Nikon Coolpix cameras can't focus in low light!

Phil Youngblood · Jan 11, 2004

lee lindquist said:
Uncle Frank said:

Since that's true of most of my posts, you'd probably have a more
enjoyable experience on this forum if you didn't read them.

Click to expand...

Not really, as I kind of enjoy mocking the sanctimonious.

It's pretty entertaining when someone calls all posts which
disagree with him 'erronious', and his opinion the truth.

Interesting.

Frank started this thread to point out the FACT the 5700 does not have a problem with low light, but low contrast. He provided images to prove the point. He made several statements including the 5700 has more difficulty with low contrast than some others due to the 8X zoom. Go back and read the original post. I defy you to find an incorrect statement you can PROVE is wrong.

Now, here is the interesting part. Frank, along with those of us agreeing with the FACTS as presented, have been subjected to personal attacks. We have been called "stupid", "ignorant", "closed-minded", and now "sanctimonious". Instead of providing any proof, those in disagreement have resorted to name-calling personal attacks. Exactly why is that, lee?

As for Askey's review, Frank also pointed out the 5700 has the most difficulty in the default settings. Phil tests in the default condition.

I have MANY images that prove the 5700 has no problem with low-light. I also have many that prove it does have a problem with no-contrast scenes. Want to see them?

Phil

Ron T · Jan 11, 2004

lee lindquist said:
If folks want a more objective opinion about the CP-5700
low-light autofocus, I suggest they read the cons section
of Phil Askey's review:

Why not also read the pros section:
"Fast wide angle auto focus, slower at telephoto"

If you compare with other 5MP cameras the 5700 is at the top in AF speed.

--
Ron T
5 7 0 0

lee lindquist · Jan 11, 2004

Ron T said:
lee lindquist said:

If folks want a more objective opinion about the CP-5700
low-light autofocus, I suggest they read the cons section
of Phil Askey's review:

Click to expand...

Why not also read the pros section:
"Fast wide angle auto focus, slower at telephoto"

Um . . . because Frank's subject was:

"Nikon Coolpix cameras can't focus in low light"

The CP-5700 has many features, including compact size,
excellent picture quality and good zoom range...

But, when the subject is "Nikon Coolpix cameras can't focus in low light"
I thought that was what we were discussing.

lee lindquist · Jan 11, 2004

Phil Youngblood said:
agreeing with the FACTS as presented, have been subjected to
personal attacks. We have been called "stupid", "ignorant",
"closed-minded", and now "sanctimonious". Instead of providing any
proof, those in disagreement have resorted to name-calling personal
attacks. Exactly why is that, lee?

I don't know Phil, generally, or exactly.

Perhaps you should ask the folks who made the posts.
I don't think I've ever used 'closed-minded' -- I usually use zealot,
as its tone is ambiguous. It could be negative, but one of
the definitions is 'enthusiast' .

I used sanctimonious because it exactly matched the tone
of the original post in this thread -- which I read as:
"you may have read other opinions posted here by
folks . . . who were wrong, I will now tell you the truth"

It really doesn't matter what the topic is, whether I agree with
it or not, I felt it was condescending and a taunt to those with
a differing opinion. As you don't like sanctimonious, what word
would you suggest?

Phil Youngblood said:
low-light. I also have many that prove it does have a problem with
no-contrast scenes. Want to see them?

I believe that you have many such images. You need not
post them to convince me.

Ching-Kuang Shene · Jan 11, 2004

Ron T said:
Why not also read the pros section:
"Fast wide angle auto focus, slower at telephoto"

I must point out one thing if you don't mind, Ron. Virtually all wide angle lenses focus faster than telephoto lenses because the focus group of the former moves a much shorter distance than the focus group of the latter. Moreover, AF is even slower in macro if the lens uses the tele-end of its focal length because the focus group of that lens may move further. So, faster in WA and slower in TELE is rule even in strong day light, although a variable aperture lens will lose 1+ stop at the tele end. This 1+ stop difference will not make much difference in strong day light.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 User Guide

lee lindquist · Jan 11, 2004

Uncle Frank said:
3. AF assist lamps are only useful over short distances - about 6
to 8 feet, and they annoy the heck out of human subjects.

According to the specifications of my SB-28DX, the AF-assist
lamp is good for subjects in the range of 3.3 - 16.4 feet, or
about twice what you wrote, Frank.

It would really be nice if the next version of the CP-5700
could take advantage of that speedlight feature.

On the other hand, I dreamed of the same thing 2.5 years ago...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=1529989

Phil Youngblood · Jan 11, 2004

lee lindquist said:
Member said:

Phil Youngblood wrote:

Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what the topic is, whether I agree with
it or not, I felt it was condescending and a taunt to those with
a differing opinion.

Fair enough. We each have our own way of reading between the lines.

Member said:
As you don't like sanctimonious, what word
would you suggest?

How about several words -- sick and tired of reading aggrandized posts of those offering low-light as a 5700 specific problem.

Member said:
Member said:

low-light. I also have many that prove it does have a problem with
no-contrast scenes. Want to see them?

Click to expand...

I believe that you have many such images. You need not
post them to convince me.

Cute. Nice try at selective, out of context, editing. I have far more images proving the low-light ability of the 5700. I will assume you don't want to see those, either. After all, proof has the nasty habit of killing the argument, huh!

Phil

lee lindquist · Jan 11, 2004

Phil Youngblood said:
Phil Youngblood said:

Phil Youngblood said:

low-light. I also have many that prove it does have a problem with
no-contrast scenes. Want to see them?

Click to expand...

I believe that you have many such images. You need not
post them to convince me.

Click to expand...

Cute. Nice try at selective, out of context, editing. I have far

What's out of context? You posted:

"I also have many that prove it does have a problem
with no-contrast scenes."

I believe you, Phil.

flashfenton · Jan 11, 2004

This photo was taken in darkness; no lights around. I could not see the flower through the camera (CP5700). I took a few shots to make sure it was centered. Low light works for me. Auto AF was off. Excuse the quality. I saved in PS Elements as a web photo. Very low resolution. Notice the spider!

http://www.pbase.com/flashfenton

Uncle Frank said:
It's an Urban Legend, folks. There have been so erronious posts
about Nikon's "Achilles' Heel" that it's gained credibility. The
truth is...

1. virtually all of the current generation of digicams from the
leading manufacturers use the indentical method for autofocus,
which is based on contrast detection.

2. if you check the forums for Canon, Sony, etc., you'll find just
as many newcomers complaining about "low light focus" problems as
you do on the Nikon Talk Forum. They face the very same low
contrast focus issues.

3. AF assist lamps are only useful over short distances - about 6
to 8 feet, and they annoy the heck out of human subjects.

The best way to overcome the "problem" is to understand how AF
systems work:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/autofocus3.htm

All Coolpix cameras have 3 of autofocus area modes. The default
(auto AF) is the worst of the 3. Read about the other 2 modes in
your owners manual, and try them out.

The 5700 has the biggest challenge in auto-focus because of its 8X
zoom range. Here's a few shots that provide anecdotal evidence
that there is no low light problem.

I used a flash for this shot, taken in a nearly pitch black bar,
but the camera had to focus first.

Taken outdooors on Haloween night. It was so dark that I couldn't
see the subject through the viewfinder, but my Coolpix was able to
achieve focus.

Sunset at the beach. The exif data shows it required 1/5th second
at f/4.4, which is pretty dark. Since the scene was contrasty,
getting focus lock was a snap.

Feel free to ask questions, or respond to this post with examples
of your own low-light pictures. And don't buy into the Urban
Legend.

--
Warm regards,
Uncle Frank, FCAS Charter Member,
Hummingbird Hunter, DPR/NTF Supporter
Coolpix fifty seven hundred and nine ninety five
http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix&page=all

--
Seeing Him in every photo I take.

NikonBob · Jan 11, 2004

How long did it take for you to get a shot? Boy, a light assist beam would have been ideal....No worries about it shining in someone's eyes either.

Regards,

flashfenton said:
http://www.pbase.com/flashfenton

Uncle Frank said:

It's an Urban Legend, folks. There have been so erronious posts
about Nikon's "Achilles' Heel" that it's gained credibility. The
truth is...

1. virtually all of the current generation of digicams from the
leading manufacturers use the indentical method for autofocus,
which is based on contrast detection.

2. if you check the forums for Canon, Sony, etc., you'll find just
as many newcomers complaining about "low light focus" problems as
you do on the Nikon Talk Forum. They face the very same low
contrast focus issues.

3. AF assist lamps are only useful over short distances - about 6
to 8 feet, and they annoy the heck out of human subjects.

The best way to overcome the "problem" is to understand how AF
systems work:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/autofocus3.htm

All Coolpix cameras have 3 of autofocus area modes. The default
(auto AF) is the worst of the 3. Read about the other 2 modes in
your owners manual, and try them out.

The 5700 has the biggest challenge in auto-focus because of its 8X
zoom range. Here's a few shots that provide anecdotal evidence
that there is no low light problem.

I used a flash for this shot, taken in a nearly pitch black bar,
but the camera had to focus first.

Taken outdooors on Haloween night. It was so dark that I couldn't
see the subject through the viewfinder, but my Coolpix was able to
achieve focus.

Sunset at the beach. The exif data shows it required 1/5th second
at f/4.4, which is pretty dark. Since the scene was contrasty,
getting focus lock was a snap.

Feel free to ask questions, or respond to this post with examples
of your own low-light pictures. And don't buy into the Urban
Legend.

--
Warm regards,
Uncle Frank, FCAS Charter Member,
Hummingbird Hunter, DPR/NTF Supporter
Coolpix fifty seven hundred and nine ninety five
http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix&page=all

Click to expand...

--
Seeing Him in every photo I take.

Ron T · Jan 11, 2004

Ching-Kuang Shene said:
I must point out one thing if you don't mind, Ron. Virtually all
wide angle lenses focus faster than telephoto lenses because the
focus group of the former moves a much shorter distance than the
focus group of the latter.

Yes, I know this, but I didn't want to bias Phil's review by only stating that Phil's review states that the 5700 has fast auto focus, however, since all cameras with long zooms have this variation then you could say that the 5700 is just as fast as the others in the 5MP long zoom class.

--
Ron T
5 7 0 0

Ron T · Jan 11, 2004

lee lindquist said:
Um . . . because Frank's subject was:

"Nikon Coolpix cameras can't focus in low light"

The CP-5700 has many features, including compact size,
excellent picture quality and good zoom range...

But, when the subject is "Nikon Coolpix cameras can't focus in low
light"
I thought that was what we were discussing.

But I think the main point of his post is that it does focus in low light if you understand the contrast focus system and make use of ALL modes of the 5700's AF system and of course practice.

--
Ron T
5 7 0 0

rapick · Jan 12, 2004

I alread succeeded in making the Brooklyn Bridge disappear! But this will be an even harder experiment! No trick, no fake, as usual!

This is a CP-5700. And this is a flower: I'll take a perfectly focused pic of it in complete darkness with no AF assist light. ... Please shut down the stage lights... Click!

(A few minutes later, coming out from the digital darkroom...) Here's the result! Sorry, not the bast quality, I had to rework it somehow... but it's in focus, isn't it?

flashfenton said:
This photo was taken in darkness; no lights around. I could not
see the flower through the camera (CP5700). I took a few shots to
make sure it was centered. Low light works for me. Auto AF was
off. Excuse the quality. I saved in PS Elements as a web photo.
Very low resolution. Notice the spider!

http://www.pbase.com/flashfenton

Well, technical test are credible when enough details are given to make them "reproducible". Unfortunately, this is not the case of yours, since even the EXIF data went lost in the postprocessing. So I feel free to provide a possible procedures for making this miracle:

We know that after unsuccessfully hunting for focus, the AF motor will stop at a "rest" position that is about 1.5 m focus distance. So you put the subject at that distance, and can rely on about 10 cm of DOF. Of course the flower image will be small... but after cropping and resizing in PS, and with some USM, it will look like a true Macro.

Or there was a different reason for uploading a full size image after savig for web?
Hope you won't take an offence if I trust Phil's Review more:

Low Light Autofocus
Coolpix 5700
Full Wide @ f/2.8: 1.8 EV
Full Tele @ f/4.2: 3.0 EV
...

"The Coolpix 5700 exhibited below average low light focusing ability, especially at any point from half zoom to telephoto. At full telephoto the auto focus took almost five seconds and only locked 50% of the time (at the light level noted above)"

--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

lee lindquist · Jan 12, 2004

Ron T said:
But I think the main point of his post is that it does focus in low
light if you understand the contrast focus system and make use of
ALL modes of the 5700's AF system and of course practice.

I was thinking about this thread last night, and I realized that I
had been hooked by one of Frank's typical red herrings.

My experience with the CP-5700 has been that in low light
sometimes it will focus, and sometimes it won't. Some folks
will say -- yeah just like other cameras --- maybe true, but I
own the CP5700.

If you then read Phil's review, he mentions in the 'CONS"
'poor low-light autofocus'.

Then Frank comes along and says folks have been claiming
the CP-5700 can't focus in low-light, here are some examples
that prove it can.

Of course, that's a red herring. No one has been saying that
it CAN'T -- can't would mean NEVER, and sure a single picture
would disprove the statement.

As I said, for me there are times the camera can focus in
low light, and times that it cannot. I am disappointed
by the number of times it cannot.

Other folks have different expectations and experiences, and
may be completely satisified.

I regret being hooked by Frank's word-play.

Brian G. · Jan 12, 2004

Hi Uncle Frank,

What follows are my thoughts on this subject, which has obviously generated a lot of interest, based on the number of replies you've received.

Uncle Frank said:
It's an Urban Legend, folks. There have been so erronious posts
about Nikon's "Achilles' Heel" that it's gained credibility. The
truth is...

1. virtually all of the current generation of digicams from the
leading manufacturers use the indentical method for autofocus,
which is based on contrast detection.

Scene contrast is a function of light level. With absolutely no light, for example, there is no contrast- everything's black. With overwhelming amounts of white light, for example, there is also no contrast-everything is white. To say that these cameras don't have a problem with low light, per se, is rather misleading. Low light is certainly a proximal cause of difficulty, even if low contrast is what you want to call the ultimate cause. All of us, I am sure, can find examples of low-light but reasonably high--contrast shots in which our cameras focused, but I'm not sure what the point is, since these shots would be more the exception than the rule.

Uncle Frank said:
2. if you check the forums for Canon, Sony, etc., you'll find just
as many newcomers complaining about "low light focus" problems as
you do on the Nikon Talk Forum. They face the very same low
contrast focus issues.

Although you'll get no argument from me here, I personally don't give much weight to the complaints of newcomers when assessing any kind of technical equipment. And in any event, saying, in effect "they have the same issues" doesn't mean Nikon users don't have a problem. To me, it means we all have a problem. Let's face it-consumer digital cameras focus worse, as a whole, than any other auto-focusing piece of optical equipment I know of.

Uncle Frank said:
3. AF assist lamps are only useful over short distances - about 6
to 8 feet, and they annoy the heck out of human subjects.

True, but it's still better to have one than to not (all else bing equal) because 1) sometimes what you want to shoot is in the range you mentioned 2) sometimes your subject is non-human. 3) Sometimes it really is the only way you're going to get deliberate focus (as opposed to hyperfocal, for example).

Uncle Frank said:
The best way to overcome the "problem" is to understand how AF
systems work:

Does your use of quotation marks here imply that you believe there is no problem? Personally, taken as a whole, I'd say the low-light, low-contrast focusing capabilities of the typical consumer digital camera are terrible. And the very fact that you mention the need to workaround the issue implies a problem exists. Call it a technical limitation, call it a problem, call it whatever you'd like- none of these cameras can deliberately focus well in the kinds of situations I call "low light" (which are not the same as, say, "indoors".)

Uncle Frank said:
The 5700 has the biggest challenge in auto-focus because of its 8X
zoom range. Here's a few shots that provide anecdotal evidence
that there is no low light problem.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I want to point out that anecdotal evidence is worthless when trying to evaluate a claim. As I said, we can all find examples of low-light high-contrast shots to display and pat ourselves on the back that all is well. Personally, I'd rather get on the manufacturers of our cameras and let them know that this is not good enough; that we want better than this.

Just my two cents...

Regards,
--
Brian
Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

Uncle Frank · Jan 12, 2004

I found your thoughts to be interesting, and would probably have enjoyed a discussion of them, but...

Brian G. said:
I'm not trying to be offensive here...

Really? With a title like, "Uncle Frank, your post seems disingenuous..."

dis·in·gen·u·ous (dĭs'ĭn-jĕn'yū-əs) adj. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating

I guess you figured calling me calculating and insincere would be the start to a great relationship.
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
Dilettante Appassionato, FCAS Charter Member,
Hummingbird Hunter, DPR/NTF Supporter
Coolpix fifty seven hundred and nine ninety five
http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix&page=all

Brian G. · Jan 12, 2004

Hi Uncle Frank,

Uncle Frank said:
Uncle Frank said:

I'm not trying to be offensive here...

Click to expand...

Really? With a title like, "Uncle Frank, your post seems
disingenuous..."

Yes, really.

Uncle Frank said:
dis·in·gen·u·ous (dĭs'ĭn-jĕn'yū-əs) adj.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating

I was using the word in the sense of "not straightforward or candid, calculating" I neither said, nor did I mean, anything about insincerity. I believe you are very sincere, in fact.

Uncle Frank said:
I guess you figured calling me calculating and insincere would be
the start to a great relationship.

Actually, I wasn't expecting a "great relationship" neccessarily, but I suppose I was expecting to generate some discussion. I will maintain that you were being calculating and not straightforward in your original post, and if you decide you like to discuss it, I'd be happy to do so. If you'd rather ignore me based on a perceived (but unintended) slight, well, I think that's a shame, but it's certainly your right to do so.

Again, if you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to.

Kind Regards (seriously),
Brian

Uncle Frank said:
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
Dilettante Appassionato, FCAS Charter Member,
Hummingbird Hunter, DPR/NTF Supporter
Coolpix fifty seven hundred and nine ninety five
http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix&page=all

--
Brian
Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

Uncle Frank · Jan 12, 2004

Brian G. said:
I will maintain that you were being calculating and not straightforward in
your original post...

There you go, sweet talking again -lol.

Brian G. said:
if you decide you like to discuss it, I'd be happy to do so.

I always enjoy discussions about camera technology, provided they're conducted in a non-contentious manner. But my posts on NTF are aimed at sharing my pictures or discussing work-arounds with fellow Coolpix owners. I think cross-platform conversations are more appropriate for the Open Forum. Let me know if you start a thread over there, and I'll be happy to trade ideas with you.
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
Dilettante Appassionato, FCAS Charter Member,
Hummingbird Hunter, DPR/NTF Supporter
Coolpix fifty seven hundred and nine ninety five
http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix&page=all

Bill Palumbo · Jan 12, 2004

lee lindquist said:
Member said:

It's an Urban Legend, folks. There have been so erronious posts
about Nikon's "Achilles' Heel" that it's gained credibility. The
truth is...

Click to expand...

And, as I took another look at your pictures, I looked
at the 'cop bar'.

While the bar might have been pitch black, it doesn't
look like the subject was -- as just to the right of the
word 'Lounge' at the top of the image -- looks to me
like a light fixture. The light is bright enough that it's
not washed out by the flash.

Almost 100 postings on this topic?? Don't sound like an urban legend to me. Just maybe there is something really going on here. I put my Nikon camera down and brought home a Canon G5 just to see what it would do. Imagine that - every single picture (in low light) was perfectly focused. Wait, let me look at the Nikon pics - focused, focused, blurry, focused, blurry, blurry etc. I'm no photographer, but it makes sense to me that one camera that can't seem to take clear pictures consistently while another can. Just a thought......

Mykl Devlin · Jan 12, 2004

Uncle Frank said:
I always enjoy discussions about camera technology, provided
they're conducted in a non-contentious manner. But my posts on NTF
are aimed at sharing my pictures or discussing work-arounds with
fellow Coolpix owners. I think cross-platform conversations are
more appropriate for the Open Forum. Let me know if you start a
thread over there, and I'll be happy to trade ideas with you.
--

Please Frank,

how can your original post be considered anything but contentious?

It was written as a challenge to anyone out there to disagree with you.... and surprise surprise there are people that do..... and then you complain?

Uncle Frank's Hypothesis: "Nikon cameras can always achieve focus."

You cannot prove the hypothesis.... only disprove it... a million good shots in low light does not prove it.... a single bad one disproves it.

Mykl

Nikon Coolpix cameras can't focus in low light!

Veteran Member

Senior Member

lee lindquist

Guest

lee lindquist

Guest

New member

lee lindquist

Guest

Veteran Member

lee lindquist

Guest

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

lee lindquist

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts