
Nikkor ED lens on the camera ! (uses a lens adapter). There is also
a Nikon dedicated wide-angle converter available.

I have tried a CP5700 for a weekend (borrowed from a relative), and
was very impressed with its versatility and quality. The images
that I shot in RAW and processed with the Nikon Capture 3 software
(30 day free trial download from Nikon USA) turned out excellent
printed at 11" x 14" on an Epson 1280 Photo printer using Photo
Glossy paper.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Canon would definitely woo me back with a 5 MP successor to Pro90.
Chuck
BryanS said:
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
If I were you, I'd wait for Canon's announcement(s) before deciding
for sure. That company's offering is sure to be competitive,
although it may not offer long enough zoom for the nature
photographer in you.

Nobody's mentioned that the Nikon supports RAW and also the
Microdrive, but image quality has me underwhelmed. The Canon
offering(s) surely will have that.

From what I've seen, the F717 with whacky colors fixed (for the
most part) would beat what I've seen from Nikon in image quality,
and that should be the bottom line. No doubt there are other
niggles fixed from the F707, and that's good too. If the promised
bigger memory sticks actually turn from vapor to real product,
that's a big minus taken away, as well. Still no RAW, however.

My bet is that you'll see a tweaked G2 released as a G3 with a
slightly longer zoom. The G2 is already pretty impressive
image-wise when compared to the F707, but the F707 kicked it's butt
in gee-whiz features, zoom, and focus ability. Canon will likely
address where the G2 fell short, and that will make a tough call
again for many.

I also have a nagging feeling that Canon has a 5700 competitor in
the works with a 10x zoom and IS, so we may see more than one big
camera introduction. Will it be the much-anticipated Pro90
successor? A G2 feature-set and image-quality with the Pro90 lens
and EVF would be some pretty tough competition for Sony, Nikon, and
the rest.

I've got a D30 now, so I'm watching with interest in the digicam
market, and I probably won't be buying one this round. Still, when
things heat up and all players show their cards, it could get
really interesting again!

--
BryanS
Click to expand...
 
Derek Hawkins said:
Most of us in the NTF concluded that either you got a defective
5700 or you simply never learned to use it properly. Whatever, you
demonstrated the perception of a juvenile that no one really took
seriously. Aren't the comments below your own words;

"No, the 5700 is worth no more than a disposable film camera. The
5700 can't compare by a country mile to the 707 and soon to be
available 717. The only way you'd like the 5700 is if you really,
really like to punish yourself. Gary"

"You can get a Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji in the same price range
or cheaper that, right out of the box, make the 5700 look like the
tinker toy that it is. I'm trying to be kind with Nikon because we
truly enjoy the 885 but the 5700 is one, big overpriced lemon. Best
regards, Gary"
Click to expand...
Gary is entitled to his opinion and use colorful phrases as well. Colorful phrases like those can be used to measure Gary's level of disapproval. If he just said, "I didn't like it" would not have convayed the same level of disaproval as saying "the 5700 is worth no more than a disposable film camera" which better describes Gary's unhappiness : )

My god, we are talking about cameras here, not life & death stuff : )
Derek Hawkins said:
Cutting to the chase, here are some CP5700 full optical zoom shots;
Click to expand...
I looked at your images. Are you using them to demonstrate you are unhappy with them or that you are happy with them? They looked either soft or not perfectly in focused. Perhaps you used them hand held? If so that would explain a lot. But as is those images do nothing to promote the 5700 : )
Derek Hawkins said:
http://www.pbase.com/eldata/zoom_comp
Click to expand...
Derek Hawkins said:
GLP said:
Tamara said:
I will be buying a 5 meg in the next few months. Looking for your
expert advice. I like the longer zoom on the 5700, but the F717
sounds awful good. I do mostly nature photography -- and do want
to enlarge to the 13x19 capacity of my Epson printer. Tam
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!
http://digitalphotonews.ws
 
Thanks Jim for the vote of confidence. Yah know, we got the 885 and I was proud to display how good I thought it worked. You know me, I don't tip toe around the issues and certainly tried to keep it on an even keel until the personal attacks started. I'll miss some of the good folks on the NTF but not others, such as the likes of Derek and Gebhardt among others. Best personal regards, Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top