No text



Edited by Chipouille on Jul 09, 2008 at 08:38 AM GMT

looks very nice, wonder what the picture quality will be like and how slow in raw mode. how big/ small is 1/1.7 for the chip?

No text

Edited by Chipouille on Jul 09, 2008 at 08:37 AM GMT

If it had half as many pixels I'd be interested but frankly 14MP in a compact is ludicrous.
There are so many bad compacts out there it's not funny. The first one made with good noise performance at say ISO800 with 28mm equiv lens and no purple fringing (aha - that counts out the Fuji ), then I'm buying it.
I'm not holding my breath, and with 14MP, I don't think it's going to be this one!

what matters most IMHO is how well/good it performs at high ISO. If it does well at high ISO, it will be hot and sure will beat the G9.

Up to ISO 6400? That's an indicator for better noise handling if you ask me.

Mike Yam wrote:
Up to ISO 6400? That's an indicator for better noise handling if you ask me.

the d3/d700 are rated to iso 6400 too. i'll still be surprised if 800 is usable.

Ya but those aren't little pocketable cameras. I don't think the P6000 will compare to any DSLR, but the 6400 capability (just the fact that they offer 6400) at least hints at an improvement over other compacts.

Having a high ISO feature is one thing, having a usable high ISO is another. My son bought a Canon something p&s that featured hi ISO but it was far from usable. All it was capable of was satisfying the claim it could shoot high ISO. I loved my Cp8400 but it was a dog speed wise. I wouldn't mind this one if it was fast to turn on and fast to focus.

having RAW is a start. i won't use a P&S without RAW and that is why after it became time to replace the Coolpix 8400, i ended up getting a Leica D Lux 3.

Herb....

Looks like a G9. I like it!

Peeeerfect. Finally a PS camera that shoots raws and can use an SB-800 in a pinch. Optical VR is a nice bonus too!

Screw the D700 I know what I'm getting this holiday season. (here's to hopping it focuses faster than the other Nikon PS cameras.)

If only it were 6 or 7mp

Like the design though...

i hope that it takes the same wide angle lens and ring as the 8400. that would be nice.

Herb...

Richard.P wrote:
If only it were 6 or 7mp

Like the design though...

Make it 4-5MP and I'd get it too. It does look cosmetically like a nice rugged little camera. Cool.

Of all the latest offerings announced by Nikon, this little guy will most likely be the first on my shopping list . . . provided it gets favorable reviews. I sure hope it provides lower noise than the G9 at ISOs up to 800.

Pixel count seems too high to me too . . . I think 8 MP would have been sufficient, but what the hey . . . it's only hard disk space . . . and that continues to get more affordable all the time.

WOW, looks great though after reading reviews of Coolpix 5000 and 5100, I am not too enthusiastic about the IQ. Let's see how the RAW mode is (am a G9 owner in which there is a world of difference between RAW and JPEG). I agree, 13.5mp though a 1/1.7 sensor is ridiculous (to put it politely). But apart from that: wide angle, command dial, RAW, flash hot shoe and the design (I like it) sounds delicious!

Sadly, it has far too many MP. The focal length is 6-24mm so the 24x36mm sensor equivalent would be about 300 megapixels. ISO 6400 would suffer from very heavy NR. Perhaps it has the low-color sensors Kodak was touting last year.

EB

If camera companies would dispell the damn megapixel "myth", we'd see cameras like this, only they'd have 4 MP and decent noise performance. I don't see the need for 13.5 MP in a compact camera at all. To me, a true compact (travel) camera should be physically small and produce small, manageable files... when MPs go up, so does the need for a better computer with more memory and disk space.

Analogy: Its like Microsoft Windows, they keep making it fatter and slower in order to "keep up" with new hardware. They don't understand that a light, efficient OS would be ridiculously fast with current processors and memory.

Wonder if they'd have a smaller file option for RAW. I doubt it, but doesn't Canon have a system that does? It IS possible... I'd love to see a 6-8MP RAW save...

We aren't going to get away from the megapixels no matter how loud we scream. Interestingly, it will use the same chip as is in the Sony W300. That sony is the first Sony in a long time that I've actually liked. They did have some fantastic cameras 3 - 4 years ago.

The W300 takes a rather nice photo which goes against everything we think of with small chip cameras. I will always wish this new Nikon P6000 had the 'old' Fuji F31 chip.

Talking of 13.5mp RAW files, I have a G9 whose 12mp RAW files come pretty close in size. I have been opening them on ACR at (the downsized) 7mp setting and therefore noise is 'acceptable'. But I agree 6 or 7 'native' mp would be ideal for a 1/1.7 sensor.

i duno about the hi mp v's noise argument, meaning they are taking a different approach. i think from looking at images that with the higher pixel density they can give shadow areas more detail and give and image that appeares to have less noise. that sony p&s with the same chip has some very positive feedback.

HerbChong wrote:
having RAW is a start. i won't use a P&S without RAW and that is why after it became time to replace the Coolpix 8400, i ended up getting a Leica D Lux 3.
Herb....

Had one..... talk about noise on the D Lux 3 !!!! I sold it.

I'm sure noise is fine at ISO 50 on the pinky nail size sensors (mostly, anyway). You still can't beat the laws of physics, though. Tiny photosites capture fewer photons in the same amount of time. Even the DSLRs can't get past that. That's why Nikon has hardware noise reduction that can't be turned off on the newest cameras (including D300 which I own and actually like very much).

Gerald