s2 vs. cp8800

[eric07]

unfortunately I missed out on the dell s2 deal, because that would have made my decision much easier. I am torn between purchasing the s2 for retail price i assume or a like new nikon cp880 for $500 (xtra batt included) from a friend who uprgraded to a DSLR.

Any wisdom would be appreciated, i keep flip-flopping back and forth and I need someone to say i'd be an idiot for passing up the 8800 or the s2 is heads and sholders above the nikon. thanks!
eric

 

[ftgchan]

If you are looking out side of Canon, I would not past up looking at the H1. Without seeing any test report, it sure look good to me, having a ruggard lens barrow like the CP8800.
--
Francis

 

[pleith]

I had the S1is which I sold to a friend and then had the same dilema as you.

I took the CP8800 for a one week test ride and ended up taking it back for a refund and am now using the S2. The main reasons for taking back the 8800 were awful manual focus, with no scale or enlarged focus area and the expensive proprietary battery. Also the shot to shot performance was not very good. I liked the black case, the nice hand grip, and the LCD on the top of the camera came in handy at times. The pictures I think were comparable with the Canon S2. Oh yes the other thing that I didnt like was the very slow lens at full tele. of 5.6. If sony can do 2.8 across the range and canon only losses a bit to 3.5, I dont see why Nikon cant do better.

I did get the feel that the Nikon had a better build quality and maybe a more professional look.

So far I really like the S2 and am tending to keep it. The auto focus and low lite EVF are excellent, the manual focus is credable, and the batteries are good old AA. Why did they have to change to SD, since I have all that CF capacity.

My conclusion: At the same price I probably would have taken the Nikon for the name (always had Nikon film cameras) and been really unhappy with the manual focus that I use alot, but for the $300 can. difference in price the S2 is winning
pleith

 

[bdery]

Here's what perks on each IMO:

8800 : more res, more pro-feel, more controls, sturdier, Nikon processing, WB and features (the Best Shot Selector alone makes my day very often), larger sensor (less noise?), fine-tune WB, bulb for night exposures, better flash, hotshoe, remote control, RAW/TIFF, CF cards, higher-res EVF/LCD.

S2 : smaller, faster (much), longer reach, more special features, better battery life, faster lens, better burst mode, better movies (although the 8800 is still good compared to the average), SD cards.

These are the main differences. The most important one is the "pro tools" included on the 8800 (RAW, dials and buttons, body, hotshoe, etc) against the speed and versatility of the S2. For a carry-around, I'd be tempted to say S2, but for studio work and more artistic performances I'd say 8800.

I think it's a very very interesting comparison, I've often wondered what I would choose if money was not an issue. Still not sure.
--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
Cool,pix S Q
http://community.webshots.com/user/beder12
http://greatbern.fotopic.net/

 

[pleith]

I think from having played with both of them now, you have summed it up very well, although I found the Best Shot feature to be not very good. It often picked the wrong shot. I thought it might be me, but the Camera store said the same thing when I asked how they liked that feature. Also I found noise to be considerable on some shots above 50 ISO.

I have followed this forum for about a year now and am still amazed at how little mention/concern is given to manual focus. This is only personal but I would never even consider a camera without a usable manual focus which ruled out the FZ5 for me. I read a lot of complaits regarding poor low lite focus on the S1 and kept thinking , why not look at your subject, estimate distance , set distance on manual focus scale and take picture. I suppose because some auto focus systems work better than others, it becomes a valid point for discussion, anyway I hope that new Photographers who grow up in the digital age wont loose completely the ability to work their camera instead of having their camera work them.

eric07, the only way to know for sure which is best for you is to try them both out. The important features/performance to you will become evident fairly quickly, and you will be able to make the right descision despite all the conflicting opinons.

pleith

 

[bdery]

I think from having played with both of them now, you have summed
it up very well, although I found the Best Shot feature to be not
very good. It often picked the wrong shot. I thought it might be
me, but the Camera store said the same thing when I asked how they
liked that feature. Also I found noise to be considerable on some
shots above 50 ISO.

I don't know about ISO, never really tersted this particular Nikon.

As for BSS, it doesn't work well with moving subjects (of course) but I found that for still subjects, it often almost replaced IS. With my SQ, I used it really often when visiting Italy last autumn. Considering the design of my SQ, I was able to use it in places where it was... almost forbidden to use a camera. For example in many churches and cathedrals (where I understand that a flash would be annoying) I just turned BSS on, and pressed the shutter without looking. One of the shots was always good. I got great images of the Sixtine chapel this way.

It's also more useful for more "acceptable" uses, for instance to shoot objects in low light. I found that usually it performed faster than the burst mode, which is really useful when all you want is one good shot (the burst mode has to write those files as they are shot, the BSS doesn't). Anyway, opinions might differ, but I think it's one of the major advantages of the Nikon line.

I have followed this forum for about a year now and am still amazed
at how little mention/concern is given to manual focus. This is
only personal but I would never even consider a camera without a
usable manual focus which ruled out the FZ5 for me. I read a lot of
complaits regarding poor low lite focus on the S1 and kept thinking
, why not look at your subject, estimate distance , set distance on
manual focus scale and take picture. I suppose because some auto
focus systems work better than others, it becomes a valid point for
discussion, anyway I hope that new Photographers who grow up in the
digital age wont loose completely the ability to work their camera
instead of having their camera work them.

I so agree! When you can save a custom setting, it's even easier! Just calculate the expected hyperfocal beforehand, save it, and you're set! When I lay my hands on my S2 one of the first things I'll do is save an indoors low-light manual focus setting.

eric07, the only way to know for sure which is best for you is to
try them both out. The important features/performance to you will
become evident fairly quickly, and you will be able to make the
right descision despite all the conflicting opinons.

Well said. Each of us has different needs and isues. Experience is the only way to go!

pleith

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
Cool,pix S Q
http://community.webshots.com/user/beder12
http://greatbern.fotopic.net/

 

[pleith]

You have me wanting to go back and try that BSS again. I must have missed something. Sounds like it worked exactly as advertised for you.

Glad to see someone else uses manual focus when necessary.

I live in Whitby just east of Toronto but visited Q.C. many times during my University years with lots of good memories. Must get there again soon. Sure envy the photo ops that old Quebec has to offer you

pleith

 

[bdery]

You have me wanting to go back and try that BSS again. I must have
missed something. Sounds like it worked exactly as advertised for
you.

Yep it did. When touring Italy, we were two peopel with Nikon cameras, and we were always using BSS. Other folks were getting increasingly envious of our good shots. It's not perfect, but based on my experience, it's a major advantage of Nikon cameras.

Glad to see someone else uses manual focus when necessary.

I live in Whitby just east of Toronto but visited Q.C. many times
during my University years with lots of good memories. Must get
there again soon. Sure envy the photo ops that old Quebec has to
offer you

I agree. I've done a day of shooting in the Old City recently (you can see some pics on my Webshots page) and even though it was cloudy, I really like most shots. It was done to help another forum member who was in a in need of some pics of the city in a hurry, so I couldn't wait for a better sky. But the coulds do give a fairly even lighting.

pleith

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
Cool,pix S Q
http://community.webshots.com/user/beder12
http://greatbern.fotopic.net/

 

[eric07]

thank you all for your feedback. if i was able to get the s2 for $350, it certainly would have made the decision easier. As for now, I feel I am leaning toward the nikon, as it offers a closer feel to a dslr. my fear in purchasing second hand high-tech equipment however is lack of a warranty. but from a features standpoint, it is hard to pass up the 8800 for $500. thanks again!
eric

 

[pleith]

dont friends give a 15 day money back and a one year warranty?

pleith

 

[tkz4]

Even with how big it is, the 8800 would have to much larger to get a faster lens at full zoom. The bigger the sensor (2/3" vs S2's 1/2.5") means the optics need to be proportionally bigger. The only way to avoid this is to offer a slower lens at a full tele. That is why when the FZ3-> 5 went for a bigger sensor they no longer could offer F2.8 thoughout its entire range.
Check out a F2.8 300mm SLR lens:

This "ultracompact one weighs in at 5+ lbs and $2000. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3289&navigator=7
This better one is about 6 lbs and $5000.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details?reqID=3066&subsection=Digital_35mm_telephoto
Should make you feel better about your purchase.
TK

 

[eric07]

wouldn't that be nice. the 15 day moneyback is plausible, but the 1 yr is stretching it....we can dream!