Tony B.11962
New member
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
Coopix 950 or Sony F505? Which would you buy?
TIA
TIA
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Coopix 950 or Sony F505? Which would you buy?
- Thread starter Tony B.11962
- Start date
P
Peter iNova
Guest
Both cameras give good pictures. Many features overlap. Here's a breakdown of features that don't (invent your own tally system, not all features have anywhere near the same scale in the grand scheme of things):
Nikon +'s
Wide angle/fisheye/tele to 230mm. How important is it to you?
Coat pocket size. How important is it to you?
AA battery power. How important is it to you?
BSS (best shot selector). How important is it to you?
Low light capability. How important is it to you?
Matrix, Center Weight, Spot metering. How important is it to you?
Contrast control. How important is it to you?
Compact Flash memory. How important is it to you?
External Flash. How important is it to you?
High Quality sequential shooting. How important is it to you?
Uncompressed imaging. How important is it to you?
High Quality JPEG. How important is it to you?
ISO sensitivity control. How important is it to you.
Micro close up to 15mm. How important is it to you?
Anti-red eye flash. How important is it to you?
Long shutter speeds (8 sec max). How important is it to you?
Well coordinated optical viewfinder. How important is it to you?
Sony +'s
Long zoom. How important is it to you?
Manual focus. How important is it to you?
Cool Silver design. How important is it to you?
Memory stick. How important is it to you?
Fast manual white balance. How important is it to you?
Long life proprietary batteries. How important is it to you?
52mm thread. How important is it to you?
Supurb Daylight monitor. How important is it to you?
Great tripod mount. How important is it to you?
Included AC. How important is it to you?
MPEG 15 sec movie. How important is it to you?
I've used the Nikon for over 6K images in the last five months. The add-on optics are a big deal with me and I use the wide ones more than the tele. I know Sony makes a really good wide adapter for their DV 3 chip cameras and it may help here. I also shoot a lot of available darkness and the clear winner here is the Nikon. Memory stick? Exqueeze me?
Once you commit to a system there is going to be the extra hurdle when the model changes. Nikon's committment to the optics will go forward to the Coolpix 3000. Someday I'll still have a fisheye but on 2k x 3k chip images and my 950 will be the backup camera.
The Sony zoom is a real good direction but why didn't they let you actually keep images as high quality as the optics suggest. The best Sony compression is about the same as Nikon's middle setting. Watch for a six-month later version, the way they woke up about the other SLR-like D700/770? On the other hand, for most prints the Normal (middle) compression setting is quite good. It disguises itself well. I suspect the Sony best setting is quite good for all but the most critical image work.
Unknown to me: Can the Sony lock exposure for Panoramic segment shooting? That's a biggie in my book and Nikon's firmware 1.1 has a bug in that department with Auto White Balance. The Sony fast manual white balance is something their video guys would be sensitive to and Nikon's engineers missed how important it is to make it instantaneous. Hmph. Film guys.
The Nikon's issues have been widely discussed. CF door: Fixed. Zoom park position: Upgraded in firmware 1.2? Tripod mount: I've had a small Qpod on my camera all its life and have never had a problem, but it isn't as good as the mount on the Sony.
Here's an issue only the Nikon deals with directly. If you are shooting in a fast moving situation, you want the camera to be in your line of sight with the subject. It's why SLR's don't look like Rolleiflex's. Any time you have to stare AT THE CAMERA you have missed a vital form of connection. The Nikon makes it optional and although you can't use the optical viewfinder for conversion lenses, it makes the basic camera fast acting. Even with electronic viewfinders, DV cams do the same thing. The 505's only mode of operation is to look at the camera.
Would I trade away the 950 in for the 505? Not a chance. Would I consider the Sony as a second camera? That's a possibility.
-iNova
Dan Morris
Well-known member
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 0
If you want to shoot only close subjects in automatic mode, the CP950 will be fine. However, if you want good manual controls and want longer telephoto, the F505 is best. You can use add-on telephoto lenses with the CP950, but they block the viewfinder, and you have to use the LCD, which is no good in sunlight. The review here says the F505 LCD is very good in sunlight.
Peter's analysis of these two cameras is thorough, but I'd like to cut through the feature list and ask the most important question: Which camera captures better images under most conditions? The answer can be found by closely examining the side-by-side comparisons in Phil Askey's detailed review at this Web site. Look at the ones captured with the lowest JPEG compression mode on each camera (which IS different) and put the theoretical JPEG compression arguments aside . . . in each case, when you download the full-size versions of the photos to your computer, you will see a clear difference between the results obtained. For these images, which are complex in detail and color and texture, the Sony F505 beats the Nikon 950 every time.
Features are a matter of individual taste and application, but optics are for everyone. The Sony's lens not only gives a sharper, more vivid set of pictures, but Phil notes that the barrel distortion of the Nikon 950 is absent with the Zeiss lens on the Sony. Combined with the wide zoom range (and by the way, Peter, there will be an add-on wide angle lens available), the Sony optics are simply better. And both cameras use the same Sony CCD.
I have neither camera, by the way, but I've been comparison shopping . . .
Bill
Features are a matter of individual taste and application, but optics are for everyone. The Sony's lens not only gives a sharper, more vivid set of pictures, but Phil notes that the barrel distortion of the Nikon 950 is absent with the Zeiss lens on the Sony. Combined with the wide zoom range (and by the way, Peter, there will be an add-on wide angle lens available), the Sony optics are simply better. And both cameras use the same Sony CCD.
I have neither camera, by the way, but I've been comparison shopping . . .
Bill
A
andrzej
Guest
The Sony F505 does not have a TIFF or RAW mode. Unless I am mistaken?
This could become useful in some events. I do not my images to be "clipped away" in the camera.
I can do this myself, thank you.
Andrzej
This could become useful in some events. I do not my images to be "clipped away" in the camera.
I can do this myself, thank you.
Andrzej
Robert11970
Well-known member
- Messages
- 125
- Reaction score
- 0
That's kind of a hard one to call. Prior to making my decision to continue to save for a digital SLR I consider both of these cameras amongst others.
My big dislike regarding the Sony is it's sorry flash. If you want good flash coverage indoors an external flash will be needed. Sony doesn't indicate how the flash is controlled within the camera. Is it a one pulse or two pulse? That's a question that needs to be answered before a decision could be made. Getting this camera to perform properly with slave flashes could be a time consuming trial and error proposition. The lens weighs strongly in favor with this camera. With it's 52mm thread a lot of attachments are capable of being used with the camera.
The Nikon lens can attach numerous attachments.Because of it's popularity, many aftermarket manufacturers provide a large amount of options. In the long run, because of the AA batteries and their ease of procurement along with Compact Flash and it's ease of procurement, I'd go with the Nikon. Somewhat reluctantly though, as the Zeiss glass on that Sony blows all other competition in this camera class off the map.
My big dislike regarding the Sony is it's sorry flash. If you want good flash coverage indoors an external flash will be needed. Sony doesn't indicate how the flash is controlled within the camera. Is it a one pulse or two pulse? That's a question that needs to be answered before a decision could be made. Getting this camera to perform properly with slave flashes could be a time consuming trial and error proposition. The lens weighs strongly in favor with this camera. With it's 52mm thread a lot of attachments are capable of being used with the camera.
The Nikon lens can attach numerous attachments.Because of it's popularity, many aftermarket manufacturers provide a large amount of options. In the long run, because of the AA batteries and their ease of procurement along with Compact Flash and it's ease of procurement, I'd go with the Nikon. Somewhat reluctantly though, as the Zeiss glass on that Sony blows all other competition in this camera class off the map.
P
Peter iNova
Guest
Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too.
The Sony's images are good. Now go shoot a wide angle or a fisheye with it. "Every" time?
Now go shoot a TIFF with it. "Every" time? Now go shoot into the shadowy evening with it. "Every" time? Now go shoot a -less- enhanced image with it. "Every" time?
Sorry, the appropriate wording might realistically been: "Much of the time."
And Phil's own practiced eye has guided his hand to let you know that "apparent sharpness" isn't "ultimate sharpness". Not in the digital world. Read the review. Then take IT with a grain of salt and bring the images into Photoshop on your desktop and push and shove the shots looking for limits.
I can make my Nikon shots just as sharp as the Sony ones. Even "sharper" with fewer edge-lines around contrasty features. So the person to whom having this feature permanently etched into each shot will not be the person who plans to finesse the shots later. The automatic photographer. The one-hour photo and it's finished. Done. No more. The shot has been finalized. No further work needed here.
There are a lot of photographers who don't want to mess around with the image after the shot has been taken and the Sony is an excellent choice for them. Just don't make the mistake of generalizing one as self-evidently better than the other. The self evident points have to do with how committed, flexible, optically versatile, post exposure savvy and silver or black your relationship to the equipment and the result is.
Which is the better image when viewed from your computer? Bill favors the Sony. No post-exposure finessing to get in the way of that.
-iNova
Michael F.
Leading Member
Generally, the better the original shot, the better the final result. Everything else being equal, better lenses make better shots which make better final results. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Sony has a better lens. The Nikon does better with macro (apparently especially when uing its own flash) and in dim light.
To someone like me, who owns neither one, they each seem to have advantages and each has disadvantages; I currently have a Nikon F70 and love it - but its not the only good camera around.
Its kinda funny to hear this odd note of triumphalism about these cameras. Is it something you ate for breakfast or what?
D
Don Lashier
Guest
As long as the software preserves what the lens is capable of. I think it's a shame that Sony doesn't at least offer you the option of less compression and less sharpening.
I agree. The top of the current crop (Nikon, Canon, Oly, Sony, Fuji) all offer fine cameras. There is no one best camera for everyone, only in the context of a particular person's skills, needs, and preferences. There is also no one best image. It varies depending on conditions, personal preferences, what's to be done with the image, etc.
Human nature. People are prone to making unequivocal blanket statements ("There is no doubt whatsover that the Sony ..."
, and this provokes reactions. Ever been around guys talking about cars? Me, I'm more interested in taking pictures.Don
Wow, chill out, Peter. My post was just making observations on a few comparison pictures that Phil had on his Web site . . . I wasn't judging the cameras' suitability for all photographic occasions. Nor can you, until you do a side-by-side comparison, and only Phil Askey has had that luxury at this point in time. I would also think that it would be difficult for anyone to evaluate what might be in-camera sharpening from simply better optics.
-- Bill
-- Bill
B
Bob
Guest
The Nikon 950 is old news. It's not even close in functionality as some of the new cameras. The Sony is nice but it is a long way from being perfect. don't buy the Sony and don't but the Nikon. If you have, just be happy with your decision. The market is moving to fast to second guess your purchase. If you are going to buy a camera buy it for what you need. Remember the Sony is all lens. But you can almost get the same result with a telephoto converter on another camera. Don't buy it because it can do ugly jpeg's Also you want a camera that takes the best pictures. Do you really want to spend an hour editing each photo. I would rather have a camera that all you would have to do is lighten or enrich the picture. Not remove artifacts. And please, make sure it has a USB port. that way you don't have to purchase a card reader. If you are ready to buy a camera wait to see the reviews of the Toshiba M-5 and the Epson 850z this month. You will not be sorry.
Dan Morris
Well-known member
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 0
I am sure TIFF will preserve the blue fringes and chromatic aberration and barrel distortion of the CP950 in all their glory. Would not want to clip those away.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum