Nikon Coolpix A - A short review

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.

A camera with balance

Of all the cameras I have kicking around the house, and there is a few, my wife likes the Nikon D90 with the Nikkor 35mm f2 combination the best.  Why?  For her it is the best combination of light weight and compact size, fast auto focus, good low light performance, ease of use with optical viewfinder I have.  

I have cameras that will better the above criteria, but none with that combination.

What about with the 18-105mm zoom?  Too bulky and low light performance is an issue.  D600 and Sigma 35mm f1.4?  Far too heavy.  Fuji X100 or Sony NEX 5n?  AF is too slow, especially in low light.  Leica M3?  Why would you want to shoot film?

Sometimes it's your most unloved camera that some else thinks is gold.

Nikon D600 and Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro

Life Change

A couple of weeks ago my wife gave birth to our second daughter.  All went well, but our household is now a very busy place; which means little time for photography or blog writing.  I am hoping to keep this blog up, but I am sure it will mean much less regular postings.  At this stage I am hoping to do a couple a week, but we'll see.

Sackville NS - Nikon D90 with Nikon 18-200mm VR II

The $500 D-SLR body - D2X vs D300 vs D90 vs D5100 vs Kodak Pro SLR/n

Here's a conundrum - what Nikon digital body do you buy for $500?  There's quite a range now from older pro models to brand new consumer models, and mid range models in between.  Depending on your needs, any one of these could be suitable.  So let's take a look.

Pro - Nikon D2X

This was a $6000 camera when it came out in 2004, and was state of the art.  For its time, the colour rendition was excellent.  It also has a full metal weather proof / dust proof pro body with huge batteries that last 1,000s of shots and a shutter rated for more than 200,000 cycles.  It meters with manual focus lenses and auto focus with AF-D type lenses.  However image quality at high ISO is nowhere near as good as modern sensors, and while its large size lets you look like a pro, the camera's weight does get to be an annoyance.  

My user experience:  My D2X was a high mileage example and it had a few problems, including a sticky trigger, circuit board malfunction and peeling grips.  At ISO 800 and above the noise levels were not acceptable, and no in built flash was a draw back for me.  The 2.5" screen is also not as nice as the later 3" screen.

Summary: Nikon pro durability with older levels of high ISO performance.

Nikon D2X with Tamron 90mm macro

Semi-pro - Nikon D300

The Nikon D300 is a good camera.  Full featured, the 12MP sensor was a big upgrade on the D2X, especially above ISO 800. It also metered with manual focus lenses and had the AF screw drive for AF-D lenses.  The later D300s has video and is about $200 more on the used market.

Summary: Great balance of pro features and image quality

Nikon D2X with Nikon 135mm f2 Ai-s

Mid level Consumer #1 - Nikon D90

The D90 is more consumer focused than D300, though it has the same sensor.  It deletes the metal body and features like manual focus lens metering, PC sync plugs and a few other bits; though it does have 720p video.  It is also lighter and smaller.  You can get a D90 for $100 - $150 less than a D300, so you could pick up a battery pack or a cheaper lens within the $500 budget.

My user experience:  The D90 has been a good camera for me.  It is nice and light for travelling and the high ISO performance is good.  The flexibility to use AF-D lenses is also a very welcome feature.

Summary: A consumer D300

Lunenburg NS - Nikon D90 with Sigma 10-20mm

Mid level Consumer #2 - Nikon D5100

The D5100 is pure consumer camera, but it does have some very good features.  Chief amongst these is the excellent 16MP sensor, which is excellent at ISO 3,200 and still very good at ISO 6,400.  It also features 1080p video and a cool swivelling screen.  However the body, while light, feels cheap and nasty, and you would definitely not want to drop one.  There is no screw drive, so AF-D lenses want auto focus, and neither will it meter with manual focus lenses.

My user experience:   I haven't owned one, but my brother in law does, so I have had some time with one.  The camera had excellent image quality, but I felt more at home when he handed back my D90.

Summary: Fabulous image quality, but you'll get sick of it quickly

Wildcard - Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n Full Frame

Based on a Nikon F80, but fitted with a Kodak Full Frame sensor, this camera series was launched a full 4 years earlier than the Nikon D3.  However, whereas the D3 is an excellent camera, the DCS Pro has behind even the Nikon DX D-SLRs of the time in terms of speed, ISO performance, flexibility and image quality.  In fact it drove many users crazy.  However, if you did manage to get it right, the sensor had that classic look you can only get with full frame.

Summary: Will likely drive you crazy

Halifax NS - Nikon D90 with Nikon 18-200mm

Conclusion:  Like everything it depends on your needs and usage requirements, but for me the D300 is the one I would buy.

Nikon 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR vs Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6 DC

Though this isn't really a fair comparison, my Sigma 18-125mm doesn't have HSM or OS, in many other ways these lenses are quite similar.  Both have roughly the same focal length and the same maximum aperture, and are aimed as a relatively inexpensive all round zoom.  The Sigma however, is significantly smaller; being lighter, thinner and shorter; which has big benefits if you are intending to take it as a travel lens.  Interestingly the direction of zooming is the opposite for each lens - counter clockwise on the Sigma, clockwise on the Nikon.  Both lenses also have a similar minimum focal distance of about 50cm.

Optically, both suffer from lots of barrel distortion at 18mm and mild pin cushion at maximum telephoto, both traits typical for this type of lens; and easily fixed in Photoshop.  

Sigma 18-125mm @ 18mm

Nikon 18-105mm @ 18mm

Sharpness at maximum telephoto is quite similar and I couldn't really tell much difference.  Neither will out resolve the D90's 12MP sensor at any aperture or focal length, but I did notice more consistent colour and contrast from the Nikon.  

Sigma 18-125mm @ 125mm

Nikon 18-105mm @ 105mm

  

The other big advantage of the Nikon is Vibration Reduction, or Optical Stabilisation.  Later variants of this Sigma lens have this, and it enabled me to not worry at all about shutter speed when shooting objects for this test on the Nikon.  Conversely, with the Sigma I had to reposition some objects for this test to ensure no shake.

 

Without doubt, the Nikon is the handier lens, mostly because it has VR.  Other than that, the Nikon's only other advantage is the built in SWM lens motor which lets it Auto focus on more recent Nikon consumer bodies.  The extra size though is also a bit of a pain when travelling.

However, if you have an older or mid-range Nikon body that has the screw drive for focussing, the Sigma is a good deal as these run for about half the amount of a Nikon 18-105mm on the used market.  You could buy this Sigma lens used with a used D50 or D70 or body and still not spend over $250, which makes it a cheap, high quality travel camera; that you don't have to worry about as much as if you took $4000 worth of Nikon D800 and Nikkor 28-200mm lens combo.  It's also a much better deal than a (small sensor) compact at the same price.

So, in conclusion, if you have the money and can deal with the larger size, buy the Nikon.  If not, the Sigma will work very well for you, and you can buy a 50mm f1.8 with the money you saved.