[mulderstu]

HEY GUYS

Any bright gave me some good information about theses products.
I would like to know what other digiscope users think of them and which one would be the better all round camera!

Cheers

Stuart

[postcardcv]

I don't know about the CanonA95, but the Nikon 4500 is excellent for digiscoping, it's easy to use and does the job very well. It also has a stunning macro setting (close focuses to about 2-3cm) which is great for flowers and insects. However I don't find it a good general camera, having had one for over a year I'd say that well over 95% of the photos taken with it have been through a scope or on macro setting. The swivel design makes it great for digiscoping, but personally I don't get on well with it for general use.

[Yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by mulderstu

HEY GUYS

Any bright gave me some good information about theses products.
I would like to know what other digiscope users think of them and which one would be the better all round camera!

Cheers

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

IMHO, a no-brainer between these two if you want to use the camera for general use as well as digiscoping, the A95 wins hands down. Technology has moved on a long way since the CP4500 was a current model.

Other cameras that I would suggest that you take a look at for general use as well as digiscoping would be (in no particular order) the Coolpix 7900, Sony W series (W1/12/5/15), or Olympus C5060 (bit pricey) as these all seem to be producing good results with digiscopers as well as being reasonable all-round cameras.

Go have a play with as many cameras as you can lay your hands on. The best camera is the one that suits YOU best.

Regards,

Duncan.

[Keith Reeder]

The A95 is a really good "every day" camera.

In fact I'm noticing a depressing trend: of the three cameras I habitually use - my A95, Panasonic Lumix FZ20 and Nikon D70 - it's the Canon which consistently produces the best out-of-the-box images, all other things being equal: there have been several occasions recently when I've found myelf thinking "Huh! The A95 would have got that shot easily..." when I've been disappointed in the output of the bigger cameras...

[Blackstart]

Hi Stuart-

I find the 4500 to be almost the perfect camera for the naturalist, with its great macro and digiscoping capabilities.

It is also quite useful for reportage and portraits.

Where it fails miserably, though, is when shooting landscapes. Not sure why.

-Adam

[mulderstu]

Thanks for your replies,

Why do you think there is such a big price differance between the 4500 which can be around £400 and a A95 which is around £180? Its seems strange as the A95 has more pixels and is a much newer model! I am still 50/50 between the two for digiscoping.

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by mulderstu

Thanks for your replies,

Why do you think there is such a big price differance between the 4500 which can be around £400 and a A95 which is around £180? Its seems strange as the A95 has more pixels and is a much newer model! I am still 50/50 between the two for digiscoping.

I would guess that the Nikon is still at the higher price as they have not launched a model to replace it (which usually leads to a drop in price). although it's an older model it is still often considered to be the classic digiscoping camera - I guess while it still sells there is no incentive for Nikon to drop the price.

[Yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by mulderstu

Thanks for your replies,

Why do you think there is such a big price differance between the 4500 which can be around £400 and a A95 which is around £180? Its seems strange as the A95 has more pixels and is a much newer model! I am still 50/50 between the two for digiscoping.

Stuart,

Go find a shop that has both models in stock and have a play with them. Turn them on, use them, use the controls, use the menus, look at the viewfinder screens, take some pictures - even if it's just shots of the shop and the street outside. Download the shots you've taken with both cameras onto a screen in the shop - most shops that sell digital cameras will have this facility. Look at the pictures. There is only so much that internet forum opinion can tell you, only when you have the objects in your hands can you make really informed decisions.

Do a search in the gallery for shots taken with both models. There are many people here who have used both cameras with great success. Your question has been asked (and answered) many times before. Have a search for similar threads. Here's one to get you started.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=28675
As I said in my original reply, between these two models, personally I think it's a no-brainer, especially given the price difference. Why pay twice the price for an inferior camera? Ultimately it's your choice, and only you can decide.

Regards,

Duncan.

[mulderstu]

Yelvertoft

I would love to go to currys,dixons,pc world,maplin or comet to test the nikon 4500 but it is a discontuined product. I know i ask a alot of questions and recieve good answers, but after all it is a forum so i would like to get a few peoples advice before i rush out and get the wrong one.

Thanks for your information, it is appreciated

Stu

[Leicaman]

Originally Posted by mulderstu

Yelvertoft

I would love to go to currys,dixons,pc world,maplin or comet to test the nikon 4500 but it is a discontuined product. I know i ask a alot of questions and recieve good answers, but after all it is a forum so i would like to get a few peoples advice before i rush out and get the wrong one.

Thanks for your information, it is appreciated

Stu

Ace Optics, Bath, are still advertising the Coolpix 4500, now at £299, in the latest Bird Watching magazine. I find it great for digiscoping but it is the only digital camera I've owned and so can't comment on any others.

[Yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by mulderstu

Yelvertoft

I would love to go to currys,dixons,pc world,maplin or comet to test the nikon 4500 but it is a discontuined product. I know i ask a alot of questions and recieve good answers, but after all it is a forum so i would like to get a few peoples advice before i rush out and get the wrong one.

Thanks for your information, it is appreciated

Stu

Stuart,

I am sorry if my reply came over a little "strong", it wasn't intended to offend. It is just that the same question seems to crop up so many times, there is a limit as to how many different answers that can be given. Also, internet forum opinion seems to carry far more weight than it really should. People go out and buy purely on the strength of forum opinion rather than their own personal experiences. I consider this to be dangerous as pseudo-facts get (self) perpetuated as no-one goes out and tries things for themselves.

There are other cameras, apart from the CP4500, that are very good for digiscoping but internet forum opinion keeps on steering people back to the 4500, despite its obsolescence. The CP4500 is good for digiscoping, there's no doubt about that, but there are better choices available these days that are cheaper and IMHO far better all-round cameras; your original question asked about general use as well as digiscoping.

As for wanting to try one, have a look in local camera shops rather than non-specialist shops such as Dixon's etc. My local Jessops had a CP4500 on display very recently. Whatever you end up buying, I really, really, REALLY, would not buy without trying it in my hands first. It doesn't matter how many other people rave about product xyz, if you can't get on with the ergonomics/controls/menu structure/etc, you won't get the best out of it.

Regards,

Duncan.

[fr0sty]

Yelvertoft


I have just purchased an A95. I used Cameras2U.com on the net. Although they were a couple of pennies more expensive than the cheapest I could find they supplied a manual in english !!

Attached is my first effort with the camera - a little out of foucus but I suppose that practice will make perfect.

I find the A95 easy to handle and the menus are intuative and easy to follow.

Good luck

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Yelvertoft

Whatever you end up buying, I really, really, REALLY, would not buy without trying it in my hands first. It doesn't matter how many other people rave about product xyz, if you can't get on with the ergonomics/controls/menu structure/etc, you won't get the best out of it.

I have to agree with Duncan on this - all the reviews in the world do not compare to actually trying the camera in the hand.
I recently took the plunge and bought a dslr - I was set on the EOS350D, everything I read about it sounded great, and it looked like a good buy at the price. I got very close to ordering one online, but managed to resist long enough to find a shop with one in stock so I could try it. Whilst I'm sure it is a great camera, it just didn't feel right for me (far to small), so I ended up going for the 300D (the model that proceeded the 350D) and am very glad I did.

That said, personally I still rate the coolpix 4500 as an excellent camera, the combination of easy digiscoping and amazing macro make it a camera I would not be without. As you can currently pick it up for about £200 new, I'd say it's still a good buy. I still carry mine everywhere and use it on most birding trips. One thing you could try is 'bumping into' a birder in the field using the 4500 and asking them about it. I did this before buying one and the guy showed me all about it (since found out he's a BF'er), this was very helpful and convinced me to buy one (then it was just a matter of convincing my wife it was a good way to spend money....)

Good luck deciding, I'm sure you'd be very happy with a 4500, but make sure you're sure before you buy - you don't want to spend all that cash on a camera and then not enjoy using it. Kepp us posted as to what you decide to go for. I look forward to seeing some of your photos in the gallery.

[Keith Reeder]

While I agree entirely in principle with Duncan and Postcard about trying before buying, I know from personal experience that in many instances that's simply not an option, which is why so much weight and importance is attached to opinions on fora like this one.

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by mulderstu

Thanks for your replies,

Why do you think there is such a big price differance between the 4500 which can be around £400 and a A95 which is around £180? Its seems strange as the A95 has more pixels and is a much newer model! I am still 50/50 between the two for digiscoping.

The Nikon cp4500 was pretty much their flagship digital camera when released (other than their dslr cameras), consequently it's cost quite a lot to manufacture by todays standards... it wasn't a budget camera and this can be seen in it's build quality vs the Canon A95.
As I said to you privately, it's not an easy choice between the two... but I'd just err on the side of the Canon... buying a secondhand 4500 that could be several years old would mean questionable reliability (these cameras don't last forever).

I think your intended scope is going to be a limiting factor more than the camera itself... but I can't think of any real alternatives in your price range.
cheers,
Andy

[maporter68]

Stuart,

For what it's worth the Nikon 4500 can currently be purchased new from Microglobe (London) for £259 + £7 p&p, new with 12 months warranty

www.microglobe.co.uk

Cheers

Mark

[christineredgate]

The 4500 is proven to be a great digiscoping cam.Ideal for this specific purpose.

[Tannin]

Don't buy a CP-4500

Sure, it's a good digiscoping camera, but it is outclassed in nearly every way by the A95. I own two CP-4500s and one A95, have used them both extensively, and fond as I am of the old 4500s, they are well off the pace compared with the newer Canon unit.

There only area where the 4500 may be superior is for macro work. I say "may be" because although my first impression with the A95 was that it didn't match the superb macro ability of the 4500, it was only a quick first impression and I haven't tried to check it more carefully as I only have one A95 and it's attached to my scope but, now that the 4500s are retired from front-line digiscoping use, they are available for other tasks.

I'm still thinking about getting a second A95 to use as a spare (nothing worse than being in the deep outback and not having a spare digiscoping camera if you do something silly to your main one). The Canon is much bettter at landscapes: the question is, seeing as I'm not willing to carry three cameras around all the time, which would be the better spare? The A95 for its landscape ability, or the CP-4500 for the macros? Not sure yet.

For digiscoping, the Canon is:

• Much faster to repeat frames, so less chance of missing a shot
• Faster, better auto-focus.
• Vastly longer battery life.
• Much cheaper batteries
• Bigger, clearer picture. (Yes Virginia, more megapixels really does help.)
• Cheaper.
• Better LCD screen
• Smaller and lighter
• Better metering
• Vastly better manual focus
• Better in low light
• Much easier, more sensible menu system and controls (but still not perfect)
• Vastly better electronic logic — the Nikon will drive you nuts with its asinine inability to change vital settings until the buffer is written off to the flash card. If you need to (e.g.) change ISO setting (and you frequently do), you have to wait ten seconds with the Nikon — by which time the bird is gone. This is quite possibly the most important difference of all.
• More suitable zoom range. With the 4X zoom of the Nikon, you are always tempted to zoom in that little bit further on a distant bird, and ruin the shot, as (with a 20X scope eyepiece) 4X in camera (=80X total) is just too much. You get blurry, second-rate pictures. With the Canon's maximum 3X zoom, you can zoom up all the way and still be just inside the competence of the system.This makes life easy: use whatever zoom you want, and be assured of good pictures every time.

The list of Nikon CP-4500 advantages is much shorter

• Not as flimsy as the Canon, but still way too flimsy. It needs a metal body - I've broken two of them now.
• A nicer colour. (I don't like the silver Canon.)
• Although the 3-D fold-out LCD of the Canon is better overall, the 2-D swivel body of the Nikon feel better in your hand sometimes.
• Can do RAW format
• Better zoom: continuous rather than stepped, though the odd-ball 7-step zoom of the Canon is perfectly OK once you get used to it

Summary: an easy win for the Canon.

[bill lord]

Originally Posted by mulderstu

HEY GUYS

Any bright gave me some good information about theses products.
I would like to know what other digiscope users think of them and which one would be the better all round camera!

Cheers

Stuart

I've just sold my CP 4500 on Ebay where they are selling for around the £180 mark. I have replaced it with a canon 300d SLR which has proved to be a very easy camera to digiscope with. I have a Nikon ed 78 scope and a Nikon FSA 1,2 and three adapter for it. The FSA3 has the same 58mm thread on it as the Canon lens that is fitted to the camera. Used on manual focussing you get a bright and clear image looking directly through the lens. I have attached a picture of a puffin taken with the camera one of my first attempts, the bird was sitting in quite deep shade on Bempton cliffs about 70 yds away on a very bright day the exposure was 1/320 sec at f5.6 using iso 1600 and it was so easy to take the pictures in comparison to the Nikon. The only thing I have done to this picture is to crop it and to reduce it in size using a low quality JPG for transfer. Canon themselves are selling these cameras on Ebay and there are quite a lot of others on there as well. I paid £390 including delivery direct from Canon for my camera bought through Ebay.

[gabba]

I've just bought an A95 for £176 from 7 day shop, I did not realise that it was a serious contender for the 4500, mainly because of the price diff.
I'll report on i ts performamnce when I give it a shot

[horukuru]

so whay dont u buy both cameras ?

weight doesn't matter as long u can afford to buy n willing to carry it during birding n try both cameras to get the good result ...