DSLRUsers.com

finally a competitor to the Canon G9, looks very interesting, even has GPS , raw mode, VR, 13.5 Mpixel, etc

http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php ... 04d9c9c633

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon ... P6000.html

RRP $500USD

radar wrote:finally a competitor to the Canon G9, looks very interesting, even has GPS , raw mode, VR, 13.5 Mpixel, etc

http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php ... 04d9c9c633

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon ... P6000.html

RRP $500USD

Yep, looks good....

Well....Raw mode
.......A potentially controversial feature is the use of a new RAW format, dubbed NRW, based on Microsoft’s WIC specification that was introduced with Windows Vista. So far NRW is incorporated only in the P6000, and can only be processed in-camera. Nikon promises an updated Windows-only version of ViewNX software that will handle NRW files, due in October......

the grip looks nice.
dont really understand the whole windows raw thing. as long as it can be edited in captureNX its ok by me.

... Obsolete ...

It did look like almost the perfect P&S at first glance. However, NRW is a deal breaker for me until a decoder is available on the Mac. Bibble should have it ready before Nikon does Good thing I won't need that P&S till next year

cheers,

André

looks good, but shame about that raw, bring back NEF!!!

Built in GPS for geo-tagging sounds good to me!

BUT I like my little Fujifilm F100fd atm, when I want a P&S I want it to do it all for me, else I would get a D60.

This was looking like a very attractive camera until the detail of not having normal RAW files came out. As for André, that's a deal breaker for me.
I'm surprised to see Nikon investing in Windows-only technology, and especially in tech that's not part of a regular pro workflow. It seems to indicate that they're targetting this at the consumer market and not worrying about the pros.

Canon (with the G9), Ricoh (with the GR Digital, GR Digital II, GX100, and GX200) and Panasonic/Leica (with the LX1/LX2/LX3 and more) have all produced "P&S" cameras which have found a place in many pro photographers' bags. By generating "normal" RAW files, you can process the files from these cameras alongside those from DSLRs: not so for the P6000. That's not to say that the images from these cameras can replace images from top-flight DSLRs/MFDBs, but they can be processed in the same workflow.

I currently use a G9 (with a waterproof housing for summer fun, for heavy storms, and I'm planning to shoot the undersides of icebergs this summer) and it's a camera I almost always have with me. Even when my DSLR's hooked up with telephoto/macro lenses, using the P&S I can capture decent images of other opportunities. The RAW files from the camera get dealt with through the same workflow as the rest of my images (PteroFile/Lightroom/Photoshop for me) without needing special handling. Even if I was using Windows machines it seems that the P6000's files will need special handling.

Of course, as soon as someone writes a NRW->DNG converter all those problems will go away...

surely nikon would not be stupid enough to introduce the p6000 if there wasnt at LEAST a captureNX raw support file on its way very soon. i mean that would just be extraodinary stupidity.

Just wondering if you guys have ever tried the Nikon P series... I have and I did not like them one bit...

DaveB wrote:This was looking like a very attractive camera until the detail of not having normal RAW files came out. As for André, that's a deal breaker for me.
I'm surprised to see Nikon investing in Windows-only technology, and especially in tech that's not part of a regular pro workflow. It seems to indicate that they're targetting this at the consumer market and not worrying about the pros.

Canon (with the G9), Ricoh (with the GR Digital, GR Digital II, GX100, and GX200) and Panasonic/Leica (with the LX1/LX2/LX3 and more) have all produced "P&S" cameras which have found a place in many pro photographers' bags. By generating "normal" RAW files, you can process the files from these cameras alongside those from DSLRs: not so for the P6000. That's not to say that the images from these cameras can replace images from top-flight DSLRs/MFDBs, but they can be processed in the same workflow.

I currently use a G9 (with a waterproof housing for summer fun, for heavy storms, and I'm planning to shoot the undersides of icebergs this summer) and it's a camera I almost always have with me. Even when my DSLR's hooked up with telephoto/macro lenses, using the P&S I can capture decent images of other opportunities. The RAW files from the camera get dealt with through the same workflow as the rest of my images (PteroFile/Lightroom/Photoshop for me) without needing special handling. Even if I was using Windows machines it seems that the P6000's files will need special handling.

Of course, as soon as someone writes a NRW->DNG converter all those problems will go away...

110%

COOLPIX P6000 RRP$749.00 AUD

I like that it's clean in terms of the dials and buttons, unlike the G9 which on first impression was just info overload. Heck I found the D2Xs easier to use with the number of buttons it has

GPS and geo-located images out of the camera is a welcome feature.

Windows based Raw File specification? What were they thinking?

1/1.7" CCD is the same as the G9 so about par for quality P&S. Cramming 13MP in there is pretty mad (G9 also at 12.xMP)



(Sensor Image sizes comparison courtesy of wikipedia)

I think I'll wait. Interesting things happening in the compact camera/large sensor pipeline. The Oly Micro4/3 might just deliver a mini leica, and Sigma might fix the DP1 usability issues with a DP2. In any case, it appears the industry is coming around to increasing the sensor size as well as the megapixels, and that's a good thing.

Michael

I tend to agree with the guys on Engadget who have dubbed the sensor in the P6000 as “patently absurd”

The following is a quote from the Nikon site:

COOLPIX Picture Control NRW (RAW) files can only be processed in-camera. NRW (RAW) files are compatible for use in-camera, with ViewNX (Windows version only, available early October 2008) or with WIC-based applications. Capture NX, Capture NX2 and NEF files are not compatible with NRW (RAW) images.

Grev wrote:Just wondering if you guys have ever tried the Nikon P series... I have and I did not like them one bit...

I have played with the P5100, and the truth of the matter is that I was disappointed with it, that is why I went to the Fuji F100fd (I know it is not in the same range, but it does the job).

At the time I wanted a something that would give me manual control (which I have decided I can live without when shooting with a P&S) but found that nothing suited what I wanted. I looked at the Nikon P5100, Canon G9, Leica D-Lux 3, and the Ricoh GX-100, but none of them seemed to fit what I wanted (I know I am impossible). I ended up looking at spending less and scratching the manual features hence looked at the Nikon S600, Canon IXUS 860IS and the Fuji F100fd.

aim54x wrote:

Grev wrote:Just wondering if you guys have ever tried the Nikon P series... I have and I did not like them one bit...

I have played with the P5100, and the truth of the matter is that I was disappointed with it, that is why I went to the Fuji F100fd (I know it is not in the same range, but it does the job).

At the time I wanted a something that would give me manual control (which I have decided I can live without when shooting with a P&S) but found that nothing suited what I wanted. I looked at the Nikon P5100, Canon G9, Leica D-Lux 3, and the Ricoh GX-100, but none of them seemed to fit what I wanted (I know I am impossible). I ended up looking at spending less and scratching the manual features hence looked at the Nikon S600, Canon IXUS 860IS and the Fuji F100fd.

I do think Nikon is falling behind in the quality of their compacts, Canon on the other hand is making good compacts, but I have seen so many dead sensors coming back that it's not very tempting...

I have a Fuji F40 myself, which feels very nice and takes very nice photos.

The S series are not that bad in the Nikon Compacts, but i think they (canon, nikon, sony) really have to be wary of Panasonic and it's compacts.

Have you seen the S210 vs the IXUS 80IS at 1600 ISO??

we got bored at work one day and grabbed the Canon IXUS80IS, Nikon S210, Olympus FE-220, Fuji Z20fd, Panasonic FS3 and shot them all at 1600 ISO (no flash, same subject) and the results were very interesting. It wasnt the most scientific test as we didnt print the photos but judging from the back LCD on each camera we were very suprised by the top and bottom perfromers of this test.

Care to share the results Aim?

It is only a competitor to the G9 if you use a PC. I have just bought a G9 because these days I am running a Mac.

Glen wrote:Care to share the results Aim?

Well I didnt save the photos (shop cameras spurr of the moment thing) all cameras were set to a manual mode, ISO 1600 with no flash and photo of a black camera in a dark display case (Fuji S100fs for the record)

BUT from worst to best

-Canon IXUS 80IS (huge suprise!, extremely grainy - to the point where it is no longer resembles a photo, wtih some chroma noise)
-Nikon S210 (big suprise, fairly grainy - too grainy to be used still, chroma well controlled)
-Olympus FE-220 (another suprise, grainy - but usable, some chroma noise)
-Fuji Z20fd (fine grain - very usable, almost no chroma noise)
-Panasonic FS3 (fine grain, slight chroma noise, but the sharpest image)

We were pretty suprised that the Canon and the Nikon performed so poorly, especially with the IXUS being the most expensive camera in our test group. The Panasonic was another suprise packet, with Panasonice chips being quite prone to chroma noise (esp) in the past, the Olympus we did not expect much out of, but did a really good job and the Fuji was near the top as expected.

The Panasonic was definately the most usable at 1600ISO with a sharp image with some grain and some chroma, it was the best compromise there, the Fuji and the Olympus were still very usable, with the fuji being virtually free from chroma but a lil soft and the Olympus having a good compromise in both, but not quite as nice as the Panasonic.

It would have been interesting to have played with a sony to see how they stack up but we didnt think it was worth pulling out a sony to play with, damn overpriced cameras.

As I said before, this IS NOT a scientific comparison, it is a single shot shoot out that we did for kicks.

Cheers
Cameron

Cheers Cameron, that is really good info. No need for images, decent seat of the pants stuff works. It is good to know how they stack up with high iso, must say I am surprised to see the big 2 at the bottom, wonder if it is because they concentrate at the other end or just think that P&S people buy on size and cuteness.

Thanks Glenn, I was thinking the same thing, but it is ironic to note that at the time of the test the Canon was the most expensive (rrp $369) and the Nikon was the 2nd cheapest (rrp $279) and with the Olympus sitting at rrp $229 and the Panasonic and the Fuji were in the middle at rrp $299.

The SMH tested the same group of cameras (sans Fuji Z20fd) earliar in the year and found the Nikon S210 to be their preferred camera, I guess they did not test High ISO!!

aim54x wrote:The SMH tested the same group of cameras (sans Fuji Z20fd) earliar in the year and found the Nikon S210 to be their preferred camera, I guess they did not test High ISO!!

Or perhaps they were testing in different modes from what you were.

Too often, high noise will be a factor of poor exposure, and thus my question comes back to how good was the exposure (and what exposure modes were in use) for these tests?

Without wanting to cast aspersions, these were shop dem cameras, and as such, I would perhaps expect that their settings were all over the place. Were the cameras reset to factory default before you started? If not, how thoroughly did you go through all of the menus to ensure that there were no rogue settings brought into play?

This camera should have offered the RAW option of Adobes DNG format. Then It would have become a classic. Now...it's not even a G9 equal. Pass.

Matt. K wrote:This camera should have offered the RAW option of Adobes DNG format. Then It would have become a classic. Now...it's not even a G9 equal. Pass.

From that quick ISO test, is the reason why I bought my Fuji.

Wow I didn't know that would have such an effect, so i take it you purchased a Fuji Z20fd?

We defaulted them and stuck them into the AUTO M mode (where possible, just so we could override the ISO setting to 1600), exposures were probably not the best, but without plugging them into PS/LR to view the histograms it is hard to say which cameras were exposing better. As I said before it was a quick and dirty.

gstark wrote:

aim54x wrote:The SMH tested the same group of cameras (sans Fuji Z20fd) earliar in the year and found the Nikon S210 to be their preferred camera, I guess they did not test High ISO!!

Or perhaps they were testing in different modes from what you were.

Too often, high noise will be a factor of poor exposure, and thus my question comes back to how good was the exposure (and what exposure modes were in use) for these tests?

Without wanting to cast aspersions, these were shop dem cameras, and as such, I would perhaps expect that their settings were all over the place. Were the cameras reset to factory default before you started? If not, how thoroughly did you go through all of the menus to ensure that there were no rogue settings brought into play?

aim54x wrote:We defaulted them and stuck them into the AUTO M mode

Ok, that's a good start. But without actually reviewing the resulting exposures, it's still a difficult call. More of a rough guide, than anything really substantive, I'd be inclined to suggest. Better than nothing I guess, but it leaves the question "by how much?"

gstark wrote:

aim54x wrote:We defaulted them and stuck them into the AUTO M mode

Ok, that's a good start. But without actually reviewing the resulting exposures, it's still a difficult call. More of a rough guide, than anything really substantive, I'd be inclined to suggest. Better than nothing I guess, but it leaves the question "by how much?"

 ROFL!! Maybe we should rerun the tests under strict scientific conditions and print them all the results for comparison. HMMM but then again i CBF atm.