Coolpix 4500's mediocre macro performance
According to Dave's review: " Its minimum macro coverage area is 2.0 x 1.5 inches, or 51.1 x 38.4 mm." This is awful! The 995's minimum coverage is 15 x 11 mm! Did Dave make a mistake in his review? If not, the old 995 is more than three times better than the new one! So much for progress:-( This is really disappointing. I was hoping for something better, but now I am stuck with the 995. Nothing else on the market is better for macro work afaik. Luis Nadeau..

Comments (5)

Think he made a mistake. cuz the lens on coolpix995 and coolpix4500 are supposed to be the same and it's written in the specs that coolpix4500 can take macros as near as 2 cm in front of the object. there's another intersting preview at

Comment #1

The site confirms that the lens had to be redesigned to accomodate a smaller body. If Dave's review is exact, this means this camera won't even be able to copy slides (24 x 36mm) since the smallest it can capture is 38.4 x 51.1 mm...

Comment #2

Ok... so i've taken a close look at the numbers and figures.

The zooming power of 4500 seemed to be a lil more powerful than 995.

But the macro power should be about the same.....

Comment #3

At imaging-resource, the previewer thinks that 995 and 4500 have the same lens....... so it's not true, is it?..

Comment #4

Erk! That's a Dave-goof of some sort! Not sure how I ended up with such an error on the macro coverage. - My helper may not have had the camera lens in it's best position for macro shooting, or we may have been fooled by an incorrect minimum focusing distance in the draft manual we got. At any rate, it does in fact focus quite a bit closer. I'll retest this when I get a production model to shoot my actual test images with, but meanwhile I did a quickie test today, with the following results. (Excerpted from the corrected review):.

Macro fans will be pleased to learn that the 4500 is every bit a Coolpix in that category: Its minimum macro coverage area is approximately 0.63 x 0.47 inches, or16 x 12 mm. (I'll double-check this number when I shot the actual macro test shots with a production model.).

Thanks for calling my attention to this, apologies for the error! (As to the lens, it *looks* the same, but the specs are subtly different: The 4500 is labeled 7.85-32mm, whereas the 995 said 8-32mm. Same f-stop range, so I think they're actually pretty close.....

Comment #5

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.

This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.


Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |


(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.