Wide angle : Nikon Coolpix 8400 ?

Hello. I need wide angle and macro, but not zoom as this is
mainly to shoot smallish objects and the inside of buildings.

I've seen some Nikon Coolpix 8400 for sale for 220 to 260 euros.
Is it worth it ? New models that go down to 24 or 25 mm are
available now, some in the same price range (E.G. Panasonic
Lumix DMC-FX35).

Thanks in advance.

 

I have the 8400, but if you can get a new camera that satisfies your
requirements for the same or almost the same price, get the new camera.
The images they produce, even if they have the same resolution as the
8400, are superior just due to progress.

Also, be sure to check the macro reproduction ratio or field of view.
Most point-n-shoots only do about 1/3 to 1/2 life size at best. If your
smallish objects are quite small like small coins or jewelry, you
probably won't be able to focus close enough to get the object big enough
to be usable.


Stef

 

Thank you. That's something I was wondering about. Electronics
are becoming cheaper fast but optics ? Wouldn't the lens of a
750-EUR digicam from 2005 be better than those of a 250-EUR
digicam from 2009 ?

Apparently, in macro mode, the 8400 can focus to 3 cm. At that
distance, assuming a 60° FOV, a 1 cm object would be something
like 2000 pixels across. Sounds good enough... Unless I'm
missing something !

 

What is the car? - a Talbot Lago?



Eric Stevens

 

I had an 8400. It was terrible in low light, especially when you wanted to
shoot at the 85 mm equivalent (its max). And you can't get very close.

For inexpensive macro work you can pick up an almost never used Nikon
950/990/995 for very little. They focus at 2 cm. But even with the wide
angle adapter they aren't good for that.

I'd get the most recently announced camera that gets you down to the 24-25
mm angle. If you use dpreview.com he has the newest cameras on the Database
pages first. Looking at Panasonic I see a couple starting at 25 mm that are
one year newer than the DMC-FX35 you mention as an example.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

That dates me!

Eric Stevens

 

It really depends: That 2005 camera could be really expensive because
for its day, it was "cutting edge," but by today's standards, it could
have turned into a mediocre dog. To really know for sure, look for in-
depth reviews of the cameras in question on sites like on
www.dpreview.com.

You should check the field of view to be sure if it's macro enough for
you. Most really close focusing, macro modes use the camera's shortest
focal length, which because of wider coverage--it's wide angle after all--
covers a wider field of view than a longer focal length setting even
though you're getting closer. Just look at this link for the 8400.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/page16.asp

The mid-zoom macro gives you a better reproduction ratio, about 1/5 life
size, than the wide macro mode.


Stef

 

No, it's not. Your concept of reproduction ratios is misunderstood.

I never said they did.

Check the field size: If it's bigger than the size of the image sensor
the reproduction ratio is less than 1:1, life size; if it equals the
sensor size, it's life size. As an example, the Canon Powershot SX1 IS,
in "best" macro mode, focuses to 0 (zero) centimeters. The front element
of the lens is actually touching the object being photographed. Yet, the
field size is 24mm x 32mm, while the image sensor is 4.62mm x 6.16mm
making the reproduction ratio about 1:5 (0.1925 to be exact), fifth life
size or in other words, the 24mm x 32mm area being photographed is
REDUCED about 1/5 linearly to 4.62mm x 6.16mm. Taking the resulting
image and enlarging it on a computer monitor or in a print is no
different than what is done with film and an enlarger: a 24mm diameter
object is recorded on film at 24mm in diameter--1 to 1, life size--but is
enlarged 8 times making it 192mm in diameter for an 8x10 print. The
original repro ratio on film is still 1:1.


Stef

 

Was it ever true?

Whatever the 'normal viewing distance' may be. Please define it to
suit yourself.

Was there vere a hard definition of 'macro'? I doubt it.

So called, by whom?

.... or those who need precise definitions for subjective terminology.



Eric Stevens

 

Shades of "bokeh"!

"Grossissant" is French for close-up lens, the resulting grossissement
being the close-up image, sometimes used for magnifications which
falls short of being true macro. I suspect "gross" is a mistake, since
in French it means pretty much what it means in English.

Presumably we can look forward to American photographers discovering
this amazing new aspect of photography described by a foreign word
nobody knows the meaning of. With any luck they'll describe their
photographs as "gross"

 

Bokeh means something like old & stupid in Japanese as I recall

"ooh, look at the beautiful stupidity in my photo" <grin>.


FWIW I agree with the troll about closeups in this case.
It's all about CROP FACTOR

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Apart from the fact that I'm a New Zealander, I discovered this aspect
of photography nearly 60 years ago. It's just that I never heard of it
being called 'gross'.



Eric Stevens

 

--- snip ----

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2957214541_ba9a010c2e_b.jpg is a
photograph of an object about 35mm high. It was taken with the
intention of demonstrating to a very old lady that the monk on the
right was holding a bowl. Probably both of us would agree that it is
at the upper limit of macro-photography.

Nikon D70 and Micro Nikor 105 mm



Eric Stevens