coolpix 5700
- Thread starter reefNewbie
- Start date
I can recommend the 5700. But to be fair, most of the prosumer cameras available nowadays are very very capable of resolving good images with good colors. Others to consider include Canon G3, Olympus E-20, Sony 717, and Minoltas Dimage 7hi.
I am personaly inclined towards the E-20 if size is not an issue, and G3 if price is an issue. Nikon prosumer/consumer cameras, IME, have too long a shutter lag that really makes certain types of shots (e.g. moving fish) very difficult.
I am personaly inclined towards the E-20 if size is not an issue, and G3 if price is an issue. Nikon prosumer/consumer cameras, IME, have too long a shutter lag that really makes certain types of shots (e.g. moving fish) very difficult.
reefNewbie":1jjl8l74 said:
I spent an evening using one and, frankly, I couldn't get it to focus on macro shots for crap. It never focused where I wanted it to. Manual focusing was nowhere near intuitive either. To be fair, I have not played with a digital camera that has decent focus though.
It is a decent camera, a little slow to take shots though.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
For Macros, Nikon 4500 is a terrific camera. Nikon's 900 series and 4500 is legendary for this type of photography. Unfortunately, one camera can't do it all, and these Nikons aren't great for fish photography (long shutter lag). The Olympus E-20 is probably the best choice in the regards, unless you go with a full blown digital SLR. The E-20 ain't shabby with macros either, but accessory lenses are needed for best results.
Every camera has its pluses and minuses, but none of them is a do-everything camera. But good news is they are all very capable. I left out the Olympus 5050 as well .... another good choice to pick from.
Obviously, the best choice is a digital SLR. They are expensive, however .... about 2x the cost of any of these cameras (once you factor in lenses).
Every camera has its pluses and minuses, but none of them is a do-everything camera. But good news is they are all very capable. I left out the Olympus 5050 as well .... another good choice to pick from.
Obviously, the best choice is a digital SLR. They are expensive, however .... about 2x the cost of any of these cameras (once you factor in lenses).
I have both the 4500 and the 5700. Look up some of my other posts for all my opinions on which digicams are good and which are not. I have personal experience with many of them. I use the 5700 because it is the best digicam on the market, just short of the SLR body ones. The 4500 is the best macro camera made. Hands down, bar none. It has a focal length that blows away all the rest, and enough light sensitivity so it doesnt need flash for every macro you take of a fish tank. I disagree with Len however... The e20 is an old overpriced piece of crap that actually has a minimum focus of almost a foot...bad for macros. The minolta 7 series has also sucked in this respect. I tried with a 7i for a long time. The sony 717 is a good one, as sony cams seem to be very light sensitive...i.e. minimal flash use, even without the nightshot on. The sonys do use sonar for focusing...so it wont work on an aquarium...keep in mind many cameras wont...but my nikons are able to focus through the glass!!! I dont have alot of experience with the Canons. I hear good things, but I just cant believe that the point&shoot body that Canon uses on all their digicams is the best possible, nor can I understand their sometimes lofty pricetags. The 5050 isnt a bad choice, but I remember their being a problem with it...hmmmm, cant remember, maybe focal length. I dont have the 'photo lag' problems that so many speak of. (I know how to use the camera!!) I take pics all the time of danios and fast moving peacocks, with flash, and they turn out awesome. If I had to pick the best macro, the 4500 would be it. Right now it goes for almost $600 retail, but has a $200 rebate...so $400 for a camera that beats the crap out of cameras costing twice as much!!
Attachments
Sure, the 4500 can take many of the same shots that the 5700 can. The differances are as follows: 5700 has 1 more megapixel (not too big a deal), and a higher zoom, which I needed for the cameras origional application, but many do not (8x vs 4x). The 5700 has more manual overrides and customizable settings (I might use these 5% of the time if that). But because of the 4500s lower focal length (zoom), it actually takes better macros than the 5700. Beyond that , I havent experienced any differences.
I used the 5700 for an entire day + a small photo shoot a week later, taking photos of Motocross riders for work. It was on the auto mode for every picture. The photos during the day were amazing. Color, clarity, all perfect.
But.....when the sun started to go down, the flash needed to be used for the camera to autofocus. It was still pretty bright outside, most cameras wouldn't need flash at this point. And unfortunately, the flash is the camera's weakest feature. Focusing rarely occured properly in these low-lit conditions, even when the subject was center-frame. All subjects were no further than 12ft away. Little known to me at the time, the camera's effective flash range is about 9 feet when zoomed in full telephoto. That is extremely pathetic. The camera would focus on objects in the background. To make matters a little worse, it seems to have similar problems if your subject is standing in the shade and the background is brighter than the subject. It wants to focus on the bright background.
I'm sure if I knew how to play with the different autofocus modes, I could've fixed the problem to a large degree. I wasn't very familiar with the camera at the time. However, most of the high-end digicams out there work fine in these conditions with their default settings.
Here's examples of a 5700. The first shot is near sunset, the second shot is a bright day with the subject standing in the shade of a tree. The first shot is using the flash, zoomed in from about 10 feet away. The second shot is not using a flash, zoomed in from about the same distance.
After using this camera a bit, I decided it wasn't for me. I had an old Olympus D-600L that had low-light autofocusing problems and it drove me mad. The 8X optical zoom on the 5700 was awesome, but if I couldn't use it in low-light conditions from a decent range, I didn't see the point. There are other issues that kept me from buying it. It has a pretty slow save-to-card time, which was driving me nuts when using it. Expect to wait some time in-between shots at full resolution. Also, I really like cameras that accept standard AA batteries. NiMH rechargeables are dirt-cheap, and in a pinch you can just throw regular batteries in. The 5700 uses a proprietary battery from Nikon, and will run you about $25 for a spare.
When I read about the Olympus C-5050Z, it seemed like everything I have ever wanted in a digital camera, except it only had a 3X optical zoom. After reading reviews all over the web and looking at the digicam article in Consumer Reports, it started to become obvious this was the camera for me. Being $300 less than the 5700 didn't hurt either. Anyhow, the big deal-clincher that convinced me to finally go out and spend the cash was the fact that Olympus makes an underwater housing for this camera for $200. I love to take photos of my SCUBA trips, but the only thing I had was a Sealife Reefmaster camera. After having owned the camera for about two weeks now, I can honestly say its amazing. Color and clarity are on-par with the 5700, and it has amazing low-light focusing.
For anyone looking at 5MP digicams, be sure to check out other options besides the Nikon 5700. Just because it's the most expensive consumer camera out there at the moment, it doesn't necessarily mean its the best at everything. Sorry if I sound like a commercial here, I just though my experience researching and using 5MP digicams may come in handy to someone.
But.....when the sun started to go down, the flash needed to be used for the camera to autofocus. It was still pretty bright outside, most cameras wouldn't need flash at this point. And unfortunately, the flash is the camera's weakest feature. Focusing rarely occured properly in these low-lit conditions, even when the subject was center-frame. All subjects were no further than 12ft away. Little known to me at the time, the camera's effective flash range is about 9 feet when zoomed in full telephoto. That is extremely pathetic. The camera would focus on objects in the background. To make matters a little worse, it seems to have similar problems if your subject is standing in the shade and the background is brighter than the subject. It wants to focus on the bright background.
I'm sure if I knew how to play with the different autofocus modes, I could've fixed the problem to a large degree. I wasn't very familiar with the camera at the time. However, most of the high-end digicams out there work fine in these conditions with their default settings.
Here's examples of a 5700. The first shot is near sunset, the second shot is a bright day with the subject standing in the shade of a tree. The first shot is using the flash, zoomed in from about 10 feet away. The second shot is not using a flash, zoomed in from about the same distance.
After using this camera a bit, I decided it wasn't for me. I had an old Olympus D-600L that had low-light autofocusing problems and it drove me mad. The 8X optical zoom on the 5700 was awesome, but if I couldn't use it in low-light conditions from a decent range, I didn't see the point. There are other issues that kept me from buying it. It has a pretty slow save-to-card time, which was driving me nuts when using it. Expect to wait some time in-between shots at full resolution. Also, I really like cameras that accept standard AA batteries. NiMH rechargeables are dirt-cheap, and in a pinch you can just throw regular batteries in. The 5700 uses a proprietary battery from Nikon, and will run you about $25 for a spare.
When I read about the Olympus C-5050Z, it seemed like everything I have ever wanted in a digital camera, except it only had a 3X optical zoom. After reading reviews all over the web and looking at the digicam article in Consumer Reports, it started to become obvious this was the camera for me. Being $300 less than the 5700 didn't hurt either. Anyhow, the big deal-clincher that convinced me to finally go out and spend the cash was the fact that Olympus makes an underwater housing for this camera for $200. I love to take photos of my SCUBA trips, but the only thing I had was a Sealife Reefmaster camera. After having owned the camera for about two weeks now, I can honestly say its amazing. Color and clarity are on-par with the 5700, and it has amazing low-light focusing.
For anyone looking at 5MP digicams, be sure to check out other options besides the Nikon 5700. Just because it's the most expensive consumer camera out there at the moment, it doesn't necessarily mean its the best at everything. Sorry if I sound like a commercial here, I just though my experience researching and using 5MP digicams may come in handy to someone.
Attachments
I would have to agree with most of the posts made here. I work at a computer store and we also sell Digital Camera's so i get to play with them all but never master one 
. I have used both the 5700 and 4500 personaly I would look at the Canon G3 or the new G5 for your uses but the macro is not as good. There is not a camera with a better macro then the Nikon 4500! The reason that I would look to the Canon's is that I just find that they give a sharper photo with less noise every time! I do think that is has a fair bit to do with the DIG!C proccessing unit that is built into every current Canon Camera.
Well I am no pro but that is my experiance.
PS I have a S400 at home right now and I will up load some pictures tomorow if I get a good one. Also I am really pumped as I get to play with a Canon 10d at a shoot tomorow!
. I have used both the 5700 and 4500 personaly I would look at the Canon G3 or the new G5 for your uses but the macro is not as good. There is not a camera with a better macro then the Nikon 4500! The reason that I would look to the Canon's is that I just find that they give a sharper photo with less noise every time! I do think that is has a fair bit to do with the DIG!C proccessing unit that is built into every current Canon Camera.Well I am no pro but that is my experiance.
PS I have a S400 at home right now and I will up load some pictures tomorow if I get a good one. Also I am really pumped as I get to play with a Canon 10d at a shoot tomorow!
Sure thing. Keep in mind this is a reduced-size version. I can email you the 5MP version if you like.
This is with no filters or any special settings other than noise reduction enabled. It's a shot of a couple of cars in the parking lot at my office. The reds on the MR2 are accurate, that's my car and I rarely wash it. The shot was taken at about 20ft at about 1.5x zoom.
The first shot is reduced to 640x480 from 5MP. The second image is a cropped 640x480 piece of the full 5MP shot so you can see the level of detail. I actually took this shot with the 5700 as well. I'll try and dig that up and post it. The one thing I noticed about the 5700 after comparing it to the 5050Z was it tends to blur colors together and oversaturates reds. The 5700 lost much of the detail in the cement and concrete of the parking lot.
This is with no filters or any special settings other than noise reduction enabled. It's a shot of a couple of cars in the parking lot at my office. The reds on the MR2 are accurate, that's my car and I rarely wash it.
The shot was taken at about 20ft at about 1.5x zoom.The first shot is reduced to 640x480 from 5MP. The second image is a cropped 640x480 piece of the full 5MP shot so you can see the level of detail. I actually took this shot with the 5700 as well. I'll try and dig that up and post it. The one thing I noticed about the 5700 after comparing it to the 5050Z was it tends to blur colors together and oversaturates reds. The 5700 lost much of the detail in the cement and concrete of the parking lot.
Attachments
Ranger":z53ikrqc said:
Chris, have you looked at the Minolta DiMage 7i? It's the camera I'm shooting now and is awesome. It's still listed (I believe) for retail at around $1100, but if you look around online you can find it as low as $580 (because the next model, the 7hi just came out).
Let me know if you want more details about it.
-John
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
