Digital
Cameras - Nikon CoolPix 800 Test Images
("FIrst Look" images posted 9/27/99)
(Full suite of pictures posted 10/25/99)
| Given the terribly short time before we "went to press"
with the initial First Look review, we decided to include a link to a Thumber-generated
index page for our test shots, for those who want to dig deeper
than the few links we've had time to include below. (Actually, we like all
the information in the Thumber page so much that we'll likely be making
this a standard feature from here on out.) The filenames we use are cryptic,
but a little study will doubtless reveal the naming protocol we use, to
those with the interest to dig deeper...)
Also, much of our commentary here is made relative to the Coolpix 950, since we can absolutely anticipate the flood of questions in the vein of "How does it compare to the 950?" When we post the final review, we'll broaden our basis of comparison a reference the rest of the 2 megapixel digicam field, but for now, we felt that this approach would both fit the general trend of our readers' interests, as well as the limited time we had available for the analysis. |
|
|
Outdoor Portrait:
(655k) We shot this test using both Automatic
white balance (655k) and the Preset
White balance (650k) settings. Overall, we felt
the auto white balance gave the more accurate rendition of the two, but
found the warmer cast of the preset function to be rather appealing on an
emotional level. Both modes looked best with a full f-stop of positive exposure
compensation. Colors were accurate and well-saturated, but the blues in
the flowers and the model's pants proved difficult as always, going rather
purple in the preset white version. Resolution and sharpness are great,
but there's a slight "halo" around the bright red of the flowers.
The tables below show results for both auto and preset white balance options,
with exposure compensation ranging from 0 to +1.3 EV Auto White Balance:
Preset White Balance:
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Closer Portrait:
(853k) As usual, this shot requires less exposure
compensation than the test above, because the model's face fills more of
the frame. We chose our main shot (853k)
as the one with only +0.3 EV of exposure compensation. Exceptional color
and tone, phenomenal detail, but some blue-channel noise in the shadows.
Also, an oddly abrupt jump in brightness as we went from +0.6ev to +1.0.
As before, we preferred the auto white balance to the results obtained with
the preset white balance option. The tables below show the results of a
range of exposure compensations, taken with both auto and preset white balance
settings. Auto White Balance:
Preset White Balance:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Indoor
Portrait, Flash: (901k) We were a little torn
as to which shot to choose for our main picture
(901k) here. The shot we chose was taken at +0.6EV
exposure compensation (yes, exposure comp controls flash exposure on the
CP800 as well!). This produced good color balance, but swamped the room
lights. We obtained a very interesting result
(878k) with the "slow sync" option enabled,
and +0.3 EV of exposure adjustment. A great balance between room and flash
lighting, although the extreme difference between the color temperature
of the two light sources is evident in the very blue shadows on the model's
shirt sleeve, under the bunch of flowers. The table below shows the effect
of various exposure compensation adjustments, in both normal and "slow
shutter" modes. Normal flash mode:
Slow shutter mode:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Indoor Portrait,
No Flash: (925k) This shot is a very tough
test of a camera's white balance capability, given the strong yellowish
color cast of the household incandescent bulbs used for the lighting. Still,
the Coolpix 800's white balance system did quite well with it, as shown
in these shots taken with the automatic (937k)
and incandescent (918k)
white balance settings, both at +1.0 EV exposure compensation. The real
winner though, was the "preset white" option, which completely
neutralized the harsh yellow of the light, producing this
beautiful shot (925k) . (One of the best handlings
of this tough shot we've seen to date, from any digicam!) The one
fault we can find is a subtly mottled skin tone, caused by blue-channel
noise. The table below shows a full range of exposure-compensation adjustments,
all taken in the preset white balance mode. Preset White Balance:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
House shot: (727k)
Always a tough test of camera resolution, the Coolpix 800 performed
here (727k) almost identically to the Coolpix
950. Resolution, detail, and color are all very good. The table below contains
links to copies of this image shot in all resolution/compression modes,
all with the auto white balance setting. Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot VGA-resolution versions of this image, with each of the four "daylight" options for white balance. The results are in the table below: White Balance Variations:
We also include for your perusal an uncompressed TIFF-formatted image. Click here (5,767k!) to download. (NOTE that this link is NOT an HTML page, or even a JPEG file, but rather a raw TIFF image: Your browser won't know what to do with it, but should give you the option to just save the file to disk. Note too, that this is a huge, 5.8 megabyte file!) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Far-Field Test:
(673k) This image is shot at infinity to test far-field
lens performance. NOTE that this image cannot be directly compared to the
other "house" shot, which is a poster, shot in the studio. The
rendering of detail in the poster will be very different than in this shot,
and color values (and even the presence or absence of leaves on the trees!)
will vary in this subject as the seasons progress. In general though, you
can evaluate detail in the bricks, shingles, and window detail, and in the
tree branches against the sky. Compression artifacts are most likely to
show in the trim along the edge of the roof, in the bricks, or in the relatively
"flat" areas in the windows. Another tough resolution test. Very sharp image! (673k) The table below shows all variations of image size and quality: Resolution/Quality Series:
Here's an uncompressed TIFF-formatted version of this image.. Click here (5,767k!) to download. (NOTE that this link is NOT an HTML page, or even a JPEG file, but rather a raw TIFF image: Your browser won't know what to do with it, but should give you the option to just save the file to disk. Note too, that this is a huge, 5.8 megabyte file!) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lens Zoom Range (new):
We've received a number of requests from readers to take shots showing the
lens focal length range of those cameras with zoom lenses. Thus, we're happy
to present you here with the following series of shots, showing the field
of view with respectively, the lens at full wide-angle, the lens at full
telephoto, and the lens at full telephoto with "digital telephoto"
enabled. (All shots taken in "SQ" mode to ease download times.)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Musicians Poster:
(669k) Resolution and sharpness essentially identical
to the Coolpix 950. The "preset white" white balance setting again
came through here with (dare we say?) flying colors! Beautiful color balance,
among the best we've seen for this shot. The table below shows all variations
of image size and quality. Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot VGA-resolution versions of this image, with each of the four "daylight" options for white balance. The results are in the table below: White Balance Variations:
We also include for your perusal an uncompressed TIFF-formatted image. Click here (5,767k!) to download. (NOTE that this link is NOT an HTML page, or even a JPEG file, but rather a raw TIFF image: Your browser won't know what to do with it, but should give you the option to just save the file to disk. Note too, that this is a huge, 5.8 megabyte file!) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Macro Shot:
(657k) While not in the "microscopic" category
of the Coolpix 950, the Coolpix 800 performed very, very well in the macro
category, with a minimum area of only 1.5 x 2.0 inches (39 x 52 mm). Again,
great detail, sharpness, and color. The 800's flash didn't throttle-down
too well at such a close approach though, producing this
(659k) rather washed-out image. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
"Davebox"
Test Target: (854k) In this test, the automatic
white balance actually won out over the "preset white" option,
if only by a hair. Exceptionally good color, to our eyes just a shade better
than that of the Coolpix 950. Excellent handling of the difficult red/magenta
separation. Bright yellows are still a bit dull however. The table below
shows all variations of image size and quality. Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot VGA-resolution versions of this image, with each of the four "daylight" options for white balance. The results are in the table below: White Balance Variations:
We also include for your perusal an uncompressed TIFF-formatted image. Click here (5,767k!) to download. (NOTE that this link is NOT an HTML page, or even a JPEG file, but rather a raw TIFF image: Your browser won't know what to do with it, but should give you the option to just save the file to disk. Note too, that this is a huge, 5.8 megabyte file!) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Low-Light Tests: Like its big brother the Coolpix 950, the Coolpix 800 does very well in low light. In fact, we felt it did a somewhat better job than the earlier Nikon camera, preserving a bit more color at very low light levels. We obtained very usable images down to an exposure level of EV 6 in our prior parlance (more properly, 0.5 foot-candles, or 5.5 lux), and managed to go two full stops below that level, to an absolute limit of 0.125 foot-candles, or 1.4 lux, although the image noise was really unacceptable at anything below the 0.5 foot-candle level. (We generally found we got our best results though, with the exposure compensation boosted by 1EV.) The table below shows the best exposure we were able to obtain for each of a range of illumination levels. Images in this table (like all our sample photos) are untouched, exactly as they came from the camera. Range/Illumination:
"Real" shooting conditions: Scientific laboratory measurements are fine, but how does the camera do in "real life"? Quite well! Here is a series of shots taken at the local mall/movie complex. Illumination is about 1 foot-candle (11 lux), from a mix of high-pressure sodium, mercury vapor, and incandescent lighting. We shot one picture at each of the preset ISO values, the only difference being the resulting shutter speed and the image noise. All shots came out *far* better than we'd have expected from an under-$500 digicam!
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Flash Range Test (New):
(This test was added in August 1999, so cameras tested before that time
won't have comparison pictures available. As we go forward though, all the
new models will have similar tests available.) No official spec from Nikon to go by, but it looks pretty good at ~9 feet with the default ISO setting of 100, looks good to beyond 15 feet with the ISO bumped up to 400. A strange artifact appeared in the upper right-hand corner of the images we shot for this test, which can be seen on the Thumber page, as files C8FL108 through C8FL415. (100 series is ISO 100, 400 series shot at ISO 400.) No idea at this point what it could have been. (No, it wasn't our finger!) Probably some flare source in the studio, as we didn't see it in other shots, but a bit disturbing nonetheless. The table below contains shots taken at a range of distances, from 8 to 15 feet, most at the default ISO setting of 100. The last shot (15 feet) is also duplicated with the ISO set up to 400. Flash Range/Distance:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
ISO-12233 (WG-18) Resolution
Test: (813k) Very, very similar to the results
we obtained with the 950, although to our eye, the 950's lens is slightly
sharper. (This slight difference in sharpness is visible in most of the
shots, when you do a direct side-by-side comparison of pictures from the
800 and 950 together. It's pretty subtle though, as we didn't really notice
it ourselves until we were checking the Comparometer links and saw the two
beside each other, rather than in separate windows in Photoshop(tm)) Barrel
distortion is also just about the same between the two cameras (preliminary
measurement shows it to be 1.2% in wide-angle mode), and chromatic aberration
is just a tad higher. (Still very low, but the 950 was a shade better in
this respect as well.) Visual resolution approaches 800 lines per picture
height horizontally and 650-700 vertically. Horizontal resolution is about
as good as we've seen, while vertical is fairly typical of 2.1 megapixel
digicams. The tables below show the usual array of images shot in various
combinations of size, quality, and sharpness setting. Resolution Series, Wide Angle:
We also include for your perusal an uncompressed TIFF-formatted image. Click here (5,767k!) to download. (NOTE that this link is NOT an HTML page, or even a JPEG file, but rather a raw TIFF image: Your browser won't know what to do with it, but should give you the option to just save the file to disk. Note too, that this is a huge, 5.8 megabyte file!) Resolution Series, Telephoto:
We also include for your perusal an uncompressed TIFF-formatted image. Click here (5,767k!) to download. (NOTE that this link is NOT an HTML page, or even a JPEG file, but rather a raw TIFF image: Your browser won't know what to do with it, but should give you the option to just save the file to disk. Note too, that this is a huge, 5.8 megabyte file!) The Coolpix 800's "digital telephoto" offers a a total of 4 magnification ratios, in which the central portion of the image from the CCD is cropped and then expanded to fill the currently-selected image size. In the Wide/Tele range test above, we elected to save the images at the VGA resolution. For the resolution test though, we shot with the camera set to its normal (1600x1200) file size, with the (rather blurry) results you see in the table below: Resolution Series, Digital Telephoto:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Viewfinder Accuracy/Flash Uniformity: Overall, the optical viewfinder on the Coolpix 800 is a little "loose", while the LCD viewfinder approaches 100% accuracy. At the wide-angle end of the lens' range, the optical viewfinder (230k) shows about 80.5% of the final view, while the LCD viewfinder (234k) shows about 98%. At the telephoto end of the lens' range, the optical viewfinder (235k) shows 88% of the final view, while the LCD viewfinder (232k) shows 99%. Accuracy in digital telephoto mode varies somewhat, perhaps due to our difficulty to precisely resolve the framing lines on our target in digital tele mode. The average digital tele viewfinder accuracy appeared to be about 96%. Flash uniformity is better than most cameras, with only modest light falloff in the corners at the wide-angle end of the zoom range. We've recently begun testing cameras for optical distortions, such as barrel/pincushion distortion and chromatic aberration. The Coolpix 800 showed moderately severe barrel distortion at the wide angle end, measuring 1.2% deviation across the width of the frame, dropping to only 0.4% pincushion in telephoto mode. This is slightly better at wide angle than the '950, although the 950 moves to slight pincushion distortion at the telephoto end, suggesting that there's a midpoint where there is no geometric distortion at all. The '800 always shows some barrel distortion, in our tests.) Chromatic aberration was very low, with only the slightest fringe of color on test elements at the extreme corners of the resolution target. (We estimated chromatic aberration at just under 1 pixel at the frame edges, numerically about 0.06%.). |
C-800 Test Images
C-800 Specifications
Up to Imaging Resource digital cameras area
Follow Imaging Resource: