Disappointing CP 4500!??! (1 Viewer)

[mkoreiwo]

Hello All:

I have recently jumped into digiscoping with the following: Pentax ED-80, Scoptronix WA 18mm for Nikon eyepiece, Williams optics 28mm for Nikon eyepiece (didn't arrive yet), and as noted in the topic, a Nikon CP4500.

I got the 4500 from Broadway photo -- it's a "gray market" model with the red stripe, not blue-green as is the USA model. I wasn't too concerned: Nikon is generally a well trusted name, and I have other cameras (Canon G2, Canon EOS A2E) for my other photographic needs. So my model is the same as the Euro/Canadian/Asian models...

Here's the rub: my first few attempts yielded awful images... dreadful (using the 18mm eyepiece). The LCD shows a tack sharp image, yet the saved photo is not. I decided to compare stock pictures from both the G2 and 4500... What I found was surprising. Given the praise for the Nikons in general, I was appalled at the "softness" of the Nikon images. Given what my stock photos revealed, I don't think the scoptronics is at fault here.

I am wondering if there is a great deal of variation in the quality of the cameras being put into the market... I've included two images one from each camera. The G2 image has NO additional in camera "adjustmets, while the Nikon has the Image Adjustment Normal, Image Sharpening Auto settings on. Both were ISO 100...

It may not be apparent, but the Canon kicks the Nikon out of the park. I am saddened, as I feel the Nikon is an inferior optical product... Are there any other 'scopers out there with sad Nikon stories... Or do I have a quality control lemon!!

And another thing... Is it common when playing back images on the Nikon for the photo to first display out of focus, then snap into clarity? Mine always does that when I view images...

Any comments... input...??

Thanks again. This is really a very informative forum!

Michael K.

 

[yossi]

Hello All:

I have recently jumped into digiscoping with the following: Pentax ED-80, Scoptronix WA 18mm for Nikon eyepiece, Williams optics 28mm for Nikon eyepiece (didn't arrive yet), and as noted in the topic, a Nikon CP4500.

I got the 4500 from Broadway photo -- it's a "gray market" model with the red stripe, not blue-green as is the USA model. I wasn't too concerned: Nikon is generally a well trusted name, and I have other cameras (Canon G2, Canon EOS A2E) for my other photographic needs. So my model is the same as the Euro/Canadian/Asian models...

Here's the rub: my first few attempts yielded awful images... dreadful (using the 18mm eyepiece). The LCD shows a tack sharp image, yet the saved photo is not. I decided to compare stock pictures from both the G2 and 4500... What I found was surprising. Given the praise for the Nikons in general, I was appalled at the "softness" of the Nikon images. Given what my stock photos revealed, I don't think the scoptronics is at fault here.

I am wondering if there is a great deal of variation in the quality of the cameras being put into the market... I've included two images one from each camera. The G2 image has NO additional in camera "adjustmets, while the Nikon has the Image Adjustment Normal, Image Sharpening Auto settings on. Both were ISO 100...

It may not be apparent, but the Canon kicks the Nikon out of the park. I am saddened, as I feel the Nikon is an inferior optical product... Are there any other 'scopers out there with sad Nikon stories... Or do I have a quality control lemon!!

And another thing... Is it common when playing back images on the Nikon for the photo to first display out of focus, then snap into clarity? Mine always does that when I view images...

Any comments... input...??

Thanks again. This is really a very informative forum!

Michael K.

A couple of remarks from my experience:
First, I don't know the G2. If it's good for digiscoping, why did you buy the CP4500?
Second - The CP4500 is not at it's best at the maximal tele setting. Backoff say to ~120mm equivalent.
Third - the 18mm eyepiece is not good. I own this and the 14mm. It fits perfectly into the camera's thread, but that ends the "perfectness" of the eyepiece. I was unable to achieve a decent picture with both eyepieces. A simple Plossl did far better. Replace it with Scopetronics Maxview with an appropriate ~44 to 28mm adapter and you'll get much better quality. You can also try the Pentax wide eyepieces, like the 21mm, and you'll be able to zoom all the way with the camera. I have the red version of the CP4500, and it's fine. I'm just worried that there is no future replacement at nikon or anyone else (with IF) if the camera will decide to drop dead.

 

[Andy Bright]

There are a few dud cp4500's out there and it does take a while to get used to the cp4500's or Nikon in general after being used to Canons. As Yossi says, don't be greedy with the zoom on the camera.

And another thing... Is it common when playing back images on the Nikon for the photo to first display out of focus, then snap into clarity? Mine always does that when I view images...

Yes, quite normal, it maybe resizing for monitor display and/or focus confirmation setting kicking in (the latter is very noticable on cp990/995)


The new cp5200 may be o.k. for digiscoping ...currently Nikon U.K. are importing leftover cp4500's from all over the world to satisfy the demand for digiscoping. They've got 95% of the market for digiscoping (for a very good reason)....but that'll quickly disappear if they don't bring out something similar in lens design to the cp950/990/995/4500 ... but the digiscoping market isn't big enough to make it viable for a company like Nikon to cater for 'us'.

 

[IanF]

Hi Michael,

The CP4500 camera operation as you describe sounds normal in respect of the blurred image and then the sharp image appearing on the LCD on playback.

I too have found the images on the soft side straight out of the camera. Resizing and sharpening though works wonders. I'm not that keen on the camera for it's optical quality either, though the actual design lends itself very well to digiscoping. As regards camera settings I have the sharpening and contrast settings set to their lowest values and use the computer for any processing as it seems to yield better results that way.

 

[erwin]

In my opinion after ca. 1100 digiscoped pics in the last 10 months, the order of importance for good digiscoping is
1. Vibration control
2. Proper focussing
3. Air clearness and distance (the closer the better)
4. Photoshop capacities of the photographer
5. Scope quality
6. General knowledge of photographer for exposure control, white balance, etc..
7. Camera quality

I have a 995 myself, downloaded some 4500 images from the net, and like IanF, I don't believe that these are that noteworthy camera's for general use (not surprised you find a Canon G2 better, and it should be, it was quite expensive when new)
But for digiscoping, the convenience factor of the 4500 outweighs it's actual camera quality.

 

[mkoreiwo]

CP 4500 woes

The G2 is BAD for digiscoping, hence the CP4500.

I am getting the Williams Optics 28mm eyepiece as another "solution"...

As to the zooming, I'm ONLY zooming past the minimal vignetting, not max zooming...

I went out this morning once more... haven't processed the images yet.

I have seen some photo posts using the CP4500 and they have been outstanding. It makes me wonder if Nikon has a QC issue. Also, since the view is SO sharp on the LCD, this IMHO could(?) be a problem with the software that completes the image capture - it just doesn't make sence that "what you see ISN'T what you get".

I'm spoiled by my years in 35mm work, and I guess, from the G2. Steve's Digicam reviews did extensive review of the CP4500 long ago, and it was highly praised. That's why I think the production quality has declined. Were I getting PAID for my photos, this camera would be in the can. Since I bought ir "gray market", I suspect I'm stuck with it.

As an aside: our Pathology department uses a 4500 for microphotography. I am going to see if I could arrange a swap out to test theirs under similar conditions....

I'm not finished investigating this yet!

Thanks all!

Mike K.

A couple of remarks from my experience:
First, I don't know the G2. If it's good for digiscoping, why did you buy the CP4500?
Second - The CP4500 is not at it's best at the maximal tele setting. Backoff say to ~120mm equivalent.
Third - the 18mm eyepiece is not good. I own this and the 14mm. It fits perfectly into the camera's thread, but that ends the "perfectness" of the eyepiece. I was unable to achieve a decent picture with both eyepieces. A simple Plossl did far better. Replace it with Scopetronics Maxview with an appropriate ~44 to 28mm adapter and you'll get much better quality. You can also try the Pentax wide eyepieces, like the 21mm, and you'll be able to zoom all the way with the camera. I have the red version of the CP4500, and it's fine. I'm just worried that there is no future replacement at nikon or anyone else (with IF) if the camera will decide to drop dead.

 

[digi-birder]

Michael,

I can sympathise with you. I bought a Coolpix 995 a couple of years ago to start digiscoping. I hardly ever had any really decent results from this camera. I was searching on the Yahoo digiscoping group and mention was made that there were some faulty ones around that were poor at focusing. Mine went to Nikon for testing and came back just as bad. I tried taking non-digiscoped photos and found that they too were out of focus slightly.

After struggling for a year or more, I bought a Canon G3, which yielded slightly better results, although I had to hand craft a special adapter for it. It worked though. Non-digiscoped photos with this camera were excellent quality.

I have some photos in my gallery taken with both cameras. These were the better ones. I still had plenty of disappointing results, even with the G3, although I preferred the camera to the 995 and the batteries lasted much longer.

I have now moved to dSLR - Canon, naturally.

As for the images becoming sharp as you review them - the 995 and the G3 did this - even my 10D does it, and I am quite frustrated by it. It gives you a false sense of security, as you think you have a wonderful picture and when you download it you find that it may be useless. I wish there was some way to disable this feature and then at least you could feel safe knowing you were only deleting the poor photos. I saved all my photos from my recent trip to Spain, as I didn't know which were rubbish and which were keepers until I arrived home.

 

[jenygard]

Michael,

there is probably nothing wrong with your camera. My experience is that you cannot expect a digicoped picture to be tack sharp out out the camera. You always have to sharpen it. It is more important that the picture has many (soft) details. If it has, you will be able to sharpen it.

Lots of people complain that the LCD shows a sharp picture, while the picture is not when downloaded to the computer. That is how it is, the LCD is very small, the picture is may be sharpened on the screen. If you zoom into the picture on the LCD, you can see the real sharpness of the picture. I never use any time to do that, I rather take as many pictures as possible when i have targeted the bird.

Take notice of Erwin's seven points of importance, I quite agree with him (and he has an excellent gallery).

Jens E. Nygaard

 

[scampo]

Your camera has to be faulty if your criticisms are as you describe because the CP4500 produces exceptionally sharp images on default settings.

I attach a photo taken with my CP4500 similar to your own (I prefer my choice of reading, though... ).

I also use a Fuji S602 and the Nikon is more than its equal.

 

[erwin]

Digibirder, I'm not that enthousiastic about my 995 either. It was my first digicam, bought that specific model for eventual digiscoping possibilities, tried it for general photography and some experiments with my Optolyth TBS 65. Stored the cam in the drawer, found it that bad, and went back to film photography.
It's only later that I started using the 995 for insect macro's, then last summer an accidental digiscoping tryout with my 20x60 "carboot scope", hey digiscoping does work, then I started investigating and bought some stuff specific for digiscoping.

Jens, thanks for the compliment, but your gallery is still a level higher. That puffin, wow. I have been to Runde in 1984, a bit late in the season unfortunately. Plenty of gannets etc., but saw only one puffin.

Erwin

 

[jebir]

It's only later that I started using the 995 for insect macro's, then last summer an accidental digiscoping tryout with my 20x60 "carboot scope", hey digiscoping does work, then I started investigating and bought some stuff specific for digiscoping.

Erwin,

I am also trying to digiscope with an Optolyth but it is so-so. I am impressed by your portfolio of very nice birdshots. In particular the picture of the wren.
Could you tell us a little bit more about your gear: "mto1000 astro and superview40"?

Cheers, Jens.

 

[erwin]

Jens II, (jebir)

MTO 100/1000 is a Russian Maksutov (mirror) 1000mm f10 telephoto camera lens for Zenith SLR's (and others with adapters). For sale at rugift.com for 150 USD or so.
German astronomers started using this for solar photography, because it comes with a filter where one can stick solar foil on. Some people investigated it a bit and found that the optics are actually quite well made, but that most have pinched optics, because mounted tightly for field photography use. It's also easy to remove the infinity stop, so one can get enough back focus to use it as a telescope. Mind you, giving these optics backfocus, seriously lenghtens the focal lenght (1200+ mm when used as a scope)
So German astro retailers now sell an astro version with checked and properly reinstalled optics, and infinity stop removed. There are also websites describing how to do this yourself, but since the astro version sells for ca. 200 €, I found that an easier option.
To make an (astro) scope out of it, you also need an adapter to 1 1/4 inch, an erecting mirror, and an eyepiece. With let's say a basic 32mm plossl eyepiece this comes to around 100€.
I have written my opionion about Maksutovs for birdwatching here
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=16863
Summarised: Pretty good views, but for birdwatching?

The TS Superview 40 looks like a clone to the Scopetronix maxview 40.
It's a pretty basic 1 1/4 inch 40mm plossl eyepiece with high eyerelief, equipped with an adjustable camera attachment ring, with T2 thread. Price 100 € (adapter rings to 28mm not incluced)

The whole thing is a moderate budget accessory to the Coolpix 995 I already had. Results are fairly decent, but with problems of their own (I can detail this if you want). If you compare my results to Jens Nygaards (who also shows fairly big web pics), it isn't in the same league. Look at microcontrast (and noise resulting from boosting microcontrast), and general clarity and color transmission and you will see the difference.
I'm still learning (use of neatimage and better procedures for color correction at the moment), so may still improve a bit, and Jens nr.I has more pixels to play with with his 4500, but the scope+eyepiece is simply less good also.

The wren was shot very close, at moderate zoom setting, so that's why it's better. A lot of the other shots are near or at maximum 4x zoom. I put the eyepiece straight in the scope (giving upside down images) so scope magnification is 25X.

Hope this helped

Erwin

edit: Oh I forgot. Have a look at Jay Turbervilles excellent website www.jayandwanda.com, he's the one responsible for my interest in Mirror optics

 

[mkoreiwo]

Scampo,

Was your a flash shot? It looks like it based upon some relections.

If it is, here is the OTHER strange thing I noticed: With flash, my Nikon ALSO is tack sharp. (In general, if there is considerable variation with the performance of CP4500's out there, Nikon should be ashamed of themselves.)

I still believe it is a software problem: I my LDC is sharp, that's what the CCD is seeing and interpolating, when it gets captured, something is "lost in translation".

Hindsight being what it is, I would have more ammo to joust with Nikon had my camera NOT been gray market. I'd love to get into a dialog with their tech dept!

... reading... what's that?

Your camera has to be faulty if your criticisms are as you describe because the CP4500 produces exceptionally sharp images on default settings.

I attach a photo taken with my CP4500 similar to your own (I prefer my choice of reading, though... ).

I also use a Fuji S602 and the Nikon is more than its equal.

 

[digi-birder]

Scampo,

Was your a flash shot? It looks like it based upon some relections.

If it is, here is the OTHER strange thing I noticed: With flash, my Nikon ALSO is tack sharp. (In general, if there is considerable variation with the performance of CP4500's out there, Nikon should be ashamed of themselves.)

If flash shots are sharp, then I would guess that your Coolpix photo above is soft due to camera shake.

I tested mine for non-digiscoped shots on a tripod, with and without flash, and all were very soft to my eyes. I even had someone else look, in case it was my eyes, and the verdict was that the camera was not focusing properly. Unfortunately, sending the camera back did not help so I sold it.

 

[mkoreiwo]

Nope: comparison shots were done with a tripod using self timer...

Oh Well... I can see that I'm not alone here with issues regarding the CP4500.

If flash shots are sharp, then I would guess that your Coolpix photo above is soft due to camera shake.

I tested mine for non-digiscoped shots on a tripod, with and without flash, and all were very soft to my eyes. I even had someone else look, in case it was my eyes, and the verdict was that the camera was not focusing properly. Unfortunately, sending the camera back did not help so I sold it.

 

[scampo]

Yes - I purposely used flash to give a shutter speed that would eliminate camera shake. If you have sharp shots with flash, then any softness without flash really has to be down to camera shake. My tripod shots are equally as sharp. Really, the CP4500 is a top notch and very well 'sorted' camera in every way. If anyone says otherwise they either have a problem that Nikon should repair under warranty or they are not using the camera properly.

 

[Jay Turberville]

The LCD shows a tack sharp image, yet the saved photo is not.

The LCD shows an image that has far less resolution than the CCD captures. It simply does not offer a valid means to critically analyze sharpness or focus unless you use the zoom-in feature in the playback mode.

The apparent snapping in and out of focus is probably a delay in processing as the camera applies some sharpening to the image before final display. On my CP5000, I can see that as I change display modes while in playback mode. When the camera focus display mode shows up, the image is clearly sharpened.

I decided to compare stock pictures from both the G2 and 4500... What I found was surprising. Given the praise for the Nikons in general, I was appalled at the "softness" of the Nikon images. Given what my stock photos revealed, I don't think the scoptronics is at fault here.
<snip>
It may not be apparent, but the Canon kicks the Nikon out of the park. I am saddened, as I feel the Nikon is an inferior optical product... Are there any other 'scopers out there with sad Nikon stories... Or do I have a quality control lemon!!

There are certainly differences between various cameras of the same megapixel rating and sensor size. But I think these differences in practical use are typically pretty insignificant and that upon exploration come down largely to small differences between lenses at various apertures and focal lengths and differences in in-camera processing and exposure.

There is a major problem with posting images intended to show camera differences when the images have been resized. and then further compressed with a medium quality (or worse) JPEG compression pass. A lot of information is lost. But I did take a critical look at your test images and I noted the following.
1) They magnification is slightly different. The left image (presumabely the G2 image) is slightly more magnified.
2) They appear to be taken at different focal lengths and camera to subject distances. The rock and other objects in front of the books have a different perspective. It makes me wonder if the cameras were on a tripod and what the shutter speeds were.
3) The Nikon image (right image?) is underexposed and slightly yellow cast. Take a look at the histograms.
4) Both images show that they have been sharpened. I don't know how the Canon works, but by setting the Nikon sharpening to "auto", you have no really good idea how much sharpening was actually applied. The subject shows a lot of fine contrasty detail. The camera may very well have use rather low amounts of sharpening. I don't see how settings of "Image Adjustment Normal" and "Image Sharpening Auto" qualifies as "additional". The Canon image seems to have had more sharpening applied to it than was applied to the Nikon image. But then its hard to be sure if that is an artifact of JPEG compression or the brighter exposure.

I can adjust the Nikon image and improve it, but considering that it appears to have been resized once and definitely compressed a second time, such a manipulation is doomed to inferior results.

I strongly suspect that if the exposures were actually matched and the cameras were placed on a tripod at the same distance using the same focal length and f-stop, that the differences would begin to diminsh. Of course, you'll need to do tests through a wide range of settings. Lens performance varies with zoom length. If you went further and explored what kind of sharpening is happening at which manual sharpening settings, the differences would narrow even more. And if you take it to the final phase of modifying the images in Photoshop and printing them or resizing them for the web, that any differences that still exist would become small to the point of irrelevance.

On a final note, I'm pretty sure that any digiscoping scheme will yield even softer results. You'll need to learn how to fine tune digiscoped images in Photoshop or some similar program to get the most out of the captured image. So practicing with images from the camera and no scope isn't a bad idea.

 

[mkoreiwo]

Jay,

You're right; I'm guilty of not providing identical pics. But they focal lengths were very close, as was the distances to subject. When i did this, I was just keyed up about what I felt was a Nikon problem, and wasn't being the proper scientist. ( I also did not know how to get that info prior to shooting - is it possible?) As for the processing, these are indeed crops of a much larger image, and I was aware they may not show off what I see on my pc.

The in camera adjustments on the Canon were left "stock" no boosting of sharpness, contrast, etc. they were left in the centered notch. (That's how canon does it in the G2) I presume this to be "no additional" processing - though who knows....

Your critique is excellent. I do plan a series for my own comparison at home - trying to show this on the net without my own website to plop the full size images is not worth it. I truly don't mind whatever the cameras do with the images, as long as they come out sharp! My general feelings are due to my past experiences with my Canon's. The Nikon seems to be of lower photographic quality. Had I not used the G2 for so long, I would not know the difference.

Thanks again Jay! I have captured a few salvagable images (Great Egret, mockingbird, and am still working on those Osprey). I've never used photoshop extensively, nor Jasc Paintshop pro, except for minor tweeks. I guess I'll be spending more time at the computer -- but if it means I could print and frame an 8 x 10, I'm game!

 

[Jay Turberville]

Based on your description, I would assume that setting the Nikon to Normal contrast and Normal sharpening would be roughly equivalent to the G2's center notch setting. A center notch implies that less processing could be done.

If you do that and verify the exposures in camera with the histogram function, I think you'll find the gap gets closed a bit. It probably won't get closed completely though. The Canon G2 gets the highest marks from Dpreview.com. But it is my opinion that the differences are minor when it comes to printing images, but opinions probably differ there. Its easy enough to test with your own eyes though.

I run my own webserver on a PC in my closet over our DSL line. I have tons of space. I'm usually willing to store images for people doing tests and evaluations like this who want to share the results with others in the community.

BTW, you can download MTF/resolution charts to print and use at www.normankoren.com. That site provides a wealth of information on photography and the issues related to hight image quality.

 

[mickporter]

I agree with the above. I think its your camera settings that may be at fault.

I had no end of trouble when I began digiscoping with camera shake and focusing. Most of my troubles came from a cheap scope, but also from the settings. The 4500 has far more user settings than most other cameras I have used. I found that tweaking one of them made a massive difference to my results.

After all that said, I still probably only achieve a 1 in 10 decent shot!! Its not just a case of pointing and clicking......

Bye the way Scampo I also enjoy your choice of reading, but was dissapointed to note there was no McGough or Larkin on there.