Nikon - Coolpix 8400 Digital Camera
 

I have a friend that has a Nikon - Coolpix 8400 camera. I have a DSLR (20D).
I was looking at all that his Coolpix offers, and it is pretty close to what
I have.
From what I can see, the difference, other than being able to swap the lens:
20d vs 8400

Shutter speed of 8000 vs 3000
ISO up to 3200 vs 400
5fps vs 2.3
8.2MP vs 8.0MP
9 point focus system on both
35 metering zone vs 4 metering zone
4 focus modes vs 3
dof preview versus none
color adjustments versus none
no movie vs quicktime movies

I was surprised that the coolpix has Automatic, Aperture Priority, Shutter
Priority and Full Manual Settings. It touts a lot of bang for the buck. In
my comparison, am I missing other points? I am trying to make a fair
comparison, and I am a newbie in the DSLR scene, so I hope I am not missing
the obvious. Anyway, all feedback is appreciated.

Robbie wrote:

I have a friend that has a Nikon - Coolpix 8400 camera. I have a DSLR (20D).
I was looking at all that his Coolpix offers, and it is pretty close to what
I have.
From what I can see, the difference, other than being able to swap the lens:
20d vs 8400

Shutter speed of 8000 vs 3000
Big difference, 266% faster.

ISO up to 3200 vs 400
Another big difference, 8x faster

5fps vs 2.3
Yet another big difference, over twice as fast

8.2MP vs 8.0MP
But, sensor size very different, 22mm x 15mm vs. 8.8mm x 6.6mm. This is
the reason for Nikon's ISO 400 max. Noise at 400 is probably worse than
Canon's at 3200.

9 point focus system on both

35 metering zone vs 4 metering zone
35 zones are far better.

4 focus modes vs 3

dof preview versus none
Dof with small sensors is a non-issue - it is always too much.

color adjustments versus none
Plus RAW for Canon

no movie vs quicktime movies
Insignificant.

Other points: Canon has interchangeable lens capability, optical reflex
viewfinder, low-noise CMOS sensor.

While the Nikon is well specified, I cannot see how you can consider the
two cameras to be 'close', unless you don't think these major
differences have any effect on your photography.

If that is the case, then, with respect, I think the 20D is way more
camera than you need.

Colin D.

Robbie wrote:
I have a friend that has a Nikon - Coolpix 8400 camera. I have a DSLR
(20D). I was looking at all that his Coolpix offers, and it is pretty
close to what I have.
From what I can see, the difference, other than being able to swap
the lens: 20d vs 8400

Shutter speed of 8000 vs 3000
ISO up to 3200 vs 400
5fps vs 2.3
8.2MP vs 8.0MP
9 point focus system on both
35 metering zone vs 4 metering zone
4 focus modes vs 3
dof preview versus none
color adjustments versus none
no movie vs quicktime movies

I was surprised that the coolpix has Automatic, Aperture Priority,
Shutter Priority and Full Manual Settings. It touts a lot of bang for
the buck. In my comparison, am I missing other points? I am trying to
make a fair comparison, and I am a newbie in the DSLR scene, so I
hope I am not missing the obvious. Anyway, all feedback is
appreciated.

I have a Nikon 8400 and find it to be an excellent camera producing good
quality images. Of course, compared to the DSLR you can't change lenses,
so I bought a Panasonic FZ5 with an image stabilised 432mm f/3.3 lens for
telephoto shots. Compared to the DSLR, it has a limited ISO range, and I
need to apply software noise reduction on images taken at ISO 400. It is
also slightly slower in use than a DSLR, although it is fast for a point
and shoot.

It really depends on what you want to do, and what your aims are. The
slow lens and limited sensitivity of the Nikon 8400 would limit its use in
lower light conditions - will that matter to you? Movies add a lot to a
subject - is the lack of movies important? Do you think you will want to
invest a lot in the inevitable lens collection which you will gather with
a DSLR? Do you know that some lenses you buy today won't work on the next
generation of full-frame DSLRs?

Questions, always questions!

David

Thanks for the comparison!

Yes, I am aware that I really do not want to buy the "S" or Digital only
lenses. Good points on the low light conditions, as I really like to
photograph using existing light and rely on the ability to crank up the ISO
with low noise. The lack of movies does not bother me.

Thanks!


"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message o.uk...
Robbie wrote:
I have a friend that has a Nikon - Coolpix 8400 camera. I have a DSLR
(20D). I was looking at all that his Coolpix offers, and it is pretty
close to what I have.
From what I can see, the difference, other than being able to swap
the lens: 20d vs 8400

Shutter speed of 8000 vs 3000
ISO up to 3200 vs 400
5fps vs 2.3
8.2MP vs 8.0MP
9 point focus system on both
35 metering zone vs 4 metering zone
4 focus modes vs 3
dof preview versus none
color adjustments versus none
no movie vs quicktime movies

I was surprised that the coolpix has Automatic, Aperture Priority,
Shutter Priority and Full Manual Settings. It touts a lot of bang for
the buck. In my comparison, am I missing other points? I am trying to
make a fair comparison, and I am a newbie in the DSLR scene, so I
hope I am not missing the obvious. Anyway, all feedback is
appreciated.

I have a Nikon 8400 and find it to be an excellent camera producing good
quality images. Of course, compared to the DSLR you can't change lenses,
so I bought a Panasonic FZ5 with an image stabilised 432mm f/3.3 lens for
telephoto shots. Compared to the DSLR, it has a limited ISO range, and I
need to apply software noise reduction on images taken at ISO 400. It is
also slightly slower in use than a DSLR, although it is fast for a point
and shoot.

It really depends on what you want to do, and what your aims are. The
slow lens and limited sensitivity of the Nikon 8400 would limit its use in
lower light conditions - will that matter to you? Movies add a lot to a
subject - is the lack of movies important? Do you think you will want to
invest a lot in the inevitable lens collection which you will gather with
a DSLR? Do you know that some lenses you buy today won't work on the next
generation of full-frame DSLRs?

Questions, always questions!

David

Thanks for the comments! I realize those points make a big difference. I was
not sure if I had left something out. The Coolpix does seem to be worth the
price. I will stick with my DSLR though :)

"Colin D" wrote in message
...


Robbie wrote:

I have a friend that has a Nikon - Coolpix 8400 camera. I have a DSLR
(20D).
I was looking at all that his Coolpix offers, and it is pretty close to
what
I have.
From what I can see, the difference, other than being able to swap the
lens:
20d vs 8400

Shutter speed of 8000 vs 3000
Big difference, 266% faster.

ISO up to 3200 vs 400
Another big difference, 8x faster

5fps vs 2.3
Yet another big difference, over twice as fast

8.2MP vs 8.0MP
But, sensor size very different, 22mm x 15mm vs. 8.8mm x 6.6mm. This is
the reason for Nikon's ISO 400 max. Noise at 400 is probably worse than
Canon's at 3200.

9 point focus system on both

35 metering zone vs 4 metering zone
35 zones are far better.

4 focus modes vs 3

dof preview versus none
Dof with small sensors is a non-issue - it is always too much.

color adjustments versus none
Plus RAW for Canon

no movie vs quicktime movies
Insignificant.

Other points: Canon has interchangeable lens capability, optical reflex
viewfinder, low-noise CMOS sensor.

While the Nikon is well specified, I cannot see how you can consider the
two cameras to be 'close', unless you don't think these major
differences have any effect on your photography.

If that is the case, then, with respect, I think the 20D is way more
camera than you need.

Colin D.

According to Robbie :
Thanks for the comparison!

Yes, I am aware that I really do not want to buy the "S" or Digital only
lenses. Good points on the low light conditions, as I really like to
photograph using existing light and rely on the ability to crank up the ISO
with low noise.

You should be informed that you can either have the D70 locked
to a fixed ISO (which you can change by pressing the "ISO" button
with the left thumb and rotating the thumbwheel with the other (or by
going into the menu)), or you can set it in the menus to automatically
switch up in ISO if necessary to maintain the shutter speed above a
user-selectable (another menu) floor value. I generally keep it in the
auto mode, except when using unusual lenses or dealing with unusual
lighting conditions -- usually in manual mode where the auto-ISO doesn't
trigger anyway.

The lack of movies does not bother me.

Nor is it a problem for me -- though the D70 doesn't really do
movies at all -- just a relatively few frames per second in burst mode.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---