Looking for some feedback on CP995.
Pro and cons, any experience to share?
#1. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 0
I have yet to acquire this beauty but the above gives you a huge collection of experiences on this DC. There is also a useful search facility.
Good digital fun
#2. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 0
the_waldo Basic MemberThu 26-Jul-01 02:47 AM
I have had the CP995 for about a week now. Quite a change from a film format camera. I am still learning how to use all the different features that come with the camera.
One of the first things I did was upgrade to a 64 MB card, so I don't have to be as concerned about memory space. I also purchased a non-rechargeable battery to carry with me for about $10. I had tried a Samsung 128 MB card and it didn't work well, so I traded for the 64 MB Kodak card, no problems.
As there is still a lot for me to learn I don't have much more than that at the moment. If you have any particular questions feel free to ask. I'll even put up some photos when I shoot some decent ones. Or if there is a particular type of shot you'd like me to take, let me know. One of the reasons I purchased this camera is because of the same reviews mentioned at dpreview.com in the previous reply.
When trying to take a panorama it is much better to take more photos at normal range than to use a wider angle setting with fewer photos. A very noticeable distortion on top and bottom which makes it almost impossible to stitch photos together.
#3. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 2
Yes it was a good review though I still do not see how it helps to inform people what to buy in a market context i.e if you want the best, this is it. I still do not understand the softness issue in the review as the lens has two aspherical elements ( very sharp), it is matter of settings and the images can be as sharp as hell.
The panorama shots are tackled exactly the way you mentioned, there are also plugins or 3rd party software to correct the distortions. You can also overlap your wide angle shots to make them fit i.e the distortions are at the edges.
Have a good time
#4. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 3
Wed 01-Aug-01 01:31 AM
Just because the lens has two aspherical elements doesn't mean it will be super sharp. The lens in my CP 990 is just as sharp or sharper according to the reviews, but I find it to be mediocre compared to any of my Nikkors for my SLRs.
Chromatic aberration is very much a problem with this lens as is distortion and falloff. If Nikon did nothing fancy and just extended the range from 3X to 4X in the new lens, performance would certainly be worse. The two aspherical elements are needed just to hold ground.
#5. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 4
LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-01 AT 07:14 AM (GMT)
LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-01 AT 06:50 AM (GMT)
Actually looking at the dpreview, it was not particularly that good a review. The DC was based on v1.1 and not v1.6 and hence the problem with the samples, which were poor. The latest 1.6 shows the benefit, amongst others, of the asperical lenses. Aspherics are not like ordinary high quality glass, they minimise aberrations and the zoom from 3x to 4x is not great or can affect the job of the aspherical lens, maybe 6x might make your comment sound more plausible for any drop in quality, if any. DC lenses themselves are designed to a very high standard (higher than your 35mm lenses)and can account for a small increase in range, some lenses go to 10x. The reason Nikon do not go to 6x is nothing to do with quality but compatibilty with their aftermarket lenses. A good example is the increase in colour quality and contrast over the 990.
Anyway, if you had the 995 in your hands for a few weeks you would not want to go back to the 990, as good as it is.
#6. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 5
Fri 03-Aug-01 03:42 AM
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-01 AT 10:36 PM (GMT)
Perhaps. But my next investment in digital will be an SLR body.
Unless the firmware update increases focusing accuracy, lens quality wouldn't suffer in the least. It's easy to criticize a review that took a lot of work to prepare accurate and controlled comparison photos - without presenting anything but theory instead. Frankly, I'm amazed at the detail, work and thought that go into Phil's reviews.
Also, there's nothing in the firmware that will compensate for the chromatic aberration or distortion. Color and image sharpening algorithms could be tweaked, but not the optical results of the lens.
Note: Phil just updated the 995 review to reflect the current firmware. Noise was better controlled with this version, but the optical characteristics are unchanged.
#7. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 6
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-01 AT 07:24 PM (GMT)
Just got back from the other side and thought I would mention...
Mr Askeys work is good but they are still not as objective or as impartial as they could be. For instance:
The problem with the optical side of things is that his resolution figures are identical to the 990, so how can you get blurrier pictures so significant that resolution remains unchanged. But of course in his opinion the res got worse. It still looks like a focussing problem to me..for some users, I know how sharp the 995 is and it is a lot sharper than the review makes out. Also there seems to be no link in the reviews between what you see on the monitor and what you produce in print. Some DCs can look a bit soft and sharp in print.
Also I do not think Nikon would go through 5 firmware changes just to clean up a bit of noise..but if you are Mr Askey or have initial that begin with BJN you would would not think too hard about it.
Of course, like you I rather wish a D1H...but then it would not be very portable and I could miss some shots (ahem).
#8. "RE: CP995" | In response to Reply # 7
Thu 09-Aug-01 02:07 PM
LAST EDITED ON Aug-09-01 AT 04:09 PM (GMT)
And you're objective and impartial, I suppose.
Sure, if you open the door to electronic sharpening, processing via printing output and any number of outside variables that have nothing to do with the camera itself, you can get "apparently" sharper images than what Phil's samples show. What does that tell you about the camera?
I can correct the distortion and even some of the chromatic aberration of my CP990 lens using Photoshop. Does that make the lens any better?
If you really want to see what the camera is capable of doing, you have to eliminate the variables. Phil's tests compare images on as equal footing as possible. If this comparison of apples to apples doesn't support your subjective opinion of the camera, perhaps you should offer up some controlled image tests of your own.
Firmware changes in my CP990 corrected bugs in the operation of the camera. One bug fix improved (slightly) AF speed. One fixed a control combination that allowed the AF motor to run wild and self destruct. One fixed a USB communication bug. Nikon has a poor track record of sending out cameras with buggy firmware - the 990 still has a flash exposure bug that hasn't been fixed. I suggest that you find out what Nikon actually fixed with 995 firmware updates rather than take it on faith that "something" must have been done to make the focusing better.
I realize this a pointless exercise of facts vs. faith. Enjoy your camera and seek discussion with folks who share your beliefs, then you won't have to resort to sarcasm and throat-clearing.