COOLPIX 5000 5.0 MegaPixel Digital Camera - $689

[Bob61]

The new Nikon 5000 5 megapixel camera is on sale here for $689. Lowest price anywhere else is $799. Don't know about this vendor, might be a good place to pricematch with if you've purchased already using AMEX Blue.

Featuring a 5.24 megapixel CCD (5.0 effective), 3x Optical Zoom-Nikkor lens and a top shutter speed of 1/4,000 second and shooting speed of up to three frames per second at full resolution, The high-speed Coolpix 5000 is designed for professional and amateur photographers looking for truly spectacular images. The Coolpix 5000 takes the unique Coolpix swivel design to the next level with its 1.8-inch LCD monitor that swivels in virtually any direction for easy subject framing. The Coolpix 5000 also packs a Macro shooting mode to capture images as close as 3/4 inch and a Movie mode that shoots up to 40 seconds of video with audio, into a compact magnesium alloy body weighing a mere 12.6 ounces.

 

[Beaner]

Thanks for the "heads-up" Bob. This is very tempting!
Seems like only yesterday that 3 MP digicams were over $1,000...Amazing!

Anyways, here are some reviews on Epinions (all positive).
Reviews

And a review from Steve's Digicams:
Review

Seems to be a great camera. I was considering the Olympus 4040 (3 MP), but as I said above, this is very tempting!
Now, where to buy it? Usually with the AMEX BVG, I'll buy locally and PM to an on-line vendor. Any idea if any of the big stores (e.g. BeastBuy, CircuitShi**y, CrapUSA -- as they are called in these here parts ) carry this model?

 

[Fritzo]

Not sure why anyone would need a 5 megapixel camera. Even 4 is getting to be too much useful resolution. What are you going to do with a 5 MP photo...print out a 20x24 poster? People are being fooled into thinking that the megapixel rating on a camera equates to the mhz rating on PC's...meaning people are thinking that a 5 MP camera is more powerful than a 3 or 4 MP camera. At 4 MP, you can make a photo quality 10x13, and a 3 MP, you can make photoquality 8x10's (the largest size most of us are going to print anyway, unless you have some sooper dooper printer capabile of going larger). Unless you're some kind of professional magazine photographer, I can't think of any reason to fork out the extra money for a 5 MP camera. I hope this isn't going to be a trend where camera manufacturers try to press the point that "More megapixels is better". Even if you did get this camera, who would actually use the 5MP setting? That would take a up a 128MB card in no time flat! I think that camera manufacturers should drop the MP "p*ssing" contest and start adding useful features like higher optical zooms, better flashes, longer battery life, larger screens, etc.

OK...I'm done ranting, just had to get this off of my chest

 

[ragazzo]

more MP = more details when zooming in for details. example, if you're a spy and you used this camera to take some pics of a crowd, you could zoom into individual faces w/nice details. it's also great for making nice posters heh.

 

[Sarcophaguy]

Here's some info on A&M Photo World from resellerratings.com. It doesn't look great, check out the comments too.

 

[Fritzo]

<< more MP = more details when zooming in for details. example, if you're a spy and you used this camera to take some pics of a crowd, you could zoom into individual faces w/nice details. it's also great for making nice posters heh. >>



How about this....make a 3 or 4 MP camera with a 10x zoom, then you wouldn't need to use the crappy digital zoom. Make sense? And again...who has a printer that can make poster size prints? So, I guess my platform is less resolution, more features.

 

[randomlinh]

i heard this camera didn't really live up to its hype. anyway, higher mega pixels will allow for more of an artifical zoom that will still leave enough detail when cropping. However, you need upwards to 7MP to have that effect.

what's more interesting is the new flexion x3 technology.. i wanna see what that can do...

 

[Nefrodite]

Not sure why anyone would need a 5 megapixel camera. Even 4 is getting to be too much useful resolution. What are you going to do with a 5 MP photo...print out a 20x24 poster? People are being fooled into thinking that the megapixel rating on a camera equates to the mhz rating on PC's...meaning people are thinking that a 5 MP camera is more powerful than a 3 or 4 MP camera. At 4 MP, you can make a photo quality 10x13, and a 3 MP, you can make photoquality 8x10's (the largest size most of us are going to print anyway, unless you have some sooper dooper printer capabile of going larger). Unless you're some kind of professional magazine photographer, I can't think of any reason to fork out the extra money for a 5 MP camera. I hope this isn't going to be a trend where camera manufacturers try to press the point that "More megapixels is better". Even if you did get this camera, who would actually use the 5MP setting? That would take a up a 128MB card in no time flat! I think that camera manufacturers should drop the MP "p*ssing" contest and start adding useful features like higher optical zooms, better flashes, longer battery life, larger screens, etc.



huh? i think your definition of true photo quality is a tad low. 3 mpix is good for 4x6, and only marginal for anything higher.

 

[kof]

<<

<< more MP = more details when zooming in for details. example, if you're a spy and you used this camera to take some pics of a crowd, you could zoom into individual faces w/nice details. it's also great for making nice posters heh. >>



How about this....make a 3 or 4 MP camera with a 10x zoom, then you wouldn't need to use the crappy digital zoom. Make sense? And again...who has a printer that can make poster size prints? So, I guess my platform is less resolution, more features. >>


I do.
Most good 3mp cameras (my Oly 3000 for instance) can be used w/ aftermarket zoom lenses. My Epson 1200 makes EXCELLENT high res 17x14 prints, for about $2/print when I used my continuous ink system. Many of the on-line photo printers do LARGE posters for a nominal cost.
My work printers (HP5000) do up to 54" x 72". Beyond my 3mp camera's capability.

 

[CEO]

Most roads in the US have speed limits of 75 mph or lower. Yet, most people are driving in cars with top speed of 100 mph or higher. Go figure.

 

[hoihtah]

75mph?

where do you see 75?
over in the northeast,... i'm only seen up to 65...

not that 65 ever stopped anyone from going 100.

getting back to n5000
read the reviews from dpreview... one of the best review site if you ask me.
very professional.

anyhow.... this camera didnt' do so hot in that review.

sony 707 tops this very easy...
and interms of quality.... it seems like even the lower pixel canon G2 is a contender: much better color, lower res.

 

[MoshiMoro]

As I posted on another site:

Actually, I saw the lowest advertised price for a pricematch is $609.00 for the 5000. The best method for a good deal on Coolpix5000 or Sony F707 is to do what I learned from someone else: Buy a magazine from Boreders or Barnes And Nobles with a decently advertised price. --Pricematch with a B&M store (worked for me at Sears-- even the dreaded A & M Photography ad); and pricematch again with the lowest price within 60 days. You can probably get either camera at $550 within 60days. Please note: Do not use Internet ads to pricematch at B&M store... They will only accept certain online stores as credible. However, they seem to be less critical of Magazine ads.

Credit goes to Thinlizzie for his posting regarding Sears and F707 a while back, here.

From what I heard from other users-- beware of A & M Photo!

 

[vette9898]

<< As I posted on another site:

Actually, I saw the lowest advertised price for a pricematch is $609.00 for the 5000. The best method for a good deal on Coolpix5000 or Sony F707 is to do what I learned from someone else: Buy a magazine from Boreders or Barnes And Nobles with a decently advertised price. --Pricematch with a B&M store (worked for me at Sears-- even the dreaded A & M Photography ad); and pricematch again with the lowest price within 60 days. You can probably get either camera at $550 within 60days. Please note: Do not use Internet ads to pricematch at B&M store... They will only accept certain online stores as credible. However, they seem to be less critical of Magazine ads.

Credit goes to Thinlizzie for his posting regarding Sears and F707 a while back, here.

From what I heard from other users-- beware of A & M Photo! >>



Where did you see the price for $609?

 

[kof]

<< Most roads in the US have speed limits of 75 mph or lower. Yet, most people are driving in cars with top speed of 100 mph or higher. Go figure. >>


This case of #MP could be similar. When I shot a LOT of film I used a Hasselblad with a 250 frame pack. ALL my GOOD pictures were capable of being greatly enlarged sometimes up to 24"x24". I then moved down to a Nikon FM-2, and with good film and lots of light 18"x24" is doable. However the happy snapper, only wanting a 4x6 of the cat in the living room would not need my Nikon with the 35 to 70mm zoom, the 500 mm catadioptric lens and high power flash. That's when I grab my wifes little nikon w/ pop up flash.
I'd like a good SLR 6MP or better that would take a variety of lenses. Unfortunately it will cost me about $5,000. Well worth it if my job depended on it and the office was buying, but not out of my pocket for snaps around the house. Heck my old FM2 and lenses are probably worth $300 on fleabay.
There's a place for these high MP cameras, if you don't want to pay the price, or don't need the quality, go for something less.
Unlike a car with a speedometer that goes to 100MPH, I could see myself frequently going to 5MP or more.

Not trying to start a flame war though.

 

[abraxxus]

Another thing is that with more pixels, scenery shots will look better. You will have more pixels for the background mountain, ocean, etc...

 

[amheck]

When I had my Nikon 950 (2.1Mpix) I printed out several 8x10 pics that I bet 99% of the people I show it to cannot tell this print different that a print from a 35mm picture. I, too, am not buying into the Megapixel hype. My 3.1Mpix Nikon 995 will do everything I ask from it and more.

The only plus about the Nikon 5000 is the hot-shoe adapter built in. Even the optical zoom is less than what's on my 995.

Aaron

 

[Smoot]

Actually, 3.34 MP do quite well on 8 x 10's. I wouldn't call the printouts of my Nikon 995 "marginal" by any means.

 

[Nefrodite]

When I had my Nikon 950 (2.1Mpix) I printed out several 8x10 pics that I bet 99% of the people I show it to cannot tell this print different that a print from a 35mm picture. I, too, am not buying into the Megapixel hype. My 3.1Mpix Nikon 995 will do everything I ask from it and more.

The only plus about the Nikon 5000 is the hot-shoe adapter built in. Even the optical zoom is less than what's on my 995.


the point is, if your going to jump to a new technology, you better have atleast equal quality to the tech your replacing. the more res the better.

 

[amheck]

The point was, is that more pixels is not necessarily better if they aren't doing anything for you. I was mainly warning people who have a 2-3 megapix camera, that they shouldn't fall into the hype of thinking they need 4-5Mpix.

Aaron

 

[LaBang]

<< People are being fooled into thinking that the megapixel rating on a camera equates to the mhz rating on PC's...meaning people are thinking that a 5 MP camera is more powerful than a 3 or 4 MP camera. >>




Sounds like you got fooled too. Mhz is not a good indicator of processing power for PCs just like megapixels isn't good enough to describe camera quality.

 

[PsychoAndy]

guys, quick note about AMP photo:

If it's a hell of a lot cheaper than everyone else...its gray market.

 

[DAICA]

I just purchased a 2.31 megapixel camera from HP and the clarity is tremendous. I can zoom into a nose hair with this quality camera so i dont think going to 5 megapixel is necessary at all.

 

[amheck]

That's what the AmEx Blue card if for!!

Aaron

 

[dsp282]

AFAIK, most of the cameras at A and M Photo World do not come with certain accesories like the compact flash card or warrenty. For instance they have the Canon G2 listed for $649, but it doesn't come with the CF card. So even if you used this site to PM, some stores would say they won't because it is not exactly the same product.

As far as this whole discussion on MP's, it depends on what you are truely doing with your prints. For most people they will not see a big difference between the 4 and 5 MP cameras. Even the 3.3 MP cameras will do a good job at printing 8x10 and even 16x20 depending on the printer/printing service you are using. So it's not just the MP of the camera but the printing device as well.

 

[kewl]

Printers are easily capable of printing 240 pixels per inch. An 8X10 printed at 240 PPI is 4.6 million pixels. Not great quality at 240 but not bad either. Throw in another megabyte or two for cropping headroom and it's easy to see why a 5 megabyte or better camera is desirable.