One major disadvantage to the Cool pix 995 is the use of an external flash sensor (external to the lens). This can cause some major headaches when taking micro shots. I did not notice in the review if it had TT metering or this silly external light sensor...
I hope the production model has screw threads for filters, and the TTL pins work on the hot shoe. If so, the 5000 will be my first digicam, replacing film-based Nikons, and augmenting my Coolscan. I was expecting a $2k camera (looking like an E-10), but the 5000 seems to be an excellent value...
Any idea why they redesigned the body. I was expecting something similar to the traditional coolpix design. This new camera looks alot like the Olympus cameras. How much is this camera?..
What kind of review is this? Conclusion: "Sorry, no conclusion yet." Sample images: "Sorry, no images." But, gee whiz, it sure *sounds* like a good camera! Cripes, get on the ball. Don't offer a "review" of something if you don't have anything to review. What a letdown. Completely blows any credibility for the site. Bah. Waste of time...
Kelso - Sorry you feel that way, but thanks very much for the feedback regardless. We put up "first look" things like that because a lot of people are interested in what sort of features are in the camera, how it generally operates, etc. We actually posted *vastly* more information on it than any other site offering a "First Look" review of the CP5000. Obviously though, we can't draw any sort of a conclusion about the camera until we get one that we can evaluate the photos from. Based on what we saw, we liked the design and user interface, but weren't about to come out and say "this is a great camera" when for all we know the photos might be lousy. (While we weren't allowed by Nikon to publish photos from it, they look generally OK, but I'm not about to stick my neck out in that regard until we see a final model.) Maybe the problem is terminology - Perhaps we should just call it something like a "First Look Preview", rather than a "Review", since that's much more what it is.
What do you think? Would that sort of billing have set more reasonable expectations? BTW, I don't see how it affects our credibility, I'd have actually thought it would be the opposite: I presented in great detail what I saw, how the camera operates, what sort of features it has, etc. I very deliberately refrained from making comments in areas that were subject to change or not in final form. If I'd gone ahead and made such comments, I'd understand your upset, but actually would think you'd be happier with the restrained and more carefully accurate reportage. I think perhaps billing it as a *preview* would meet your objections, but let me know...
Dave, I cannot figure out what you are sorry about : your site is excellent and your reviews impressively detailled. Besides, I was dying for information about the 5 megapixel Nikon to come, since I am planning to replace my aging CP 950 : I was delighted with this first look at the new camera. It beats me how some people can be ungrateful and excessive in their comments... Talking about the Coolpix 5K, my first reaction was : "damn, it is ugly !" The loss of the split body and it's clever swiveling lens is a major disappointment to me. What Nikon did is simply replace a splendidly efficient concept with a clumsy lcd monitor that protrudes akwardly outside of the camera. It is not convenient at all and cannot be presented as an improvement, in my opinion.
Even worse, this ugly camera is going to be VERY expensive, especially in Europe. Then, since I don't like the design of the CP 5K and I definitely don't need a 5 megapixel camera, I am going to buy the Nikon CP 995 (I just hope it won't be discontinued too soon !) My renewed thanks for your site, Dave, and the useful information it provides us with. Keep up the good work !..
Wonder why? wonder why Nikon used a slower lens (f/2.8) instead of teh faster lenses used by Sony (DSCS85 / 707), Canon (G2), Olympus (4040) etc. Given the ability of CCDs they need faster lenses to work in normal - low light fortunately some of this flaw might be compensated by using ISO 800 mode. Things I like about the Sony/Olympus/Canon that the Nikon has not addressed:.
Battery indicator (number of shots left).
Faster lens (esp Oly at f/1.8).
ISO 50 (Canon).
Price (S85 is a lot cheaper) Regards.
Dave, I am also very great full for your site, it has helped me a lot in learning about digital cameras. I am not a professional by any means in the field of photography, however when I do buy anything I normal like to save up and buy the best for buck value. I hope that it will be worth my while to wait for the Cool pix 5000, as I was about to go and buy the Canon G2. However I am a fan of Nikon and decided to wait, never the less I hated the body of the 995 and the 990. Well thanks again.
I'm actually considering buying this pig, considering it's great mix of features, but MAN oh man is it ever ugly! It's not just sorta unattractiveit's oogly, fugly, coyote-ville! It looks like something a star trek fan would doodle. The guy who designed this thing must have struggled to get C's in design school. Basic complaint: it's essentially inelegantly shaped and awkward-looking. Now, this is fine, because form should follow function and if it's made to feel good in the hand and operate well, and it does, then who can complain? But if you've got a basically ugly shape that looks like a darn lump compared to the competition (G2), you don't HIGHLIGHT that fact by smattering garish George Jetson accents at random across the thing! Basic black would have done the trick for me. Get real, Nikon. HIRE A DESIGNER.
Like I say, I might still buy it. It might improve my candid photographybecause I'll be so eager to keep it out of sight! <g> Mike..
Coolpix 5000 looks promising.
1) when will Imaging resource get a production model to evaluate.
2) when do we expect these to be in stores in the US? 3) This site is awesome...
I don't understand why Nikon abandoned the swivel camera (which I need) and replaced it with a swivelling LCD (which I don't need). Why can you only go to 1/2000 sec. in shutter priority yet in auto or aperture priority you can go to 1/4000 sec.? That does not make sense to me. ISO 800 is nice but why not ISO 50 as well. Why does the zoom stay at 3x? I would have preferred increasing the zoom rather than another 2 million pixels. How much is an extra rechargeable battery to cost? And what do those of us do with our two sets of NMh batteries and charger? Overall, it seems like a nice camera (I really like the 3 fps in action mode) but I question how many 990 owners will rush out to make the upgrade. There are just not enough significant upgrades to justify the expense...
Can someone help me understand the faster lens discussion ie why is a f1.8 faster than and f2.8 and what is the benefit of a faster lens?..