[Grrr]

In my quest for a 4+megapixel digicam, i've come across the Nikon 4500. I have found it for a good price online, but the problem is, this model of cam is 2 years or so old.. Quite old for this kind of technology. Is this a problem compared to newer cams?
The other thing that bothers me about it, is that it only takes propriatory batteries, when I really wanted a cam that could take good old fassioned (and readily available) AA's..
Minor downers asides, it still looks like a great cam. It seems to have some good reviews (But these are 1-2 years old as well) plus it can take add on lenses, which I would really like (Mmm, fisheye lens!) Very few other cams can do this for that kind of money.
Any thoughts and opinions are much appreciated

[tooki]

I have this camera.

I chose it in large part because it excels at taking macro photos. I got some awesome shots of a cicada with it. You can see the little hairs on the legs. My desktop picture is of some keys on my backlit keyboard. My G3 tower's desktop is the top of a soda can. The lines of the brushed metal surface are clearly visible.

The downsides of this model are:
- it can't focus for shit in low light.
- it doesn't focus as quickly as many newer cameras
- the remote shutter release is rather expensive, IMHO.
- wide-angle pictures, while OK, are not great. (It really shows off its stuff in close-ups.)
- the lens isn't terribly fast -- it's a 1:2.6-5.1, so at the tightest zoom, it's pretty slow.

The good things are:
- incredible built-in macro
- excellent availability of accessories
- includes rechargeable battery, with external charger
- spare rechargeable LiIon batteries are cheap ($30)
- can use disposable lithium photo battery, too (about $14)
- about 150 photos (no flash, with LCD on at all times) on one LiIon charge, real-world usage
- very nice menu options
- selectable flash power (VERY useful!)
- full-automatic through full-manual ability; it has a perfect mode for whatever you want to do
- rotating lens is really handy
- video output also outputs the menus (useful for when you want to, say, take a pic of the back of your haircut, from the back. use your TV as the preview monitor)
- uses CompactFlash cards, which are fast, cheap, and big enough to not lose


If I had $1000 to spend on a camera now, it'd be the Sony DSC-F828. It's the successor to the DSC-F717, which a friend of mine has, and is an incredible camera. Its lens is much better, and it can focus quickly in no light at all. (It's also not a small camera.)

The 717 is available for as little as $500 now if you shop around.

That said, I love my Coolpix 4500, it does its job well. I selected it for its macro ability, and it does that feature admirably.

If you want, PM me your email address and I'll send you some sample pix. (Specify what kind of stuff you'd like to see.)

tooki

[Grrr]

CRIKEY! Many thanks for the great reply Tooki Really helpful stuff..
I had found the Nikon 4500 on sale here in the UK (Where everything usually costs substantially more remember) for about �300, thats around U$500 or more. Seemed like a good deal to me? And i'll be honest, I don't really want to spend any more than that. There are some 5 megapixel camera's like the Sony P93 that even cost a lot less than this.
But I liked the Nikon also because I already have a bunch of CF cards to use in it from my old camera (Kodak DC280). Plus Nikon has a great reputation. Oh, and i'd REALLY like a cam that can take add on lenses, especially the fisheye one. Plus it's reasonably compact, yet still offers a lot of manual control. All quite important things for me. Its a shame about the low light thing tho.. I might have found that useful. Can it still take good picts in low light if some manual settings are are dialed in? Slow focus I think I can live with, although i'd guess the focus abilities are a good example of how it has perhaps dated a little?
Also, I had a quick look for the Sony 717. And to give you an idea how costs differ over here.. Pretty much the cheapest deal on that is �400. Thats around U$600 or so. And I don't doubt that its a good cam. But it's rather too bulky looking for me. I'm after something reasonably compact.. (I don't ask for much do I!? )
Anyway, thanks again for the help

[tooki]

You can do very nice long exposures (no "bulb" setting, though -- maximum is 8 secs), especially if you use 100 ISO and use the noise reduction feature (which takes your picture, then snaps a black picture with the shutter closed, and then subtracts the noise from the black picture from your image, giving a nice clean resulting image). Of course, you will need to use a tripod! The camera has full-manual settings (manual flash, shutter speed, aperture, zoom setting, ISO setting, white-card white balance, quasi-manual focus, plus exposure compensation), so if you know what you're doing, you can take great shots.

As for the CF cards you already have... if they're old, slow cards, don't use them. It will take too long to save images. A friend gave me an old 1x CF card, which took up to 10 seconds to save a full-resolution, normal JPEG quality image. On the 12x card that I then purchased, it takes just over a second. This makes a HUGE difference when you're taking shots of moving objects! (The camera does have a 32MBish buffer, so you can continue to take pix until the buffer is full. But eventually it does need to be emptied, and the faster the card, the faster the buffer will be emptied.)

tooki

[jwblase]

I will agree with Tooki's assessment of the 4500. I have been using 2 of these cameras for the past two years in the yearbook for which I am the advisor for. It's extremely easy to use, but is still powerful.

If you want an *excellent* web page about this camera, use this one that I give my class to learn about the camera. It actually excells the "manual" that comes with the camera itself.

Coolpix 4500

Best of luck

JB

[tooki]

I just re-read that article (one of the ones I read when choosing a camera, indeed a very good article!), and it says it does have a Bulb setting, but only in full-manual mode. I seldom use the camera in full-manual, which would explain why I thought it didn't have it -- in shutter priority mode, the maximum is indeed 8s.

tooki

[perbl]

Can confirm that the 4500 has bulb-functionality in manual mode, have used it for fireworks and stuff.

From personal experience with the camera, I would recommend it. If you like the swivel-design you will love it. Personally I also have a Pentax Optio S4 for bringing with me everywhere, also a great camera if you compare it with the size and typical usage.

But as a photographical tool, especially for macro shots, the 4500 is a great camera. I am keeping mine until the day I can afford a dSLR, because as all other compact cameras it is not exactly a tool for shooting action shots of moving subjects, which is something I like to do, but with some training it can be used also for this, although it is hard to get the shots you really want.

[paully dub]

I'll second Tooki's posts. I bought the 4500 a couple of years ago, it being my first digital camera, and I being a skeptical type, who'd up till then been a purist I majored in photography at University, and I've never owned an automatic lens or exposure camera in my life.

I bought the 4500 for a couple reasons:

Its swivel lens. Shame there aren't more cameras with them. Kyocera makes a compact one, but I haven't seen it.

The manual features, the accesories, the macro - lots of features. If I wanted more I'd go SLR.

But then I got my GF a pentax optio s for her birthday last years and we were both BLOWN AWAY by its compactness, its relatively sharp photos. Her lcd broke, and while it was getting repaired I lent her my 4500 and she said the difference was huge. Even though the Nikon had the swivel lense, and more features, she found herself taking loads more pictures with the Penax due to its amazing size.

Another plus for the Pentax as opposed to the similar Casio model, is the capacity to show photos/videos on a televison (av out).

Anyway, the 4500 camera does has its faults: slow, for one thing, but it is a quality camera and the prints look pretty good, which is what's most important for us photogrpahers...

[Grrr]

Thanks again for the input guys I'm still split over it.
Also, today i saw a good deal on a Fuji 610. Same price, 6 megapixels (12mp interpolated!), has had great reviews too. Cant take add on lenses though, but in all other respects, it looks great. Might be the one to go for?

[tooki]

Regardless of megapixels, a camera is only as good as its optics. For any given price level, the higher the megapixels, the lower the quality of the optics. A 6MP camera with the optics of a 3MP camera will not give you any superior quality -- you just get blurriness magnified, and a bigger file. Keep that in mind when choosing a camera.

Remember also that megapixels is not a linear progression: to get twice the resolution in both dimensions (what people typically thinking of when they say "twice as big/high"), you need 4 times as many pixels. Adding 1 megapixel does very little to the effective resolution. I wouldn't get anything below 3MP, but from there up, remember that the optics are MUCH more important to getting a good image -- a high-resolution sensor will simply do a better job of picking up the image flaws of a bad lens (Concord Camera's 4 and 5MP cameras are great examples of a good sensor coupled with lousy optics.)

tooki

[Grrr]

Thanks again Tooki.. Much appreciated. And you are right of course. But i've seen nothing but good results from Fuji cams, and the 610 has had many great reviews. With people only really complaining about it's tiny buttons. But then it's a pretty small cam..
So many to choose from these days!
6mp is perhaps overkill.. 12 definitely is! I don't know how this interpolation hoopla is supposed to work, or if it is any good. And i'll admit, my old 2mp Kodak cam makes for perfectly good A4 sized prints, even though people say you need more than 2mp's for A4 prints. Nonsense I say!
However, more mp's give me more to play with in Photoshop etc. And I would also like to print to larger than A4 size on occasion. So I think 4mp is a minimum for me.
Plus I found the fuji 610 for a great price (By UK standards) Hmm..

[Grrr]

UPDATE: As it happens, a friend had a coolpix 900(?) which got damaged accidentally. So the home insurance replaced it, and she got a brand new 4500 So i'll use that if I need to. so no point getting 2 cams the same.. I did end up getting the Fuji 610. very nice it is too.. Thanks again for the input though chaps.