Nikon COOLPIX A - Initial Impressions

On the other hand, I might as well get an EPL5 or EPM2 and put the 14/2.5 on it for a cheaper small big sensor 28mm camera. Faster AF, and not too big of a loss in IQ. Although the "pop" on the Nikon is more appealing to me than that of the OMD + 14/2.5.

Aargh.

I've never quite loved the Panasonic 14mm, although it doesn't help that mine seems to have an inconsistently soft right edge. I think that it might also just be that I'm not a great fan of 28mm prime lenses in general since they rarely seem to offer much over a zoom at 28mm except for smaller size.
 
I've never quite loved the Panasonic 14mm, although it doesn't help that mine seems to have an inconsistently soft right edge. I think that it might also just be that I'm not a great fan of 28mm prime lenses in general since they rarely seem to offer much over a zoom at 28mm except for smaller size.

I'm with ya. I used to carry the Pany 14/2.5 with me when I have my OMD, because it's so small. But I rarely used it. I stopped carrying it when I picked up an Oly 14-150. I started carrying the 14-150 plus the 25/1.4 and 45/1.8. Now it's the 14-150 plus 17/1.8.

The amount of detail from the Nikon A's RAW files are phenomenal. Looks a lot like the Pentax K5iis. Probably not a good reason (by itself) to get one though ...
 
I have not had time to try out the A RAW files in Lightroom as we had a babysitter last night and the wife and I had a chance to go out to dinner. Always more fun than sitting at the computer :D But, tonight I'll take a look at more files.

I'm super happy that there is a very capable 28mm larger sensor compact available! Yes, there is the DP1M, but the way I shoot 28mms the A is far more functional. The GXR A12 28mm is still very good, but the A is better and smaller and colors seem more accurate. I hope to see an APS GRD5 this year.

Ray, I'm with you that 35mm is a little tricky for me; I'm just not used to it yet. If I could only have one all-round camera then it makes sense. But given so many options I'd prefer 28mm and 50mm cameras. However, the RX1 is simply a very good camera and I love using it. I'm going to petition someone/anyone to make a 50mm compact this year too!
 
And I'm not an IQ obsessed shooter, but that kind of horsepower comes in handy for almost any kind of shooting you want to do. As someone once (or twice or 1000 times) said about cars - there's no substitute for horsepower.

-Ray

There is- torque! :tongue:

A few B&W from a walk at Ridley Creek today. Pulled the camera out of my shirt pocket and took some shots when I saw them. This really is kind of a GRD3 or 4 on steroids...

-Ray

Hopefully this gives us a sort of preview of what the GRD V can be. The GXR A12 28mm is like a GRD on steroids, but that includes its physical size and weight too. I am on my second go-around with the GXR 28mm and this time I like it, the first time I think my expectations of 'this is the APS-C Ricoh GR cam' tripped me up.

This Coolpix looks really great though, I love the optical viewfinder on the x100 but if this is both smaller and sharper...
 
Ming's first impressions:
Quick first thoughts: Nikon Coolpix A and Fuji Finepix X20 - Ming Thein

■Focusing isn’t as fast as the X20, or the OM-D I’ve also got with me. It’s about the same as the Ricoh GR-Digital III, I think. But unlike the GRD III, it doesn’t remember the manual focus distance when switched off, nor does the distance scale also have a depth of field scale. These two minor changes would make a HUGE difference to speed – just shoot it zone-focused; an 18mm real focal length is ideal for this. Actually, I could live with just the former…at least the manual focus ring is sensibly geared, though.
■Everything else about the camera is blazing fast – startup time, burst mode, writing, reviewing, menu navigation…
■The bit you’ve been waiting for: image quality is stunningly good; slightly better than the D7000, not quite as good as the D7100. Probably about on par or slightly better than the OM-D. ISO 3200 is not too bad, and ISO 6400 usable in a pinch. The files have lots of latitude and are handled well by the latest versions of ACR.
■The camera really needs VR; on a windy day, 1/50s or higher is required for critically sharp images at 100%.
■I stopped using the VF on the Nikon because you can’t turn off the LCD.
 
IQ is definitely better than OMD. Not just on par or slightly better. IMO.

Maybe splitting hairs, but I wouldn't say more than slightly better. Although some of that is lens dependent with the OMD (the Nikon is a good deal better than the 14mm but maybe not better at all than the 12mm). But the combination of size and silence and generally fine controls is likely to make this my go-to 28mm option for almost any use. After a weekend shooting in NYC where I was really trying to give the RX1 and X100s equal time, the Nikon got the bulk of the use.

-Ray
 
To my eyes, from a noise standpoint, RAW files at 3200 in the OMD require relatively more work to clean it up. On the A, it looks pretty darn good. On the other hand, I recall reading somewhere that Nikon cooks its RAW files. On the Nikon V1 I had for a few weeks, that did seem to be the case. Now that I have a 12mm, I'm not quite confident that it's a whole lot better than the 14mm, like I used to when I didn't have a 12mm. Must be the grass is greener on the other side syndrome!!

Sounds like the A is right up your alley Ray! After, 28mm = Ray Sachs. Or Ray Sachs = 28mm.

Are you using zone focus with the A predominantly for your street work?
 
To my eyes, from a noise standpoint, RAW files at 3200 in the OMD require relatively more work to clean it up. On the A, it looks pretty darn good. On the other hand, I recall reading somewhere that Nikon cooks its RAW files. On the Nikon V1 I had for a few weeks, that did seem to be the case. Now that I have a 12mm, I'm not quite confident that it's a whole lot better than the 14mm, like I used to when I didn't have a 12mm. Must be the grass is greener on the other side syndrome!!

Sounds like the A is right up your alley Ray! After, 28mm = Ray Sachs. Or Ray Sachs = 28mm.

Are you using zone focus with the A predominantly for your street work?


embrace the brouhaha!
i cant think of a time ive ever cleaned up noise
mebbe cause im TERRIBLE at it
wheres my youtube tutorial?! lol

on the other hand, i can think of 234623djwhc0gi3b9713d9170 times ive ADDED noise :D
 
LOL! I'm not huge on having to clean up all noise anymore. Maybe in my younger days.

Texas meet would be great!

embrace the brouhaha!
i cant think of a time ive ever cleaned up noise
mebbe cause im TERRIBLE at it
wheres my youtube tutorial?! lol

on the other hand, i can think of 234623djwhc0gi3b9713d9170 times ive ADDED noise :D
 
Shot a few pictures over the weekend with the Nikon A and the Sony RX1, and overall I prefer the Nikon pictures. That has a lot to do with simply preferring the 28mm focal length, 35mm being not wide or deep enough. Oddly, I just seem to struggle with 35mm. But more than that the lack of an AA filter on the Nikon really improves things, and the colors are more natural than the Sony. Of course, the Nikon is smaller, lighter and more "portable." There is a certain richness to the Sony B&W conversions, though, that I like. But I'm still adjusting my custom B&W profiles for each camera and my favorite RAW conversion app does not yet support the Nikon.

I also shot a few macros with the Ricoh GRD4. For a long time I've said that if I could only have one camera it would be a Ricoh GRD, but that seems to be slowly shifting toward the Nikon A. Still, the GRD4 is more pleasurable to use, though naturally the results aren't as impressive as the A.
 
To my eyes, from a noise standpoint, RAW files at 3200 in the OMD require relatively more work to clean it up. On the A, it looks pretty darn good. On the other hand, I recall reading somewhere that Nikon cooks its RAW files. On the Nikon V1 I had for a few weeks, that did seem to be the case. Now that I have a 12mm, I'm not quite confident that it's a whole lot better than the 14mm, like I used to when I didn't have a 12mm. Must be the grass is greener on the other side syndrome!!

Sounds like the A is right up your alley Ray! After, 28mm = Ray Sachs. Or Ray Sachs = 28mm.

Are you using zone focus with the A predominantly for your street work?

28mm seems to be in my DNA. I want to keep the RX1 but I'm not sure. I don't have any question about the Nikon A. And, yeah, I'm using zone focus somewhere between always and always, even in very low light. I'm working on a bunch of low light street stuff right now. I'd like to have tried more of it with the X100s and RX1 but I wasn't in New York specifically to do photography, we had busy nights planned, and the Nikon fit in my shirt pocket. So I did all of my night time street shooting with it, and a lot of good light street work with it too. Hopefully I'll have some to put up by later this afternoon or tomorrow. Damn I love New York!

The A may require a bit less work to clean up - the noise pattern is nicely tight even approaching 6400. But the OMD isn't far off I don't think. I don't think there's any NR in the Nikon raw files - if there is, they've done an amazing job of not showing any artifacts, or reduction in noise for that matter! And their jpegs look pretty ugly with even the lowest possible amount of NR (set to 'off', but they say they still use some above 1600). In any case, some scary good cameras out there right now.

-Ray
 
Ming Thein has his review up of the Coolpix "A", now, here:

Review: The Nikon Coolpix A – Ming Thein | Photographer

To say he's positive about it would be an understatement. Rather surprising takeaway line: "I think technical image quality of the overall package matches or slightly exceeds that of the Leica M9/ 28/2.8 ASPH or 28/2 ASPH combinations, and far exceeds the Zeiss ZM 2.8/28 Biogon/ M9 combination". He mentions a number of firmware fixes he'd like to see (I've mentioned a few of the same, but he seems to have a bigger issue with some of them than I ended up having), but is overall very impressed.

Now we all wait for the Ricoh GR to compare it to. I find there's something about already KNOWING how much you like a camera that makes it tougher for a new option to beat it out. I was so impressed with the Nikon in use and with the files, that I find myself doubting (for no rational reason at all) that the I'll like the Ricoh as much. It'll probably be at least as good but I've got this Nikon bias working already for no good reason other than I just really dug that camera.

I love his line in his Ricoh GR preview: "It seems that 28mm large sensor compacts are like buses. You wait ages and ages and ages…and suddenly we now have no less than three APS-C options" (including the X100/100s with the wide angle adaptor). No kidding. I couldn't have even dreamed of such a camera a few months ago and now suddenly we've got CHOICES! And by the looks of it, really really GOOD choices. Happy days indeed!

-Ray
 
Now we all wait for the Ricoh GR to compare it to. I find there's something about already KNOWING how much you like a camera that makes it tougher for a new option to beat it out. I was so impressed with the Nikon in use and with the files, that I find myself doubting (for no rational reason at all) that the I'll like the Ricoh as much. It'll probably be at least as good but I've got this Nikon bias working already for no good reason other than I just really dug that camera.

-Ray

I have tried to justify getting the Nikon A even though my pixel peeping of the DPR files lead me to conclude that there's no substantial difference in the Nikon A vs. Ricoh GR files. I think I'm trying to justify getting an A though, because the A is already available RIGHT NOW. Maybe that's a "rational reason" after all -- I don't have to wait another 19 long days until May 15!

But I think I'll ultimately succeed in waiting for the GR. I tell myself $300, $300, $300. Nikon can't be $300 better than the GR! And I tell myself that the UI of the Ricoh should in theory make me happier than the Nikon UI. And the ND filter. And the fact that Ricoh actually issues firmware upgrades when we all start complaining about something. And $300, $300, $300 ...

I'm going to go check out Ming's review now. It'll probably prompt me to put the A in the shopping basket again ...
 
I have tried to justify getting the Nikon A even though my pixel peeping of the DPR files lead me to conclude that there's no substantial difference in the Nikon A vs. Ricoh GR files. I think I'm trying to justify getting an A though, because the A is already available RIGHT NOW. Maybe that's a "rational reason" after all -- I don't have to wait another 19 long days until May 15!

But I think I'll ultimately succeed in waiting for the GR. I tell myself $300, $300, $300. Nikon can't be $300 better than the GR! And I tell myself that the UI of the Ricoh should in theory make me happier than the Nikon UI. And the ND filter. And the fact that Ricoh actually issues firmware upgrades when we all start complaining about something. And $300, $300, $300 ...

I'm going to go check out Ming's review now. It'll probably prompt me to put the A in the shopping basket again ...

Unless you need a camera RIGHT NOW, no reason not to wait. I'm definitely gonna check them out side by side. But I find my bias trending to the Nikon for no good reason at all, but I HAD one, I SHOT with one, I LOVED both the shooting experience and the files it produced. By all measures the Ricoh should be every bit as good in all quantifiable ways and maybe even slightly better in some of the intangibles. But I'm stuck at the moment on the difference between 12 bit vs 14 bit raw files. Now, if I'm being honest, I don't know what the difference between 12 and 14 bit raw files IS and have ZERO idea if there's any actual difference in file quality from them. But 14 MUST be better than 12 right? From the "my amp goes to eleven" school of thought, if nothing else. A bit more DR, a bit less of something. Hell, I don't know if it makes ANY difference, but that's all I can hang onto mentally here.

Ultimately once I have 'em both in my hands, I'm sure the reality of both cameras will come through pretty well unimpeded and I doubt I'll have much trouble making up my mind based on how they feel, how they operate, how workable the files are for what I like to do with them. And I'm not really expecting much difference between them. So, unless I just really prefer the feel and operation of the Nikon by a fair amount (which seems VERY unlikely), I can't see any reason to pick it over the Ricoh. But my gut is pulling me toward the Nikon before I've even seen the Ricoh. Which is stupid.

If I really do prefer the Nikon, I won't worry too much about the $300 - its not like it isn't real money, but once you've splurged on an RX1, $300 starts looking a lot difference in context...

-Ray
 
I love his line in his Ricoh GR preview: "It seems that 28mm large sensor compacts are like buses. You wait ages and ages and ages…and suddenly we now have no less than three APS-C options" (including the X100/100s with the wide angle adaptor). No kidding. I couldn't have even dreamed of such a camera a few months ago and now suddenly we've got CHOICES! And by the looks of it, really really GOOD choices. Happy days indeed!

Someday I hope the 50mm APS compact busses arrive!

Indeed, good choices all around. People complain about this or that camera but if they'd look around there is probably something they'll like.
 
Someday I hope the 50mm APS compact busses arrive!

Indeed, good choices all around. People complain about this or that camera but if they'd look around there is probably something they'll like.

Make it at least a 50/2, and maybe even a 50/1.4. Imagine carrying two small GR like cameras with 28mm and 50mm. Wow ... Would cover just about everything short of birding!

Unfortunately, I can't even think of any fixed lens camera with a 50mm lens. Was there even a film one? I think there was a 40mm Minolta.
 
Back
Top