Nikon Coolpix A vs. the rest . . . in search of the perfect compact.

<p>Eric said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>. . . and there you have it. i sure hope someone at Nikon is reading this.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I can't say I wasn't disappointed with Nikon's ILC product direction. A 1" sensor really doesn't interest me. The Sony RX10 is very interesting for its impressive constant-aperture, super-zoom, but I think it's over-priced, beyond its product category. If Nikon had a similar offering in a Coolpix-like product at a more reasonable price point, this may have changed my mind on the 1" sensor deal. While at first, the RX100 seems like a nice compromise, its f/4.9 maximum-aperture at the long end of its zoom just won't work for me. This is not an easy purchase decision to make.</p>

<p>The RX100 is pretty appealing, not least because it's tiny compared with most alternatives. I've tried one a few times, but I really don't get on with the handling; YMMV. The X100s appeals most to me (though it's comparatively huge), between the handling, the high ISO behaviour and the leaf shutter (which you don't get with an interchangeable lens). Sadly, it costs too much to be practical for me. The X100 is very compromised in comparison, but still pretty appealing (used). The Coolpix A's price/performance compared with a D3x00 never really tempted me; the Ricoh is somewhat better.</p>

<p>At least I wouldn't buy anything that gives you just one focal length, i.e. no interchangeable lenses and the fix lens is not a zoom. I would immediately rule out the Coolpix A and the Sony RX1.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>with the Fuji X-E2 body going for $999 (at least Fuji sells body-only configurations!), plus that $999, 85mm-equivalent f/1.2 lens, I'm fast approaching A7, big-sensor, price-levels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

not exactly. an a7 and a 55/1.8 are $2700, an x-e2 and 56/1.2 are $2000. there's no 85mm prime yet for sony. the most comparable lens to the sony 55, the fuji 35/1.4, is $600, or 40% less. meanwhile, the sony 35/2.8 is $800, and the fuji 23mm is $900, but the 23 is a 1.4.</p>

<p>Ha! While I was busy deciding on which new APS-C ILC to get (I was leaning toward a new, $499 Samsung NX300), I "successfully" won an Ebay auction on a Coolpix A that I had forgotten about! I paid $634 (plus $10 shipping) for a camera which was, "only used once," from a 100% buyer-satisfied seller. I guess I'm the proud new owner of a Nikon 'A'! Here's some highlights:</p>

<p>Nikon Coolpix A:</p>

<p>Same 16.2MP APS-C sensor as used in the Nikon D7000 (but, without the OPLF) in a compact point-and-shoot.<br /> Class-leading DxO low-light "sports" ISO rating of 1164.<br /> DxO-reported dynamic range: 13.8 EV.<br /> Flash-sync up to 1/2,000th.<br /> Coolpix A's fixed, 28mm-equivalent lens exhibits virtually no distortion.<br /> Familiar, Nikon DSLR-like menu interface.<br /> Compact form factor--actually "pocketable."</p>

<p>at that price the coolpix is a much better deal (although the ricoh seems like it's just as good or better). if you have an sb-400 you can bounce flash.</p>

<p>Ralph, congratulations, and I hope you're happy with your camera! (Having had another look, the Coolpix is not as much bigger than an RX100 as I thought it was.)<br />

<br />

Shun: I've been known to wander around with prime lenses on my cameras, so I'm not necessarily averse to a fixed lens on a compact so long as the quality justifies it; you can always crop in post-processing, for small amounts of zoom. To my mind, something like the X100s has enough merit in the optical finder and flash sync speed (something I'd not realised that the Coolpix A and Ricoh share) that a camera like this still has a place. It's certainly a complement to, not a replacement for, a more general camera, though. And from that perspective, it would be nice if these cameras were a bit cheaper (especially the X100s, which could also do with being smaller...)</p>

<p>Thanks, guys! I wasn't sure what to do, since I was all set on getting another ILC instead. Perhaps it's for the best, because after all this review, I think the Nikon 'A' <em>may</em> be the "perfect" compact. Especially, if the 'A' were sold at a lower price, I think many more might tend to agree. It's weird, I really wanted the Samsung NX300, but I'm also really happy to have the Nikon for all of what it offers. One thing I'm sure of--I'm far more confident that I'll be happy with Nikon's sensor and .JPG processing algorithms than Samsung's.</p>

<p>On behalf of my employers (Samsung), grr. But I still hope you're happy with it! (Plus, leaf shutter, so you can do daylight fill flash with a small flash gun. Which is nice.)</p>

<p> i picked up a Fuji x100 not too long ago and love love love carrying around a small body with serious imaging power. with the firmware updates, it's not that slow, although still a bit quirky. it does fill-flash really well. looking forward to a report-back from ralph on the Coolpix.</p>

<p>Eric - the fill flash (again, because of the leaf shutter) is a major thing tempting me about the X100, which is why I was curious that the other compacts mentioned here could do it to, although I like the trick finder too. I really can't afford an X100s, and the going rate for either a Coolpix A or a Ricoh is still a bit higher than would tempt me. Those sensors do seem to behave somewhat better than the X100, but I guess I have to remember that the X100's lens is a stop faster. Shame about the resolution loss - a used X100 is quite a bit more affordable. Oh well, next time I feel the need to burn money... :-)</p>

<p>any of the serious fix-focal compacts would suffice, although the faster lens of the Fuji is one of the things which really elevates it in real-world usage; the Coolpix and GR would be much better with a f/2 or 1.8 lens. the colors and skin tones of the x100 are great. IMO about $600-$800 is all these things are really worth. hopefully the next-gen will have image stabilization, that's one of the huge pluses of the GX7, EP-5 and OM-D's, but, again, with the small sensor, they're never going to be as good at high ISO as APS-C. and hi-ISO pics are one of the main reasons you'd want to use one of these. i have yet to shoot at 6400, but ISO 5000 looked pretty good. i also like the fact that the AF array covers more of the frame, although its more of a pain to move the AF point around than on my DSLRs.</p>

<p>I had been watching the Ricoh GR prices drop recently and grabbed one at $659 from B&H. Glad I did because they went back up again shortly afterward. Great little camera that truly fits in the pocket.</p>

<p><img src="http://salimaging.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v132/p890537136-4.jpg" alt="" /><br>

f4 | ISO 100</p>

<p><img src="http://salimaging.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v109/p156932252-5.jpg" alt="" /><br>

f/2.8 | ISO 3200</p>

<p>For all around qualities for shooting quickly in certain situations with good IQ I've always liked the Ricohs. My version 2 died recently and now I'm using a version 4 and like it a lot. But if I was going to spend 1000 bucks or so on a digital "compact" though I'm not sure what the parameters of compact are, I would go for a Fuji X100S. I looked up what DxO sensor mark was, and its not that meaningful for me. I need to see real pics from a camera in actual use. But anyways, I would include the Fuji in that group.<br>

A friend of mine has and loves his Sony A7, but I'm I really haven't seen great photos yet. I'm sort of interested to see if Fuji brings out a full frame camera this year with the ability to use my Leica and CV lenses on it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sort of interested to see if Fuji brings out a full frame camera this year with the ability to use my Leica and CV lenses on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's probably more likely that fuji will gives us a FF x200 at around $2000. i just dont think they're big enough to produce more than 5 lenses a year, and they've already committed to the XC lens roadmap through 2015.</p>

<p>nice shots, steve!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Shame about the resolution loss - a used X100 is quite a bit more affordable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>erm, idk, some prefer the look of the x100 sensor over the x100s sensor, which is the same as in the xe-1/2. i see plenty of bite in my pics, though i'm still evaluating the camera. there's like a $500 price difference between x100 and x100s now, and a used x100 is as low as $600-$650. </p>

<p>Andrew said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph, congratulations, and I hope you're happy with your camera!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks! I'm almost glad my hand was forced to buy the Nikon 'A' (I only just clicked the <em>"Pay with PayPal"</em> button a few minutes ago!). It was the camera I initially wanted. It's the camera I <em>needed</em>. I need a small, pocketable compact with the best image quality possible. My two-year-old Samsung NX200 had a DxO low-light score of only 618. Compared with the Coolpix sensor's score of 1164, that's quite a jump. I also wanted a camera made by a <em>camera</em> company--that it was Nikon, was a nice bonus.<br /> <br /> Even if I had purchased a new ILC with a fast portrait-length lens, it then wouldn't be all that compact. Typically, if I want to shoot a long-lens shot, operationally, the camera has to behave as much like a conventional DSLR as possible to get the shot "right." The trouble is, I can't always bring a DSLR with me. So, I've come to accept that at least I'll have one of the best APS-C imagers available, in a very small package, albeit, limited to a single focal length.<br /> <br /> Andrew said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> (Having had another look, the Coolpix is not as much bigger than an RX100 as I thought it was.)</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually saw a friend's Sony RX100 tonight. It's a small, nice-looking camera--kind of like a bigger Nikon 1. But with such a small sensor, and slow maximum aperture at its long end, I don't think I would've been happy with it.</p>

<p>Eric said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>i picked up a Fuji x100 not too long ago and love love love carrying around a small body with serious imaging power . . . looking forward to a report-back from ralph on the Coolpix.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm very much looking forward to seeing my first images taken with my new Coolpix! Unfortunately, I won't get it until next week, but I promise to start a new thread and report back. I managed to take some grab-shots with my Nikon D7000 at an event tonight, and I started to get excited . . . to be able to get similar image quality (albeit, using <em>only</em> a 28mm lens) in something that fits in the palm of my hand will be really cool.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/images/SI1A.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D7000 + Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 @ 125mm; ISO400: f/3.5 @ 1/400th [out-of-camera .JPG].</p>

<p>Steve said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>f4 | ISO 100 . . . f/2.8 | ISO 3200</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those look great!</p>

<p>You can easily compare IQ from different cameras here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-a/13">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-a/13</a></p>

<p>Ralph, looking forward to reading your 'review'. Congratulations and good luck with your new camera!</p>

<p>Elliot said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>You can easily compare IQ from different cameras here:</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for setting that up! Oddly, I forgot to take a look at the DP and Imaging Resources' comparometers before buying (well, I did buy it by accident!). Yes, the X100S, and I believe the Ricoh GR's lens corner-sharpness performance (as seen in another DP comparison review), actually bests my already-purchased Nikon A. Oh, well! Hopefully, real-world images, plus other performance and operational features will help to balance everything out.<br /> <br /> Elliot said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph, looking forward to reading your 'review'. Congratulations and good luck with your new camera!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks! I'll try to conveniently forget those DPreview studio scenes, and enjoy my new camera regardless. Though, I'm happy to see so much interest in a new user-review of the Coolpix A, since I imagine that model has already been reviewed to death by now. I'll try to write something up after I get it sometime next week.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm happy to see so much interest in a new user-review of the Coolpix A, since I imagine that model has already been reviewed to death by now."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good user reviews are hard to come by for cameras like the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR. These are niche cameras targeted mainly at candid photographers who mostly photograph people but also enjoy having high quality photos for the occasional landscape or other subject suitable to a wide angle lens.</p>

<p>Most reviews for these types of cameras regard them exactly the same way as any other camera, from a dSLR-centric point of view. Consequently most reviews miss the point entirely and don't address the issues prospective buyers are interested in. For example, relatively few reviewers seem comfortable with street photography, don't seem to attend nightclubs, concerts, etc. So their sample photos are mostly pix of static objects - buildings, bridges, trees, etc. - with maybe one or two snaps of a friend or coworker posed against a wall. Another of my pet peeves: Few of the well-regarded tech review sites bother to fully test a P&S camera's built-in flash capability.</p>

<p>So your Coolpix A review may turn out to be among the very few that actually uses the camera the way it was intended.</p>

<p>To all: I'd just like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread--everyone here has offered thoughtful dialogue which was very encouraging as I struggled with my purchase decision. I made a poor choice two years ago with my first ILC, and I certainly didn't want to repeat it with a new APS-C compact.</p>

<p>Lex said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>. . . For example, relatively few reviewers seem comfortable with street photography, don't seem to attend nightclubs, concerts, etc. So their sample photos are mostly pix of static objects - buildings, bridges, trees, etc.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! Often, I simply ignore review sites' sample images, en masse, because they all seem to be taken in broad daylight, with very little to challenge the sensor. Also, both DP's and IR's comparators use only white light for their ISO tests--I'd also like to see how the cameras perform in near virtual darkness with only ambient club lighting as the source (which, as you mention, are typical of the kinds of scenes you're likely to shoot with a compact camera).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>relatively few reviewers seem comfortable with street photography, don't seem to attend nightclubs, concerts, etc. So their sample photos are mostly pix of static objects - buildings, bridges, trees, etc. - with maybe one or two snaps of a friend or coworker posed against a wall. Another of my pet peeves: Few of the well-regarded tech review sites bother to fully test a P&S camera's built-in flash capability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i kind of want to hit DPReview over the head for not taking any interesting photos, but photozone and lenstip are even worse! with a lot of these advanced compacts, photos are going to be in low-light situations, not stopped down to f/8. on that last point, about fill-flash, i have to give the much-maligned KR some props for pointing out how well the x100 does with fill flash. he did the same thing with coolpix A, IIRC. if you really want good tips for lighting, though, you need to check out <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/">Strobist</a>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd also like to see how the cameras perform in near virtual darkness with only ambient club lighting as the source (which, as you mention, are typical of the kinds of scenes you're likely to shoot with a compact camera).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that is a really good point. a lot of times AWB is completely useless in a club situation.</p>

<p>Ralph: On behalf of my employers, I'm sorry you're not happy with the output of the NX200. The camera and phone divisions (where I work) have only recently become more closely attached, so it wasn't my fault! (Besides, if I'd had any say, Samsung would have come up with a flange distance that supported M-mount lenses - one reason I've never even looked at buying one myself.) But thanks for the feedback; I'll try to make it reach someone, even if it's too late for you. (Disclaimer: I'm junior and have no great ability to persuade Samsung to fix things, even on the rare occasions that I know what's going on, but allow me my optimism.)<br />

<br />

The biggest concern I'd have about the Coolpix, other than possibly the corner performance, is the lack of ND filter that's present in the Ricoh and Fuji. (Actually, I have no idea how a switchable integrated ND filter is implemented. Does anyone know?) Part of my interest in these cameras is the ability to do wide-aperture shooting - that includes the leaf shutter support for fill flash that KR likes, and which is supported by all these cameras. (I'd not normally like on-camera flash, but if we're going to be portable, the "left hand holding a monopod with a flash on each end" solution looks even less wieldy than usual. And you can always remote trigger.) Otherwise, by all accounts you should be pretty happy with it. I envy you your new toy!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest concern I'd have about the Coolpix, other than possibly the corner performance, is the lack of ND <a id="_GPLITA_13" title="Click to Continue > by safesaver" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cIq5?start=40">filter</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>dunno why nikon didn't include this in the Coolpix A. the p7000 i have has one. you'd think at the price nikon wants for its premium compact, they would have thrown that in.</p>