The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

APS-C sensor compact by Nikon

Rawfa

Active member
D´oh! I´ve just realized they also updated their smaller compact so I ended up mixing the info. I´ve only now realized that it has a fixed 28mm.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Anyway, I am absolutely disappointed with the battery life - just around 250 shots - and that without any EVF.

Why could they not take the battery of the V1/D7000/D800 and just make the camera a tiny bit bigger and give it 800 shots? Why do we have today a stupid competition in making cameras even smaller than they need to be and sacrificing practical things by that?

Or why not at least make it 2/28 ???? Or why not have that ring around the lens assigned as f-stop ring????

I am mildly disappointed at least - just another me too expensive P&S
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Or why not look to the success that Fuji has with the X100, at the same price, a faster lens (that doesn't retract because it doesn't need to) and a viewfinder, a hybrid one at that. But I guess it will sell to those who think that there's only Nikon and Canon and nothing else.

Oh well... small digital cameras were never Nikon's strong side.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Or why not look to the success that Fuji has with the X100, at the same price, a faster lens (that doesn't retract because it doesn't need to) and a viewfinder, a hybrid one at that. But I guess it will sell to those who think that there's only Nikon and Canon and nothing else.

Oh well... small digital cameras were never Nikon's strong side.
Indeed I would have long ago went Fuji, if there would have been decent RAW support. As this was not the case (and I think still is problematic) Fuji is just dead for me and I keep no longer looking!

I think my solution will be the new Leica M with my 2/35 or 2/28 and I am done and have a very compact and light weight camera too.
 

Tim

Active member
Anyway, I am absolutely disappointed with the battery life - just around 250 shots - and that without any EVF.

Why could they not take the battery of the V1/D7000/D800 and just make the camera a tiny bit bigger and give it 800 shots?
you have to be kidding, :eek: I used to get around with an OM4 or Contax T2 with a 36 roll in the camera and one spare in my pocket, 72 frames all up. Clearly one design criteria is that this is compact and some things HAVE to be sacrificed to make a camera small, in this case power is a design choice they made. However personally I find 250 images over 72 no sacrifice. If anyone thinks its easy, why not engineer your own camera and lets see your 800 shot wonder.

Personally I don't see the X100 as any "competitor" to this camera, different focal length and a big physical size difference. This Nikon could possibly fit in a shirt pocket the X100 barely goes in a large coat pocket
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
you have to be kidding, :eek: I used to get around with an OM4 or Contax T2 with a 36 roll in the camera and one spare in my pocket, 72 frames all up. Clearly one design criteria is that this is compact and some things HAVE to be sacrificed to make a camera small, in this case power is a design choice they made. However personally I find 250 images over 72 no sacrifice. If anyone thinks its easy, why not engineer your own camera and lets see your 800 shot wonder.

Personally I don't see the X100 as any "competitor" to this camera, different focal length and a big physical size difference. This Nikon could possibly fit in a shirt pocket the X100 barely goes in a large coat pocket
But we are no longer in OM4 / T2 times. BTW I shot OM2 and OM4, while OM2 battery life was great (maybe 2 years and many thousand shots) OM4 just sucked as it did even consume power if camera was in quiet mode and there was no power off as on OM2 - finally made me sell it pretty quick).

You are right, 250 shots is quite ok in terms of old world shooting, but they claim the A behaves like a DSLR with 4fps and continuous shooting - so if you start using like that then you can do the math yourself how fast you need to recharge or a second battery. Plus usually 250 shots are much less also in normal operation, as there is LCD viewing, changing settings etc etc. - most times for me results in 150-200 shots.

Even Leica X2 can do better than this and I consider the A as direct competitor to X2 for example.

Plus a bit more size (thickness) I would at least have liked much better. I am done with too small cameras. If I need really small I take my iPhone, which BTW I do carry always with me.

Times are changing ....
 

Tim

Active member
But we are no longer in OM4 / T2 times. BTW I shot OM2 and OM4, while OM2 battery life was great (maybe 2 years and many thousand shots) OM4 just sucked as it did even consume power if camera was in quiet mode and there was no power off as on OM2 - finally made me sell it pretty quick).

You are right, 250 shots is quite ok in terms of old world shooting, but they claim the A behaves like a DSLR with 4fps and continuous shooting - so if you start using like that then you can do the math yourself how fast you need to recharge or a second battery. Plus usually 250 shots are much less also in normal operation, as there is LCD viewing, changing settings etc etc. - most times for me results in 150-200 shots.

Even Leica X2 can do better than this and I consider the A as direct competitor to X2 for example.

Plus a bit more size (thickness) I would at least have liked much better. I am done with too small cameras. If I need really small I take my iPhone, which BTW I do carry always with me.

Times are changing ....
Its still 7 times more frames than the OM4 (film) days. So I think the times HAVE already changed enough. Its easy to sit and demand more when you don't have to design it and make it work. I am sure Nikon would have done more if it was that easy - the design criteria for this camera was to keep it small, you can't have it all. Anyway, I often read of users carrying spare batteries even though I don't need to. Problem solved.

You don't want a thicker camera but the iPhone which is probably 1/3 as thick as this camera is ok? huh?

I don't compare it to the X2? Different focal lengths.
 

Tim

Active member
Are you getting one, Tim?
Likely I'm not getting a Nikon A but I would not rule it out. At this point I am waiting to see if these Internet rumors of an APS-C Ricoh GRD is true. I would tend to stay with the Ricoh as I have had all 4 models of GRD and know them better.

If no GRD V ever surfaced the Nikon would be high on my list. I'd like to see if issues like shutter lag and IQ are good first.

I just believe designing a small device like this must be tough and if I sound defensive of it is because I believe these cameras are often design compromises. I think we are lucky to have manufacturers make them. Many have wanted such designs for years.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Ok, ok... I have to admit that it's smaller than I imagined. Much smaller. With the low light capabilities of a DX sensor, I wouldn't worry too much about f/2.8. A larger aperture would obviously have made it larger. If they make a trio, like Sigma has done, it could actually be an interesting travel orchestra. Actually, I would do nicely with just two, a 28 and an 85mm eqv. :)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Its still 7 times more frames than the OM4 (film) days. So I think the times HAVE already changed enough. Its easy to sit and demand more when you don't have to design it and make it work. I am sure Nikon would have done more if it was that easy - the design criteria for this camera was to keep it small, you can't have it all. Anyway, I often read of users carrying spare batteries even though I don't need to. Problem solved.

You don't want a thicker camera but the iPhone which is probably 1/3 as thick as this camera is ok? huh?

I don't compare it to the X2? Different focal lengths.
Well, your opinion versus mine, be it - I could not care less!

Wish you good luck in finding the right camera for your needs, maybe Coolpix A

Best regards

Peter
 

JSRockit

New member
You are right, 250 shots is quite ok in terms of old world shooting, but they claim the A behaves like a DSLR with 4fps and continuous shooting - so if you start using like that then you can do the math yourself how fast you need to recharge or a second battery. Plus usually 250 shots are much less also in normal operation, as there is LCD viewing, changing settings etc etc. - most times for me results in 150-200 shots....
Is someone really going to go out and machine gun 250 shots with a small 28mm compact?
 

vieri

Well-known member
I think it might have a market, however the spec are a bit "me too (too little, too late)" compared to what is its real competition (meaning, compact, fixed focal around 28-35mm, large sensor, around $1.000 US):

- Fuji X100s, faster lens (though a bit longer) and a viewfinder;
- Sigma DP1 Merrill, Foveon sensor (whether you like to deal with its limitations or not, the detail it produces are incredible)
- Leica X2, longer but not faster lens, quite a bit more expensive;
- Sony RX-1, larger sensor, faster lens (though a bit longer), however in a completely different price league (3x);

I was interested to see what Landscape / Fine Art photography applications there might be for such new, high-spec'd compact cameras - to see if there are viable alternative to lugging tons of equipment around - and I ended up writing an article on my blog (see it HERE if interested). My conclusions are that there is hope - even if we are not yet exactly there, Sigma DPx Merrills and the Sony RX-1 are very interesting propositions. If you shoot street, the Fuji X100s and the Leica are appealing as well, while for Landscape / Fine Art they are a bit under spec'd on some spec or the other.

By the way, what for me are the most interesting of the bunch for my application, the Sigmas, have an abysmally low battery life and yet I find them very usable (though carrying 5-6 extra batteries! :D )
 

JSRockit

New member
I think it might have a market, however the spec are a bit "me too (too little, too late)" compared to what is its real competition (meaning, compact, fixed focal around 28-35mm, large sensor, around $1.000 US):

- Fuji X100s, faster lens (though a bit longer) and a viewfinder;
- Sigma DP1 Merrill, Foveon sensor (whether you like to deal with its limitations or not, the detail it produces are incredible)
- Leica X2, longer but not faster lens, quite a bit more expensive;
- Sony RX-1, larger sensor, faster lens (though a bit longer), however in a completely different price league (3x);
The Nikon is smaller than all of those and that is its strong point. This Nikon will sell for $800 or so in a few months. Also, all of the otheres (besides the Sigma) are more expensive. The bottom line with a Coolpix A is you either value its small size or you won't get it.
 

vieri

Well-known member
The Nikon is smaller than all of those and that is its strong point. This Nikon will sell for $800 or so in a few months. Also, all of the otheres (besides the Sigma) are more expensive. The bottom line with a Coolpix A is you either value its small size or you won't get it.
True, in the end it will all boil down (as always) to user requirements / priorities. Users who value size the most will make different decisions than users who value image detail, or a viewfinder, and so on. I.e. if you value battery life or video, the Sigmas are out before even starting :D
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
The Nikon Coolpix A has 2 things I do not like:

1) it is too small again

2) it has no EVF built in

1) could have easily been solved with 2)
 
Top