You're right. I checked more carefully on staples website. their products have 6 digits number but on the digital camera, it's 7. I'll give them another call.
=)
=)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Coolpix 2500 vs Finepix 2600
- Thread starter AJohnson
- Start date
Ching-Kuang Shene
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,590
- Reaction score
- 3
None of the gallery images were taken by the 2500 because I have not been to update those stuffs for years. However, most photos in the 2500 user guide were taken with the 2500, except for the images of buttons, dials, etc. The context should be sufficient to determine which one is taken by a 2500. I don't have many landscape images in the 2500 guide; but, there are many close-up examples in the "Close-Up" pages. In my opinion, under good lighting condition, the 2500 is very very good.
CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500 user guide
Now I use CP4500 b ut my first camera was Finepix 2400, earlier version of 2600. with the same optics and electronics. Very good camera - perfect ergononics, great colours. Uses AA batteries, which is a plus - no need to buy costly speciali ones. In that class my slight preference would be for Fuji. Macro at 10cm only - if that important then Nikon. I remember also that Fuji was quite durable - mine had to withstand some abuse.
[email protected]
[email protected]
I just called to check on my order bec it hasn't shipped yet. So I gave them the item number and asked if it's in stock and they have 15 available at staples.com
It out of stock for next day delivery, but they do have them for delayed delivery of roughly late next week.
So, hopefully mine will come by July 22 as planned.
Good luck.
It out of stock for next day delivery, but they do have them for delayed delivery of roughly late next week.
So, hopefully mine will come by July 22 as planned.
Good luck.
Cloud Mine
Forum Enthusiast
Andrew,
Thank you so much for your comments!
As far as post-processing, I 'test' one pic at a time with Photoshop's auto-level, auto-color, and auto-contrast to gage how much improvement is needed. Usually, if I keep any of the changes, it is the auto-level, and sometimes the auto-color, which seems to correct the color changes auto-level sometimes makes in process.( I very rarely need the auto-contrast.) If the auto-level doesn't make much of a change, I ditch the processing altogether, and keep the pic as-is. Before I got Photoshop, I would sometimes use Photogenetics to play around with the image to correct color and contrast a bit.
Of the pics in my albums, some examples of ones that were only resized and/or cropped (no other color/level processing) were: the zoo train, the rainforest hibiscus, the geese, the small lizard, all of the art deco buildings(except minor sharpening - see below), most of the fireworks pics, most of the Woodward Park pics, and the majority of the Oxley Nature Center pics. There are so many that just look better without anything done to them at all...especially colorful subjects and macros.
The close up rhino was corrected with PS auto-level, definitely. (Btw, the rhino was very close.. maybe 4 ft away, behind a wide-barred iron fence and a wooden fence..no glass. I just got down low, slipped my camera past the wooden fence, then aimed between the poles of the other fence. At the zoo member's night, they were actually letting small children pet the rhino, whose nose/horn was through the fence, supervised of course! I wanted to get a pic, but there wasn't a clear shot, with all the parents around taking pics!) Where there was glass, I turned off my flash, put the camera against the glass to steady it, and kept my best results.
I haven't sharpened many of the photos. The art-deco buildings (other than the pans) were sharpened using Irfanview, sharpening once only.
Another sharpening method I sometimes try is in PS: create a duplicate layer, run the high-pass filter on it, then apply the hard light mode on the filtered layer. Then I adjust the percentage of the hard light to a level that looks right to me. I used this technique on the Meerkat's Siesta pic, on the black monkey in the rainforest, and the butterfly shots. Most of the pics were not sharpened at all.
I don't usually use the digital zoom.. it deteriorates the image too much. I did use it on the pic of the tiger, but didn't like the results. So I stick to the optical zoom only, and just get as close as I can! ( I am currently trying to save up for something with a big optical zoom, for animal and nature shots!
I think I will be putting up an album of nothing but un-processed pics soon, so people can see what the camera alone can do. Makes it much easier for them to judge for themselves! (Any excuse for a new project works for me...
I hope this answers your questions..thanks for your interest!
Monica
Cloud Mine
Forum Enthusiast
For anyone who might be interested, I have just finished putting together a sample gallery of CP 2500 pics which have had no post-processing whatsoever, other than cropping a few, and resizing all for the web.
I thought this might be useful to anyone who wants to see what sort of straight-from-the-camera results you can get!
Here's the link:
http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=4289641275&mode=&idx=0
Enjoy,
Monica
I thought this might be useful to anyone who wants to see what sort of straight-from-the-camera results you can get!
Here's the link:
http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=4289641275&mode=&idx=0
Enjoy,
Monica
Thanks. I checked again using the Live assistant they managed to locate them only after checking on Special Order. =)
Now, how do I go about locating the $30 coupon you mentioned?
Now, how do I go about locating the $30 coupon you mentioned?
Hi, there.
During reading and viewing some of the CP2500 galleries, I found two big problems with the CP2500: red eyes, and white dots. I can live with red eyes with post processing, but the white dots seems to be a source of aggravation.
What say you about these? Thanks.
During reading and viewing some of the CP2500 galleries, I found two big problems with the CP2500: red eyes, and white dots. I can live with red eyes with post processing, but the white dots seems to be a source of aggravation.
What say you about these? Thanks.
Andrew,
Thank you so much for your comments!
As far as post-processing, I 'test' one pic at a time with
Photoshop's auto-level, auto-color, and auto-contrast to gage how
much improvement is needed. Usually, if I keep any of the changes,
it is the auto-level, and sometimes the auto-color, which seems to
correct the color changes auto-level sometimes makes in process.( I
very rarely need the auto-contrast.) If the auto-level doesn't make
much of a change, I ditch the processing altogether, and keep the
pic as-is. Before I got Photoshop, I would sometimes use
Photogenetics to play around with the image to correct color and
contrast a bit.
Of the pics in my albums, some examples of ones that were only
resized and/or cropped (no other color/level processing) were: the
zoo train, the rainforest hibiscus, the geese, the small lizard,
all of the art deco buildings(except minor sharpening - see below),
most of the fireworks pics, most of the Woodward Park pics, and the
majority of the Oxley Nature Center pics. There are so many that
just look better without anything done to them at all...especially
colorful subjects and macros.
The close up rhino was corrected with PS auto-level, definitely.
(Btw, the rhino was very close.. maybe 4 ft away, behind a
wide-barred iron fence and a wooden fence..no glass. I just got
down low, slipped my camera past the wooden fence, then aimed
between the poles of the other fence. At the zoo member's night,
they were actually letting small children pet the rhino, whose
nose/horn was through the fence, supervised of course! I wanted to
get a pic, but there wasn't a clear shot, with all the parents
around taking pics!) Where there was glass, I turned off my flash,
put the camera against the glass to steady it, and kept my best
results.
I haven't sharpened many of the photos. The art-deco buildings
(other than the pans) were sharpened using Irfanview, sharpening
once only.
Another sharpening method I sometimes try is in PS: create a
duplicate layer, run the high-pass filter on it, then apply the
hard light mode on the filtered layer. Then I adjust the percentage
of the hard light to a level that looks right to me. I used this
technique on the Meerkat's Siesta pic, on the black monkey in the
rainforest, and the butterfly shots. Most of the pics were not
sharpened at all.
I don't usually use the digital zoom.. it deteriorates the image
too much. I did use it on the pic of the tiger, but didn't like the
results. So I stick to the optical zoom only, and just get as close
as I can! ( I am currently trying to save up for something with a
big optical zoom, for animal and nature shots!
I think I will be putting up an album of nothing but un-processed
pics soon, so people can see what the camera alone can do. Makes it
much easier for them to judge for themselves! (Any excuse for a new
project works for me...
I hope this answers your questions..thanks for your interest!
Monica
Hi, there.
During reading and viewing some of the CP2500 galleries, I found two big problems with the CP2500: red eyes, and white dots. I can live with red eyes with post processing, but the white dots seems to be a source of aggravation.
What say you about these? Thanks.
During reading and viewing some of the CP2500 galleries, I found two big problems with the CP2500: red eyes, and white dots. I can live with red eyes with post processing, but the white dots seems to be a source of aggravation.
What say you about these? Thanks.
Thanks for all your help, 4500user. I appreciate it.
Another question: During reading and viewing some of the CP2500 galleries, I found two big problems with the CP2500: red eyes, and white dots. I can live with red eyes with post processing, but the white dots seems to be a source of aggravation.
What say you about these? Thanks.
Another question: During reading and viewing some of the CP2500 galleries, I found two big problems with the CP2500: red eyes, and white dots. I can live with red eyes with post processing, but the white dots seems to be a source of aggravation.
What say you about these? Thanks.
Ching-Kuang Shene
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,590
- Reaction score
- 3
The red-eye has been a big issue of all swivel body design until the Coolpix 995. If the lens can be rotated, the flash, which must point in the same direction as the lens, must be on the lens unit. However, since the lens unit is already small, the distance between the lens and the flash is also small, and, consequently, red-eye cannot be avoided. See the "Red-Eye" page in the "Internal Flash" section of my 4500 user guide for more details.
The white-dot problem is puzzling to me as I have never encountered such a problem ever since I got the camera. I also tried to repeat the problem without much success. This problem may be caused by dust in the lens that reflects the flash light, lens aperture defect, etc etc. It seems to me this problem died down several months ago (at least no one talked about it here and elsewhere). Don't know if people have learned to fix the problem or sold their cameras.
CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500 user guide
I haven't looked at the galleries, but I haven't noticed any white dots on my pics. You better hurry and place your order bec the $30 coupon expires tonight. You can always cancel the order or refuse delivery if it comes to that. They also have a 14 day return policy if you find it defective. You will need to place the order with the phone reps.
But don't let me twist your arm...
But don't let me twist your arm...
he...he...he...
well, you just did. =p i placed the order just now and it should arrived thursday.
i however still researching on the white dots problem. many of the more professional gallery don't show them, probably because the posters just don't want to be caught with bad photos. but some of the pbase albums contained "candid-point n shoot" album. and boy, do they look horrible with the white dots. it showed up with indoors, low light, with flash photos.
it seems like some don't have them, some do, and some worse than others. i hope mine would be just fine. Knock*Knock (Knock on wood.)
otherwise, the photos i've seen have been great (outdoors, or good lighting).
well, you just did. =p i placed the order just now and it should arrived thursday.
i however still researching on the white dots problem. many of the more professional gallery don't show them, probably because the posters just don't want to be caught with bad photos. but some of the pbase albums contained "candid-point n shoot" album. and boy, do they look horrible with the white dots. it showed up with indoors, low light, with flash photos.
it seems like some don't have them, some do, and some worse than others. i hope mine would be just fine. Knock*Knock (Knock on wood.)
otherwise, the photos i've seen have been great (outdoors, or good lighting).
Cloud Mine
Forum Enthusiast
I've used the red-eye reduction flash setting with pretty good success, and the rest of the time, there is always the software fix, like you said.
I've seen the white dots twice, and didn't know what caused them, til I read that it was probably dust on/in the lens, or possibly light reflecting off dust particles in the air. The only two times I've encountered this, it actually looked kinda cool, like an effect, so it didn't bother me. One example is this shot, taken the very first day I took my camera to the park. The spot made me think of the moon you can see during the day, so I kept it!
The only other spot I've seen was much smaller. Of course, you wouldn't always want to keep them, either! Thankfully, it seems to be a rare occurance.
Monica
Monica,
Thank you for posting them, they are very helpful. For me certainly, and perhaps for others to come. I wish more people would do the same with their respective camera(s) to show both non processed and processed images, that is to show what the camera takes and what it can achieved.
Another question for you: what kind of in camera sharpening were the photos taken with? They seem a bit soft to me.
=)
Andrew
Thank you for posting them, they are very helpful. For me certainly, and perhaps for others to come. I wish more people would do the same with their respective camera(s) to show both non processed and processed images, that is to show what the camera takes and what it can achieved.
Another question for you: what kind of in camera sharpening were the photos taken with? They seem a bit soft to me.
=)
Andrew
Cloud Mine
Forum Enthusiast
You're more than welcome for the samples!
I checked random pics, and it looks as though the camera was in auto sharpen mode for the pics. Actually, I keep forgetting that I can change the settings! I guess I should check it out, huh?
Another thing - as I was checking the shooting info, I noticed that the images I put in the sample gallery did look a bit less sharp than the originals at full size. When I resized this particular set of pics for the sample gallery, I used 'save for web' to resize to about 100k each, which I normally don't use. I wonder if using that method of resizing affects the sharpness? I dunno.. could be my imagination.
Monica
That might be why they appear a bit soft, I don't know.
Does the host website allow for posting larger sizes or they will automatically adjust the size to one size fits all? I know I should read and find out..... but you probably know that already.... =) I'm thinking about posting there too soon.
Andrew
Does the host website allow for posting larger sizes or they will automatically adjust the size to one size fits all? I know I should read and find out..... but you probably know that already.... =) I'm thinking about posting there too soon.
Andrew
You're more than welcome for the samples!
I checked random pics, and it looks as though the camera was in
auto sharpen mode for the pics. Actually, I keep forgetting that I
can change the settings! I guess I should check it out, huh?
Another thing - as I was checking the shooting info, I noticed that
the images I put in the sample gallery did look a bit less sharp
than the originals at full size. When I resized this particular set
of pics for the sample gallery, I used 'save for web' to resize to
about 100k each, which I normally don't use. I wonder if using that
method of resizing affects the sharpness? I dunno.. could be my
imagination.
Monica
Cloud Mine
Forum Enthusiast
Andrew,
You can upload pics at full size - as large as you wish - they then resize it to fit the album's template. To view the image at full size, you click on the pic, which opens it in a new window. Then when you mouse over the pic in the new window, an icon appears in the lower right corner. You can then click on this icon to bring the image to view at the originally uploaded size.
Most of the pics in my albums I uploaded at full resolution, but the sample gallery I went ahead and resized first, so they would already be at an appropriate size to post to this forum.. saves me a step later on!
Btw, I look forward to seeing your pics when you get them posted!
Monica
David Chin
Forum Pro
Resizing a pic almost always makes the resultant pic look softer. Which is why most of the forum members, when posting a resized pic, always sharpen it before posting for viewing. Sharpening is done with any of the photo-processing tools like Nikon Edit, Photoshop, Irfanview and the like.
My gallery at http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/outofthecamera are original, full-sized pics out of the camera, but you'll notice they only look sharp at original size. If you click on the other sizes as offered by pbase, the pic won't look good.
All the other pictures in my gallery, for example http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/fauna went through a sharpening process. This is a mandatory step.
Hope this helps!
Rgds,
David
C o o l p i x 4 5 0 0
~ Out-of-the camera series: http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/outofthecamera
~ Fantastic Majeske's 4 5 0 0 gallery: http://www.pbase.com/ryenke/coolpix_4500
~ THE post that convinced me to buy the 4 5 0 0: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=3087176
My gallery at http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/outofthecamera are original, full-sized pics out of the camera, but you'll notice they only look sharp at original size. If you click on the other sizes as offered by pbase, the pic won't look good.
All the other pictures in my gallery, for example http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/fauna went through a sharpening process. This is a mandatory step.
Hope this helps!
--
Rgds,
David
C o o l p i x 4 5 0 0
~ Out-of-the camera series: http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/outofthecamera
~ Fantastic Majeske's 4 5 0 0 gallery: http://www.pbase.com/ryenke/coolpix_4500
~ THE post that convinced me to buy the 4 5 0 0: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=3087176
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum