(All images copyright (c) 2001 The Imaging Resource, all rights reserved)
Table takes a LONG time to load, due to many, many image thumbnails!
This is a preliminary set of my test shots. - I wanted to get them up ASAP, as I knew many of our readers have been delaying purchase decisions until they could see my shots, taken under controlled conditions to permit accurate comparisons between cameras. I should have the full 5000 review completed by early next week at the latest, and hope to have all the test shots up with image analysis attached by Monday.
Other preliminary results, to answer frequent questions: The camera is quite fast from shot to shot, only about 2.2 seconds between shots until its 8 frame (!) buffer is filled, then about 6 seconds per shot after that point. AF speed is only average though, at roughly 1.04-1.11 seconds shutter lag in full AF (variation is over lens' zoom range, faster at telephoto, suprisingly), 0.70 seconds in manual focus, and 0.167 seconds when prefocused. The latter is faster than average, the first two times a bit slower than average. (Not terrible, but not category-leading, either.)
These images were all shot with a full production model of the 5000, but there *is* one problem with it - there's a block of four "stuck" pixels at coordinates 2085,744 through 2086,745. - This won't detract from your evaluation of the camera's color, etc, but I wanted to point it out to avoid the likely flood of emails. I've asked Nikon for a replacement unit, hope to have it here shortly.
Are these photos helpful to you? You can support this site by buying your Coolpix 5000 from one of my retail affiliates!
(Prices shown are as of 12/6/2001)
State Street Direct - $1099
(State Street just confirmed that they expect their first shipment of 5000's from Nikon to arrive Tuesday or Wednesday! (12/11 or 12/12) They have a "growing preorder list", but will be filling orders first-come/first-served...)
EPC-Online - $1039
Ritz Camera - $1099
(Ritz has confirmed that they have *stock* (as of 12/10) on the 5000, enough to satisfy their backorders AND fill any new orders! This could be your best chance to get a 5000 in time for Christmas!)
OR, you could check prices for the '5000 (at your own risk! ;-) on my PriceGrabber page.
OR, would you consider making a small donation to defray costs? - My bandwidth charges for downloads of the Nikon 5000 photos alone are running ~$100/day right now, and advertising, etc doesn't begin to compensate for that expense!
|
|
|
C50DBAWB.JPG |
C50DBDWB.JPG |
C50DBMWB.JPG |
C50FACDP0.JPG |
C50FACDP1.JPG |
C50FAR100.JPG |
C50FAR200.JPG |
C50FAR400.JPG |
These photos of the house are my "far field" shot, taken outside of the actual house. Some readers have felt that they saw "hot pixels" here *other* than the one block of four I mentioned at the top. I don't believe this is the case. When I tested the camera with a plain blank grey card as the subject, the only hot pixels I saw were in that one block. - Anything else you're seeing here is likely in the subject itself.
ALSO, these shots are taken with just the default exposure parameters. No adjustments made to tweak contrast or exposure, to try to hold the highlights on the front of the house, since part of what I want to see is how the camera deals with such a strong highlight. - Also, that dull brown looking stuff in front of the house is dull brown (dead) grass. It's supposed to be that color at this time of year. The strong seasonal variation in this shot (leaves on/off trees, north/south sun angle, etc) makes it very hard to compare apples-to-apples between cameras. That's why I don't include it in my Comparometer(tm) tool. |
|||
C50FAR800.JPG |
C50FARIA.JPG |
C50FARID.JPG |
C50FARIL.JPG |
C50FARIMC.JPG |
C50FARIN.JPG |
C50FARIPC.JPG |
C50FARLE.JPG |
C50FARLF.JPG |
C50FARLN.JPG |
C50FARS0.JPG |
C50FARS1.JPG |
C50FARS2.JPG |
C50FARS3.JPG |
C50FARSA.JPG |
C50FARSAT1.JPG |
C50FARSAT2.JPG |
C50FARSAT3.JPG |
C50FARSAT4.JPG |
C50FARWTDT.JPG |
C50FARWTT.JPG |
C50FARWTTA.JPG |
C50FARWTTADT.JPG |
C50FARWTW.JPG |
C50HAWB.JPG |
C50HDWB.JPG |
C50HMWB.JPG |
C50INAP0.JPG |
This indoor shot under household incandescent lighting is very revealing. See the main sample pictures page for a discussion of how the 5000 does here. | |||
C50INAP1.JPG |
C50INAP2.JPG |
C50INAP3.JPG |
C50INAWB.JPG |
C50INFP0.JPG |
C50INFP4.JPG |
C50INFSP0.JPG |
C50INFX.JPG |
C50INMP0.JPG |
C50INMP1.JPG |
C50INMP2.JPG |
C50INMP3.JPG |
C50INMP4.JPG |
C50INMWB.JPG |
C50INTWB.JPG |
C50LL1003.JPG |
The shots below are my low-light tests. The darkest are the ones ending on "07" in the file name: They're shot at 1/16 foot-candle, about 0.63 lux. The first two digits after the "LL" correspond to the ISO level, 10=100, 20=200, etc. The files ending in "MNR" are "minus noise reduction" - that is, the camera's noise reduction system was turned off on those shots. | |||
C50LL1004.JPG |
C50LL1005.JPG |
C50LL1006.JPG |
C50LL1007.JPG |
C50LL1007MNR.JPG |
C50LL2003.JPG |
C50LL2004.JPG |
C50LL2005.JPG |
C50LL2006.JPG |
C50LL2007.JPG |
C50LL2007MNR.JPG |
C50LL4003.JPG |
C50LL4004.JPG |
C50LL4005.JPG |
C50LL4006.JPG |
C50LL4007.JPG |
C50LL4007MNR.JPG |
C50LL8003.JPG |
C50LL8004.JPG |
C50LL8005.JPG |
C50LL8006.JPG |
C50LL8007.JPG |
C50LL8007MNR.JPG |
C50MAC.JPG |
The "Musicians" test is good for seeing how a camera handles various skin tones. Don't look at it for resolution though, as cameras like the Coolpix 5000 really outstrip the resolution of the poster-print used as the reference image. | |||
C50MACFL.JPG |
C50MUSAWB.JPG |
C50MUSDWB.JPG |
C50MUSMWB.JPG |
This outdoor shot shows several things. 1) Color on caucasian skin tones, 2) Color in the fairly bright primaries of the flowers. (Including that blue that seems to give so many cameras fits, coming out almost pure purple in many instances.), 3) How well the camera does with very harsh highlights & contrast. - This is why I don't use any fill-flash, etc on this shot: The whole point is to see what the camera does with absurdly contrasty lighting and a very high-key subject.
The colors here look pretty good, but the skin tones are a bit yellowish/reddish for my taste. Highlight detail seems to get lost a bit quicker than I'd like too. I think detail is pretty good, but not by any means a big step up over the best 4 MP cameras. (Really, going from 4 to 5 MP is only a bit over a 10% increase in linear resolution anyway.) The image isn't terribly crisp, but I think that's maybe more a reflection of a somewhat conservative in-camera sharpening than anything.) |
|||
C50OUTAWB.JPG |
C50OUTDP0.JPG |
C50OUTDP1.JPG |
C50OUTDP2.JPG |
C50OUTDWB.JPG |
C50OUTMWB.JPG |
C50RESWGE.JPG |
C50RESWGF.JPG |
C50RESWGN.JPG |
C50RESWLE.JPG |
C50RESWLF.JPG |
C50RESWLN.JPG |
C50RESWME.JPG |
C50RESWMF.JPG |
C50RESWMN.JPG |
C50RESWS1.JPG |
C50RESWS2.JPG |
C50RESWS3.JPG |
C50RESWSE.JPG |
C50RESWSF.JPG |
C50RESWSN.JPG |
C50RESWTE.JPG |
C50RESWTF.JPG |
C50RESWTN.JPG |
C50VFATLL.JPG |
C50VFATOL.JPG |
C50VFAWLL.JPG |
C50VFAWOL.JPG |
All images copyright (c) 2001, The Imaging Resource, all rights reserved