Coolpix P series? (1 Viewer)

ees101 · Feb 27, 2006

I have been using cameras like the Coolpix 990 and now a 4500 since "the beginning of digiscoping time" and I am looking for a potential "upgrade" with fasting shooting, larger LCD, and at least similar digiscoping abilities using a Swarovski 80mm 20-60x HD scope.

I haven't been able to find anything yet on th Coolpix P-series cameras. Does anyone have any initial thoughts regarding their compatability.

The NEW Coolpix P4 is very enticing with 8MP, Image Stabilization, 11-point AF. (I dislike not having Shutter Priority which at times I liked to set so I could underexpose at 1/60th if low light - Are there other downfalls to this camera?)
ISO settings? I can't find this anywhere.

Other suggestions are welcome as well (eg. Canon's, ect.), but I really want to know about experiences with any of the newest models.

Eric Secker

Brian Stone · Feb 27, 2006

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/p4.html

Jason Bugay Reyes · Feb 28, 2006

im thinkin of buying P1 for my nikon ED82 ...

ees101 said:
I have been using cameras like the Coolpix 990 and now a 4500 since "the beginning of digiscoping time" and I am looking for a potential "upgrade" with fasting shooting, larger LCD, and at least similar digiscoping abilities using a Swarovski 80mm 20-60x HD scope.

I haven't been able to find anything yet on th Coolpix P-series cameras. Does anyone have any initial thoughts regarding their compatability.

The NEW Coolpix P4 is very enticing with 8MP, Image Stabilization, 11-point AF. (I dislike not having Shutter Priority which at times I liked to set so I could underexpose at 1/60th if low light - Are there other downfalls to this camera?)
ISO settings? I can't find this anywhere.

Other suggestions are welcome as well (eg. Canon's, ect.), but I really want to know about experiences with any of the newest models.

Eric Secker

Neil · Feb 28, 2006

I'm not sure that the P series would be an upgrade for serious digiscopers as it seems a bit short on the features you are used to on the CP4500 (no remote,no rotatable screen, no RAW or TIFF, no lens screw thread ). You are paying a premium for Wi-Fi which I wouldn't image is of interest. Have a look at the Nikon CP 8400 which is an upgrade to the CP4500 although not a new model. If you like the simplicity and size of the P series you might be better off with one of the Sony's or Fuji's which appear to have better lenses. Neil.

Brian Stone · Feb 28, 2006

The P4 has no WiFi (but is only GBP16 less than the P3 with WiFi) and is landing at over GPB130 less than the 8400 in the UK. It also has vibration reduction which might be beneficial. RAW and TIFF don't matter to me and the P4 has most other feature needed. The larger 2.5inch monitor (1.8inch on the 8400) is useful.

Does anyone know when these become available in the UK?

Jonathan B. · Feb 28, 2006

brianhstone said:
The P4 has no WiFi (but is only GBP16 less than the P3 with WiFi) and is landing at over GPB130 less than the 8400 in the UK. It also has vibration reduction which might be beneficial. RAW and TIFF don't matter to me and the P4 has most other feature needed. The larger 2.5inch monitor (1.8inch on the 8400) is useful.

Does anyone know when these become available in the UK?

I find no information on when the P4 will be available anywhere. Like you, I don't need RAW or TIFF, nor a rotatable screen, nor threads. As I stated in another thread, I am interested in point-and-shoot cameras with image stabilization, and the P4 is one of the most interesting. I don't know if you have actually handled any of these, but I find that some (Panasonic FX9 and the forthcoming Canon SD700 for example) are excessively small. I am interested in handheld digiscoping, and handling is a factor for me.

Brian Stone · Feb 28, 2006

Our requirements sound very similar Jonathan. I find the lack of manual control a problem with the FX9 which I have briefly tried with my scope and was very impressed. The LX1 has manual control (aperture priority will do) but is much dearer and I don't know how the multiple aspect ratio features will affect it when used with a scope. The P4 would seem on the face of it to meet most requirements.

The Canon also looks good and is 6MP where the P4 is 8MP.

Jonathan B. · Feb 28, 2006

brianhstone said:
Our requirements sound very similar Jonathan. I find the lack of manual control a problem with the FX9 which I have briefly tried with my scope and was very impressed. The LX1 has manual control (aperture priority will do) but is much dearer and I don't know how the multiple aspect ratio features will affect it when used with a scope. The P4 would seem on the face of it to meet most requirements. The Canon also looks good and is 6MP where the P4 is 8MP.

The LX1 is a specialized camera, and I have not considered it seriously. The FX9 works well, but I mentioned in another thread that I am concerned with a potential innate problem with color balance. If you look at reviews on dcresource.com you will find that when the reviewer handled them, the FX9 and at least one other camera in that series exhibited strange behavior that did not respond to adjustment of white balance. I agree that the SD700 and P4 may be at the top of the heap, and perhaps they will both be available by April??

avan · Mar 7, 2006

The P1 are very small but deliver excellent image, the only real drawback are it's LCD, that are not very good (the P4 suppose to come with a 150,00px instead of the actual 110,00px). it look like cheap but it's not: metal body, excellent nikkor lens. The new camera are way faster than the old CoolPix technology, it got a fixed LCD, but it's like having a DSLR with a big lens in digiscoping set-up. In the shooting menu you can opt for the continu H and take up to 5 pictures at 2,3 image/sec. at full resolution. With this fonction the writting time for 5 it's very close to the writting of one CP4500 picture, not bad. In very low light (when barely see what's on the lcd) you have an AF assist that lighting up the lcd to help making the focus, and it work.

avan · Mar 7, 2006

Sorry,
those picture are taken making some experiment last night with my new P1, take both in low light situation. They are digiscoped with 82ED, 30DS eyepiece.
The little almond pastry bird are taken at around 30 ft inside. Ap.1/1, f2.7, -0,70EV, custom WB, 100 ISO
The car are at 60-70 fts, take trough 2 single window, AF assist fonction: Ap 1 f2.8, -0,30EV, tungstene, 200 ISO

Jason Bugay Reyes · Mar 8, 2006

nice result avan !

johnruss · Mar 8, 2006

avan said:
The P1 are very small but deliver excellent image, the only real drawback are it's LCD, that are not very good (the P4 suppose to come with a 150,00px instead of the actual 110,00px). it look like cheap but it's not: metal body, excellent nikkor lens. The new camera are way faster than the old CoolPix technology, it got a fixed LCD, but it's like having a DSLR with a big lens in digiscoping set-up. In the shooting menu you can opt for the continu H and take up to 5 pictures at 2,3 image/sec. at full resolution. With this fonction the writting time for 5 it's very close to the writting of one CP4500 picture, not bad. In very low light (when barely see what's on the lcd) you have an AF assist that lighting up the lcd to help making the focus, and it work.

While I have the same setup I have asked this question before to no avail. what size do you have your camera set for? I need to know as I do not want to have to reduce the size to post pictures. A reply would be treasured thank you.

avan · Mar 8, 2006

The image size in the camera are 8M/fine (highest quality and size). To post picture I dowsize it to 640X480 and dowsize the quality if needed to below 200K (usualy around 80-90 in photoshop in the option "save for the web")

IanF · Mar 8, 2006

I think it's the P1 that was reviewed in this month's Birdwatch magazine and got a pretty good review. For digiscoping though short of using the Swarovski DCB or similar swing away bracket, it would have to be hand held as it has no lens thread or adaptor tube facility.

The quality of images do look very good though.

avan · Mar 8, 2006

I have see a review in outdoor photography also, and also give a good review of the camera.They class it as the better point and shoot 8mp camera they try. That too bad that Nikon doesn't put a thread at least for an extension tube, but like you said a swing away bracket can work.

Brian Stone · Mar 28, 2006

I got hold of a P4 at the end of last week. I haven't had chance to really go to town with it but here are some inituial thoughts.

I can only really compare it to my trusty old 995 which has started to develop a few faults, hence the replacement. The first thing to note is speed. You can have a shot in the bag in 4 seconds with the P4, about half the time it took with the 995 (if everything was working properly). Focussing is also much quicker, especially working in macro.

The next improvement is the huge screen. It is large and very clear. My 95 has recently developed a fault where it appears to have focussed but in reality the entire frame was defocussed. It was difficult to spot this in the small screen. you can get a very good idea of what you are going to get with the P4 screen.

As a digiscoping camera it seems to be just what I am after. The drawbacks are a lack of a swivelling screen and no lens thread. Niether trouble me very much. My interest is being able to get a shot very quickly so I just want to be able to hold it up to the scope. I went to the local market and found a roll of insulating tape (for 0.50 GBP). The inner hole fits perfectly over the outer section of the P4 lens and I took enough tape off until it fitted snugly into the Leica eyepiece. See the attachments for how well this works. The lens is kept at the right distance from the eyepiece and perfectly centred.

In a while I'll post some digiscoping results and some macros to compare with the 995.

Brian Stone · Mar 28, 2006

Macro

Although you can't focus as close with the P4 you do have 8 megapixels so resolution should be similar or better than the 995. The following shots show closeups taken with the 995 and P4 at their miniumum focus distance then cropped to show the same part of the frame. The same area at 1:1 is 624 pixels square on the P4 and 443 pixels on the 995. So in theory the P4 has better resolution. But you will note that the 995 is sharper. The settings are the same on both camera (normal for in-camera sharpening).

On the whole I'm fairly happy with the macro capability but it makes me appreciate just how good the 995 has been in this area.

Brian Stone · Mar 28, 2006

Digiscoping

Here are some examples of digiscoped shots. These were taken using the adapter tube and the 20x or 32x fixed eyepieces on a Leica APO77 scope. So far the sun hasn't come out while I've been taking shots so hopefully results will improve with better lighting.

Vignetting is not a problem at any focal length using this set-up. Pictures look to be quite soft at the telephoto end of the camera's focal length.

These were taken at ISO50 in aperture priority. Images have been cropped slightly and resized to 640x480 but otherwise are as they came out of the camera. Shutter speeds for the four shots: 1/28, 1/15, 1/256, 1/384. The final shot was taken using the 32x eyepiece, others the 20x.

For more pics taken with this set-up check my blog from time to time:
http://www.thenaturalstone.blogspot.com/

avan · Mar 28, 2006

I use the PI with the FSB-3 bracket for two weeks now, and my feed back regarding the result are really mitiged. The camera itself take good picture, but in digiscoping set up it's half and half. If the subject it's around 50 ft with good light you can have very nice and detailed picture (but softer than with the cp4500 or cp990). After 50ft, every picture I have taken are VERY soft in full format. When downsized for the web and with lots of unsharp mask you ended with acceptable pictures. What's faultry? the auto focus?made for the computer or the TV viewing?
I Just don't know.
here some sample before and after. the before are close to what it's see in full 8mp high quality format ( and they already have some unsharp mask).

avan · Mar 28, 2006

Just to be don't like too negative, here a sample of a house finch that is quite good.

Coolpix P series? (1 Viewer)

New member

A Stone chatting

Well-known member

Well-known member

A Stone chatting

Well-known member

A Stone chatting

Well-known member

avan

Attachments

avan

Well-known member

Well-known member

avan

Moderator

avan

A Stone chatting

Attachments

A Stone chatting

Attachments

A Stone chatting

Attachments

avan

Attachments

avan

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread