4500 or 5700

Michael58 · Oct 5, 2002

Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thx,
Michael58

mithat erdinc · Oct 5, 2002

I hod a cp995, which was very similar to 4500, and now i have cp5700. The first thing with 5700 is its evf. I dont much care about resolution, 995 was easier to use( i think i got used to it), 4500 has no flash shoe( i like this with 5700), 5700 has extra batter unit which is very useful(MB-E5700), 8x zoom is super, eyt i dont think ther should be a 400 $$$ difference. +500 is better than 995 as i read about it, and it would fit well my expectation.

Finally, if this is gonna be your first digicam i recommend 4500, if not 5700 certainly will make you happier.

Mithat

Michael58 said:
Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thx,
Michael58

nochance · Oct 6, 2002

Michael, I have both. They are both fine cameras, but I don't like the design or the handling of the 4500. Some people love it. I just think the 5700 is a lot more camera -- and it looks and feels almost like a "real camera." For my purposes, I am also reluctant to trust my "priceless" images to 4MP. In a blind test between 5700 and the D60 images on steves-digicams, few people could tell the difference.

Michael58 said:
Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thx,
Michael58

--
Bob
D60, CP5700, CP4500

Michael D. Bustad · Oct 6, 2002

nochance said:
I was at best buy today and I just happened to pick and and play with the 4500 and I thought it was kinda cheap feeling and I know this is not a fair comparision but I have the 5700 and like the way it feels and looks and the bonus is what a great camera it is.

Mike
5700

w3 · Oct 6, 2002

eastburg said:
Michael, I have both. They are both fine cameras, but I don't like
the design or the handling of the 4500. Some people love it. I
just think the 5700 is a lot more camera -- and it looks and feels
almost like a "real camera." For my purposes, I am also reluctant
to trust my "priceless" images to 4MP. In a blind test between
5700 and the D60 images on steves-digicams, few people could tell
the difference.

Since you have both 4500 and 5700, you can readily tell the difference between images taken with those two digicams?

nochance said:
Michael58 said:

Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thx,
Michael58

Click to expand...

--
Bob
D60, CP5700, CP4500

Michael58 · Oct 7, 2002

Do you have a preference on the viewfinder? There seems to be a lot of mixed opinions on the EVF vs. optical.

Thx again!

eastburg said:
Michael58 said:

Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thx,
Michael58

Click to expand...

--
Bob
D60, CP5700, CP4500

neil1314 · Oct 7, 2002

Michael58 said:
Do you have a preference on the viewfinder? There seems to be a lot
of mixed opinions on the EVF vs. optical.

Thx again!

I had a 990 but I always had a problem with seeing the screen in any sort of sunlight and with the optical viewfinder, which had to be used for the supplementary lenses, it always felt like a compact to me. The EVF on my 5700 is the first one I have used and I think it is really good you dont get the clarity or detail of an SLR viewfinder but for framing & focussing I think it works just fine. I definitely think the 5700 is worth the extra money. It has certainly renewed my enthusiasm for photography

Sheryl Katz · Oct 7, 2002

Although I have other cameras, I am about to buy a 4500. It's all a question of use. If you want to take macro shots, shoot through a monocular or telescope, then the 4500 is the best camera for the purpose - nothing else will do these tasks as well. As far as general use, I'm sure the 4500 is fine and more or less equivalent to other digicams in it's price range.

My primary uses of a camera are vacation pictures (just about any camera will work I use a Powershot 110 for most of these), underwater snorkeling(I have a casing for my Powershot 110), action shots (have a an Olympus E100RS or use a film camera), Ebay (just about any camera will do - just sold my Canon G1), acquarium shots (the G1 was not great at this I'm looking forward to the 4500 in this application), and wildlife (experimenting with scopes and monoculars - the reach of the E100RS is not long enough and it vignettes with monoculars). Would the 4500 do all of these things (yes, except it isn't as pocketable as the Powershot S100, and I don't have an underwater case for one, it isn't as fast as the E100RS and doesn't have image stabilization). Would the 5700 be "better", no it would actually be worse because it doesn't have image stabilization, it's got a wider lense (which is a disadvantage for macro and monoculars), it's bigger and heavier.

I suggest that you similarly analyze your use. There is never a "best" camera, only a "best" camera for a particular use. There are disadvantages to more pixels (slower write times, bigger files, more noise) and advantages (more detail, more room to crop, capability for bigger prints). There are advantages to big telephoto lens (more reach, less need to crop out of the camera) and disadvantages (more bulk, weight, more likely to vignette with add on lenses, difficulty of getting sharp picture without tripod).

If you are taking pictures of your trips, family, general pictures for web, etc. then the 4500 would probably be more than adequate. If you have need of some feature on the 5700, then it won't be.

--

DrW · Oct 7, 2002

The 4500 is 90% of the camera the 5700 at a fraction of the cost ($400 less to be exact). The 4500 and 5700 exhibit the same image quality, though at a 1 megapixel difference. The 4500 is much more compact and has the rotating lens section to allow for easy composition of even difficult shots. The 5700 does have an 8x zoom, but the 4500 is much more versatile considering it can have a 24mm wideangle, an 8mm fisheye and 2 & 3x teleconverters taking it over 400mm. In addition 3rd party lenses allow the camera to reach over 1200mm. The 5700 does have a shutter that extends to 1/4000 in comparison to the 4500 @ 1/2000 and the 5700 does have a flash hotshoe as well as RAW image format. The 4500 to me is more feature rich with 16 scene modes. Some may write off these Scene Modes as amateur options, but to me it extends my 3 user presets with a larger array of quick shot set-ups. These modes do work and work very well and are great when you need to make a quick shot and don't have time to play with the menus. The camera also offers a panorama mode which allows you to line up your next shot with the previous making panoramas quick and simple, even without a tripod.

Michael58 said:
Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thx,
Michael58

w3 · Oct 7, 2002

Sheryl Katz said:
If you are taking pictures of your trips, family, general pictures
for web, etc. then the 4500 would probably be more than adequate.

I have the 995 and the shutter lag bothers me enough that I don't usually use it for snap shots. But then when you don't use it often enough, you don't remember how to use it due to its more complicated interface and menu system. You won't make the most out of it unless you use it all the time and master it.

Does 4500's shutter lag bother you when using it as a point and shooter?

Mike Noren · Oct 7, 2002

Michael58 said:
Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

If you're going to shoot anything beyond point-and-click, and want quality and speed - go with the 5000 or 5700. The 4500 is an improvement on the 995, but it's got more than its share of annoying quirks and limitations - e.g. the shutter lag is horrendous, the internal flash is weak and there is no hotshoe, only 4x zoom, the menu system is convoluted to the extreme, and image quality is noticeably inferior to that of the 5000/5700.

If you want point-and-click, or is on a budget, take the 4500. Otherwise, go for 5000/5700. All in my opinion of course, take it for what its worth.

Michael58 said:
Michael58

w3 · Oct 7, 2002

Mike Noren said:
If you're going to shoot anything beyond point-and-click, and want
quality and speed - go with the 5000 or 5700. The 4500 is an
improvement on the 995, but it's got more than its share of
annoying quirks and limitations - e.g. the shutter lag is
horrendous, the internal flash is weak and there is no hotshoe,
only 4x zoom, the menu system is convoluted to the extreme, and
image quality is noticeably inferior to that of the 5000/5700.

Is 4500's shutter lag that horrendous? Worse than 995 (I couldn't stand 995's already)?

5000 or 5700 have much improved shutter speed?

Mike Noren said:
If you want point-and-click, or is on a budget, take the 4500.
Otherwise, go for 5000/5700. All in my opinion of course, take it
for what its worth.

But the problem is: if 4500's shutter lag is that bad, then it wouldn't even be good for Point-and-Click! And if you don't use 4500 all the time, then you could never get used to its complicated menu system.

If 4500's shutter lag is not that bad, then it will get used more often for snap shots. Its owner will have a better chance to gradually venture into its deep but rich menu system of advanced functions.

w3 · Oct 7, 2002

I found Phil's numbers in the reviews:

Shutter Release Lag Time .... Half Press First .... One Press

990 .................................... 0.1 Second ..... 1.0 Second

4500 .................................. 0.3 Second ..... 1.1 Second

5700 .................................. 0.1 Second ..... 0.8 Second

They don't look that bad particularly if you half press the button first. However, I felt that 990/995's lag time seemed to be long even when I half pressed the shutter release button to get it pre-focused and pre-everything-else first. Perhaps I let it loose and it was doing the whole thing over again as if it was in One Press? I will double check.

I couldn't figure out Phil's 995 numbers. They seem to be similar to 990's. So, the 4500's shutter lag seems to be worse than 5700's and even 990/995's?

w3 said:
Mike Noren said:

If you're going to shoot anything beyond point-and-click, and want
quality and speed - go with the 5000 or 5700. The 4500 is an
improvement on the 995, but it's got more than its share of
annoying quirks and limitations - e.g. the shutter lag is
horrendous, the internal flash is weak and there is no hotshoe,
only 4x zoom, the menu system is convoluted to the extreme, and
image quality is noticeably inferior to that of the 5000/5700.

Click to expand...

Is 4500's shutter lag that horrendous? Worse than 995 (I couldn't
stand 995's already)?

5000 or 5700 have much improved shutter speed?

w3 said:

If you want point-and-click, or is on a budget, take the 4500.
Otherwise, go for 5000/5700. All in my opinion of course, take it
for what its worth.

Click to expand...

But the problem is: if 4500's shutter lag is that bad, then it
wouldn't even be good for Point-and-Click! And if you don't use
4500 all the time, then you could never get used to its complicated
menu system.

If 4500's shutter lag is not that bad, then it will get used more
often for snap shots. Its owner will have a better chance to
gradually venture into its deep but rich menu system of advanced
functions.

Brendan H · Oct 7, 2002

Here are the lag times from imaging resource (crystal-controlled timing, accurate to 0.01% and with a timing resolution of 1 millisecond):

4500
Shutter lag, full autofocus; 1.08 - 1.25
Shutter lag, prefocus: 0.247

5700
Shutter lag, full autofocus; 0.90 - 1.03
Shutter lag, prefocus; 0.094

5700 is noticeably faster...

w3 · Oct 7, 2002

Brendan H said:
Here are the lag times from imaging resource (crystal-controlled
timing, accurate to 0.01% and with a timing resolution of 1
millisecond):

4500
Shutter lag, full autofocus; 1.08 - 1.25
Shutter lag, prefocus: 0.247

5700
Shutter lag, full autofocus; 0.90 - 1.03
Shutter lag, prefocus; 0.094

5700 is noticeably faster...

Imaging Resource's 990/995 numbers:

990
Shutter lag, full autofocus: 1.13
Shutter lag, prefocus: 0.18

995
Shutter lag, full autofocus: 1.00
Shutter lag, prefocus: 0.17

So, they are not bad at all as long as you half press the shutter button first to prefocus.

Olga Johnson · Oct 8, 2002

w3 said:
Brendan H said:

Here are the lag times from imaging resource (crystal-controlled
timing, accurate to 0.01% and with a timing resolution of 1
millisecond):

4500
Shutter lag, full autofocus; 1.08 - 1.25
Shutter lag, prefocus: 0.247

5700
Shutter lag, full autofocus; 0.90 - 1.03
Shutter lag, prefocus; 0.094

5700 is noticeably faster...

Click to expand...

Imaging Resource's 990/995 numbers:

990
Shutter lag, full autofocus: 1.13
Shutter lag, prefocus: 0.18

995
Shutter lag, full autofocus: 1.00
Shutter lag, prefocus: 0.17

So, they are not bad at all as long as you half press the shutter
button first to prefocus.

But depending on the lighting and settings, prefocus with the 4500 could be v-e-r-y slow or fast.

Olga

MarcV · Oct 8, 2002

If one user says to get the 4500 because the 5700 is just slightly better but hundreds of dollars more expensive and the other one says the 4500 is clearly inferior to the 5700, who should I believe?

Mike Noren said:
Michael58 said:

Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Click to expand...

If you're going to shoot anything beyond point-and-click, and want
quality and speed - go with the 5000 or 5700. The 4500 is an
improvement on the 995, but it's got more than its share of
annoying quirks and limitations - e.g. the shutter lag is
horrendous, the internal flash is weak and there is no hotshoe,
only 4x zoom, the menu system is convoluted to the extreme, and
image quality is noticeably inferior to that of the 5000/5700.

If you want point-and-click, or is on a budget, take the 4500.
Otherwise, go for 5000/5700. All in my opinion of course, take it
for what its worth.

Mike Noren said:

Michael58

Click to expand...

--

'I'M WATCHIN' YA!!!'
http://www.pbase.com/marcv/galleries
CP995

DrW · Oct 8, 2002

MarcV, look at the sample gallaries and read Phil's review. The 4500 is not inferior, that was someone being childish. Peter iNova said in his review that the 4500 has the same 'per-pixel' detail as the 5000. Look at the samples on dcresource.com, they are an outdoor shot of a house taken with the 4500 and 5700. Can you tell the difference between the two with the exception of one being a little larger in size ?

Here are some samples from the 4500:

MarcV said:
Mike Noren said:

Michael58 said:

Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Click to expand...

If you're going to shoot anything beyond point-and-click, and want
quality and speed - go with the 5000 or 5700. The 4500 is an
improvement on the 995, but it's got more than its share of
annoying quirks and limitations - e.g. the shutter lag is
horrendous, the internal flash is weak and there is no hotshoe,
only 4x zoom, the menu system is convoluted to the extreme, and
image quality is noticeably inferior to that of the 5000/5700.

If you want point-and-click, or is on a budget, take the 4500.
Otherwise, go for 5000/5700. All in my opinion of course, take it
for what its worth.

MarcV said:

Michael58

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

'I'M WATCHIN' YA!!!'
http://www.pbase.com/marcv/galleries
CP995

Derek Hawkins · Oct 8, 2002

http://www.pbase.com/eldata

All 4500 pictures are post-processed. All 5700 pictures are straight from the camera. The EVF on the 5700 allows me to use it without "reading glasses" which have to be used always with the 4500. Not an issue if you don't need glasses. Adding an external speedlight (a necessity for good indoor shots) to the 5700 is obviously easier than with the 4500.

Both are fine cameras but the 4500 will always be preferred for macro shots where the LCD has to be used most of the time and flash is seldom used. Also, the grip on the 4500 is far better IMO especially when your hands are stretched at awkward angles as sometimes is the case with macro shots. I tend to use the 5700 for everything else these days.

Michael58 said:
Has anyone had experience with both the CoolPix 4500 and 5700? I am
considering purchasing 1 or the other, and am trying to justify if
the extra $400 to $500 is worth it for the aditional features (xtra
megapixel, 8x zoom, EVF etc.) . Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thx,
Michael58

Sheryl Katz · Oct 8, 2002

Derek Hawkins said:
http://www.pbase.com/eldata

All 4500 pictures are post-processed. . . .

Derek Hawkins said:
Both are fine cameras but the 4500 will always be preferred for
macro shots where the LCD has to be used most of the time and flash
is seldom used. Also, the grip on the 4500 is far better IMO
especially when your hands are stretched at awkward angles as
sometimes is the case with macro shots. I tend to use the 5700 for
everything else these days.

Yep, horses for courses. All this talk of camera specifications divorced from the intended use is worthless blather. As I said before, evaluate the use then consider the camera. I bought the 4500 for its macro capability and ability to take pictures through a scope. The 5700 would be the wrong camera for that purpose.

Is the user someone who just takes snapshot with whatever setting the camera gives. Is the user taking action shots. Does the user need or want a long telephoto or wide angle lens. Does the user want a pocket camera? Does the user like a heavy, substantial camera? Are pictures being taken in low light or day light? Will the pictures be printed? Displayed only on the web or in email? Will the user have only one camera or more than one?

Answer those questions, then look at the camera specs.

---

4500 or 5700

New member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

New member

Member

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Active member

Keyboard shortcuts