Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Coolpix 990 or 995 for newbie?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hey to all you cool cats in the digital world ( photos that is) I'm an old
SLR guy and was looking on ebay today for a used n90s when I came upon the
older coolpix's..to be honest, I have been studying on getting into the
digital world, but are these worth buying now that so much has changed, or
should I step on up and get the newer stuff?
Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear from
previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.
Searching the web, I found an excellent site with reviews for all kinds of
digitals, from P&S to DSLR's, with an awesome sample gallery for most, but I
was really surprised, the older coolpix's took some nice shots! I know the
formats were in tiff, but you can play with that, ..anyway, any
info/feedback would be greatly appreciated !!
Keep on rocking in the free world ..
Paul

More about : coolpix 990 995 newbie

Anonymous
June 16, 2005 2:53:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rpaulk" <rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> writes:
> Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear from
> previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.

If you don't mind the slow response and if you can get it cheap
enough, a 990 can be nice to have. These days I'd take the 990 over
the 995 because it uses AA NiMH batteries instead of a proprietary
lithium battery. Both are clunky old cameras so if you're concerned
about the weight difference between lithium and AA, you want a newer
camera anyway.

Yes, you can get some nice shots with them, especially macro shots.
They are mostly good for static subjects in good light. The AF isn't
the greatest and it works poorly in low light.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:31:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "rpaulk" <rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> writes:
> > Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear from
> > previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.
>
> If you don't mind the slow response and if you can get it cheap
> enough, a 990 can be nice to have. These days I'd take the 990 over
> the 995 because it uses AA NiMH batteries instead of a proprietary
> lithium battery. Both are clunky old cameras so if you're concerned
> about the weight difference between lithium and AA, you want a newer
> camera anyway.
>
> Yes, you can get some nice shots with them, especially macro shots.
> They are mostly good for static subjects in good light. The AF isn't
> the greatest and it works poorly in low light.

I have a 995, it served me well for about 3 years and then I got a Sony
F828 and then a Canon 20D. The 995 can produce good looking images but
it is an old design and shows it. Its turn on time is slow and its
auto-focus is very slow. The zoom rate is slow and it has a limited
zoom range. It does make great looking 4 x 6 prints and not too bad of
8 x 10 prints. Given its age I don't think I would want to pay more
then about $50 dollars for one. The macro does work very well on it. I
keep mine in my car, that way I alway have a camera with me, if it get
stolen it is no big deal. BTW I took about 20,000 photos with it in
the three years I had it.

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:16:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rpaulk wrote:

I have been studying on getting into the
> digital world, but are these worth buying now that so much has changed, or
> should I step on up and get the newer stuff?
> Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear from
> previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.

I still use a Nikon CoolPix 995 quite regularly. It works great for
imaging fossils and for scenery shots--which constitute the vast
majority of photographs I happen to take. The close-up feature works
super-well, I think. For example, over at
http://members.aol.com/Waucoba7/redrock/petrified15.htm... and
http://members.aol.com/Waucoba7/redrock/petrified16.htm... are two
close-up images of a natural cross-section of a petrified palm root
from the late Miocene Dove Spring Formation of the Ricardo Group, Kern
County, California--the specimen is around 10 million years old, 5
millimeters in actual diameter (roughly a fifth of an inch).

Fossil Plants Of The Ione Basin, California
http://members.aol.com/Waucoba5/ione/ioneproject.html
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:47:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rpaulk wrote:
> I'm an old SLR guy and was looking on ebay today for a used n90s when I came upon the
> older coolpix's..

I've owned both the 900s and 950, and loved both (and shutter at what i
originally paid) I still have and use the 950. They were great cameras
back in their day.

shutter lag is horrendous when compared to newer cameras, and the zoom
is a bit slow too

I just picked up a canon power shot, and in comparing the newer cameras
to the older ones, IMHO, i'd get a newer one mainly since the price drop
makes digicams more economical.... like David posted, dont pay a lot for
it. you could spend a bit more and get a really decent camera.

just checking ebay for the 990 -- they have a few "buy it now" for $215,
$260,(that's what i paid for my canon a95) and $290.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:47:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Terese wrote:
> rpaulk wrote:
>> I'm an old SLR guy and was looking on ebay today for a used n90s
>> when I came upon the older coolpix's..
>
> I've owned both the 900s and 950, and loved both (and shutter at
> what
> i originally paid) I still have and use the 950. They were great
> cameras back in their day.
>
> shutter lag is horrendous when compared to newer cameras, and the
> zoom
> is a bit slow too
>
> I just picked up a canon power shot, and in comparing the newer
> cameras to the older ones, IMHO, i'd get a newer one mainly since
> the
> price drop makes digicams more economical.... like David posted,
> dont
> pay a lot for it. you could spend a bit more and get a really
> decent
> camera.
> just checking ebay for the 990 -- they have a few "buy it now" for
> $215, $260,(that's what i paid for my canon a95) and $290.

She's right: good camera, but limited in comparison to the same-price
cameras available today.

My first "real" digital was a 995, and it worked _good_ in its day. If
I could find it, I might set it up to shoot my new acquisitions
(car-model collection), a function it performed superbly, and leave
it. That way I might keep current. So many models, so little time ...

It makes an excellent eBay camera, too.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 1:24:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rpaulk wrote:
> Hey to all you cool cats in the digital world ( photos that is) I'm
> an old SLR guy and was looking on ebay today for a used n90s when I
> came upon the older coolpix's..to be honest, I have been studying on
> getting into the digital world, but are these worth buying now that
> so much has changed, or should I step on up and get the newer stuff?
> Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear
> from previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.

Both my wife and I had 990 since almost since they came out. They have
been very reliable workhorses, although the mode switch now needs a drop
of switch-cleaner every year. They are supposed to work well when
attached to microscopes and telescopes and, even when working alone, they
probably have the best macro capability of any cameras in their class.

However, these /are/ now quite old cameras, and I've been through a Nikon
5700 and now have the Panasonic FZ5 and the Nikon Coolpix 8400. My wife
has the Panasonic FZ20. I'd recommend the FZ5, although it lacks a swivel
LCD (today's equivalent of the swivel body on the 990), particularly if
you are interested in the longer end of the zoom range (it goes up to
432mm equivalent and has image stabilisation which makes such a long lens
quite usable). Alternatively, if your interests are at the wider end
(28mm), a second-hand Nikon 5400 would be a more appropriate choice.

I'm not saying /don't/ get the 990, but don't pay a lot for it. I think
something more modern would be better.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 2:59:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Terese <teresesmyth@comcast.net> writes:
> just checking ebay for the 990 -- they have a few "buy it now" for
> $215, $260,(that's what i paid for my canon a95) and $290.

Oh geez, 990's are still nice cameras in some ways, but that's way too
much. I guess I'd look for a 950 instead, if I wanted a camera of
that type. I'd look to pay in the $100 range.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 8:06:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
> Clearly the majority of the responders here seem to think the 900
> series are obsolete! I beg to differ, though. I still use both my
> 995s and ocasionally my 950. They are ideal for the type of
> photography I do predominantly, i.e. "digiscoping" thru a specially
> adapted Swarovsky spotting scope, and for many Macro shots. The 28mm
> lens threads are important to this scope adapter. And being able to
> swing the rotating body and LCD to view the LCD at odd angles is
> perfect. Sure, many of its limitations are overcome by more modern
> cameras, I've learned to adapt to most. Actually, if I update I won't
> part with these older units either. Just my viewpoint.
>
> Incidentally, I've had a chance to try out both Nikon and Canon DSLR
> cameras, and for my needs what I have suits better. Hard to believe,
> isnt it?
It all depends on your needs. I have to admit I still have my 995 and
have no plans of getting rid of it.

There were many things about the 995 that I was not real happy with,
the speed was a big one, turning on, focusing and zooming. I found I
missed a lot of shots with it, with the F828 I miss far fewer shots and
with the 20D if I miss a shot it is my fault and had nothing to do with
the camera. This is the biggest problem with the 995, it is slow
compared to new cameras.

The Sony is very bad a looking through other optics, you are pretty
much stuck with what it has, the Nikon is much better at that. The 20D
has much more flexibility to link to other optics if you can get the
right adapter.

Scott
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 2:39:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:26:30 -0400, "rpaulk"
<rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Hey to all you cool cats in the digital world ( photos that is) I'm an old
>SLR guy and was looking on ebay today for a used n90s when I came upon the
>older coolpix's..to be honest, I have been studying on getting into the
>digital world, but are these worth buying now that so much has changed, or
>should I step on up and get the newer stuff?
> Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear from
>previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.
>Searching the web, I found an excellent site with reviews for all kinds of
>digitals, from P&S to DSLR's, with an awesome sample gallery for most, but I
>was really surprised, the older coolpix's took some nice shots! I know the
>formats were in tiff, but you can play with that, ..anyway, any
>info/feedback would be greatly appreciated !!
> Keep on rocking in the free world ..
> Paul
>
>
Clearly the majority of the responders here seem to think the 900
series are obsolete! I beg to differ, though. I still use both my
995s and ocasionally my 950. They are ideal for the type of
photography I do predominantly, i.e. "digiscoping" thru a specially
adapted Swarovsky spotting scope, and for many Macro shots. The 28mm
lens threads are important to this scope adapter. And being able to
swing the rotating body and LCD to view the LCD at odd angles is
perfect. Sure, many of its limitations are overcome by more modern
cameras, I've learned to adapt to most. Actually, if I update I won't
part with these older units either. Just my viewpoint.

Incidentally, I've had a chance to try out both Nikon and Canon DSLR
cameras, and for my needs what I have suits better. Hard to believe,
isnt it?

Olin McDaniel
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:26:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:26:30 -0400, "rpaulk"
<rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Hey to all you cool cats in the digital world ( photos that is) I'm an old
>SLR guy and was looking on ebay today for a used n90s when I came upon the
>older coolpix's..to be honest, I have been studying on getting into the
>digital world, but are these worth buying now that so much has changed, or
>should I step on up and get the newer stuff?
> Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear from
>previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.
>Searching the web, I found an excellent site with reviews for all kinds of
>digitals, from P&S to DSLR's, with an awesome sample gallery for most, but I
>was really surprised, the older coolpix's took some nice shots! I know the
>formats were in tiff, but you can play with that, ..anyway, any
>info/feedback would be greatly appreciated !!
> Keep on rocking in the free world ..
> Paul
>
>
Clearly the majority of the responders here seem to think the 900
series are obsolete! I beg to differ, though. I still use both my
995s and ocasionally my 950. They are ideal for the type of
photography I do predominantly, i.e. "digiscoping" thru a specially
adapted Swarovsky spotting scope, and for many Macro shots. The 28mm
lens threads are important to this scope adapter. And being able to
swing the rotating body and LCD to view the LCD at odd angles is
perfect. Sure, many of its limitations are overcome by more modern
cameras, I've learned to adapt to most. Actually, if I update I won't
part with these older units either. Just my viewpoint.

Incidentally, I've had a chance to try out both Nikon and Canon DSLR
cameras, and for my needs what I have suits better. Hard to believe,
isnt it?

Olin McDaniel
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:26:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel) writes:
> Incidentally, I've had a chance to try out both Nikon and Canon DSLR
> cameras, and for my needs what I have suits better. Hard to believe,
> isnt it?

I think you'll get better results with the DSLR and a T-mount through
a spotting scope with no eyepiece, than "digiscoping" (shooting
through the eyepiece with a P/S digicam).
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:19:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2005 16:19:54 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel) writes:
>> Incidentally, I've had a chance to try out both Nikon and Canon DSLR
>> cameras, and for my needs what I have suits better. Hard to believe,
>> isnt it?
>
>I think you'll get better results with the DSLR and a T-mount through
>a spotting scope with no eyepiece, than "digiscoping" (shooting
>through the eyepiece with a P/S digicam).


I can't really disagree with you, not having tried the DSLRs with my
Swarovsky spotting scope, only used them for standalone shooting. But
using my setup (thru the eyepiece with the Nikon cameras) I am
shooting with the "equivalent" of 3000mm to 9000mm lenses. Of course
I find anything above about 4000mm equivalent to be less sharp than
below that, so rarely go above the 3000 equivalent. But to get that
much telephoto power on a DSLR would cost a fortune. And I do not
know what the DSLR standard lens can provide on the telescope without
the eyepiece.

Olin
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel) writes:
> I can't really disagree with you, not having tried the DSLRs with my
> Swarovsky spotting scope, only used them for standalone shooting. But
> using my setup (thru the eyepiece with the Nikon cameras) I am
> shooting with the "equivalent" of 3000mm to 9000mm lenses. Of course
> I find anything above about 4000mm equivalent to be less sharp than
> below that, so rarely go above the 3000 equivalent. But to get that
> much telephoto power on a DSLR would cost a fortune. And I do not
> know what the DSLR standard lens can provide on the telescope without
> the eyepiece.

Nah, you can get a 5 inch reflector scope for $400 or so from Orion,
plus another $20 for the T-mount. It won't be nearly as convenient or
waterproof as the Swarovski but should clobber it in terms of image
quality. If the coverage is similar to my 90mm Meade, the 35mm full
frame equivalent will be around 2500 mm.

http://tinyurl.com/6j7kg
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:40:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel) wrote in
news:42b34e0d.2169373@news.east.earthlink.net:

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:26:30 -0400, "rpaulk"
> <rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>Hey to all you cool cats in the digital world ( photos that is) I'm
>>an old SLR guy and was looking on ebay today for a used n90s when I
>>came upon the older coolpix's..to be honest, I have been studying on
>>getting into the digital world, but are these worth buying now that so
>>much has changed, or should I step on up and get the newer stuff?
>> Now, I know there are pros and cons etc..but I would love to hear
>> from
>>previous 990 or 995 owners to get some feedback.
>>Searching the web, I found an excellent site with reviews for all
>>kinds of digitals, from P&S to DSLR's, with an awesome sample gallery
>>for most, but I was really surprised, the older coolpix's took some
>>nice shots! I know the formats were in tiff, but you can play with
>>that, ..anyway, any info/feedback would be greatly appreciated !!
>> Keep on rocking in the free world ..
>> Paul
>>
>>
> Clearly the majority of the responders here seem to think the 900
> series are obsolete! I beg to differ, though. I still use both my
> 995s and ocasionally my 950. They are ideal for the type of
> photography I do predominantly, i.e. "digiscoping" thru a specially
> adapted Swarovsky spotting scope, and for many Macro shots. The 28mm
> lens threads are important to this scope adapter. And being able to
> swing the rotating body and LCD to view the LCD at odd angles is
> perfect. Sure, many of its limitations are overcome by more modern
> cameras, I've learned to adapt to most. Actually, if I update I won't
> part with these older units either. Just my viewpoint.
>
> Incidentally, I've had a chance to try out both Nikon and Canon DSLR
> cameras, and for my needs what I have suits better. Hard to believe,
> isnt it?
>
> Olin McDaniel
>

Hello Paul,
buy either one of the two. They are both relatively great. Their worst
problem is 'red eye' when taking direct on head shots with the flash. I
have both a 950 (2 megapixel) and the 5700 (5 megapixel) and in hindsight
would not have purchased anything different. And I also won't part with
either of them.

The format is not only tiff. You can save as JPG's or nikon raw format.
Each with their own pro's and cons.

I have made 8*10 exposures from both and they are super clear. Color is
great.

I have also had a chance to check out both DSLR's and for my needs I
wouldn't trade. Size and convenience was a big factor for me. The DSLR
was too big and would necessitate carrying a camera bag always, which
would mean I'd take fewer shots. Money was no object when I bought the
5700 and that was when I checked out the Nikon DSLR. Now they're not as
small as some of the latest or even the smallest when I purchased them,
but their look and feel more suited me than the pocket sized cameras...

Good luck in your purchase
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 5:47:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you for the great input and advise!! I'm glad I fould you guys, and
hope to contribute as my experince allows.
I did find a 995 on ebay, got it, 3 batt.,charger, filter kit and 16mb CF
card for right at 150.00. So, we'll see. I was considering the 5400, (along
with many others) but it seems some of these had a few problems early on,
and as I was buying used, I didn't want to get an older one with those bugs.
I'm really glad to hear I can go up to 8x10 because I didn't think you
could do that with less than 4 mp.
Anyway, many thanks again to you all, and I'll keep you posted as to how
she does.

Paul
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 2:59:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rpaulk" <rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> writes:
> I did find a 995 on ebay, got it, 3 batt.,charger, filter kit and 16mb CF
> card for right at 150.00. So, we'll see. I was considering the 5400, (along
> with many others) but it seems some of these had a few problems early on,
> and as I was buying used, I didn't want to get an older one with those bugs.

You bought the 995? If not, I still suggest looking for a 990 instead,
because of the AA batteries. But the 995 isn't bad.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:11:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 19 Jun 2005 22:59:42 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>"rpaulk" <rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> writes:
>> I did find a 995 on ebay, got it, 3 batt.,charger, filter kit and 16mb CF
>> card for right at 150.00. So, we'll see. I was considering the 5400, (along
>> with many others) but it seems some of these had a few problems early on,
>> and as I was buying used, I didn't want to get an older one with those bugs.
>
>You bought the 995? If not, I still suggest looking for a 990 instead,
>because of the AA batteries. But the 995 isn't bad.


I hope you like your 995 as well as I like both of mine. Afraid that
Paul and I do not agree again - the battery used in the 995 works very
well for me, and if you got 3 with yours, you should be all set. The
only thing you will likely need soon is a larger CF card. At least a
128 MB or perhaps even a 256 MB one, if you plan to do a lot of
picture taking between downloads. Also, suggest you buy a card reader
rather than using the cable Nikon furnishes, it's too slow for me.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Olin
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 10:31:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel) wrote in
news:42b78421.44255865@news.east.earthlink.net:

> On 19 Jun 2005 22:59:42 -0700, Paul Rubin
> <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
>>"rpaulk" <rpaulknowles@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>> I did find a 995 on ebay, got it, 3 batt.,charger, filter kit and
>>> 16mb CF card for right at 150.00. So, we'll see. I was considering
>>> the 5400, (along with many others) but it seems some of these had a
>>> few problems early on, and as I was buying used, I didn't want to
>>> get an older one with those bugs.
>>
>>You bought the 995? If not, I still suggest looking for a 990
>>instead, because of the AA batteries. But the 995 isn't bad.
>
>
> I hope you like your 995 as well as I like both of mine. Afraid that
> Paul and I do not agree again - the battery used in the 995 works very
> well for me, and if you got 3 with yours, you should be all set. The
> only thing you will likely need soon is a larger CF card. At least a
> 128 MB or perhaps even a 256 MB one, if you plan to do a lot of
> picture taking between downloads. Also, suggest you buy a card reader
> rather than using the cable Nikon furnishes, it's too slow for me.
>
> Good luck and keep us posted.
>
> Olin
>

I'm with Olin. Those batteries should be fine. And yup, you gotta get a
larger CF. I go with a couple 128's and 1Gb microdrive. I also got one of
those card readers. Enjoy.

Flavio
!