Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Nikon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 20, 2002, 5:19 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5
Default f707 or nikon 5700

hi, i am new to this forum, but have read all of the reviews on both camera models.
the compact size and zoom size was a certain +. but honestly the photo quality comes first, and all the reviews i find really praise the 707, would you recommend it? my most favorite subject to take would be my little boys.
any comments would be greatly appreciated.
lisa
lisa h is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 21, 2002, 10:09 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

I had the Sony 707 for six months and very happy about its picture quality. I printed several 8 x 10 and they are looking very good. You can't beat the Carl Zeiss lens. Only one draw back to consider those, the Sony used the memory stick media, not a popular media device, largest size available is 128mb, not enough for 5megapix pictures. I traded the Sony camera recently to get the Nikon 5000 which used the popular compact flash (available size to 1 gig plus the IBM microdrive). The picture quality on this later one is about the same or better than the Sony, plus the Nikon 5k size is very compact, suitable for your long trip and vacation and its true wide angle lens at 28mm. Hope these info help...Cheers

PS: I did not get the Nikon 5700 becauseof its size (about the same as the Sony), plus the lens is much slower and have no true wide angle coverage.

[Edited on 8-21-2002 by [email protected]]

[Edited on 8-21-2002 by [email protected]]
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2002, 11:27 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Why do you say the 5700 lens is "slower?" Here are the specs ... seems as if the 8x is actually faster than the 3x?

As for the wide angle, 28 mm is better than 35mm, however 28mm is also an abnormal perspective. For most landscapes I would prefer either a 35mm or a stitched image.



3x Zoom-Nikkor lens with enhanced wide angle coverage
f = 7.1-21.4mm (equivalent to 28-85mm) F2.8-4.8 with macro; 9 elements in 7 groups; all glass, Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) applied; glass-molded aspherical lens elements included

8x Zoom-Nikkor lens
f = 9-72mm (equivalent to 35-280mm) F2.8-4.2 with macro; 14 elements in 10 groups; all glass, Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) applied; two glass-molded ED lens elements included
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2002, 11:58 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

Steve
I'm sorry for the confusion, you're absolutely right about the speed of the lens, what I mean to say is: the angle of the 5700's lens is narrower than the 5000. I respect your opinion about the 28mm v.s the 35mm, but I think for all arround taking picture, it;s better to have the lens that covers down to 28mm angle, in this case, the nikon 5k is a better all arround camera for those people who need a quality digicam with many built-in features and its compact size.
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2002, 11:54 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default 707 Photo Quality

I'm looking at the 5700 or the Minolta 7i (and leaning towards the 7i). Don't get too caught up with image quality ratings. I truly believe that the 5700, 7i and 707 are all such great cameras that you can't go wrong with any of them... and, people like us, who shoot our families more than anything else, will NEVER notice the slight difference in image quality.

Take a look at my recent post, '5700 vs 7i--An Amateurs Analysis'. If you assume equal image quality, think about what else is important to your photography experience; size, telephoto, wide angle, comfort in holding the camera. I really think you'll want the larger compact flash capacity of the 5700 or 7i.

Good luck.

Jeff
Jeff Mirkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2002, 7:49 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Jeff

I think you've got it!

The more remarkable is all 5 digicams the F707, CP5000/CP5700, and the D7/D7i all use the same Sony's 5Mp pixels CCD! They all varies on how each manufacturer chose to output their various pictures, with Sony having the most color saturation, Nikon the best picture sharpness, and the Minolta shadows details. The only way to differentiate the resolution of their lenses are to capture the respective raw data and process them through a common independent outfit such as Logical Designs!

But like you said, we're not buying the cameras to look at their pixels or noise level are we? Buy what suit your taste, convenience, and one will be happy with the purchase. Even with the Sony 128Mb limit (~50 pictures) if that's all you need, since it tends to have the best pleasing out of the box results!

BTW all the above cameras have shapness, contrast and saturation controls which everyone can use to overide the default factory settings... (and minimize/maximize the effect of their respective output processing algorithms)


[Edited on 8-27-2002 by NHL]
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2002, 12:28 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

Thanks, your response is VERY helpful. I really like the way the 7i feels in my hands, and just about everything else about it. I never print anything larger than 8X10 ( and usually smaller). I haven't noticed noise in any of the sample pictures I've looked at, but I may not know what to look for. Is there any question that the image quality of the 7i (or 5700 or 707) will be far superior to my Casio QV-2000?

Thanks again,

Jeff
Jeff Mirkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2002, 1:25 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 33
Default

Steves

You state "As for the wide angle, 28 mm is better than 35mm, however 28mm is also an abnormal perspective. For most landscapes I would prefer either a 35mm or a stitched image."

I disagree.
The perspective on a 28mm and 35mm are the same they have different angles of view but the perspective is the same. Indeed even a 20mm has the same perspective just a much greater angle of view. You can test this by taking a wide angle shot and then the same shot with a tele and then crop the wide angle shot to the same size as the tele shot and you will find the shot to have the same perspective. Of course if your lenses distort then the experiment will be flawed.

As far as 35mm being best for landscapes it is all personal preference.
I use a 35mm 1.4 lens as a "normal" but have taken great landscapes with 28mm f2.8, 24mm f2, 20mm f2.8 etc. all the way to my 15mm. It is just a matter of taste and/or preference.
geyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2002, 3:44 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default Perspective vs. POV

You are formally correct .. I used the term perspective loosely.

Formally, perspective refers to the relationship of objects at different distance to one another in an image. At longer focal length, for example, produces greater compression ... flattening perspective.

However, the points I made are still valid because of the way one's eyes actually work. The fovea, the part of the eye that sees in detail, is roughly equivalent to the field of view of an 85mm lens. Thus the 85mm field of view is the only part of any scene we actually see in fine detail and the 35 is the scene we see in any detail that is recognizeable.

However, unlike a camera and its sensor or film, the eye does two other things ... first it captures a large area, as wide as a 28mm lens, in decreasing detail. Try this experiment ... hold a number fingers at the sides of someone elses's visual field ..roughly matching the 28mm field of view. Unless your collaborator rotates her head or eyes, they will not be able to count the fingers or even resolve colors.

The second thing the eye does, with aid of the brain, is reconstruct reality. So while a camera can only record what it sees NOW, the eyes integrate information over time ... rather like a stitching program.

So, when you take a 28 mm photograph, you are roughly accomplishing what the eye does by scanning the fovea over a visual field ... EXCEPT that the eye's image is based on what the fovea "sees" is like an 85mm lens, not a 28mm lens.

This does not mean that there is anything wrong with the 28mm image. Part of its impact is actually that it records something we can not actually "see" with our own eyes. As you point out, if I stand at one point and shoot at 85 mm I will get the same "perspective" as the 28mm from that POV. So the 28 is, in effect, "stitching" an image together that our eye never actually sees but can create.

The way to test this would be to enlarge a 28mm slide to a field of view like the original. the you will find you need to scan the image with your fovea to "look" at it.

Part of my fascination with what I call "longs" is that they come closer to what we see when our mind integrates over time. To make a long I first select an object where I feel this perspective issue is important to how I see it. This may be a long landscape or long building or a long car. I then take a series of image as I walk parallel to the long object and later paste them together. I will try to upload an image sometime to show you what I mean.

Hope this helps.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:25 PM.