Nikon Coolpix A Announced

[Syborg1211]

Just saw an announcement from Nikon for the new 80-400mm lens, but I think the more interesting part was that Nikon also released a couple new point and shoots. The Nikon Coolpix A seems interesting!

The Specs:

16.2MP ‘DX’ format CMOS sensor
18.5mm (28mm equivalent) F2.8 lens
ISO 100-6400 (with 12,800 and 25,600 equivalent extension settings)
30 sec – 1/2000 sec shutter speeds
3.0″ 920k dot LCD display
14-bit uncompressed NEF Raw shooting capability
Up to 4fps continuous shooting
1080p movies at 24, 25 or 30fps
i-TTL compatible hotshoe
Price: $1,100

I've been keeping a close eye out for a good enthusiast compact to replace my aging (and literally falling apart Canon S90). I was waiting for the new Fuji X100S but was concerned about its size and not being pocketable.

This Coolpix A definitely intrigues me! An aps-c sized sensor and still pocketable sounds great to me. I also like the wider end so a 28mm equivalent is also a plus. The F2.8 is a tad underwhelming, but I don't think I'd want the lens to be larger to make the aperture bigger.

Sounds like it uses the sensor out of the D7000 with the AA filter removed. I'm curious to see how this new trend of removing the AA filter works out for the Coolpix A and D7100.




And yes, unfortunately no "instant masterpiece" button, but getting closer...

 

[gevorg]

fixed & no zoom is very niche, but hopefully this is a sign that Nikon is more serious about mirrorless cameras

 

[iGas]

The JPG engine has to be awesome with touch screen and wifi, because it is a bit wide as a general purpose camera. IMHO, it has to compete with phone cameras at shooting group snap shots, landscape, and architecture.

 

[ElFenix]

28 mm is a bit too wide for a fixed lens, imho. then again, 35 mm is already covered by the fuji and i'm not sure there's room in the market for really direct competitors.

 

[Throckmorton]

28 mm is a bit too wide for a fixed lens, imho. then again, 35 mm is already covered by the fuji and i'm not sure there's room in the market for really direct competitors.

If it was half the price I'd be tempted to buy it JUST for landscape photos. That way I could leave a 35mm lens on my Sony A35 and not have to buy a wide angle for it.

The competition for the Nikon A is a M43 camera with a pancake lens. You can get a Panasonic 14mm f1.8 and Olympus E-PL1 for about $400 total.

 

[twistedlogic]

This would have been a great camera......... 5 years ago.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As gevorg said: Fixed lens? No zoom? $1100?

Not even remotely interested, personally, no matter what's on the inside.

 

[randomrogue]

At some point you have to recognize that having a compact camera might not be worth it. This camera is catering to the ultra stubborn who want DSLR specs but refuse to carry 500 grams.

 

[virtuamike]

Want.

 

[CuriousMike]

Want at half current asking price.

 

[Munky]

Great, here's more of Nikon giving the consumer what he doesn't want. What the consumer wants is a compact with 10-12MP CX-size sensor and a zoom lens, preferably using large-ish aperture. Not for bragging about the mediocre bokeh from a compact, but so the consumer doesn't have to use stupid-high ISO's.

I know there's already a camera like that from Sony. Too bad there isn't one like it from Nikon.

 

[blastingcap]

Great, here's more of Nikon giving the consumer what he doesn't want. What the consumer wants is a compact with 10-12MP CX-size sensor and a zoom lens, preferably using large-ish aperture. Not for bragging about the mediocre bokeh from a compact, but so the consumer doesn't have to use stupid-high ISO's.

I know there's already a camera like that from Sony. Too bad there isn't one like it from Nikon.

It's a niche market, but not quite as niche as you think, and I imagine the profit per customer is pretty high for a camera of this variety. http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X100-.../dp/B0043RS864

 

[Syborg1211]

Great, here's more of Nikon giving the consumer what he doesn't want. What the consumer wants is a compact with 10-12MP CX-size sensor and a zoom lens, preferably using large-ish aperture. Not for bragging about the mediocre bokeh from a compact, but so the consumer doesn't have to use stupid-high ISO's.

I know there's already a camera like that from Sony. Too bad there isn't one like it from Nikon.

Not every consumer is the same, as illustrated by the varying responses on this thread. Personally, I would rather have a larger sensor with a solid prime lens than a smaller sensor with a zoom lens that would undoubtedly require compromises to IQ.

This new camera is an interesting middle ground between the Sony RX100 and Fuji X100s. It offers the compact size of the rx100 with the Aps-c sensor of the x100. These were two cameras I've been debating between, but now maybe this new coolpix will make the decision easier. I just bought a 28mm prime for my dslr because I like wider shots so it seems like this camera was made for me! Of course the price is definitely higher than I'd like, but isn't it always? Look at the Sony RX1 and its crazy price that people are willing to pay. The market is out there.

 

[AkumaX]

wish it was f/2

 

[Throckmorton]

wish it was f/2

The lens would be 40% bigger though

 

[gevorg]

You can get a Panasonic 14mm f1.8 and Olympus E-PL1 for about $400 total.

Not only E-PL1 is cheaper but it would capture more light than Coolpix A:

E-PL1 w/panny lens = 28mm f/3.6 equivalent
Coolpix A fixed as-is = 28mm f/4.2 equivalent

Even smaller sensor in RX100 gets close with 28mm f/4.9 at its widest end.

 

[blastingcap]

Not only E-PL1 is cheaper but it would capture more light than Coolpix A:

E-PL1 w/panny lens = 28mm f/3.6 equivalent
Coolpix A fixed as-is = 28mm f/4.2 equivalent

Even smaller sensor in RX100 gets close with 28mm f/4.9 at its widest end.

I hope you're joking. You've GOT to be joking, right? Because 28nm FX-equivalent has nothing to do with RX100's tele end (which is 100mm FX-equivalent, f/4.9... I should know, I own a RX100), and the Panasonic 14mm is an FX-equivalent 28mm at f/2.5 , not f/1.8, and you DO NOT MULTIPLY APERTURES BY CROP FACTOR WHEN DETERMINING APERTURE TO SENSOR. f/2.8 means f/2.8. It doesn't mean f/4.2 except for depth of field. Just as focal lengths NEVER CHANGE regardless of crop factor of the sensor.

Furthermore the larger the sensor the less they are affected by high ISO noise. The E-PL1 sensor wasn't that good even when it first came out something like four years ago. So the Coolpix A is likely to have 1.5-2 stops advantage in low light in the sensor alone. That 1/3 stop advantage of the Pany 14mm lens (f/2.5 vs f/2.8) is not anywhere near enough to make up for the 1.5-2 stops deficit the E-PL1 + 14/2.5 combo has against the Nikon A.

The RX100 has a 27mm f/1.8 lens (about 4/3 stops faster than the Nikon Coolpix A) but it's not that sharp wide open, especially in the corners, and the sensor is two stops behind DX sensor tech. In other words it also loses against the Nikon A. Without knowing more about the Coolpix A sensor and lens we can't say how much it loses by, but my best guess is about 2/3 stop.

Edited to add: RX100 sensor is closer to DX than I had remembered; I thought it was 3.8x but it's more like 3x so the difference may be only 1/2 a stop, maybe even a little less, of performance in low light at the wide end of the RX100's zoom range. (This also assumes equal sharpness wide open for both.) The RX100 arguably more than makes up for it in terms of zoom range and other features, though it can't quite match the Nikon A's bokeh ability.

 

[ElFenix]

I hope you're joking. You've GOT to be joking, right? Because 28nm FX-equivalent has nothing to do with RX100's tele end (which is 100mm FX-equivalent, f/4.9... I should know, I own a RX100), and the Panasonic 14mm is an FX-equivalent 28mm at f/2.5 , not f/1.8, and you DO NOT MULTIPLY APERTURES BY CROP FACTOR WHEN DETERMINING APERTURE TO SENSOR. f/2.8 means f/2.8. It doesn't mean f/4.2 except for depth of field. Just as focal lengths NEVER CHANGE regardless of crop factor of the sensor.

no, he's completely right. for noise purposes (and that's why someone buys a camera like this), you absolutely do compare lens and sensor combinations by converting to equivalent relative apertures. why? because noise is a factor of total light rather than light density. same light density spread over a larger area is more total light. greater light density spread over the same area is more total light. using 35 mm equivalent we can control for area, so we can compare lens/sensor systems by using light density equivalent.

so, he's absolutely correct that the RX100 gets close to the nikon A in terms of total light captured at it's widest end, which is 35 mm equivalent 28/4.9 (the telephoto is 35 mm equivalent 100/13.4), and the 4/3 cameras with the f/1.8 lens capture more light than the nikon A (being 28/3.6 equivalent).

 

[blastingcap]

You are technically wrong, though it would be "right" in the sense that if you multiply crop factor by aperture for DoF, that gives you the same result, and similar for light emittance too. But that's a messed-up way of doing it that is technically incorrect and is just shorthand.

This is how to do the calculations correctly: you account for the sensor separately; the lens will always be a x mm focal length and aperture will always be whatever mm diameter; from there you get the f-number by dividing the two other numbers. Leave the sensor out of it.

When you want to know the low light ability calculate that separately as I did in my post above. CX - MFT - DX - FX are about 1 stop of noise apart from each other.

It makes no sense to conflate aperture with sensor size for low light comparison, only for Depth of Field comparisons.

The RX100 is NOT a 28mm/4.9 lens at the widest end. It's a 28ish mm f/1.8 lens at the widest end, but the sensor is a CX aka 1" sensor which is about 2 stops behind a DX sensor all sensor tech equal. Just because it's a CX sensor doesn't mean the lens is now magically a smaller aperture. I absolutely cannot stress this enough. You may want to brush up on definitions of aperture and focal length:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

The optics numbers should always be considered separately from sensors except for DoF which is easier to understand by multiplying by crop factor.

If you then want to account for sensor size differences in capturing light, do it at the ISO level, e.g., a CX sensor at ISO 100 is roughly equal to a MFT sensor at ISO 200 is roughly equal to a DX sensor at ISO 400 is roughly equal to an FX sensor at ISO 800, in terms of image quality holding print size constant (ignore pixel count which arbitrarily divides print sizes). This assumes equivalent sensor tech though so comparing a 10 year old Canon sensor to a state of the art Sony sensor makes no sense (as an example).

P.S. Because CX isn't quite the full 2 stops away from DX, the actual sensor size difference being 3x not 4x the size, the 2/3 stop difference may be more like 1/2 stop difference, so yes, the RX100 can get close to the same performance in low light assume equal sensor tech. But the way you arrive to the numbers is wrong. I know I'm being anal-retentive about this and being like the math teacher being frustrated at you for arriving at the right conclusion despite not doing the math the right way. Sorry.

no, he's completely right. for noise purposes (and that's why someone buys a camera like this), you absolutely do compare lens and sensor combinations by converting to equivalent relative apertures. why? because noise is a factor of total light rather than light density. same light density spread over a larger area is more total light. greater light density spread over the same area is more total light. using 35 mm equivalent we can control for area, so we can compare lens/sensor systems by using light density equivalent.

so, he's absolutely correct that the RX100 gets close to the nikon A in terms of total light captured at it's widest end, which is 35 mm equivalent 28/4.9 (the telephoto is 35 mm equivalent 100/13.4), and the 4/3 cameras with the f/1.8 lens capture more light than the nikon A (being 28/3.6 equivalent).

 

[Throckmorton]

Everything being referred to in stops is confusing to me. Why can't we refer to these setups by light per pixel or something?

 

[ElFenix]

You are technically wrong, though it would be "right" in the sense that if you multiply crop factor by aperture for DoF, that gives you the same result, and similar for light emittance too. But that's a messed-up way of doing it that is technically incorrect and is just shorthand.

This is how to do the calculations correctly: you account for the sensor separately; the lens will always be a x mm focal length and aperture will always be whatever mm diameter; from there you get the f-number by dividing the two other numbers. Leave the sensor out of it.

When you want to know the low light ability calculate that separately as I did in my post above. CX - MFT - DX - FX are about 1 stop of noise apart from each other.

It makes no sense to conflate aperture with sensor size for low light comparison, only for Depth of Field comparisons.

The RX100 is NOT a 28mm/4.9 lens at the widest end. It's a 28ish mm f/1.8 lens at the widest end, but the sensor is a CX aka 1" sensor which is about 2 stops behind a DX sensor all sensor tech equal. Just because it's a CX sensor doesn't mean the lens is now magically a smaller aperture. I absolutely cannot stress this enough. You may want to brush up on definitions of aperture and focal length:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

The optics numbers should always be considered separately from sensors except for DoF which is easier to understand by multiplying by crop factor.

If you then want to account for sensor size differences in capturing light, do it at the ISO level, e.g., a CX sensor at ISO 100 is roughly equal to a MFT sensor at ISO 200 is roughly equal to a DX sensor at ISO 400 is roughly equal to an FX sensor at ISO 800, in terms of image quality holding print size constant (ignore pixel count which arbitrarily divides print sizes). This assumes equivalent sensor tech though so comparing a 10 year old Canon sensor to a state of the art Sony sensor makes no sense (as an example).

P.S. Because CX isn't quite the full 2 stops away from DX, the actual sensor size difference being 3x not 4x the size, the 2/3 stop difference may be more like 1/2 stop difference, so yes, the RX100 can get close to the same performance in low light assume equal sensor tech. But the way you arrive to the numbers is wrong. I know I'm being anal-retentive about this and being like the math teacher being frustrated at you for arriving at the right conclusion despite not doing the math the right way. Sorry.

you must know the sensor size, because you need to know the angle of view. while a 100 mm lens is a 100 mm lens, it's going to give you a different angle of view with a 35 mm sensor than it would with a crop sensor or medium format sensor. so you need to know sensor size to start talking about equivalents.

the RX 100 lens at its widest is NOT a 28/1.8 lens. it simply isn't. it's 10.4/1.8. from a brightness standpoint, it's the same as any other f/1.8 lens. but from a total light standpoint, it's not the same as a 28/1.8, which has an aperture 2.7x larger in diameter, which means it's taking in more than 7x the amount of light (nearly 3 stops) for any given time period.

so, again, the RX100's lens is equivalent to a 28/4.9 lens on the wide end, because 10.4/1.8 = 5.8 mm, and 28/ 4.9 = 5.7 mm. a 28 mm lens on 35 mm has an equivalent angle of view as the 10.4 mm lens on the RX100. a relative aperture of f/1.8 on the RX100 is equivalent to a relative aperture of f/4.9 on 35 mm for equivalent forcal lengths because that keeps the absolute aperture constant, which keeps depth of field the same. if point of view, angle of view, depth of field, and shutter speed are the same/equivalent, then the images are equivalent.

Everything being referred to in stops is confusing to me. Why can't we refer to these setups by light per pixel or something?

because light per pixel doesn't matter from an image level noise standpoint. light per sensor does.

 

[blastingcap]

the RX 100 lens at its widest is NOT a 28/1.8 lens. it simply isn't. it's 10.4/1.8

You are right, it's a 10.4/1.8, I need moar coffee today, obviously, as I erroneously converted the focal length without converting anything else. This is because usually when these topics come up, we are talking about FX lenses being used on DX bodies and I was still in that mindset when I wrote what I wrote. In this case, it's actually a CX lens being compared to FX so of course we have to use the CX lens's focal length which, as you pointed out, is not 28mm, it's 10.4mm. Sorry for the goof! *self-flagellates*

 

[ElFenix]

:thumbsup:

 

[Throckmorton]

because light per pixel doesn't matter from an image level noise standpoint. light per sensor does.

OK, let's describe cameras/lenses in terms of energy (whatever unit) hitting the whole sensor

 

[ElFenix]

OK, let's describe cameras/lenses in terms of energy (whatever unit) hitting the whole sensor

you'd need to know how many lumens your light source is putting out.


stops are good because that's how exposure works. for any camera, be it some tiny cell phone camera, an SLR, a large format camera with an 8x10 sheet of film, or a movie camera, proper exposure for a given scene is the same. so if you have an exposure value of 15, you could use f/16, 1/100th, and ISO 100 speed film/sensor. and then you can adjust by stops from there to get to whatever aperture, shutter speed, and sensitivity you need.

for most things, that's going to be enough. you know that generally a larger format is going to be capable of delivering higher quality, but other concerns usually dominate that consideration.