Nikon P7700 -- What's the Story?

<p>I'm interested in a point-and-shoot for when I do not want to take out the SLR.<br>

The Nikon P7700 seems to have a lot going for it, but I can't find much serious discussion of its quality.<br>

Sure, the Sony RX100 has a bigger sensor, but the 7700 has a faster -- and longer -- lens.<br>

What do folks make of this new Nikon?</p>

<p>I googled "P7700 review" and didn't find a lot of takes on it either. There are some reviews out there. It would give you a start. </p>

<p>PhotographyBlog liked it:</p>

<p>http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_coolpix_p7700_review/conclusion/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>While there is obviously much to like about this camera, it is also obvious that the P7700 is no where near the Fujifilm X100 in high ISO performance. That is not good. There are also some pictures on flickr that shows that sky is rendered in white in overcast weather. It might be the photographer, it might be the camera. I don't know. But good high ISO performance, good rendering of the sky and fast autofocus is important to me. I have spent a lot of time (re)placing the sky in my old Coolpix pictures, and I do not want to do have to do that with another generation of Coolpix pictures.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R29ZUHUXWIMB8D/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1/176-8851355-9747123?ie=UTF8&asin=B0090SLE30&cdForum=Fx2M8BR9D73Q8VI&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx2H9ZZYGLZA5CC&store=photo#wasThisHelpful">Here</a> is some info, but I wouldn't put too much trust in the information. I am not sure about "the quality" of it. Until we know more about the quality of it's performance, I would not want to place an order for it.</p>

<p>Here is a picture of it with <a href=" external 3rd party optical viewfinder</a> in the hotshoe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it is also obvious that the P7700 is no where near the Fujifilm X100 in high ISO performance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is everyone so concerned with high ISO performance now? There was a time when everyone used ISO 100 and 400 film, now it seems that a camera has to have good results at ISO 128,000 or it's useless.<br>

I suppose everyone is taking pictures of black cats in coal cellars now.</p>

<p>With high ISO you don't have to use flash which results in more natural results.</p>

<p>There are quite a few places where flash photography is not allowed. And shooting outdoors when it is getting dark doesn't always look good with an in-camera flash. Even with a Nikon flash.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There was a time when everyone used ISO 100 and 400 film, now it seems that a camera has to have good results at ISO 128,000 or it's useless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not useless, Steve. But:</p>

<p>Nikon only has ISO 80-1600 on this camera (ISO 3200/Hi 1 - equivalent to 6400).</p>

<p>The Fuji X100 has ISO 200 - 6400 (extended output sensitivity equivalent ISO 100 or 12800)</p>

<p>Nikon has been sleeping in class when it comes to this, IMO. Or maybe it is not possible to get better results with the smaller sensor size of the P7700? The (APS-C) CMOS size sensor in the X100 seems to be several hundred percent larger then the 1/1.7" CMOS sensor in the P7700.</p>

<p><a href="http://betterphotographytutorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SensorSizes-N.png">Chart comparing sensor sizes.</a></p>

<p>To be presize, the sensor in the X100 is 867% larger than the sensor in the P7700. 8,67 times the size of the P7700. Wow, that is a huge difference. I didn't know until now that the difference was <em>that</em> big.</p>

<p>Lots of good features for the Fuji X100, but you have to be ready to live with a 35 mm lens for all your shots. I would think the real competition for the P7700 would be the Sony RX100, which has a larger sensor, but a slower lens. Or the Canon G1.<br>

Both of the latter are also a lot more expensive.</p>

 

<p>Yes, John. And the Fuji X100 is the first generation of this camera type and there seem to be quite a few things that can be improved on it.<br /> The Sony RX100's sensor would be 2.7 times bigger than the P7700's sensor, and the Canon G1's sensor would be 6.09 times bigger.</p>

<p><strong>Nikon P7700</strong><br />Focal length: 6.0 - 42.8mm (35mm format equivalent – 28-200mm)<strong><br /></strong>Maximum aperture: F2.0 - F4.0<br /> Optical zoom: 7.1x<br /> Sensor size: 43mm2</p>

<p><strong>Sony RX100</strong><br /> Focal length: 28 – 100 mm (35mm format equivalent - )<br /> Maximum aperture: F1.8 - F4.9<br />Optical zoom: 3.6x<br />Sensor size: 116.16mm2</p>

<p><strong>Canon G1</strong><br /> Focal length: 15.1–60.4 mm (35mm format equivalent - 28–112 mm)<br /> Maximum aperture: F2.8–F5.8<br /> Optical zoom: 4x<br /> Sensor size: 261.80mm2</p>

<p><strong>Fujifilm X100</strong><br /> Focal length: Fixed lens - 23mm (35mm format equivalent – 35mm)<br /> Maximum aperture: F2.0<br /> Optical zoom: None<br /> Sensor size: 372.88mm2</p>

<p>Correction:<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Sony RX100</strong><br>

Focal length: 10.4–37.1 mm (35mm format equivalent - 28–100 mm)</p>

<p>Nikon's compacts have never really been serious contenders to the other cameras. I first experienced Nikon compact digicams in their Coolpix 4300 and Coolpix 5000 days, and the last camera I used was a P7100 which I borrowed from a friend. Except for the fact that it can use my SB600's and SB800's, it had relatively nothing going for it compared to the competition: Canon G12, Canon S100, Olympus XZ-1or XZ-2, Panasonic LX5 or LX7 (rebranded as a Leica digilux as well), Fuji X10, etc. Consider one of those cameras, and join me in keeping our fingers crossed, hoping that Nikon decides one day to take compact cameras more seriously.</p>

<p>The Canon G1X, Sony RX100, and especially the Fuji X100 are all cameras in a completely different class, and I'm not sure why they're being compared here. Of course they're going to beat the P7700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>..join me in keeping our fingers crossed, hoping that Nikon decides one day to take compact cameras more seriously.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, Ariel!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon G1X, Sony RX100, and especially the Fuji X100 are all cameras in a completely different class, and I'm not sure why they're being compared here. Of course they're going to beat the P7700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The point is to compare the P7700 with better options for those who would like that. What is the point of comparing it with lesser options?</p>

<p>If you by 'completely different class' are referring to the prize, the prize might not be the crucial factor for everyone. I, for one, is looking for a compact camera that will give me the best possible pictures. I can get a lot of different compact cameras for a prize around $400 - $500, but if there is a camera that will take much better pictures than those in that prize range, I would pay more to get the better quality pictures.</p>

<p>The Fuji X100 is one of the cameras I have been considering. John is considering the other two in addition to the P7700.</p>

<p>It's not just price. You don't have to compare it with lesser options, what about other comparable in-class options? All those cameras are larger sensor, significantly higher cost, etc. The other cameras I mention from Canon, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic are the same kind of ideology: a "super point and shoot" camera. Also, John never mentioned the X100; you did.</p>

<p>Why would you mention Canon G12 when the G15 is already out there?</p>

<p>I don't want an Olympus or a Panasonic camera. I want a Nikon camera - but that is not an option yet. They have to get better than this.<br>

<br /> As for Fujifilm, I would buy that brand. But not the Fuji X10 when the Fuji X100 is better. If there is a Canon out there better than the Fuji X100, I am all ears.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, John never mentioned the X100; you did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say that. You did.</p>

<p>Y'all don't fuss, please. This is all good conversation.<br>

Its about the tradeoffs between size, image quality, convenience, range, etc among alternatives to carrying around a DSLR.<br>

I have a D700 which I love, except when I don't want to carry it around, like on a trip, at least some of the time.<br>

I have a Panasonic LX-3, which I've made images with practically in the dark that I can print up to 12x18 and am very happy with. So for me the sensor size limitation is perhaps acceptable, other things being OK. <br>

One attraction of the P7700 is the speed of the lens and the range of the lens. <br>

I guess I'm waiting for DP Review to review the P7700 and compare it with the alternatives at $600 and up like the Sony RX100 and the Canon G1, as well as the Fuji models that have zoom lenses and the other models in this category closer in price to the P7700 like the LX-7 and the Canon G15. </p>

 

<p>The Canon G15 sensor size is only 43mm2. It is the same as the P7700.<br>

<br /> I think I will go for a considerably larger sensor size. If you look a some of the photos on flickr shot with the P7700, IMO the quality leaves a bit to be desired.</p>

<p>I was disappointed with DP Review when the photo samples of the preview of the P7700 mostly was shot with good lighting and at ISO 80. Most cameras will deliver quite well under those lighting conditions and at ISO 80.</p>

<p>you cant really compare the p7700 to the x100. they're not even in the same class. the X100 costs more than 2x as much and has a fixed lens. i bought a p7000 on closeout for $250 and at that price it's ok. ironically for a nikon, the ergonomics of it aren't all that great. if it had two control wheels it would be much better. i do like that you can stick an sb-400 on it, but unfortunately, you can't use the manual flash options, which sort of negates the usefulness of that particular flash.</p>

<p>anyhoo, the p7700 IMO is about 1 1/2 or 2 full generations behind current compact cameras. the faster aperture is nice, but nikon could have done that with the p7100. the p7700 should have had a larger sensor like the Canon G1X. if i was looking at point and shoots today, i'd consider the Sony RX100 first. but if you're going to spend $500+ on a compact these days, you also have to look at mirrorless options, which aren't much more expensive, or even less expensive. you can get an older model Olympus Pen on deep discount for under $300 with lens. if you want a superzoom-like range, the field narrows considerably.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I, for one, is looking for a compact camera that will give me the best possible pictures</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that would be the RX100 or the G1X. or maybe the Ricoh GRIV, which also has a fixed lens.</p>

<p>Canon G1 X - DP Review</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The AF is rather slow, when compared to contemporary mirrorless system cameras, such as the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgx1/" target="GX1">Panasonic GX1</a>or the latest models of the Olympus PEN series. Combine this with the camera's dead-slow 1.9 frames continuous shooting rate and it's clear that the G1 X is not the tool of choice for any type of photography involving fast moving subjects.</p>

<p>Another limitation of the focus system is its (lack of) close focusing capability. You'll need to get used to switching frequently into Macro mode when shooting close-up portraits or other nearby subjects. At focal lengths of more than 50mm you have to switch to macro mode to focus closer than one meter. This slows the AF down even further.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I won't have that. Missing photos because of slow AF is not an alternative for me if I can avoid it. Been there...lost many "once in a life time photos". </p>

I was looking at the image samples of RX100 on DP Review. I don’t understand why they would think that the image quality is that good. Look at the rendering of the sky in most of the samples. I want better image quality than that.

 

 

The Ricoh GR IV has a sensor size of 43mm2 only . I would like a bigger sensor size.

 

 

Fujifilm X100 – jpegs strait from the camera. Look at this great little flickr set by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/home_of_dreams/sets/72157626113404305/">S.H.Chow</a>. There is the image quality I am looking for.

<p>DP Review has reviewed this camera <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-coolpix-p7700">link</a><br>

Compare the high iso of the p7700 and the rx100, you will be surprised dispite the sensor size difference.<br>

Quite a few comments here are from people who have not tried the P7700 but are satisified to say that Nikon has not been the leader in this class of camera. Check out the DP review and see for yourself. The P7700 is a great little camera, very nice image quality, quite reasonable high iso performance, pretty fast. I am quite certain you will not be disappointed.</p>

<p>Here is some crazy old guy swimming in Lake Ontario in Toronto on November 18th at 200mm (equiv) right out of the camera.</p><div></div>

<p>Phil, DP Review has not reviewed the Nikon P7700 yet.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-coolpix-p7700">link</a></p>

<p>Phil, I noticed the link.</p>