Nikon Coolpix camera with a PROJECTOR!

[Phait]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/04/nikon-coolpix-s1000pj-projector-cam-beams-into-reality-with-frie/

 

 

 

Man, the Nikon Coolpix S1000pj has gone from crazy rumor to seemingly-real to whoa-here's-the-press-release in record time -- the compact cam with the integrated projector was just officially announced, along with the three other cams we saw leaked earlier today. Leaked specs for the S1000pj were dead-on: a 12.1 megapixel sensor with ISO 6400 sensitivity mounted behind a 5x wide-angle zoom lens with five-way VR stabilization, and that LED-powered projector that'll put up a 40-inch image for slideshows complete with music, effects and transitions. We're a little less excited about the $430 list price this thing will carry when it hits in September, but on the whole it's a pretty terrific idea and we're completely intrigued -- looks like we'll be saving our pennies this month.

 

 

Awesome.

[UstadKhanAli]

That sounds very very interesting. I'm intrigued that endgadget actually feels that a $430 list price for a camera that does 6400 ISO and has a projector is not so good. Can they name another camera that does this for that price? Or any price?

[Richard King]

Interesting device. I still like to have the possibility of changing lenses with my SLR, but the projector feature would be nice for instant gratification. I wonder what the brightness of the projector is.

[UstadKhanAli]

Interesting device. I still like to have the possibility of changing lenses with my SLR, but the projector feature would be nice for instant gratification. I wonder what the brightness of the projector is.

 

I prefer an SLR as well, but I purchased a little Leica compact camera for my Brazil trip, and the thing just outright rules for a compact. I also took Lee Flier's photo with it and it worked really well for that as well, doing quite well in low lighting for a compact.

 

What I'm basically saying is that I will never dismiss a compact again.

 

I took these two photos with the compact:

 

 

[blue2blue]

My previous digicam was a Nikon and it was more than a bit of a disappointment and then it died not long after it went out of warranty, despite the fact it was seriously babied.

 

I replaced it with a similarly priced but far superior Canon that's been great. Knock on wood.

[UstadKhanAli]

Although I shoot with a Nikon, in general, I think Canons have better "bang for the buck". I don't know whether they're better or worse than Nikons, and I don't care, but I think dollar for dollar, they deliver a bit more. It's always an ongoing race with these two.

 

And for digital photography in general, there are a lot of cool innovations coming out of the Sony and Olympus camps. Something to keep your eye on is the fourth third cameras:

 

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/17920/olympus-debuts-new-fourth-thirds-cameras

[rjt]

 

That sounds very very interesting. I'm intrigued that endgadget actually feels that a $430 list price for a camera that does 6400 ISO and has a projector is not so good. Can they name another camera that does this for that price? Or any price?

 

 

I'm not sure what they are thinking....here's what I was thinking..... a 5X isn't that great in a P&S anymore. I have a Panasonic Lumix DMCZS1 which has 12x optical magnification (25-300 in 35mm slr terms.) Has excellent reviews:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209grouplongzoom/

 

for about 1/2 the price. More pixels....unless the sensor is also larger doesn't necessarily add a whole lot. (This is my night and light travel camera, I also take a DSLR with 2 lenses on trips.)

 

Next, 6400 ISO is going to be very, very, very noisy (especially with a small sensor).... possibly almost useless..... it will take some tests to discover that.

 

Finally, not sure how good the projector is....obviously many cameras now hook up easily to computers or giant TVs..... so how useful is the projector feature.... what do you give up to get it (how good are the video capacities on the cool pix for example?)

 

That being said, I am not dissing the camera.... just coming up with the few ideas about why it might not be the be all and end all. If Nikon implemented everything well and you think a projector is worth it..... might be just the ticket. The specs are impressive, but they never tell the whole story. I'm pretty covered with my DSLR (Sony Alpha 350 with a total of 5 lenses) and my little Panasonic for walk around, restaurant, night, unobserved shots etc. I am waiting for waterproof cameras to get better and will add one of those.

[Richard King]

My first digital was a 3MP Nikon (CP-990), which was quite a nice camera for its time. I have had 3 Canon SLR's after that one and probably won't upgrade for a while. The Nikon was great for compactness, and took pretty good pix for being just 3MP. It had serious problems with any exposures over a second or so though. As for the projector portion, I think I'll keep mine

 

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Next, 6400 ISO is going to be very, very, very noisy (especially with a small sensor).... possibly almost useless..... it will take some tests to discover that.

 

 

It usually is although they're being implemented better and better lately. But what it might mean is that the 1600 or even 3200 might be really really good. With the aforementioned Leica D-Lux 4 I have, although it goes to 3200, I put a lid on it, so to speak, so that it stops at 1600. It does very well up to 800, and for a compact, it does very well.

 

By the way, those Panasonic Lumix cameras that you mention are quite good. If you are looking for a really fantastic camera for less money than the admittedly expensive Leica, look for a Panasonic LX-3, which is virtually the same as the Leica D-Lux 4 (the software inside the camera is a bit different, and the Leica comes with Capture One software for the computer...a few other very minor details).

[rjt]

All good points about the new Nikon. They (Nikon) do a pretty nice job with low noise anyway (at least on their larger DSLRs.) So 1600 or 3200 may be useable to good. On my little Panasonic traveler, it goes up to 1600 (and a low light auto mode will go up to 3200 but it is not manually selectable.) I have to do some noise reduction however. (To me, one great innovation in digital photography is post processing.)

 

A lot of what you mentioned was recently hashed out on a photographer's board I visit regularly and (IMHO) you are correct re Lumix vs Leica. However, my little camera is a good traveler.... 25 to 300 mm zoom....and takes a decent pic....so no new P&S for me for at least 3 more years (well except for a good waterproof.... as soon as a good waterproof comes out!!)

 

Keep snapping ..... if someone get's one.... let us know what you think of the new Nikon.

[UstadKhanAli]

I'd like to get a new DSLR, but I'm gonna wait for a little bit longer and see what's on the horizon.

 

The other thing is the lens. I love the 18-200mm VR Nikkor lens I have, but it's not the fastest lens. It's super flexible for travel photography with the zoom and all, but not the greatest in low light. Will have to see. You know how it is with gear...it's always something!!!

 

The Lumix vs. Leica thing is an ongoing debate, with some people swearing up and down that they're the same (they're made in the same factory, after all), while others say that there's a slight difference in what I mentioned. I just decided to play it "safe" and get the Leica since it's something that I'd be keeping and using for a long time. It was super useful for the trip, as I mentioned, and I'm gonna keep it in the car with me. And I agree with everyone who says that the Leica lens cap sucks. It does. But you just deal. I know there's a mod for it in which you can have the lens open/shut. It's on YouTube. But I figured I'd just deal with it for now.

 

Hey, which photography forum are you on? Would you recommend it?

[Jon Chappell]

 

I have a Panasonic Lumix DMCZS1 which has 12x optical magnification (25-300 in 35mm slr terms.) Has excellent reviews: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209grouplongzoom/ for about 1/2 the price. More pixels....unless the sensor is also larger doesn't necessarily add a whole lot. (This is my night and light travel camera, I also take a DSLR with 2 lenses on trips.)

 

 

This is also the camera point-and-shoot I bought and I also recommend it. I have a large DSLR (a Nikon D-80) with an SB-600 stand-off flash (that makes all the difference in the world for flash shots, btw), but it's hugely cumbersome to carry around. For the recent Summer NAMM show in Nashville, I decided to bring just the Lumix, and it did fine. I read a whole bunch of reviews (Consumer Reports, DPReviews, etc.) before settling on this one. I look for a wide angle lens (28mm-equiv or better), good low-light performance (what CR calls "best ISO"--the higher the better), and the usual features (photo quality, battery life, first/next shot delay, etc.).

 

I like the idea of having a portable projector, but I'm wondering if the new one announced by Nikon goes far enough. I guess they're figuring it's about the size of a laptop screen, so good enough for a few people to view on a wall (small business meeting), etc.

 

I've always been stupefied why projectors are so dang expensive. They never get any cheaper, and the technology is pretty primitive. Why have we seen printer/scanner/fax machines plummet in cost, while projectors stay stubbornly pricey?

[rjt]

Ken, check your private messages

 

Jon...good choice.... great minds think alike!!

[MikeRivers]

 

I've always been stupefied why projectors are so dang expensive. They never get any cheaper, and the technology is pretty primitive.

 

Lumens are still expensive, and you need lots of them if you want to fill even a home theater sized screen at reasonable brightness. They've come down from $50,000 to under $1,500 in the past ten years, so I'd say they're heading in the right direction, at least.