Reading mode: Light Dark

COOLPIX A - The new reference compact!

Go to last post
philchan said:
philchan wrote:

Kudos to Nikon.
Click to expand...
Tell me more. I an on the fence between this camera and an RX100. Fixed lens vs. zoom. Two different sensor sizes. Apples and oranges. I know, I know. But I want something pocketable to accompany my OMD EM5 M43 system.
 
I'm staring at both right now, running some handheld low light comparisons. So far the RX100 is quicker and brighter, but I can tell in good light the Coolpix A would have much higher picture quality. But I need a good low light camera that can catch fast moving kids. The fact that I can retain IQ at higher ISOs should help the Nikon, but the f1.8 lens on the Sony bridges that gap allowing lower ISOs to be just as bright. So far I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be for low light / fast moving performance with the Nikon, but I plan to do more "field" testing when I get home tonight with the toddler.
 
ElessarJD said:
ElessarJD wrote:

I'm staring at both right now, running some handheld low light comparisons. So far the RX100 is quicker and brighter, but I can tell in good light the Coolpix A would have much higher picture quality. But I need a good low light camera that can catch fast moving kids. The fact that I can retain IQ at higher ISOs should help the Nikon, but the f1.8 lens on the Sony bridges that gap allowing lower ISOs to be just as bright. So far I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be for low light / fast moving performance with the Nikon, but I plan to do more "field" testing when I get home tonight with the toddler.
Click to expand...
While the RX100 would be better than the A for fast moving kids, the RX100 is nowhere as good as a DSLR for that.
 
photo perzon said:
photo perzon wrote:
photo perzon said:
ElessarJD wrote:

I'm staring at both right now, running some handheld low light comparisons. So far the RX100 is quicker and brighter, but I can tell in good light the Coolpix A would have much higher picture quality. But I need a good low light camera that can catch fast moving kids. The fact that I can retain IQ at higher ISOs should help the Nikon, but the f1.8 lens on the Sony bridges that gap allowing lower ISOs to be just as bright. So far I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be for low light / fast moving performance with the Nikon, but I plan to do more "field" testing when I get home tonight with the toddler.
Click to expand...
While the RX100 would be better than the A for fast moving kids, the RX100 is nowhere as good as a DSLR for that.
Click to expand...
A DSLR isn't pocketable. That is one of the requirments the OP seemed to want.
 
ElessarJD said:
ElessarJD wrote:

I'm staring at both right now, running some handheld low light comparisons. So far the RX100 is quicker and brighter, but I can tell in good light the Coolpix A would have much higher picture quality. But I need a good low light camera that can catch fast moving kids. The fact that I can retain IQ at higher ISOs should help the Nikon, but the f1.8 lens on the Sony bridges that gap allowing lower ISOs to be just as bright. So far I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be for low light / fast moving performance with the Nikon, but I plan to do more "field" testing when I get home tonight with the toddler.
Click to expand...
From DxOMark Sensor Ratings, the Nikon of course score considerably better:

Sport (Low-Light ISO) Score

Nikon Coolpix A 1164 ISO

Sony RX100 390 ISO

In any light, the Coolpix A should have better IQ, not that the RX100 is bad by any means. Extreme low-light shooting is just not it's forte.

The problem for the RX100 is f1.8, at least up close, is quite soft, with downright blurry corners. At Infinity focus, it's better at max aperture, but it's not at all a good performer wide open at close range. DPR talked about this in it's RX100 review and if you Google "RX100 at f1.8" you will find tons of posts on this issue.

From what I've seen the Nikon performs superbly wide open, but I haven't tested this personally like I have with the RX100.
 
marike6 said:
marike6 wrote:
marike6 said:
ElessarJD wrote:

I'm staring at both right now, running some handheld low light comparisons. So far the RX100 is quicker and brighter, but I can tell in good light the Coolpix A would have much higher picture quality. But I need a good low light camera that can catch fast moving kids. The fact that I can retain IQ at higher ISOs should help the Nikon, but the f1.8 lens on the Sony bridges that gap allowing lower ISOs to be just as bright. So far I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be for low light / fast moving performance with the Nikon, but I plan to do more "field" testing when I get home tonight with the toddler.
Click to expand...
From DxOMark Sensor Ratings, the Nikon of course score considerably better:

Sport (Low-Light ISO) Score

Nikon Coolpix A 1164 ISO

Sony RX100 390 ISO
Click to expand...
That's almost 2 stops difference in that range, a lot, and certainly only gets larger as ISO moves up. The A should also be more manageable for NR, since it will have more details due to lack of an AA system (does the RX100 have an AA system)? I have checked the D7100 x D600 and, even though the typical 1 stop difference is there overall re noise, the extra detail in the D7100's files allow for more NR w/o messing up with finer detail.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
Last edited:
ElessarJD said:
ElessarJD wrote:

I'm staring at both right now, running some handheld low light comparisons. So far the RX100 is quicker and brighter, but I can tell in good light the Coolpix A would have much higher picture quality. But I need a good low light camera that can catch fast moving kids. The fact that I can retain IQ at higher ISOs should help the Nikon, but the f1.8 lens on the Sony bridges that gap allowing lower ISOs to be just as bright. So far I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be for low light / fast moving performance with the Nikon, but I plan to do more "field" testing when I get home tonight with the toddler.
Click to expand...


The RX100 might have faster lens f1.8 vs f2.8 on the Nikon but youre forgetting the Nikon has a much bigger sensor to make up for it.
 
CLKAMG said:
CLKAMG wrote:
CLKAMG said:
ElessarJD wrote:

I'm staring at both right now, running some handheld low light comparisons. So far the RX100 is quicker and brighter, but I can tell in good light the Coolpix A would have much higher picture quality. But I need a good low light camera that can catch fast moving kids. The fact that I can retain IQ at higher ISOs should help the Nikon, but the f1.8 lens on the Sony bridges that gap allowing lower ISOs to be just as bright. So far I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be for low light / fast moving performance with the Nikon, but I plan to do more "field" testing when I get home tonight with the toddler.
Click to expand...
The RX100 might have faster lens f1.8 vs f2.8 on the Nikon but youre forgetting the Nikon has a much bigger sensor to make up for it.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the sensor size differences, in my tests the faster lens offers much more flexibility.
 
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