Nikon CoolPix 995Nikon updates the hugely successful Coolpix 990, adding a pop-up flash and Type II CF support!<<Video, Power, Software :(Previous) | (Next): Reference: Datasheet>> Page 12:Test Results & ConclusionReview First Posted: 4/25/2001 |
Test Results
I normally present only brief summaries of my findings in this section, but
this time will try including a more complete presentation of the test results,
as an experiment to see how our readers like it. - For really exhaustive analysis
of all our test results, visit the Coolpix 995's
"pictures" page. - As with all Imaging Resource camera tests,
I encourage you to let your own eyes be the judge of how well the cameras performed.
Explore the images on the pictures page, to see how
the 995 does at the type of photos you expect to be taking. - And check the
Comparometer(tm)
to compare images from over a hundred different cameras side by side!
Color Quality & Tonal Range
Even
the first prototype unit I tests showed very good color, and the production
model was just as good. The outdoor shot (seen in minature at right) looked
quite nice, with good skin tones, and excellent tonality. The always-problematic
blue flowers ended up a bit purple, the 995 falling victim to these very difficult
blues. The rest of the color was very nice though, and the 995's metering system
seemed more accurate than most. (Although still requiring some positive exposure
compensation in the high-key test photo at right. Color accuracy on my Davebox
test looked quite good. (The MacBeth(tm) chart from the Davebox is shown below.)
See the pictures page for links to a whole collection
of subjects, including a full range of exposure settings for the photo at right,
the Davebox, and the Musicians poster.)
The 995's automatic white balance system was quite accurate with light sources
having a color balance close to daylight, but had a hard time with household
incancescent illumination, as in my "Indoor Portrait" test. Fortunately,
the manual ("custom") white balance system worked superbly, producing
excellent shots under this difficult light source. While I'd really like to
see the auto or incandescent white balance settings do a better job, the results
using manual white balance are about as good as you could hope for.
Color Adjustment
I've seen plenty of color saturation-adjustment features on cameras before,
but they very often overdo the effect, with the minimum adjustment steps resulting
in either neon colors or very flat, washed-out looking pictures. The 995's
color adjustments seem to cover a useful range though, more akin to the degree
of variation you'd see between different film emulsions in the analog world.
A very nice implementation...
The bright blocks of the MacBeth(tm) target above somewhat obscure the overall impact of the saturation adjustments. Here's an outdoor shot of our "ISO Standard House" <g> that shows the range of adjustment more clearly.
Low Light Capability (!)
The 995's low light performance was very impressive! Thanks to a "bulb"
exposure mode, I got incredibly bright shots all the way down to the 1/16 foot-candle
(0.67 lux) limit of my test, even at ISO 100. The Coolpix 995's noise reduction
function also proved to work very well, removing essentially all the "fixed
pattern" noise in the image, due to "stuck" or "leaky"
pixels. While the noise increased at the higher ISO settings, the noise reduction
algorithms did a very good job of controlling noise all the way out to 8 second
exposures at ISO 800. The noise remaining in the image after the noise reduction
system does its work looks very much like the grain patterns you'd see on high-speed
film emulsions. Overall, the 995's low light performance is among the very best
I've seen to date on a "prosumer" camera.
The photos
above were shot at ISO 800, a setting that Nikon apparently cautions against
somewhat, as witness that the 995's ISO indicator in the LCD viewfinder turns
red when 800 is selected. The images are rather noisy, but I've frankly seen
worse from other cameras at ISO 400. Lest my readers go away with the impression
that the 995 is a "noisy" camera though, I thought to include the
photo at right, shot at ISO 100, and an exposure time of 29.6 seconds. (!!)
This is a very long exposure by digital standards, and the resulting
image (with noise reduction enabled) is remarkably clean and free of noise.
As we noted earlier, the 995 appears to be doing a fairly simple dark-frame subtraction in the camera to achieve these results, but they're very impressive nonetheless. For the ultimate in image noise processing though, we still recommend Mike Chaney's excellent Qimage Pro software, which uses a more sophisticated conditional interpolation algorithm (suggested by your humble reviewer, Dave Etchells) to eliminate the dark flecks that remain from pixels that have "leaked" charge all the way to saturation. (Check out Mike's Qimage page for a trial download to try it for yourself.)
To put the 995's low-light performance into perspective, an average city night
scene under modern street lighting corresponds to a light level of about one
foot-candle, so the camera should easily handle much darker situations. (The
1/16 foot-candle that marks the bottom end of my testing range is quite dark
indeed: Dark enough that I have to watch my step, walking around the studio!)
Macro Shooting (!!)
Like its forebears, the Coolpix 995 performs exceptionally well in the macro
category, capturing a very tiny minimum area of just 0.46 x 0.61 inches (11.64
x 15.32 millimeters). This is probably one of the tiniest areas I've seen, and
the detail revealed is literally microscopic. - The tiny fibers of the dollar
bill are completely distinguishable and very sharp. Color balance came out a
little warm, probably thanks to the floodlights we were using to shoot it, but
isn't bad at all. The 995's built-in flash has a lot of trouble throttling down
for this very tiny macro area, barely illuminating it at all. (The flash is
blocked by the lens.) Despite the inability to use the flash this close (no
surprise, really - this is very close!), I'm very pleased with the 995's
macro performance.
Resolution
When it comes
to resolution, the Coolpix 995 clearly shows the heritage of its predecessor,
the Coolpix 990. To my eye, both cameras "over sharpen" slightly (note
the halos around the fiducial marks and numbers in the shots at right), but
when you actually print photos from them, this sharpening proves to be just
about right: In my experience, people viewing prints from digicam images (even
execs from other camera companies, in blind comparisons!) tended to single out
the 990's pictures as the sharpest among the 3 megapixel cameras. The 995's
resolution performance seems very similar.
The Coolpix 995 did well in my laboratory resolution test, easily extending
to 800-850 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and 800 lines
vertically. Strong detail is visible to beyond 1000 lines. Overall, a good performance,
well in the upper tier of three megapixel cameras we've tested..
Viewfinder Accuracy, Flash Uniformity, and Geometric Distortion
Viewfinder Accuracy/Flash Uniformity Test
The thumbnails in the table at right open to full-resolution shots of the
test target I use for evaluating viewfinder accuracy, flash uniformity, and geometric
distortion of the lens system. These shots are taken in a darkened studio, so
the distribution of light is a good indication of flash uniformity. In the case
of the 995, the telephoto shots were taken at such a distance that the flash wasn't
able to provide full illumination (thanks to the 4x zoom lens), but the resulting
lighting is obviously very even. Flash coverage at wide angle is pretty uniform
as well, quite a bit better than I'm accustomed to seeing in digicams with wide
angle lenses.
Most camera manufacturers seem to aim for about 85% frame coverage with their
optical viewfinders. I disagree with this practice, preferring higher accuracy,
but I'm clearly bucking the rest of the industry on this point. As for the Coolpix
995, its optical viewfinder showed 79.8% of the final frame at wide angle, and
91.4% at telephoto. The telephoto rating is pretty good, but the image was shifted
toward the upper left somewhat, and I'd really like to see less variation between
the accuracy at wide and telephoto settings. A big plus though, is the 98-99%
accuracy of the LCD monitor, close to the 100% I like to see, and better than
the majority of cameras out there.
Geometric distortion is similar to that of the 990, which to say a bit on the
high side. Barrel distortion at wide angle is 0.98%, while pincushion distortion
at telephoto is 0.68%. (Most digicams we test show about 0.8% barrel, and anywhere
from 0 to 0.4% pincushion distortion.)
Summary
Throughout my testing, I was quite pleased with the 995's performance. Nice
color, image quality, and detail, with excellent sharpness. The extraordinary
amount of exposure and color control is a definite plus as well.
Conclusion
The Coolpix 995 is an excellent update to what was already a stellar digicam,
the Coolpix 990. With a longer-ratio, 4x zoom lens, increased ISO sensitivity,
and even more varied shooting options (including a faster, 1/2,000 of a second
shutter speed), the Coolpix 995 has the flexibility and control to handle just
about any shooting situation. The freedom of full automatic exposure is great
for consumers who want to point and shoot, while the variable exposure controls
offer room to learn. With its flexibility and extensive options, the Coolpix 995
should satisfy a wide range of users, from novices to pros. Given the evolutionary
nature of the improvements, I doubt many Coolpix 990 owners will be tempted to
upgrade, but the 995 will compete very strongly against products from other manufacturers,
and many Coolpix 950 owners may decide to take the step up to 3 megapixels.
Reader Comments! --> Visit our discussion forum for the Nikon CoolPix 995!
Follow Imaging Resource: