Recently I acquired a Nikon Coolpix A in a trade for my Fuji
GA645i, and thought it would be an opportune time to share some thoughts.
The camera itself is far from mint, and has some cosmetic
"war wounds" as the seller put it, but it works fine, and the screen
and lens are all good. I wasn't using
the Fuji much, so an opportunity to pick up a really nice digital compact that
I could get some use out of was a tempting offer.
The Coolpix A is not a cheap piece of equipment to purchase
new, retailing for almost $1,300.
Its
claim to fame is having a large DX size sensor in a true compact body, that is
truly pocketable, in a way that a Fuji X100 and Sony NEX 5 aren't quite.
It has a sharp 18.5mm lens (equivalent to
28mm) and a large 3" high definition screen.
First impressions with this camera are good. The camera has a nice heft, but is still
relatively light, the buttons feel like precision instruments and the whole
camera gives an impression like it was carved out of billet aluminum, just like
a Barnack Leica.
On my first test run, which was in good light, the lens
proved to be very sharp and the sensor showed excellent detail, on par with the
better DX sensors in DSLRs. I'm sure the
lack of an Optical Low Pass Filter helps in this regard. The AF is reasonably
quick, though not DSLR quick, and most
shots seem to look very nice. All in all, a fun camera to have around.
A later test in a darker indoor environment started to show
a few flaws. Firstly the AF is much
slower and not as reliable, and if you use it on macro mode, which enables the
AF to zoom through the entire range, it can be 'moment missing' in darker
environments. The DX sensor isn't as
good in low light as what I thought it would be. ISO 3200 show quite a bit of noise, more than
the Fuji X100, and about on par with my D90; though certainly better than my
mother in law's Nikon Coolpix P330 with the 1/1.7" sensor (which
coincidentally was launched on the same day).
This is actually quite disappointing as this is where I saw the camera
as being most beneficial versus a regular compact.
Another issue is the very strange colour balance in low
incandescent light. If you use the white
balance to incandescent or set the colour temperature even lower, it gives the
shadows and an ugly blue tinge, which is very disconcerting, and takes a bit of
work is post processing to get it out.
The other big disappointment is the flash, which on Aperture
Priority or Manual, is almost always completely out, and generally an utter
disaster. It works fine on Program or
Auto mode, so I may take a look to see if there is 'user error' involved. However, compared to the 100% reliable and always
perfect flash on the X100, this is very disappointing.
One area that was better than expected was manual
focus. Compared to the X100, even with
the latest firm ware, it is much quicker and more precise. The other nice feature was the full menu,
almost the same as Nikon's DSLRs, allowing for a lot of adjustability.
So overall first impressions? A nice, but relatively flawed camera, like an
early build X100 was. I honestly thought
it would be better. Would I pay $1300
for it? No way. But at the approx $400 or so from trade
value, it was still a good deal.
