Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 8:01:40 PM

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

Hi, I'm in love with my Nikon Coolpix 5700 when shooting
my favorite subject - car pictures - in daylight. I am
completely dissasified with its flash performance not only
with the puny Speedlight but also with the excellent
Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible external. I don't need to
belabor that here, suffice to say the 5700 is going on
eBay and I'm in the market for a new camera.

To start, I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or
model. There's lots of reasons for this but size, weight,
and the lack of an Electronic View Finder are all show
stoppers for me.

The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm
looking at the 8800 because it has a brand new flash
system (apparently)called eTTL. And, this time, I'm not
gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
Nikon's SB-600.

My requirements are the same as most peoples: clear,
sharp, noise-free, detailed, well exposed, great color,
great camera features. Who doesn't want that stuff? 8 MP
is just frosting on the cake.

I'm confident that the 8800 will work superbly for me in
daylight. I don't know about flash. My local camera store
will let me put the camera and flash on my Visa and give
me 10 days to test drive it, so long as I don't open the
CD, which is OK since I have a USB reader.

I am not at all wed to Nikon. I've already started my
research on the web, but still have a ways to go. What I'm
asking of all the good people here is some opinions and
advice from people that actually own a Nikon 8800. My main
flash problems are in the dank light of car museums where
there're no walls or ceilings for the flash to reflect
off.

I am completely open-minded on make and model. I'd say my
budget is $1,000, which is where the 8800 is, less a $100
rebate. I understand that there's a major photo show in a
couple of weeks, so the 8800 and its competitors may come
down in price by the end of the month.

I would appreciate advice and opinions. If I have been
unclear as to my requirements, the problems I've had with
the 5700 or why I'm anti-DSLR, I'll be glad to
clarify/elaborate. I just wanted to keep my OP as short as
possible.

Thanks in advance for the help!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:05:25 AM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:

> Hi, I'm in love with my Nikon Coolpix 5700 when shooting
> my favorite subject - car pictures - in daylight. I am
> completely dissasified with its flash performance not only
> with the puny Speedlight but also with the excellent
> Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible external.

I don't know if this will help you at all, but here's my personal experience
with the 5700.

I've had it for about a year now and I find it quite acceptable for what it
is. I'm hoping to upgrade to a full dSLR one of these days, but in the
meantime I've taken some great pictures with what I've got. I quickly grew
dissatisfied with the built-in flash, same as many other outspoken 5700
owners. I found an inexpensive SB-24 on eBay, which isn't technically fully
compatible but I found works fine. I've used the tilt/swivel head to great
effect, and while I don't know the guide number I do know that the range and
coverage is WAY better than the internal unit. However, I did have to
experiment some to learn how best to use this flash unit "manually", and how
to adjust the camera's settings to compensate for the so-called
"incompatibilies." A bit of a hassle, but not really all THAT hard! Once I
spent some time playing with settings and filling up the CF card (thank
heaven for the Erase feature) I was able to get consistently good pictures.
In fact, I took nearly 300 pictures at a friend's wedding - both outdoors
after the ceremony, using fill flash, and indoors at the reception, mostly
bouncing the light off of walls and ceiling but a few were made with direct
light. Again, range and coverage was even and consistent and I wasn't
having to constantly fiddle with manual settings once I took a couple test
frames to figure out what worked best in each setting. Everybody who has
seen them (including the very picky bride) has complimented me on them. I
won't pretend they're pro-quality, but they look a lot closer to that than I
would have expected considering the modest equipment and personal skill
level involved. :-)

Next I'm going to experiment with tilting the head up and rubber-banding a
4"x6" index card to it, sort of a poor man's "pocket bouncer". I'm hoping
it will let me attain a happy medium between bounced-light and direct.

As I said, I don't know if this will help you any - but I wanted to at least
put in a word for experimenting with one's current setup. Nothing to lose,
right? Whatever you decide, good luck and happy picture-taking....

Greg Evans
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:22:38 PM

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

Greg Evans commented courteously ...

> I quickly learned not to rely totally on auto-much of
> anything and how to get the results I wanted by
> fiddling with the controls (hey, that's why I got the
> fancy bells-and-whistles model anyway, right?). But if
> you've got the money to upgrade, sure, why not! Do
> some reasearch, though; I could be wrong, but it seems
> like I read somewhere online that the flash business you
> describe is one of the few things NOT much improved in
> the 8800 (over the 5700).

Thanks for your comments. The post I made here is just a
small part of my overall research effort on another
camera, whether it winds up being the 8800 or something
else.

I used to be a Nikon FTN owner, and loved it. It had
essentially what we'd call "manual" today. But, unlike
quite a number of digitals I've looked at, I haven't found
anything where I could focus with a ring on the lens,
twirl the shutter speed dial with my right finger and
thumb, and change the aperture with another lens ring, all
while keeping my eye on the subject and watching the
viewfinder indicator to make sure I stayed in focus and
had a good exposure reading.

I've tried manual on my 5700. It works but it isn't fool
proof, either. And, I guess I've changed. I used to like
2-door cars, now I like 4-doors and SUVs. So, my days of
full-manual are over. I'm willing to spend a few extra
bucks to assure that I get at least reasonable and
consistent daylight and flash exposure. I don't expect
perfection from *any* camera, same as you've observed.

I'm not totally sure yet, as I'm still researching, but
perhaps you may be referring to the 8700, which uses
essentially the same body and electronics as the 5700,
albeit it is now an 8 MP camera so some sensor and
firmware changes obviously had to be made. It isn't on my
radar screen because I don't want to mess with an upgrade
to something I personally think has a problem. Plus, based
on my very limited knowledge of digital camera technology,
it would not at all surprise me if the 8700 was noisy,
compared to the 5700 (but that's pure speculation!).

The 8700 lists for $799, I think. The 8800 lists for $999
with a $100 rebate. It was a brand new design that was
announced in September last year, and has an all-new
proprietary flash technology that I believe I've read is
called iTTL. This is the reason that my current Sunpak
433D won't work. Part of iTTL is the ability to do
wireless flash triggering, which people have been
clamoring for.

In the final analysis, I'll eventually make up my mind
what I think I want, and I'll take advantage of my local
camera store 10-day return policy to verify everything.

Thanks again for your help. I need all the help and
suggestions I can get!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Related resources
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 4:16:59 PM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:

> The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm
> looking at the 8800 because it has a brand new flash
> system (apparently)called eTTL. And, this time, I'm not
> gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
> Nikon's SB-600.

I am curious as to why you choose a telephoto zoom rather than a wide zoom.

I would have thought that the confines of an auto show would restrict your
options somewhat.

I would look at the Nikon 8400 with external flash for that job.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 4:17:00 PM

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

Terry Hollis commented courteously ...

> I am curious as to why you choose a telephoto zoom
> rather than a wide zoom.

I'm not sure I understand the term "telephoto zoom" vs.
"wide zoom". One interpretation is "why did you pick a
300mm telephoto with a 35mm wide angle, instead of a 200mm
telephoto with a 24mm wide angle?"

If that's your question, the answer is, I can't find what
I consider to be a competant camera that meets that
criteria. There's a lower priced Nikon (I forget the model
number) that goes to 24mm equivelant, but in looking at it
and talking to the sales person, there were other factors
I didn't like.

35mm equivalent is enough for those crowded shots at a car
show or in a museum maybe 95+% of the time for me. I think
in the last two years, I've had maybe a couple dozen
situations out of 4,000 pictures taken where I couldn't
stand back any further and 35mm cut off the car.

> I would have thought that the confines of an auto
> show would restrict your options somewhat.

It does, and I'd like wider, I just can't find everything
I want in one package without going to a DSLR, which I do
*not* want. See above comment on car show confines.

> I would look at the Nikon 8400 with external flash for
> that job

It could be the 8400 that I looked at with the 24mm lens.
I'll take a look at Nikon's web site and learn more about
it.

In the meantime, you have an opinion as to whether the
8800's new iTTL flash metering is a superior system?
Please keep in mind that I'm 99 44/100% sure that Nikon
had a design defect for flash on the 5700. I base that on
1) talking the Nikon tech support by phone and via E-mail
with example problem pictures, 2) sending the camera in
for repair - which came back with just the note "clean and
reassemble", that's service talk for "no problem found"
(or no problem admitted!), and 3) I've talked to 3 other
5700 users in various Internet places that suggested that
they, too, suffered from flash inconsistencies and
unexplained severe underexposure.

That being said, whatever it is I wind up with, I'll take
good advantage of the stores 10-day return policy to spend
a few hours at the Henry Ford Museum and the Walter P.
Chrysler Museum, both close to me. And, this time I would
buy Nikons new SB-600 iTTL external flash. Thus, there's
no excuse for the camera and flash to not like each other.
I'll know within about an hour at each museum if my
problem is solved or not.

Anyway, do you have any personal experience with the 8800
or competitive EVF/ZLR camera under museum and car show
conditions? If you have, I'm all ears!

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 5:54:19 PM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:

> Terry Hollis commented courteously ...
>
>> I am curious as to why you choose a telephoto zoom
>> rather than a wide zoom.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the term "telephoto zoom" vs.
> "wide zoom". One interpretation is "why did you pick a
> 300mm telephoto with a 35mm wide angle, instead of a 200mm
> telephoto with a 24mm wide angle?"
>
> If that's your question, the answer is, I can't find what
> I consider to be a competant camera that meets that
> criteria. There's a lower priced Nikon (I forget the model
> number) that goes to 24mm equivelant, but in looking at it
> and talking to the sales person, there were other factors
> I didn't like.

Yes, you have correctly interpreted my question. The point is that the
Nikon CP 8800 and the Nikon CP 8400 are the same camera but fitted with a
different lens...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/

The following is a quote from the above site...

------------------------ start quote -----------------------------
Two cameras, the same heart
After a brief look at the specs and a hands-on it was clear that the Coolpix
8400 and 8800 shared the same heart; CCD, processor, menus, image
processing) battery, LCD monitor, EVF, a similar control layout as well as
other features. As a buyer therefore you can choose simply between a smaller
3.5x wide-angle zoom or for $100 more a large 10x telephoto-zoom with VR.
The differences between the two cameras are detailed below.

----------------------- end quote --------------------------------

> 35mm equivalent is enough for those crowded shots at a car
> show or in a museum maybe 95+% of the time for me. I think
> in the last two years, I've had maybe a couple dozen
> situations out of 4,000 pictures taken where I couldn't
> stand back any further and 35mm cut off the car.
>
>> I would have thought that the confines of an auto
>> show would restrict your options somewhat.
>
> It does, and I'd like wider, I just can't find everything
> I want in one package without going to a DSLR, which I do
> *not* want. See above comment on car show confines.
>
>> I would look at the Nikon 8400 with external flash for
>> that job
>
> It could be the 8400 that I looked at with the 24mm lens.
> I'll take a look at Nikon's web site and learn more about
> it.

You might also consider taking your photos with available light rather than
flash, I have been successful with exposures of 1.0 seconds by holding the
camera against a wall or supporting it on a nearby object.

This option is available on any camera, such as the CP 8x00, that uses a
reticulating LCD screen as the viewfinder. The results are better than
using the built in flash.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 10:36:58 PM

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

All Things Mopar <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns95F8B70E1A556ReplyToken@216.196.97.131:

> Hi, I'm in love with my Nikon Coolpix 5700 when shooting
> my favorite subject - car pictures - in daylight. I am
> completely dissasified with its flash performance not only
> with the puny Speedlight but also with the excellent
> Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible external. I don't need to
> belabor that here, suffice to say the 5700 is going on
> eBay and I'm in the market for a new camera.
>
> To start, I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or
> model. There's lots of reasons for this but size, weight,
> and the lack of an Electronic View Finder are all show
> stoppers for me.
>
> The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm
> looking at the 8800 because it has a brand new flash
> system (apparently)called eTTL. And, this time, I'm not
> gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
> Nikon's SB-600.
>
> My requirements are the same as most peoples: clear,
> sharp, noise-free, detailed, well exposed, great color,
> great camera features. Who doesn't want that stuff? 8 MP
> is just frosting on the cake.
>
> I'm confident that the 8800 will work superbly for me in
> daylight. I don't know about flash. My local camera store
> will let me put the camera and flash on my Visa and give
> me 10 days to test drive it, so long as I don't open the
> CD, which is OK since I have a USB reader.
>
> I am not at all wed to Nikon. I've already started my
> research on the web, but still have a ways to go. What I'm
> asking of all the good people here is some opinions and
> advice from people that actually own a Nikon 8800. My main
> flash problems are in the dank light of car museums where
> there're no walls or ceilings for the flash to reflect
> off.
>
> I am completely open-minded on make and model. I'd say my
> budget is $1,000, which is where the 8800 is, less a $100
> rebate. I understand that there's a major photo show in a
> couple of weeks, so the 8800 and its competitors may come
> down in price by the end of the month.

Dude, I also own the 5700, and for me the choice is between the 8800
and the D70. I don't want to start a ZLR vs SLR war here, but I'm
waiting until after I hear all of the PMA new releases before I decide
which model to buy. I too am in love with my 5700, but I can learn to
love another if it steals my heart! :-)
..

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 10:36:59 PM

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

Woodchuck Bill commented courteously ...

> Dude, I also own the 5700, and for me the choice
> is between the 8800 and the D70. I don't want to
> start a ZLR vs SLR war here, but I'm waiting until
> after I hear all of the PMA new releases before
> I decide which model to buy. I too am in love with
> my 5700, but I can learn to love another if it
> steals my heart! :-) .

No chance of a war from me, Bill!

I have my reasons for wanting a ZLR and not a DSLR, no
matter whose, and I have my reasons for dumping the 5700.
As I said in my OP, the 5700 is truly outstanding in
daylight, but I've failed miserably after 6 monts of pain,
re-shoots, tech support, repair, etc. to get decent,
consistent flash pictures with either the itty bitty
Speedlight or the very competant Sunpak 433D. And I'm
getting no where fast, so it's time to cut my losses and
get on with my life.

If I were in the market for a DSLR, I'd take a look at
both the D70 and Canon 20D before buying anything. Let the
war begin!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 10:45:02 PM

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

Woodchuck Bill wrote:
[]
> Dude, I also own the 5700, and for me the choice is between the 8800
> and the D70. I don't want to start a ZLR vs SLR war here, but I'm
> waiting until after I hear all of the PMA new releases before I decide
> which model to buy. I too am in love with my 5700, but I can learn to
> love another if it steals my heart! :-)

Bill, I would welcome reasoned arguments as to where a DSLR might be of
benefit over a ZLR and vice versa. No need for a war, to me, they are
sufficiently different animals as to both find a space in our hearts! I
can see myself carrying round both the Nikon 5700 and the Nikon 8400!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 4:00:14 PM

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

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> Dude, I also own the 5700, and for me the choice is between the 8800
> and the D70. I don't want to start a ZLR vs SLR war here, but I'm
> waiting until after I hear all of the PMA new releases before I decide
> which model to buy. I too am in love with my 5700, but I can learn to
> love another if it steals my heart! :-)

I have the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon SLR 300d. For action shots the
300d is the automatic choice but for static low light shots, the 5000 wins
hands down.

I have just completed a 5 week trip to asia and left the 300d at home
because of it's weight with all of the lens etc.

The points in favour of the 5000 were it's reticulating LCD view-finder and
the 19mm WA lens accessory, both received a lot of use with the 3,000 photos
that I shot.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:40:18 PM

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

Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> I have the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon SLR 300d. For action shots the
> 300d is the automatic choice but for static low light shots, the 5000 wins
> hands down.

That's very interesting, I would have thought it to be the other
way round. What does the 5000 offer on static low light shots
that the 300d does not?

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:59:49 AM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I have the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon SLR 300d. For action
>> shots the 300d is the automatic choice but for static low light
>> shots, the 5000 wins hands down.
>
> That's very interesting, I would have thought it to be the other
> way round. What does the 5000 offer on static low light shots
> that the 300d does not?
>
> -Wolfgang

The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.

The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that in low
light situations I can always find something to support the camera, a wall,
rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward position the camera may
be in, I can still get a good view of the view-finder.

With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
February 16, 2005 7:59:50 AM

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

In article <37ekjlF54mvg1U1@individual.net>, nospam@xtra.co.nz says...
> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
> conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
>
> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that in low
> light situations I can always find something to support the camera, a wall,
> rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward position the camera may
> be in, I can still get a good view of the view-finder.
>
> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
>
> --
> Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand
>
> replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
>

I think you meant "Articulated" view finder.. recticulated infers some sort
of "pattern" like on a Recticulated Python.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:57:29 PM

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

Larry wrote:
> In article <37ekjlF54mvg1U1@individual.net>, nospam@xtra.co.nz says...

>> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
>> conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
>>
>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
>> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
>> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
>> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
>> view-finder.
>>
>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
>> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.

> I think you meant "Articulated" view finder.. recticulated infers
> some sort of "pattern" like on a Recticulated Python.

You are right and much more articulate than I :-)

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
February 16, 2005 1:57:30 PM

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

In article <37f9i9F5aa3sjU1@individual.net>, nospam@xtra.co.nz says...
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <37ekjlF54mvg1U1@individual.net>, nospam@xtra.co.nz says...
>
> >> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
> >> conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
> >>
> >> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
> >> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
> >> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
> >> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
> >> view-finder.
> >>
> >> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
> >> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
>
> > I think you meant "Articulated" view finder.. recticulated infers
> > some sort of "pattern" like on a Recticulated Python.
>
> You are right and much more articulate than I :-)
>
>

No actually, Im pretty bad with language, I just happened to notice
reticulating... kinda wavin' at me sayin' HEY, OVER HEAR, A MISTAKE... better
than that it was a mistake not made by me! :>)


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 3:55:33 AM

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

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

>The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
>conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.

>The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that in low
>light situations I can always find something to support the camera, a wall,
>rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward position the camera may
>be in, I can still get a good view of the view-finder.
>
>With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
>unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.

Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
lack of articulated viewfinder?

Or, put another way: It has to be a good deal darker to be low light
conditions for a 300D than for the CP 5000.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:28:28 PM

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

Jan Böhme wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
>> conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
>
>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
>> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
>> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
>> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
>> view-finder.
>>
>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
>> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
>
> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
> stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
> lack of articulated viewfinder?
>
> Or, put another way: It has to be a good deal darker to be low light
> conditions for a 300D than for the CP 5000.

> Jan Böhme
> Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
> Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur

I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
CP5000 does 800 ISO. The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to the
Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.

Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being equivalent to
19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in the same race.

I use my 300d for sports photography and long lens stuff and for that the
Nikon is not in the race.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:28:29 PM

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

Terry Hollis wrote:
> Jan Böhme wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis"
>> <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
>>> conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
>>
>>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
>>> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
>>> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
>>> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
>>> view-finder.
>>>
>>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes
>>> it unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
>>
>> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
>> stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
>> lack of articulated viewfinder?
>>
>> Or, put another way: It has to be a good deal darker to be low light
>> conditions for a 300D than for the CP 5000.
>
>> Jan Böhme
>> Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
>> Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur
>
> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
> CP5000 does 800 ISO. The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture
> of 3.5 and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop
> advantage to the Canon with a lens that is close to usless for
> touring.
> Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being
> equivalent to 19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in
> the same race.
> I use my 300d for sports photography and long lens stuff and for that
> the Nikon is not in the race.

CP5000 in the Petersen Auto Museum, no flash:
http://www.fototime.com/B876FF9954F4C74/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/EB5BE405C1A8111/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/3CC13CDF1644C51/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/3EAA017BB310772/orig.jpg

With hand-held Vivitar "Digital Slave" flash:
http://www.fototime.com/87EB914558721D5/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/E92E40D65091B45/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/C606881EBCC2A20/orig.jpg
Bondurant, Shelby, Phil Hill, Gurney, Hall:
http://www.fototime.com/5D78DA29829119C/orig.jpg

I really like the CP5000 with WA convertor. And they are practically
giving them away these days. For this kind of work the only reason to
pass them up is keep-ahead-of-the-pack, Bigger Bat stuff.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:03:38 PM

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

Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>>> I have the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon SLR 300d. For action
>>> shots the 300d is the automatic choice but for static low light
>>> shots, the 5000 wins hands down.

>> That's very interesting, I would have thought it to be the other
>> way round. What does the 5000 offer on static low light shots
>> that the 300d does not?

> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
> conditions,

I have shot my DSLR in low light without tripod and had no special
problems down to 1/30, even with tele-lenses (with IS).

> for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.

Not being an Asian nor knowing the circumstances there, I cannot
comment on that.

> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that in low
> light situations I can always find something to support the camera, a wall,
> rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward position the camera may
> be in, I can still get a good view of the view-finder.

> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.

That is true enough. But I have often used my elbow on
something stabilizing larger lenses, works most of the time
for me. Your environment is obviously different.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:15:50 PM

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

Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Jan Böhme wrote:

>> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
>> stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
>> lack of articulated viewfinder?

> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
> CP5000 does 800 ISO.

But how noisy is the image at ISO800 with the CP5000? Is it
usable?

What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?

> The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
> and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to the
> Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.

It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
kit lens.

> Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being equivalent to
> 19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in the same race.

No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
35mm-equivalent. :-) Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
are, ah, rare.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:15:51 PM

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

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:15:50 +0100, in rec.photo.digital.zlr Wolfgang
Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>But how noisy is the image at ISO800 with the CP5000? Is it
>usable?


From my experience with my 5700, barely. I used ISO 400 a lot filtered
through Neat Image, but ISO800, only if there was no other way to get any
shot.

>What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?

FWIW, comparing my 5700 and D70 ISO1600 on the D70 is better than ISO400 on
the 5700, imo.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 7:59:43 PM

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

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:28:28 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

>Jan Böhme wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam@xtra.co.nz>
>> wrote:

>>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
>>> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
>>> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
>>> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
>>> view-finder.
>>>
>>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
>>> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
>>
>> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
>> stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
>> lack of articulated viewfinder?

>I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
>CP5000 does 800 ISO.

The key word in the sentence above was "usable", awkward as it was.

There are lots of pics on the net to attest that the noise level of a
300D at 1600ISO is reasonable, and that the noise level at ISO 800 is
quite good. I'm not all that familiar with the CP5000 in particular,
but a general rule for point-and-shoots seems to be that the ISO800
level is so noisy as to be entirely useless, and the ISO400 is clearly
worse than the 1600 of 300D.

I arrived at three stops by equating the noise at ISO 300D at 1600
with a point-and-shoot noise at ISO200, and the ISO800 noise of 300D
with the ISO100 noise of a standard point-and-shoot.

>The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
>and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to the
>Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.

If you want to shoot low light w/o tripod, of course you'll want a
fast lens. There are seven Canon lenses faster than 2.0 at my online
photo dealer's. If you must have a zoom, there is a very good 16-35
zoom, (equal to 26-56 for a 35 mm camera) at f 2.8. If you want longer
focal length, then there is for example the Sigma 24-105 mm at f. 2.8
- 4.0 at a very affordable price.

However, I'd suggest that what you really want is neither the CP5000
nor a DSLR, but a modern point-and-soot with the articulated
viewfinder that you like, plus image stabilisation.

_That_ will clearly give you at least two more stops, everything else
being equal.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 8:00:08 AM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>> I have the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon SLR 300d. For action
>>>> shots the 300d is the automatic choice but for static low light
>>>> shots, the 5000 wins hands down.
>
>>> That's very interesting, I would have thought it to be the other
>>> way round. What does the 5000 offer on static low light shots
>>> that the 300d does not?
>
>> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
>> conditions,
>
> I have shot my DSLR in low light without tripod and had no special
> problems down to 1/30, even with tele-lenses (with IS).

I think I see the problem here, you think 1/30 is a low speed; try 2
seconds.

>> for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
>
> Not being an Asian nor knowing the circumstances there, I cannot
> comment on that.

Well HongKong is all buses and subways, up to four flights of stairs, it's
day after day of walking; the less you carry the more you are likely to go
looking for those good shots.

>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
>> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
>> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
>> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
>> view-finder.
>
>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
>> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
>
> That is true enough. But I have often used my elbow on
> something stabilizing larger lenses, works most of the time
> for me. Your environment is obviously different.
>
> -Wolfgang

As I have said before, large lens are not the issue, a wide angle lens is
needed to shoot the tallest building in the world and that is in Taipai and
when you do it at night a long exposure is inevitable.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 8:11:00 AM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> Jan Böhme wrote:
>
>>> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some
>>> tree stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little
>>> for its
>>> lack of articulated viewfinder?
>
>> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
>> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.
>
> But how noisy is the image at ISO800 with the CP5000? Is it
> usable?
>
> What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?

That's fair comment, I haven't needed to use 1600 ISO with the 300d but it
is certainly good at 400 ISO. The CP5000 is poor at 800 ISO so I rarely go
above 200 ISO with it, the point is, you don't have to because longer
exposures are possible.

>> The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
>> and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to
>> the Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.
>
> It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
> use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
> kit lens.

I have no use at all for a 50mm 1.4 lens when traveling, I need w/a.

>> Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being
>> equivalent to 19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in
>> the same race.
>
> No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
> 35mm-equivalent. :-) Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
> you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
> are, ah, rare.

???? I already have the 300d and I left it home for my trip to Asia. No one
in their right mind would buy that sort of lens for a 300d.

> -Wolfgang

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 8:53:37 PM

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

Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Jan Böhme wrote:

>>> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
>>> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.

[...]
>> What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?

> That's fair comment, I haven't needed to use 1600 ISO with the 300d but it
> is certainly good at 400 ISO. The CP5000 is poor at 800 ISO so I rarely go
> above 200 ISO with it, the point is, you don't have to because longer
> exposures are possible.

So we have the 3 stops right there, and while the larger, heavier
and more expensive 300D uses higer ISO, you steady the CP5000
at ISO 200 for longer exposures. Given the circumstances (e.g.
size, weight, cost, no tripod possible) you are right that the
300D (without even more expensive IS lenses) offers nothing for
night shots.

>> It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
>> use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
>> kit lens.

> I have no use at all for a 50mm 1.4 lens when traveling, I need w/a.

Each photograper is obviously different. So use the 24mm
f/1.4, the 28mm f/1.8 or the 35 f/1.4 if you need fast w/a
glass :-) (Yes, I know, I am spending *your* money rather
freely.)

>> No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
>> 35mm-equivalent. :-) Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
>> you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
>> are, ah, rare.

> ????

I meant that all that glass is expensive and most people
don't have an unlimited budget. So a not-quite-as-good
solution within your budget is much better than a perfect,
but unpayable one.

> I already have the 300d and I left it home for my trip to Asia. No one
> in their right mind would buy that sort of lens for a 300d.

Well, the lens only fits on a 300D, the new Rebel XT and the 20D,
since it's an EF-S lens, so Canon seems to differ.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 9:02:46 PM

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

Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>> I have shot my DSLR in low light without tripod and had no special
>> problems down to 1/30, even with tele-lenses (with IS).

> I think I see the problem here, you think 1/30 is a low speed; try 2
> seconds.

I have hand-shot my Contax SL300RT* for 8 seconds. Fun to
do a few times but not relaxing.

>>> for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.

>> Not being an Asian nor knowing the circumstances there, I cannot
>> comment on that.

> Well HongKong is all buses and subways, up to four flights of stairs, it's
> day after day of walking; the less you carry the more you are likely to go
> looking for those good shots.

Ok, that's your choice and it's obviously valid. I still carry
a tripod when I'm out shooting, but that's me.

> a wide angle lens is
> needed to shoot the tallest building in the world and that is in Taipai and
> when you do it at night a long exposure is inevitable.

Yes. I'd see if I could get a shift objective for that (to
avoid falling lines), too. And a tripod. :-)

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 9:23:27 PM

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

Jan Böhme wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:28:28 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Jan Böhme wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis"
>>> <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found
>>>> that in low light situations I can always find something to
>>>> support the camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite
>>>> of the awkward position the camera may be in, I can still get a
>>>> good view of the view-finder.
>>>>
>>>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes
>>>> it unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
>>>
>>> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some
>>> tree stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little
>>> for its lack of articulated viewfinder?
>
>> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
>> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.
>
> The key word in the sentence above was "usable", awkward as it was.
>
> There are lots of pics on the net to attest that the noise level of a
> 300D at 1600ISO is reasonable, and that the noise level at ISO 800 is
> quite good. I'm not all that familiar with the CP5000 in particular,
> but a general rule for point-and-shoots seems to be that the ISO800
> level is so noisy as to be entirely useless, and the ISO400 is clearly
> worse than the 1600 of 300D.
>
> I arrived at three stops by equating the noise at ISO 300D at 1600
> with a point-and-shoot noise at ISO200, and the ISO800 noise of 300D
> with the ISO100 noise of a standard point-and-shoot.

Ok that rational might be fairer but I wouldn't equate the CP5000 with your
"standard point-and-shoot". The 5mP sensor in the CP5000 is the same size
as the one in the later CP8400 and may be less susceptable to noise.

>> The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
>> and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to
>> the Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.
>
> If you want to shoot low light w/o tripod, of course you'll want a
> fast lens. There are seven Canon lenses faster than 2.0 at my online
> photo dealer's. If you must have a zoom, there is a very good 16-35
> zoom, (equal to 26-56 for a 35 mm camera) at f 2.8. If you want longer
> focal length, then there is for example the Sigma 24-105 mm at f. 2.8
> - 4.0 at a very affordable price.

It's not a matter of "If you want to shoot low light w/o tripod" it's having
something available at the time and place, when a photo opportunity crops up
in a situation where you depend on your escorts to show you around and speak
the local language. If you don't know where you are going, you need
versatile equipment that will not require your escorts to wait while you are
forever setting up the shot.

> However, I'd suggest that what you really want is neither the CP5000
> nor a DSLR, but a modern point-and-soot with the articulated
> viewfinder that you like, plus image stabilisation.
>
> _That_ will clearly give you at least two more stops, everything else
> being equal.

When they make a better camera for the for my purposes, I will upgrade, in
the meantime the CP5000 and accessories is doing a very good job.

> Jan Böhme
> Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
> Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 9:38:51 PM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Terry Hollis <nospam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> Jan Böhme wrote:
>
>>>> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
>>>> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.
>
> [...]
>>> What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?
>
>> That's fair comment, I haven't needed to use 1600 ISO with the 300d
>> but it is certainly good at 400 ISO. The CP5000 is poor at 800 ISO
>> so I rarely go above 200 ISO with it, the point is, you don't have
>> to because longer exposures are possible.
>
> So we have the 3 stops right there, and while the larger, heavier
> and more expensive 300D uses higer ISO, you steady the CP5000
> at ISO 200 for longer exposures. Given the circumstances (e.g.
> size, weight, cost, no tripod possible) you are right that the
> 300D (without even more expensive IS lenses) offers nothing for
> night shots.
>
>>> It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
>>> use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
>>> kit lens.
>
>> I have no use at all for a 50mm 1.4 lens when traveling, I need w/a.
>
> Each photograper is obviously different. So use the 24mm
> f/1.4, the 28mm f/1.8 or the 35 f/1.4 if you need fast w/a
> glass :-) (Yes, I know, I am spending *your* money rather
> freely.)

These lens do not compete with the CP5000 when fitted with the .68 W/A
accessory which gives 19mm-57mm zoom.

>>> No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
>>> 35mm-equivalent. :-) Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
>>> you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
>>> are, ah, rare.
>
>> ????
>
> I meant that all that glass is expensive and most people
> don't have an unlimited budget. So a not-quite-as-good
> solution within your budget is much better than a perfect,
> but unpayable one.
>
>> I already have the 300d and I left it home for my trip to Asia. No
>> one in their right mind would buy that sort of lens for a 300d.
>
> Well, the lens only fits on a 300D, the new Rebel XT and the 20D,
> since it's an EF-S lens, so Canon seems to differ.
>
> -Wolfgang

If you know where you are going and exactly what you will need when you get
there, you can make a case for the 300d, but when I am on tour and depend on
my excorts, the CP5000 meets my needs.

I had a situation where I went to an exhibition of jade products, perfect
for the CP5000 I thought, after I arrived I found that the indigenous people
of Taiwan were giving dance performances, I missed recording that event
because I had left my video camera behind.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 9:38:52 PM

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

Terry Hollis wrote:
[]
> I had a situation where I went to an exhibition of jade products,
> perfect for the CP5000 I thought, after I arrived I found that the
> indigenous people of Taiwan were giving dance performances, I missed
> recording that event because I had left my video camera behind.

The 8400 does acceptable videos that would have captured the atmosphere of
the moment! I'm not a video enthusiast, but a couple of three second
video bursts certainly added to a journey I made recently.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 2:47:34 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Terry Hollis wrote:
> []
>> I had a situation where I went to an exhibition of jade products,
>> perfect for the CP5000 I thought, after I arrived I found that the
>> indigenous people of Taiwan were giving dance performances, I missed
>> recording that event because I had left my video camera behind.
>
> The 8400 does acceptable videos that would have captured the
> atmosphere of the moment! I'm not a video enthusiast, but a couple
> of three second video bursts certainly added to a journey I made
> recently.
> Cheers,
> David

Yes David, the CP5000 can do video too but I have never used it and
completely forgot about it until I got home.

The point I was trying to make was that it is difficult to be prepared for
all situations when you are travelling and don't really know what's going to
happen.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 2:47:35 AM

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

Terry Hollis wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Terry Hollis wrote:
>> []
>>> I had a situation where I went to an exhibition of jade products,
>>> perfect for the CP5000 I thought, after I arrived I found that the
>>> indigenous people of Taiwan were giving dance performances, I missed
>>> recording that event because I had left my video camera behind.
>>
>> The 8400 does acceptable videos that would have captured the
>> atmosphere of the moment! I'm not a video enthusiast, but a couple
>> of three second video bursts certainly added to a journey I made
>> recently.
>> Cheers,
>> David
>
> Yes David, the CP5000 can do video too but I have never used it and
> completely forgot about it until I got home.
>
> The point I was trying to make was that it is difficult to be
> prepared for all situations when you are travelling and don't really
> know what's going to happen.

I did the same as you two years ago - I havd a 5700 and just a couple of
things would have done so much better with movies - very short sequences
just to illustrate a point. I forgot it could do movies. Well, I didn't
actually forget, I never recognised the capability in the first place!
With the 8400 I now try and remember it! I try and travel with the
minimum, so having that extra ability just adds a little.

Cheers,
David
!