Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Replacement for Nikon Coolpix 8800 Coming Soon?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:31:00 PM

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

Does anyone know if Nikon is about to release an upgrade/replacement
for the Nikon Coolpix 8800? If so, any information on how it will
differ from the 8800?
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 3:13:34 PM

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

On 20-Sep-05 08:31, BobL wrote:
> Does anyone know if Nikon is about to release an upgrade/replacement
> for the Nikon Coolpix 8800? If so, any information on how it will
> differ from the 8800?
>

Well, lets hope the lens will be better...
These barrel distortions are on 8800 are really, really bad.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:02:14 PM

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

On 20 Sep 2005 08:31:00 -0700, "BobL" <bobalaw@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Does anyone know if Nikon is about to release an upgrade/replacement
>for the Nikon Coolpix 8800? If so, any information on how it will
>differ from the 8800?

I have a 5700 that has been great.
Bought an 8800 in August, hate it.
Bought a D-50 2 weeks ago, love it!

Outie go to the 8800 for me!
Related resources
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 12:01:40 PM

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

Today spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:


> I have a 5700 that has been great.
> Bought an 8800 in August, hate it.
> Bought a D-50 2 weeks ago, love it!

I find my 5700 to be quite noisy even at ISO 100 both in
daylight and indoors with flash if there is even a hint of
underexposure. And, for me, anything higher than 100 is just too
noisy to use.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 1:23:48 PM

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:01:40 -0500, in rec.photo.digital
"All_Things_Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote:

>Today spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
>edification:
>
>
>> I have a 5700 that has been great.
>> Bought an 8800 in August, hate it.
>> Bought a D-50 2 weeks ago, love it!
>
>I find my 5700 to be quite noisy even at ISO 100 both in
>daylight and indoors with flash if there is even a hint of
>underexposure. And, for me, anything higher than 100 is just too
>noisy to use.

Have you given any of the software noise removal programs a try. I
regularly used Neat image with my 5700 and found I could get useful
results to ISO400. Still using NI with high iso on my D70.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 9:18:43 PM

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

Today Ed Ruf spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:

>>I find my 5700 to be quite noisy even at ISO 100 both in
>>daylight and indoors with flash if there is even a hint of
>>underexposure. And, for me, anything higher than 100 is
>>just too noisy to use.
>
> Have you given any of the software noise removal programs a
> try. I regularly used Neat image with my 5700 and found I
> could get useful results to ISO400. Still using NI with
> high iso on my D70.

Yes, definitely.

The first thing I tried was turning on NR in the camera. I've
taken several dozen test shots intentionally designed to
create noise and cannot discerne a difference whether NR is on
or off. I did find that changing sharpening from "auto" to
"off" produced less noise and sharper, more detailed pictures
which is counter-intuitive for sharpness but I can clearly see
it when looking at either a 5 mega pixel or 2 MP image.

On the post-processing side, I find that PSP 9's DCNR works
quite well but only to ISO 200 on car pictures. I've done a
few at 400 but it is a real chore to kill the noise without
also killing the fine detail in a car itself or turn parts of
the background to mush.

When the problem is particularly egregious, as when I get a
bad underexposure using flash, I'll typically apply mild noise
reduction using PSP's EPS, then select just the car or parts
of the car to work on it some more with DCNR.

When I evaluated the 8800 in April, I found it to produce
sharper images with far less noise all the way to its maximum
ISO of 400. I've been told that Nikon intentionally eliminated
800 as they allegedly knew it would be too noisy. I also found
color balance and daylight exposure accuracy to be superior to
my 5700, as well as the 8800 having superior egonomics.

Alas, what killed the deal was that it was even worse in car
museums using flash than my 5700, so I'm still mulling over
what to do next. My local camera store, the one that is
promoting the Rebel XT, will let me do a 7-10 day test drives
but I don't want to overuse the currency lest the manager
think me a gadfly.

From what I've gleaned here, on the DSLR NG and from
dprewview.com, I'm confident that there are many advantages to
a DSLR, notably much less noise at a given ISO. My hangup,
though, is lack of a EVF to preview flash pictures. Yes, I
know that can be done on the LCD but all I can do is judge
overall exposure and a little on the composure side, but the
LCD is too small to detect an out-of-focus situation or other
subtle image defects.

So, still looking and learning. Any advice you might have for
me would be appreciated.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 11:23:47 PM

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

<CDBarney@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h5c1j1pj920m251afhroh33bm9gkdfkefr@4ax.com...
> On 20 Sep 2005 08:31:00 -0700, "BobL" <bobalaw@mindspring.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
>
> I have a 5700 that has been great.
> Bought an 8800 in August, hate it.

What do you hate about the 8800? Just bought one myself, very impressed with
it so far.

How is the 5700 better?

N.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:58:41 PM

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:18:43 -0500, in rec.photo.digital
"All_Things_Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote:

>Today Ed Ruf spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
>edification:
>
>>>I find my 5700 to be quite noisy even at ISO 100 both in
>>>daylight and indoors with flash if there is even a hint of
>>>underexposure. And, for me, anything higher than 100 is
>>>just too noisy to use.
>>
>> Have you given any of the software noise removal programs a
>> try. I regularly used Neat image with my 5700 and found I
>> could get useful results to ISO400. Still using NI with
>> high iso on my D70.
>
>Yes, definitely.
>
>The first thing I tried was turning on NR in the camera. I've
>taken several dozen test shots intentionally designed to
>create noise and cannot discerne a difference whether NR is on
>or off.

Remember it only works for exposures greater than 1/30s. Also, this is
only dark frame subtraction. The camera takes a dark frame image at
the same setting and subtracts it.

> I did find that changing sharpening from "auto" to
>"off" produced less noise and sharper, more detailed pictures
>which is counter-intuitive for sharpness but I can clearly see
>it when looking at either a 5 mega pixel or 2 MP image.

Not counter-intuitive at all. One always wants sharpening to been done
as the last step, do all other work before. If you leave sharpening
on, then you are also sharpening the noise. Better to remove and then
sharpen.

>On the post-processing side, I find that PSP 9's DCNR works
>quite well but only to ISO 200 on car pictures. I've done a
>few at 400 but it is a real chore to kill the noise without
>also killing the fine detail in a car itself or turn parts of
>the background to mush.

I typically batch process with NI first with specific camera profiles
set, then selectively use the plugin afterwards.


>From what I've gleaned here, on the DSLR NG and from
>dprewview.com, I'm confident that there are many advantages to
>a DSLR, notably much less noise at a given ISO. My hangup,
>though, is lack of a EVF to preview flash pictures. Yes, I
>know that can be done on the LCD but all I can do is judge
>overall exposure and a little on the composure side, but the
>LCD is too small to detect an out-of-focus situation or other
>subtle image defects.
>
>So, still looking and learning. Any advice you might have for
>me would be appreciated.

I moved from a 5700 to a D70, for these and other low light shooting
concerns. I still filter images with NI, just nowhere near as many.
Though downsampled by a factor of two this is an ISO1600 image shot at
1/125 handheld at 400mmwith a 2x TC behind my stabilized 70-200mm
lens.
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/D70/wildlife/...

To be honest I don't know how you could use the 5700's evf to
determine whether of not things are really in focus, or even the lcd
for that matter. I don't/can't use the lcd on the D70 for this
either. It's too small and my eyes aren't that good.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:20:26 PM

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

Today Ed Ruf spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:

>> I did find that changing sharpening from "auto" to
>>"off" produced less noise and sharper, more detailed
>>pictures which is counter-intuitive for sharpness but I can
>>clearly see it when looking at either a 5 mega pixel or 2
>>MP image.
>
> Not counter-intuitive at all. One always wants sharpening
> to been done as the last step, do all other work before. If
> you leave sharpening on, then you are also sharpening the
> noise. Better to remove and then sharpen.

I agree that sharpening as the last step visually is the way
to go. The counter-intuitive comment was why turning off Auto
sharpening actually made the unedited images look sharper and
more detailed as well as slightly less noisy.

>>So, still looking and learning. Any advice you might have
>>for me would be appreciated.
>
> I moved from a 5700 to a D70, for these and other low light
> shooting concerns. I still filter images with NI, just
> nowhere near as many. Though downsampled by a factor of two
> this is an ISO1600 image shot at 1/125 handheld at
> 400mmwith a 2x TC behind my stabilized 70-200mm lens.
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/D70/wildlife/...
> s/DSC_4100_cr800x600.html

Good info, thanks. I haven't been considering even the D70s
because I'm soured on Nikon right now. As to generalized noise
reduction, I don't like to do that in batch mode unless I know
that the entire batch needs some threshold amount of tweaking.

> To be honest I don't know how you could use the 5700's evf
> to determine whether of not things are really in focus, or
> even the lcd for that matter. I don't/can't use the lcd on
> the D70 for this either. It's too small and my eyes aren't
> that good.

The resolution of the 5700 EVF is pretty low, but easily
enough that I can spot errors such as focus problems, /not/
while composing, but in looking at the 3-second in-viewfinder
preview after every shot. Since I have my face stuck on the
camera, back lighting is rarely a problem and I don't have to
find a shady spot to look at the LCD. The LCD clearly cannot
be used for out-of-focus determination and is even problematic
for exposure problems due to differences in ambient lighting
and the nominal brightness of the LCD compared to what I see
on my PC monitor. Also, leaving the LCD on all the time much
more quickly drains the battery.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 5:40:42 PM

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:26 -0500, in rec.photo.digital
"All_Things_Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote:

>I agree that sharpening as the last step visually is the way
>to go. The counter-intuitive comment was why turning off Auto
>sharpening actually made the unedited images look sharper and
>more detailed as well as slightly less noisy.

Sure you also didn't turn off any of the other image optimization
settings? Back when I initially got my 5700 there was a lot of
discussion the best way to get the most detail, if shooting jpgs was
to turn all that off and saturation to -2. I don't remember if I
really went all the way to turning the sat down, but the camera is
definitely still set for no image optimization/constrast/sharpness, to
this date.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:00:08 AM

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

Today Ed Ruf spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:26 -0500, in rec.photo.digital
> "All_Things_Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote:
>
>>I agree that sharpening as the last step visually is the
>>way to go. The counter-intuitive comment was why turning
>>off Auto sharpening actually made the unedited images look
>>sharper and more detailed as well as slightly less noisy.
>
> Sure you also didn't turn off any of the other image
> optimization settings? Back when I initially got my 5700
> there was a lot of discussion the best way to get the most
> detail, if shooting jpgs was to turn all that off and
> saturation to -2. I don't remember if I really went all the
> way to turning the sat down, but the camera is definitely
> still set for no image optimization/constrast/sharpness, to
> this date.

Yep, I'm sure. Everything of meaning is at the factory defaults,
except for sharpening. I've not messed much with the various
photometric controls as it is difficult for me to judge the
effect without being able to see it. The two big exceptions are
EV and flash control, both +/- 2.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 4:00:05 PM

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

I was at my favorite camera store in Chicago yesterday (9/24/05) and I
got the answer to my question that started this thread. Nikon is
ending the 8800 series that started several years ago with the Coolpix
5000, because they are offering an entry level Digital SLR at the 8700.
8800 price point level, and have decided that prosumers would rather
purchase an interchangeable lens SLR system camera. So the point and
shoot models will offer less prosumer features than the XX00 Coolpix
series cameras offered.
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 12:00:15 PM

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

Today BobL spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:

> I was at my favorite camera store in Chicago yesterday
> (9/24/05) and I got the answer to my question that started
> this thread. Nikon is ending the 8800 series that started
> several years ago with the Coolpix 5000, because they are
> offering an entry level Digital SLR at the 8700. 8800 price
> point level, and have decided that prosumers would rather
> purchase an interchangeable lens SLR system camera. So the
> point and shoot models will offer less prosumer features
> than the XX00 Coolpix series cameras offered.

Interesting. That's both good and bad news to me, at least until
I get over my morbid fear of DSLRs or ever consider a Nikon
again. I am sorry to hear, though, that Nikon is apparently
abandoning the pro-sumer EVF market. I'd hoped that maybe an
all-new design might be coming to overcome the flash
shortcomings I found in the 8800.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 6:53:42 PM

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

"All Things Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote in message
news:Xns96DD5BF048CA3ReplyID@216.196.97.136...
> Today BobL spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
> edification:
>
>> I was at my favorite camera store in Chicago yesterday
>> (9/24/05) and I got the answer to my question that started
>> this thread. Nikon is ending the 8800 series that started
>> several years ago with the Coolpix 5000, because they are
>> offering an entry level Digital SLR at the 8700. 8800 price
>> point level, and have decided that prosumers would rather
>> purchase an interchangeable lens SLR system camera. So the
>> point and shoot models will offer less prosumer features
>> than the XX00 Coolpix series cameras offered.
>
> Interesting. That's both good and bad news to me, at least until
> I get over my morbid fear of DSLRs or ever consider a Nikon
> again. I am sorry to hear, though, that Nikon is apparently
> abandoning the pro-sumer EVF market. I'd hoped that maybe an
> all-new design might be coming to overcome the flash
> shortcomings I found in the 8800.

The flash shortcomings being what? Failure to use the AF assist lamp on an
SB-600/800 of course, reviewers all complain about that, but anything else?

(That seems to be a characteristic of this type of camera. The Minolta
DiMAGE 7i and 7Hi don't use the assist lamp on Minolta flash units either.
That leads me to assume that such lamps are just not suitable for this kind
of AF, but I don't know about other brands.)

I recently bought an 8800 and really like it a lot so far. I got an SB-600
also and so far, so good; admittedly my experience is not yet extensive with
either.

N.
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 6:53:43 PM

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

Today Nostrobino spoke these views with conviction for
everyone's edification:

>
> "All Things Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote in message

>> Interesting. That's both good and bad news to me, at least
>> until I get over my morbid fear of DSLRs or ever consider
>> a Nikon again. I am sorry to hear, though, that Nikon is
>> apparently abandoning the pro-sumer EVF market. I'd hoped
>> that maybe an all-new design might be coming to overcome
>> the flash shortcomings I found in the 8800.
>
> The flash shortcomings being what? Failure to use the AF
> assist lamp on an SB-600/800 of course, reviewers all
> complain about that, but anything else?

I really don't want to rehash old news, but I shot over 500
pix with the 8800 and SB-800, and carefully documented what I
was doing. As I was seeing things I didn't understand and
couldn't correct on my own, I went back to the camera store
and got some tips that helped but didn't solve the problem.

Suffice to say that as I was told to use this camera and flash
amplified from reading the instruction manuals and testing, it
could not fulfill my expectations of reliable flash pictures,
specifically of cars in the Walter P. Chrysler Museum.

I don't recall changing anything on how the AF light worked,
so I can't comment on that.

> (That seems to be a characteristic of this type of camera.
> The Minolta DiMAGE 7i and 7Hi don't use the assist lamp on
> Minolta flash units either. That leads me to assume that
> such lamps are just not suitable for this kind of AF, but I
> don't know about other brands.)

I'm confused by this and your other comment above. Does "AF"
not mean "Auto Focus" assist, rather than "auto exposure", or
do I have this wrong? Or, does AF alter how the SB-800 or
these other cameras determine how to "meter" flash exposures
correctly?

FWIW, the camera store manager correctly predicted that I
would not be satisfied with the 8800/SB-800.

In any event, I wasn't in anyway criticizing any small feature
issues with either the 8800 or the SB-800, just that the
combination did not perform reliably for me.

> I recently bought an 8800 and really like it a lot so far.
> I got an SB-600 also and so far, so good; admittedly my
> experience is not yet extensive with either.

Obviously, I'm in no position to dispute this. Quite the
contrary, I'm happy that you're pleased with your purchase. I
liked the 8800 in every other possible way /except/ flash of
cars in a museum. But, that is such a big part of what I do,
it doesn't matter how well this camera or any camera performs
in daylight or available light.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 8:56:24 PM

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

"All Things Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote in message
news:Xns96DD9FE5015DCReplyID@216.196.97.136...
> Today Nostrobino spoke these views with conviction for
> everyone's edification:
>
>>
>> "All Things Mopar" <none@none.non> wrote in message
>
>>> Interesting. That's both good and bad news to me, at least
>>> until I get over my morbid fear of DSLRs or ever consider
>>> a Nikon again. I am sorry to hear, though, that Nikon is
>>> apparently abandoning the pro-sumer EVF market. I'd hoped
>>> that maybe an all-new design might be coming to overcome
>>> the flash shortcomings I found in the 8800.
>>
>> The flash shortcomings being what? Failure to use the AF
>> assist lamp on an SB-600/800 of course, reviewers all
>> complain about that, but anything else?
>
> I really don't want to rehash old news, but I shot over 500
> pix with the 8800 and SB-800, and carefully documented what I
> was doing. As I was seeing things I didn't understand and
> couldn't correct on my own, I went back to the camera store
> and got some tips that helped but didn't solve the problem.
>
> Suffice to say that as I was told to use this camera and flash
> amplified from reading the instruction manuals and testing, it
> could not fulfill my expectations of reliable flash pictures,
> specifically of cars in the Walter P. Chrysler Museum.
>
> I don't recall changing anything on how the AF light worked,
> so I can't comment on that.

If your photos were properly in focus then you didn't need the AF assist
anyway, so that's moot.


>
>> (That seems to be a characteristic of this type of camera.
>> The Minolta DiMAGE 7i and 7Hi don't use the assist lamp on
>> Minolta flash units either. That leads me to assume that
>> such lamps are just not suitable for this kind of AF, but I
>> don't know about other brands.)
>
> I'm confused by this and your other comment above. Does "AF"
> not mean "Auto Focus" assist, rather than "auto exposure", or
> do I have this wrong?

Autofocus assist, yes. The red lamp on the lower front of the flash unit
doesn't work with digital cameras that accept that flash unit (in the case
of either Nikon or Minolta at least), as it does on a 35mm SLR. This annoys
some reviewers but I'm not sure it matters anyway.


> Or, does AF alter how the SB-800 or
> these other cameras determine how to "meter" flash exposures
> correctly?

No, the AF assist lamp only has to do with helping the camera focus
properly. It has nothing to do with exposure.


>
> FWIW, the camera store manager correctly predicted that I
> would not be satisfied with the 8800/SB-800.

Did he say why?


>
> In any event, I wasn't in anyway criticizing any small feature
> issues with either the 8800 or the SB-800, just that the
> combination did not perform reliably for me.

I will say that taking photos of cars in a museum by on-camera flash can be
a very, very difficult proposition, and if that was your chief or only light
source I can well imagine that you weren't happy with the results, nor would
you have been regardless of the make and model of camera and flash used.
With or without flash you would need a good deal of ambient light and/or a
tripod to get satisfactory results.


>
>> I recently bought an 8800 and really like it a lot so far.
>> I got an SB-600 also and so far, so good; admittedly my
>> experience is not yet extensive with either.
>
> Obviously, I'm in no position to dispute this. Quite the
> contrary, I'm happy that you're pleased with your purchase. I
> liked the 8800 in every other possible way /except/ flash of
> cars in a museum. But, that is such a big part of what I do,
> it doesn't matter how well this camera or any camera performs
> in daylight or available light.

I will fairly soon be taking photos of airplanes in a museum, which should
be a somewhat similar situation. I'll be using my 8400 rather than the 8800
because I know I'll want the wider angle. I'll also be using a tripod, and
while I'll be using the SB-600 flash also I'll be using it very judiciously,
just enough to highlight the plane in front of the camera but not relying on
it for the overall exposure, which I know would give horrible results. Most
of the lighting I'll be using will be whatever is there in the museum, hence
the tripod. The great thing about digital is that I can see the result
immediately and make adjustments as required.

N.
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 10:05:58 PM

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:56:24 -0400, Nostrobino wrote:

>> Obviously, I'm in no position to dispute this. Quite the
>> contrary, I'm happy that you're pleased with your purchase. I
>> liked the 8800 in every other possible way /except/ flash of
>> cars in a museum. But, that is such a big part of what I do,
>> it doesn't matter how well this camera or any camera performs
>> in daylight or available light.
>
> I will fairly soon be taking photos of airplanes in a museum, which
> should be a somewhat similar situation. I'll be using my 8400 rather
> than the 8800 because I know I'll want the wider angle.

FWIW, ATM's problem was occasionally having pictures that were
*severely* underexposed. I came across a comment on a website
several days ago that could explain his results, although his
underexposed shots may have had an entirely different cause,
especially since they seem to only happen in the auto museum. This
is what I copied from the website::

> * Keep your fingers away from the sensor in the front. It needs to
> see the light from the flash. A common problem is to get your finger
> or camera strap near the sensor, which reflects light into the sensor
> and results in a mysterious super dark flash shot.
>

http://webpages.charter.net/bbiggers/DCExperiments/html...

I doubt that either ATM or the camera shop owner would be much
interested in another go'round with the Nikon 8800 and flash. :) 
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 12:03:02 PM

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

Today ASAAR spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:

> FWIW, ATM's problem was occasionally having pictures that
> were
> *severely* underexposed. I came across a comment on a
> website several days ago that could explain his results,
> although his underexposed shots may have had an entirely
> different cause, especially since they seem to only happen
> in the auto museum. This is what I copied from the
> website::
>
>> * Keep your fingers away from the sensor in the front. It
>> needs to see the light from the flash. A common problem is
>> to get your finger or camera strap near the sensor, which
>> reflects light into the sensor and results in a mysterious
>> super dark flash shot.

Yes, you quoted me correctly. But, I do not now and have never
blocked the sensor on the 5700 or 8800's speedlight. It is
immediately apparent if that is done, as the image goes almost
to pure black with a really severe shift towards yellow/orange
from the daylight white balance setting without flash.

My problem has been and still is that about 1/3 of my museum
car pix are OK, another are with a couple f/stops under but
fixable, while the rest are the "severe underexposure"
variety.

More testing since my last request for advice on what to buy
next reveals that the 5700's speedlight sensor isn't at all
affected by how the daylight metering mode is set and also
doesn't know what focal lenght is being used. That, coupled
with my beginning to notice the particular kind of reflection
or glare that results in bad exposures clinched the deal.

But, simply knowing what causes it does not provide a fix.
And, everyone's advice to me to go full manual also won't
work, as I found out and verified with Nikon tech support that
the 5700's manual aperture and shutter speed controls are 100%
overridden by the TTL flash system.

So, to even begin to get better pictures in the way I'm
currently shooting is to get some camera that does flash
exposure differently or at least can go full manual.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 4:44:58 PM

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

All Things Mopar <none@none.non> wrote:
> Today BobL spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
> edification:
>
>> I was at my favorite camera store in Chicago yesterday
>> (9/24/05) and I got the answer to my question that started
>> this thread. Nikon is ending the 8800 series that started
>> several years ago with the Coolpix 5000, because they are
>> offering an entry level Digital SLR at the 8700. 8800 price
>> point level, and have decided that prosumers would rather
>> purchase an interchangeable lens SLR system camera. So the
>> point and shoot models will offer less prosumer features
>> than the XX00 Coolpix series cameras offered.
>
> Interesting. That's both good and bad news to me, at least until
> I get over my morbid fear of DSLRs or ever consider a Nikon
> again. I am sorry to hear, though, that Nikon is apparently
> abandoning the pro-sumer EVF market. I'd hoped that maybe an
> all-new design might be coming to overcome the flash
> shortcomings I found in the 8800.

I have a 8800 and have been happy with build, features and pic quality.

Shortcomings are flash, low light conditions without flash and a slow
pic to pic and sports mode.

I would have hoped that Nikon would have built on the basis of the 8800
and added/improved the following (for me) wishlist:

- faster sports mode
- better in low light conditions
- reposition the W-T zoom key or add focus ring to barrel
- stop the stupid! 60 sec limit on 640x480 movie mode
- (pet-wish!) WiFi batch and real-time image transfer

All things considered Panasonic seem to be developing the FZ series
in the way to attract a loyal userbase and the fz30 is tempting but
maybe I hold out for what I would hope to be an incrementally better
fz40 :-)

Would have to be an amazing offer/spec to get me to buy Nikon again.

Iain

--
+49-172-8196039 Skype: iain.lea
!